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

July 17

Sochaux museum

I know that Peugeot has a museum in Sochaux, France. Does Citroen and Renault have their own museum? Also, does the Sochaux museum have their own shop where they mini replicas of the cars from the past like Peugeot 504, 404, 604 and etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.253 (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Renault seems to. I can't find one right off for Citroen though. Dismas|^(talk) 07:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There is the Citroën Conservatoire in Aulnay-sous-Bois. It is a private museum, ie not open to the public. According to http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatoire_Citroën ...il est ouvert aux collectionneurs, aux membres des clubs Citroën, au personnel du groupe PSA, aux journalistes et à des partenaires comme Michelin ou Total. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody answered about the toys at Sochaux, France?

Boat

How much would a boat like this one cost? http://www.hulu.com/watch/73450/saturday-night-live-digital-short-im-on-a-boat-uncensored Count Westfall (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything from a couple of days' pay to a lifetime of hard savings, depending on your income. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any chance of getting a serious answer on this? Count Westfall (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Outside of the USA, we cannot see your boat, too far away. However, if the boat is big and modern then; you are asking the wrong question! The mooring-fees, the repairs, the extra costs, etc., make it one of the most expensive pastimes. Someone said to me; it is a hole in the sea that you throw money in! MacOfJesus (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am on a boat, and with a dodgy EDGE connection I don't have the bandwidth to see your boat video. I suggest that you compare your boat to ones on an MLS viewing site such as yachtworld.com. Did your video capture any emblems showing the make or model of the boat and were you told the length of the boat? If not, just select power or sail and make a guess at the length range to see if any of the boats for sale resemble it. If you find something somewhat similar you can refine your search from there and see what the asking price of a range of such boats are. -- 110.49.193.1 (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Seperate estate of husband and wife

If I am correct: A ganancial is a common property of the spouses. A separate estate is a property owned by either of the spouses, and not a ganancial. A paraphernalia is a seperate estate of a wife. A dowry is a property originally owned by a woman who later brings it to her husband.

But, is there a term to call

1. a seperate estate of a husband?
2. a property originally owned by a man who later brings it to his wife?

203.131.212.36 (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ganancial seems to be used in Spanish law, and is not afaik a term used in English. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

One term is "brideprice", though it's used more in anthropological contexts than traditional European law. AnonMoos (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Aspects of Morganatic marriage may be relevant to item 1, and a prenuptial agreement might have a bearing on how it might be stipulated. I've certainly come across the concept in historical contexts, but can't track down a specific word to describe it. Dower fits an interpretation of the wording of item 2, but may not be what the OP actually means. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Combined Nazi_concentration_camp_badges#Table_of_camp_inmate_markings

In the article above, we see several mixed marking systems of the German concentrations camps. It is obvious, that a Jew could be at the same time also a political enemy. Hence the yellow-red star. Equally possible is the combination Jew-Jehovah's Witness, since according to Nazi ideology, Jew was a biological term. However, there is also the combination Jew-Gypsy. How can this last option be possible? Both are biological concepts, and define people from different backgrounds, don't they?--Quest09 (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no reference to offer for the time being, but presumably that particular star was reserved for people with Jewish and Roma ancestry. Yul Brynner's mother might have qualified, for example (as might have he himself). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I am of part Chinese Malaysian and part Pākehā descent. While both of these have a biological basis it doesn't mean I can't be both. As noted below the Nazis didn't require much to classify someone as a 'Jew' apparently even less for a 'Gypsy' so it's hardly surprising that someone could be both Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking a good look at that page, the large table in English under the heading Table of camp inmate markings is a translation of the German one (presumably authentic; see the .jpg file for details)] at the upper right. It's a comprehensive table with all combinations (permutations of the color codes) appearing, regardless of whether even one individual fit that category. I doubt more ought to be read into it. See extensive discussion of similar issues on the Talk page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Mischling Test, under the Nazis a person was considered Jewish if they had 3 Jewish grandparents (out of 4) or in certain cases if they had 2 Jewish grandparents. I can't find a corresponding statement in Wikipedia for the Nazi criteria for being considered a Gypsy (Romani); at Porajmos it says that "criteria defining who is Romani were exactly twice as strict as those defining any other group", whatever that means. But this page specifically states that starting in 1938 "A person could be judged as having too much 'Gypsy blood' to be allowed to live if two of the individual's eight great-grandparents were even part Gypsy". So clearly in the Nazi view it was possible to be both Jewish and Gypsy.

--Anonymous, 06:27 UTC, July 18, 2010.

Swedish nun during the French revolution

According to her article, the Swedish aristocrat Brita Sophia De la Gardie became a nun in France in 1745. She died in 1797, and I realised that was after the french revolution. Apparently, she survived it. As both a nun and as a former noble, I would have thought she'd been decapitated in 1793-94. The article say nothing about her life in 1789-1797, and I became curious. Speaking as someone with a knowledge about the french revolution, what is her most likely fate during the revolution? Can you give me a good guess about what her life looked like then, as the artcle does not mention anything about it? Is she likely to have been arrested? --85.226.41.215 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard of her before. But far from all nobles in France was executed during the revolution, as well as far from all the people executed were nobles (in fact it was a minority in both cases). So she had a pretty good chance of survival, especially considering her age at that time and most likely reclusive monastic lifestyle. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

But wasn't the convents closed during the revolution? Was the nuns put on the street? Wasn't the nuns and monks also arrested and in some cases executed? And if not, what did the government actually do with the nuns? How did they live after the convents where closed? Were they put in prison? --85.226.41.215 (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

In the order you ask, broadly speaking:

• yes, they were closed;
• yes, but many nuns would have had families to return to, and others would have been able to find secular roles in society (including marriage);
• generally only priests who actively opposed the revolutionary authorities were imprisoned or executed, so nuns and monks who also did so might have been similarly treated, but they had less of a leadership role and so would have been less likely to oppose the Government and be arrested;
• outside of arresting or executing any real 'troublemakers', the Government would have had no reason to 'do' anything in particular about (ex-)nuns;
• the nuns would have lived any way they could (as per the second answer) and may in some cases have gone to other countries to join convents there, just as many of the aristocrats fled abroad;
• as previous answers imply, the Government might have imprisoned a few nuns for specific offenses, but would have had no reason to bother with the rest.

The above notwithstanding, in such turbulent times corruption and bullying become relatively unrestrained, so in specific instances individual nuns, etc, may well have fallen foul of individual unscrupulous Government officials regardless of the official line.

Some things to bear in mind are that 18th-century France had much poorer communications than most countries in modern times, the Government (of whatever kind) had fewer resources and could not enforce its will with modern efficiency, and much of the population would have been reluctant to co-operate with orders and laws they disagreed with, so any edicts against, say, nuns, would not necessarily be quickly and comprehensively carried out. In due course, the extreme hostility of the Revolutionary Government towards the Catholic Church was moderated and the two came to an agreement, the Concordat of 1801. You might also want to read our article Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution for general information about the topic. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

George Shepherd painting

Can anyone unequivocally identify this painting as painted by George Shepherd (artist) in 1819? If so, please provide a WP:RS reference --Senra (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

{{unanswered}} --Senra (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did find a page about Aldermaston which mentioned the painting and said it was in the Ashmolean in Oxford (although the page spelled it "Ashmoleum"). I searched that museum's site to no avail, but you could send them an email and ask if they know about it. 81.131.60.225 (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you although it would help if you linked the page you found. From the above information, I also searched Ashmolean Museum without success. I also found Lesley Anne McLeod:The Regency World Exactly as it Was:Friday, July 23, 2010 and have left a message on her blog. It does not help unless she comes back and can confirm the painting is indeed G Shepherd --Senra (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to Senra, the OP. If all else fails, you might write to Oxford, after finding out the name of the proprietor where the painting is kept, and ask if there is any inscriptions or indications on the painting. Otherwise you might have to go there. (I have a similar problem with tracing a transcript from The Vatican for an article page. I will probably have to go there). [I found that another had done this before me and left their study in The Catholic Encyclopaedia 1930]. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Before you do that, you might contact the BBC and seek; Antique Road Show, who have experts on these paintings at hand who may be be able to throw light on this, and you can do this on the internet. MacOfJesus (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Google this: BBC Antiques Roadshow, then find: 01179742395. Add: Antiques Roadshow, BBC, Whitesladies Rd., Bristol, BS8 2LR. Also: antiques.roadshow@bbc.co.uk MacOfJesus (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Also: www.antiquesmaster.co.uk You can see them on: BBC antiques master.

Also: bbc bargain hunt - Tim Wonnacott should be able to help. Add: Bargain Hunt, P.O. Box 229, Bristol, BS99 7JN. MacOfJesus (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did Raoul Moat get so many floral tributes?

Is there a sociological, psychological, or scientific explaination for this please? (I don't want a "Stuff happens"-type explaination).

My own tenatative armchair theorising would be: aggressive people seem to be compelled to invent an enemy ("them") they can blame and vent their rage on. Aggressive people, for whatever reason, tend to gravitate towards Council Estates. Aggressive people consider being aggressive something to be proud of, and to admire in others. Moat was considered a hero by his council estate peers ("us") because he hurt the police ("them"). Thanks 92.29.117.202 (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well what i've heard in the news is that he has become 'popular' because he was 'anti police' and the 'supports' are anti-police too. ny156uk (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Aggressive people don't gravitate towards council estates. There are very long waiting lists for social housing in the UK; there are criteria for getting housing and families with young children and pensioners have priority. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If you truely believe your first sentence, then you've been lucky in never having any dealings with council estate residents. I'd be interested to see the comparative per-capita criminal conviction rates for a council estate compared with homeowner's housing estates. Perhaps the relationship does not hold so much in London, where expensive housing forces the middle-classes to apply, but it does in other areas. 92.24.178.184 (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you might bear in mind that the underlying economic forces, like unemployment and poverty, that lead to people having to live on such estates are the same ones that make them angry about "the system", including the police - but one doesn't necessarily cause the other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that people have any reason to be "angry". They ought instead to be grateful for all the free benefits, free council accommodation and so forth that they get. We all know that there are plenty of not-so-nice jobs available, which is why more enterprising people (whom I rather admire) from eastern europe come here. If people were prepared to work hard then they could pull themselves out of the estates - many people do. 92.24.178.184 (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A minority of people, often young and immature ones who are still testing the boundaries of what they can get away with, enjoy doing things to upset the "decent majority", especially if they can do so anonymously or with imagined impunity, hence some aspects of the Punk movement, vandalism of public facilities, internet trolling, and other antisocial behaviours. I suspect the majority of these 'tributes' and the Facebook group postings are not sincerely meant, but are made because those responsible think they're being 'cool' and funny. Others may genuinely have a (to most people) distorted understanding of Society, the Police, and their own relationships to these entities. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me put an alternative view. This man had children. He worked in a social setting (nightclub bouncer) and so would come into contact with many people, some of whom he must have helped or even been nice to. He even had friends - Paul Gascoigne is the most famous of them. Those people, and his children and their friends, quite likely had only positive memories of him and would want to express their regret at his passing in what has become the accepted method in the UK (a public floral tribute). Nobody is either 100% good or 100% evil, remember. His violent end may indeed have been out of character, or maybe symptomatic of a mental breakdown. You and I just don't know. Given that, I wouldn't want to stop anyone remembering the man they knew. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Hitler wasnt such a bad guy either. Adolf made mistakes that's all, who dosnt? 92.28.244.168 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed that we don't have an article on floral tribute, and roadside memorial doesn't really cover it. There has been a lot of newspaper comment recently on this phenomenon in relation to the Moat case - such as here, here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Having read this leads me to think some sort of Bonnie and Clyde-phenomenon is at work. Gabbe (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

All of Raoul Moat's failings as a man are reflected in society's failings to give him a life that he deserved. People don't do these things because they are evil or wicked, they do things for a reason; and that this man felt he had a reason is a great shame and a collective responsibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.107.38 (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That is nonsense. He got a far better life than he deserved through the charity of taxpayers paying him benefits and giving him a council house to live in. Having an irrational belief that you deserve luxury without working for it is a pathetic excuse for murdering people. 92.24.178.184 (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought it patently obvious that the someone's self worth is not governed alone by the their material wealth. I don't think anyone was to the inclination that he did it because he thought he deserved a bigger car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.107.38 (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not connected with your previous comment. And pray tell what this mysterious "reason" is that he had that justified murdering people? And what would this also unspecified "life that he deserved" be?

Clearly not, it was infact a response to your comment and not my own. Please withold your flippancy further, I am not Raoul Moat and nor do I speak for him, nor do I know what his reasons were, or whether they were likely to be upheld as valid. I assert only that he did have some, one is forced to this conclusion by the fact that he undertook those actions. People do things for reasons, not for no reason at all. Raoul Moat may have had very bad reasons, but that he could discern this, or that he could not see that what he was going to do was unacceptable or see whatever perversion it was that led to him doing what he did shows only that there was some kind of tragic failure in his character; and as a child and product of the society in which he lived, which formed his character, the larger society must bear much of the burden for what went on. Raoul Moat was not an 'evil' or 'possessed' man, he was merely a vessel in an awful act that showed us how far from a well functioning society we really are. Your obstinacy leads me to believe you are of the widely held paradigm that if you take responsibility for only your own direct actions, and keep your head down and toes behind the line, that that is enough; and all I say is that there is another paradigm that believes that it is not enough, but that there is a collective responsibility of a group of people on large for each other's welfare. Raoul Moat's upbringing and education failed him. His mental health failed him. And most poignantly and catastrophically his regard for social law failed him. These things should not be regarded as his responsibilities alone, for if we do so, we will see similar tragedies again.

92.15.4.196 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"I do not know what his reasons were". You have not said what 'the life he deserved' was either. 92.28.250.141 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that floral tributes for Raoul Moat were greater in council estates (let alone council estates vs estates of a similar socio-economic grouping) Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, plenty. As far as I am aware there were two groups of floral tributes, one where he shot himself, and one at the council estate house where he lived. So about 50% of them were on a council estate. "V. estates of a similar socio-economic grouping" - I don't think there are any. 92.24.178.184 (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait there are only two groups of floral tributes and both of them are at places strongly connected to him? How the heck did council estates even come in to it? In any case, it seems the answer to my question is a clear cut no, the evidence strongly suggestions floral tributes are going to the obvious places i.e. places connected to Moat but the percentage in council housing isn't higher then average (well it's a bit nonsense to talk about averages when there are only two locations but anyway...). In fact it seems we can draw few conclusions about where the people leaving them live because they are being left at places connected to Moat rather then where they live so for all we know it could be largely coming from the upper class who live in several villas. But anyway thanks for clarifying. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"How the heck did council estates estates even come into it?" Because you asked "Is there any evidence blah blah greater in council estates", duh. Who are "we"? Arent you aware that your paragraph above is completely unconvincing? So Lord Posh is going to drive around for half an hour looking for Moat's council house, while Moat's near neighbour, drinking companion and former cell-mate plus his many relations are going to refuse to leave any on ethical grounds? Lol. 92.28.244.168 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I think you've missed part of the discussion. The person who started the thread and left the very first question is the one who brought council estates in to it not me. Since this person made a claimed, I asked for evidence. It appears from what you've said there is none and the person who started this thread hasn't offered any, so I have no idea why council estates were brought in to it by whoever asked this question.

It seems unlikely Lord Posh has to drive around. For starters, they would have drivers and people to do it for them. If they wanted to get personal, they'd probably tell their drivers to drive them there. If they do drive, they would have these fancy things called GPS which would remove the need for them to 'drive around for half an hour looking for Moat's house' by simply directing them to where they want to go when they put in the directions.

My impression was that there were many floral tributes, more then can be explained by people who actually knew Moat well. That being the case, the question remains who were these people and why did they leave floral tributes. The OP of this question claimed it was because they came from council estates or something of this sort. As you have amply demonstrated, that's not supported by any evidence. In fact we have no idea who left these tributes who didn't know Moat from the evidence presented and no evidence to suggest they disproportionalty came from council estates. We could speculate this may be more likely because of the similarity in social economic status etc, but that's just speculation and we stillhave no reason to think living in council estates is a factor in and of itself.

Note that if it's true his friends, family etc were the primary ones leaving the tributes that's just further proving my point that whoever brought council estates into this discussion in the first places has no idea what they're talking. As this person lived in a council estate, it's likely quite a few of those were from council estates but where these people lived is somewhat irrelevant since the important factor is they knew Moat. There's no reason to presume if Moat had been a middle class worker living in a house he owned his friends etc wouldn't have done the same thing so the issue of council estates is irrelevant from the info at hand. (Carl Williams (criminal) is an example of someone in a rather different situation who had plenty of people who knew him paying tribute.)

If it helps, consider when Diana died there were a hell of a lot of floral tributes outside Buckingham Palace. I'm pretty sure these weren't all left by the Queen (who wasn't even living in it for most of the time IIRC) or people living near Buckingham Palace. Similarly recently floral tributes were left for Michael Jackson at his home, his grave yard and his star on the Hollywood walk of fame. Again I don't believe these were primarily originating from his neighbours, dead people, and other people with stars.

By nature people tend to leave floral tributes at places related to the person who died, and therefore the fact that these floral tributes were left at the council estate where Moat lived doesn't tell us much about who actually left these, it's possible from the info at hand that a large majority of people leaving them don't actually live in council estates. The fact that there were only two locations and both of these were places strongly connected to Moat and his death and fairly far apart strongly suggests these places were primarily chosen because of their connection to Moat, not because the people leaving them lived in that estate so thought they might as well leave tributes in their estate because it was easier.

It is of course possible to imagine a situation where other people, such as the upper class may feel a greater connection to someone then their neighbours and may therefore be more likely to leave floral tributes while that may seem unlikely in this particular case, it remains a possibility since despite the claims of the OP of this question, there is no evidence to suggest most people leaving them live council estates, in fact the only connection to council estates is the fact Moat lived in one.

In other words, as I said earlier on, why the heck did council estates even come in to it? Sadly I'm guessing the OP will never be able to provide and answer.

P.S. Your IP looks similar to the person who started this thread but I presume that's not you since I presume in good faith the person who started this thread would know they are the one who first brought council estates in to it in the first place. Since this thread concerns something in the UK, it's not really that surprising. If I am mistaken, then really I'm ever more perplexed. In any case, I think I've wasted enough time on this silly thing considering so far no one has posted any evidence of the relevance of council estates so am unlikely to be back.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A number of theories have been posited by psychologists and others.

• Admiration for keeping the police on the go, and indeed shooting and seriously wounding an officer.
• Sympathy for his domestic situation and an agreement with his solution. some segments of society seem to see shooting former girlfriend and her current boyfriend as an acceptable course of action.
• Friends and family who are prepared to recognise and celebrate the man despite the actions that led to his death.
• Bandwaggoning by a couple of minor political parties who see his death as a potential cause celebre.
• A communal reaction to the media scrutiny and a tacit expectation placed on communities to do so.

I have no view on which is more likely, it;s probably a combination of reasons.

ALR (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this really all about being super-masculine? 92.28.244.168 (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there is something missed here: He did appeal for help, laying his request for continual help clearly, and was not taken-up. If this is truly so, then, should he ever have been in prison? It is a major step for a patient of his illness to admit he needs help, and secondly to seek and spell it out clearly. I am referring to his request for help from the social workers. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What are you suggesting should have happened then? 92.28.243.14 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That he be accessed with the two qualified psychiatrists accessors, (legal in UK). That the necessary medicine be accessed for him, if necessary in a secure unit. If all that has come out is true then the system has let him down. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You are not the only person here to imply that it is acceptable for people to abdicate responsibility for their own lives: to deserve luxuries without needing to work, or commit crimes without being accountable for them. This seems to be related to authoritarianism: the belief that someone deserves things through being dominant rather than because of what they do or do not do. 92.28.250.141 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you actually followed the news item. He did ask for help. I said: "If this is so...". This is a factor that must be taken into account. The question still remains as to why this was not taken up, at the time. I was not aquitting him or making judgements regarding this. But I do say again: "If this is so, then the system let him down". Now, at this late stage, we are left to pick up the pieces. The original question: The floral tributes make sense in this light. I am not condoning what he has done. I am trying to understand, and perhaps prevent this happening again. There are serious questions to be asked. Again, if this is so, then I see disiplinary proceedings for the Social Workers who didn't take up the request he made.MacOfJesus (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The two recordings I heard were of him asking to move to someones caravan for a holiday, and the other was I think requesting psychiatric help - not sure - but was that just to get better treatment, get out of prison, or even in the hope of getting a more lenient sentance after he committed his crimes? 92.15.3.219 (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I did hear the recording of him outlining continual help to the Social Workers, outlining this clearly. I do work for the mentally impaired, and if I were on the panel hearing the appeal or inquest I would look towards diciplianary procedures. This, from the evidence, could have been avoided, assuming that he was being truthful then. If the evidence is true, then he was not acting rationally when he committed the crimes. MacOfJesus (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope you are not implying that anyone who commits murder must by definition be insane and not responsible for their actions. 92.15.3.219 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Not atall. However, I have experience in picking-up the signs. The assessment that should have followed with two psychiatrists trained and passed in this must agree to commit someone to a section, which must be reviewed with the patient in 10 days. I have only a recording of an interview with the Social Workers. In the recording I heard, he was almost committing himself to a section. This is a step he would not have taken lightly. MacOfJesus (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

July 18

Naming your child

Let us say that an unmarried man (Dad Dixon) and woman (Mom Morton) have a child (Tyke). Legally speaking, when they name the child, do they have the option of naming him either Tyke Dixon (after the Dad) or Tyke Morton (after the Mom)? In other words, legally, can they arbitrarily select whichever last name they want for the child? Also, if that is indeed the case, can they arbitrarily select some other last name (neither Dixon nor Morton, in this example)? For example, they want to legally name the child Tyke Smith or Tyke Jones ... can they do so? I am referring to the USA, by the way. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC))

I'm not finding anything obvious either here or in Google, but I would think the specific rules would be defined by the individual states, just as are the rules for marriage and divorce. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It would indeed be up to the state in question. And I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't be able to choose from the mother or father's last names. Dismas|^(talk) 03:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Married and maiden names#Children says that "in the United States, some states or areas have laws that restrict what surname a child may have. In the District of Columbia, children born to married parents must be given the father's surname alone. Tennessee allows a child to be given a surname that does not include that of the father, but only upon 'the concurrent submission of a sworn application to that effect signed by both parents.'" This thread indicates that in Mississippi out-of-wedlock children can be given either the father's surname, the mother's surname or a new surname entirely. Gabbe (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Strictly anecdotal OR here, but I know of at least one family where the children have totally different names than either the father or the mother. It's a combination of the two — not hyphenated, but taking one syllable from one name and the second syllable from the other, e.g., (not using the real names), Baker + Winfield = Bakefield for the boys, and Winker for the girls. — Michael J 15:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I know one family that combined the surnames to create a new surname for their kids, also. West Coast USA. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're making up a new name, why make it different for the boys and girls? You only give boys and girls different names when both parents want to pass on their name to some of the kids. If everyone is getting a new name, why not just let the whole family have the same name? 142.104.215.130 (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input. Much appreciated! (64.252.34.115 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

Strange question during jury summons' voir dire

I was summoned to jury duty a couple of days ago. The accused was charged with reckless driving and the plantiff was the state; the "witness" was a policeman. In the end, I was not selected, probably because I answered positively during a question if anyone related to me went to law school. However, there was one question the judge asked that was confusing. He asked something along the lines of if the fact the accused was charged was an indication of his guilt. One woman raised her hand; the judge sternly said that there has not been any evidence presented and thus guilt could not be assumed. Why did the judge ask that question if the answer was obvious? Was it a standard part of the voir dire "unbiased, fair and impartial" test? I don't think the woman was selected to sit on the trial, but could anything negative have happened to her after that because of her answer? -- 24.251.101.130 (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty standard question to me. Some people believe that indictment, or even arrest, implies guilt, and they shouldn't sit on juries. I assume she was dismissed for cause. What "negative" thing could possibly happen? It's not against the law to have mistaken ideas about justice. PhGustaf (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I would think that would be a standard question to any juror. And anyone stupid enough (or smart enough) to say "Yes" would be sent home. The worst thing that might happen, short of having been found to have been bribed, would be ridicule from family and friends. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a standard question. Just because the police arrest you and suspect you of a crime ... does not mean that you committed the crime. The State (prosecution) still bears the burden to affirmatively prove that you committed the crime. That is what the judge was getting at. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC))

Was she allowed to serve on the jury? I'd be shocked if they let someone that stupid on... --mboverload@ 00:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The OP stated: "I don't think the woman was selected to sit on the trial." (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC))

Gah, how did I miss that. Thanks. --mboverload@ 01:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In some (non-US) jurisdiction, indictment does carry with it a fairly strong presumption of guilt, if only informally. Specifically, I'm thinking about Japan, and this recent news event relating to the Ashikaga murder case. There are numerous new articles about Toshikazu Sugaya's release, including this one: [1] Buddy431 (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Human nature being what it is, it's not unreasonable to assume (or hope) that the cops and the prosecutors got it right. Many cases are open-and-shut. But some are not, and they do get it wrong sometimes. A good juror has to have the mindset that, regardless of what he might think ahead of time, the only evidence that matters is what's presented in the courtroom, and that the state has to prove its case there. (This, frankly, is why O.J. walked.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet he was convicted (admittedly by a different jury) of a closely related civil charge stemming from the same event. They got him in the end, appeareances of abandonment of double jeopardy notwithstanding. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Film ownership

Now that a copy of Charlie Chaplin's long-lost 1914 film A Thief Catcher has been found, assuming nobody renewed the copyright (or whatever), who owns the thing? The lucky finder or the heirs of the rightful owner in 1914? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The finder would own the physical copy of the film (assuming it was legitimately acquired), but the copyrights of the contents of the film have almost certainly expired in the U.S. AnonMoos (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

All pre-1923 copyright are expired in the U.S. There is no possibility of it being renewed. [2] 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Queen Elizabeth II a monarchist?

Is Queen Elizabeth II a monarchist, or is she a supporter of republicanism in the United Kingdom?--Alphador (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely the very fact that she has not abdicated or abolished the monarchy (or, indeed, instructed her government to abolish the monarchy) indicates that she is, in deed, a monarchist? --TammyMoet (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

However, her temperament seems to be that she would do her assigned duty as well as she can whether she was personally in favor of monarchism or republicanism... AnonMoos (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Speculation alert.... What will be interesting is whether a large number of people in places like Australia actively resist the succession of Charles. If that happens, it's hard to see anything other than the start of the system gradually unravelling - republicanism in other areas of the monarch's realms eventually leading to changes in the UK. Ever optimistic... Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought that would be the case - she's been Queen of quite a few places which are now republics - Pakistan, Fiji, numerous places in Africa, - and that doesn't seem to have unravelled her other 16 realms. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, but that happened mainly for different reasons - primarily, the move away from colonialism and decline of the Empire. If it happens in places like Australia or Canada, the impact on opinion in the UK is likely to be greater because of the historic connections and similarities - particularly if it coincides with the growth of nationalism (which will inevitably be linked, to some extent, with republicanism) within the UK. IMHO! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of "ifs and ands[3]" in that lot; YES and NO are the answers to the original question; you could qualify it by saying that the Queen is a Constitutional Monarchist, at least in public. Alansplodge (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with Ghmyrtle. Changes in Canada or Australia would hearten a small number of committed republicans in the UK, but most Brits can't really get their head round the idea that she is queen of Canada or Australia, and would not see that it had any bearing on her status here where she is "really" the queen. --ColinFine (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that there's a fair chance it would set a process rolling. We must wait and see...! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Constitutionally the monarch does not express political views, and this is a political issue. There is no way to tell, and it's unlikely that she'd declare a position.

ALR (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the Queen doesn't comment publicly on such matters. It is possible she's expressed views on the matter privately and someone has mentioned it in their memoirs or similar, but I'm not aware of it. --Tango (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As for the Queen either personally abolishing the monarchy or instructing her government to do so - sorry, Tammy, but that is an extraordinarily uneducated view of her powers. It's not like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, or the King in the Wizard of Id, where the king/queen's word is law and it's off to the gallows for anyone who disobeys. The Queen is pretty much at the bottom of the pile when it comes to having any real say about the law, or what system of government might obtain. It's a crude way of putting it, but it's far closer to the truth to say that her Prime Ministers tell her what to do, than she tells them what to do. In any event, there's not just one monarchy to be abolished, but 16. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I know that. I was making a point that it's a pretty daft question given the circumstances. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Given who she assumes the next King is going to be, she might have some second thoughts about the Monarchy. However, in general, this is like asking whether the Pope is Catholic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

short term and long term profits of a firm

assume that firms in a short run are earning above normal profits. explain what will happen to this profits in the long run for a market having perfect competition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.146.88 (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

you're learning a bunch of bullshit you know. What will happen is that the firm is careful to keep it a very good secret that they are earning above-average profits, and they will continue to do so for a hundred years. Or they will start buying out other firms and getting a nice monopoly in. Or they will use the profits to turn into something other than a commodity, and make something that they do have a monopoly on, whether it be a patented design or just their own branding and image. Either way, they will hold on to that profit. But don't tell your teacher: there's a reason he's working for $45,000 a year after all this time, and it ain't cuz' he's talented at economics. 92.230.233.165 (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

He quite clearly said "in perfect competition", duh. More suppliers will enter the market, incentivised by the supernormal profits. This will increase the supply for the good that the firm is selling, lowering the price until the firms are just earning normal profits.––Alphador (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, "on paper"...specifically, in the paper written by the guy whose wife just left him, because he's a miserable failure. In actual fact, more suppliers will not enter the market, incentivized by the supernormal profits. That's just a fact. As to why they don't, there are at least three major reasons. 1) secrecy. Anyone doing their jobs will not let it be known that they are receiving a windfall. 2) business tactics. There are a number of strategies used to keep the barrier to entry impossibly high. And 3) manipulation of demand. Companies, in point of fact, use a great deal of their profits to convince customers that there is something special about their brand. The moment that happens, you are no longer a commodity, fungible with all the other companies that would sell it. But please, don't listen to me or a guy like Bill Gates. What do we know? Listen to your economics professor in a bad suit, who is probably barely making mortgage payments and has no better relationship with business than teaching a ridiculous version of it that never had applicability. As the saying goes, those who can, do... 92.230.233.165 (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Read the article perfect competition before you rant, please. The OP asked what would happen in PERFECT COMPETITION. Perfect competition is by definition a market system with no barriers to entry, no secrecy (perfect information) and no brand loyalty.––220.253.104.251 (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC).

92, your ranting is inappropriate here. So is comparing yourself to Bill Gates, which would be an argument from authority, if anyone were to lend it any credulity. We're here to answer questions with references, not to complain about hypothetical economics professors. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

THat article says that it doesn't exist, but it says "it's useful" all the same. It is useful in one sense: when the government steals from the people to give Universities grants, the Universities are able to make a case for getting some money for economics grants. So, "perfect competition" is a useful construct, as it empowers the professors who use this idea to steal from people without having to buy a gun. The article admits it never exists, so I don't see why we need to go any farther. Obviously the reason we are asking for what will happen in the long term given conditions that cannot exist is to enable the stealing of taxpayers' money. That is the single, solitary reason for the existence of this question. 84.153.180.220 (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This claim is bizarre. The reason that questions about idealized situations are really useful is that they make it much easier to understand real situations. Understand the idealized basics, then add layers of complexity. Following your logic, people should never trouble to learn formulas like "F=ma" when trying to calculate the amount of energy it takes to keep a car going, because the real-world situations you're trying to figure out include wind resistance, photonic pressure, gravitational pull from the moon, and lots of other complex variables. People do learn better one step at a time, you know. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Attend the lectures. Read the books. Do your own homework. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If Washington DC were to become a state, what would it be called?

Columbia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.224.6 (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Columbia" is "America", so maybe not. Have you checked Google to see if this subject is discussed anywhere? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Why aren't residents of Puerto Rico or Washington DC allowed to vote for the Congress of the United States? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Because neither of them are states. AnonMoos (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

District of Columbia voting rights is our whole article on the DC side of 84's question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

To quote from the top of this page, "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." Unless anybody knows a reliable source that has discussed the question, it does not belong here. --ColinFine (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

To quote from our article: District of Columbia statehood movement - "New Columbia is the name of the proposed U.S. state that would be created by the admission of Washington, D.C. into the United States as the 51st state according to legislation offered starting in the 98th Congress in 1983 and routinely re-introduced in succeeding Congresses." 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course if one city were allowed to become a state, and get two senators, it would only be fair if every city larger than Washington DC also became a state, adding 26 other new states, to avoid a "rotten borough" situation where the DC folks had far more power in the senate those living in other parts of the country. A more equitable solution would be to return it to the state of Maryland, from which its land was originally taken, as "DC County, Maryland." See District of Columbia retrocession. There is already a Washington County, Maryland. But I understand Maryland does not want it to be part of their state, and the Washington DC residents do not want to be part of Maryland. Are there any poll numbers bearing on this issue? DC originally was much larger and contained "Alexandria County, DC," in Virginia, but that half of DC was returned to Virginia, and its residents got to vote for Senators, Representatives, and Presidents, as part of Virginia. Edison (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was Arlington County. Alexandria is an independent city, not a county. Acroterion _(talk) 19:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Arlington County, Virginia, it was originally called Alexandria County. It was returned to Virginia in 1846, for reasons described in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying DC's 599,657 is a bigger problem then Wyoming's 544,270? Isn't the inequality part and parcel of the US Senate system? On a related note, does anyone have any info on state by state support of DC statehood? I can't help wondering if California's 36,961,664 are actually more supportive then Wyoming's 544,270. Also is there actually any other area currently part of a US state which is already in some way a distinct entity and is the size of DC or larger where a majority of the population want independent statehood? Nil Einne (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are any places with majority support (or else we would have heard of it already), but there are many proposals at List of U.S. state partition proposals. 142.104.215.130 (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

what is the earliest reference to pleasing two women at the same time?

what is the earliest reference to a man pleasing two women at the same time sexually? (I mean at the exact same moment, the exact phrasing, pleasing them or them pleasing him isn't so important, I just mean 2 women and 1 man having sex together). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.233.165 (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It will no doubt have been common in Ancient Greece - as the artcile Orgy details. I'm sure it went on well before that but at least as early as Ancient Greece for referenceable evidence. ny156uk (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The date of such a reference might depend on whether you require it to be written, or would accept pictorial depictions such as on a vase. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Residenzpflicht

I want have the cities of Bottrop and Gelsenkirchen to be included in the district of Recklinghausen, because of the Residenzpflicht, and the fact that you have to travel through at least one of these cities (or possibly Essen) to get from Gladbeck to the rest of the district. --84.61.131.18 (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't given a link to a page, so it is hard to know what you are talking about. But it seems to me that your issue is a question of fact, which should be settled by reference to WP:reliable sources which do or do not say that the cities are in the district. --ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at Recklinghausen (district) which describes Bottrop, Gelsenkirchen and three other cities as "district-free", which I take to mean that they are not in districts at all. However, this statement is unreferenced and neither of the cities' articles mentions their status.

Either way, this is a question of fact. Either Bottrop and Gelsenkirchen are administratively within districts, in which case their articles should say so, and the region article should be altered; or they are not in districts, in which case the statement in Recklinghausen (district) is correct and should be supported by a reference.

In any case, it seems to me that further discussion of this question should be on the article's talk page. --ColinFine (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In Germany, nearly all larger cities are kreisfrei, (district free), even if they are within a district of the same name. According to the German Wikipedia (not a RS, but I trust it for that), Bottrop is kreisfrei, as is Gelsenkirchen. Districts are merely administrative units, they can have many shapes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't the city of Recklinghausen district-free, even if Bottrop is a district-free city with fewer residents than Recklinghausen? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Historical reasons. The current Kreise were determined in 1975. At that time, Bottrop had nearly 200000 inhabitants. However, the city of Gladbeck, which had been merged with Bottrop, successfully sued against this administrative act, so Gladbeck was unmerged, dropping Bottrop to 114000. Apparently nobody has bothered or dared to touch things again. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the Residenzpflicht? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Residenzpflicht means that certain professions (medical doctors, lawyers, clerics, public servants et al) are required to live in / close to the location where they practise / work (similar provisions apply to asylum seekers during the relevant legal proceedings). I don´t know which of the two meanings is applicable to your question above. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the Residenzpflicht for asylum seekers? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In case you understand German: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residenzpflicht_(Asylverfahrensgesetz). Briefly, Residenzpflicht for asylum seekers means that any foreign person applying for asylum in Germany is required to stay in a specific district / Landkreis. Residenzpflicht is a legal construct particular to Germany and does not exist in any other country of the EU. Not surprisingly, is is highly controversial (not only amongst refugees) and there seem to be two cases which have been brought to the European Court of Human Rights for adjudication by affected refugees. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Which consequences has the Residenzpflicht for asylum seekers living in Gladbeck or in Recklinghausen? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Are asylum seekers living in Gladbeck allowed to go through Gelsenkirchen, if they want to go to Recklinghausen? --84.61.131.18 (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Hey guys. I've joined a debate club this summer and on Monday we'll be debating for and against vegetarianism, and I'm in the against camp. So far I've got it's more difficult to have a balanced diet, vegetables have less energy, and supplements/replacements (such as calcium/soy milk if you don't drink milk) are more expensive. I can't think of any good philosophical arguments though... the only one I have is claiming that plant life is worth no less than animal life but that's not particularly strong. Can someone help me out with some ideas? PS: Id much rather sthe ideas be non-religious in nature. Thanks. 76.229.182.212 (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can think of one anecdote. Rita Rudner said that when she moved, she hired some vegetarian movers, and she and her husband had to help them, "because they were too weak to lift anything." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You could also bring up the old argument that Hitler was a vegetarian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd struggle to find a philosophical argument against vegetarianism. Working on the basis that humans are naturally omnivorous then a vegetarian diet excludes things. You're looking for an argument that would exclude other things.

I would recommend that you clarify your position, are you including in your definition of vegetarian also those who eat a lacto-ovo vegetarian, vegan or pescatarian diet? Each of those changes the arguments.

The majority of vegetarians are in practice lacto-ovo, they drink milk and eat eggs. Your argument about a balanced diet is weak, it's perfectly easy to consume an adequately supported diet on that basis.

There are lots of very simple arguments for a vegetarian diet, but you could talk about choice. I'm making an assumption that you're not talking about it on an individual but doctrinal basis?

ALR (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point in raising the question "Just what kind of vegetarian are we talking about?" Their usual arguments are that it's healthier. I know someone who is a total vegan - won't even consume eggs or milk. However, he's a cigarette smoker. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There really aren't any arguments against vegetarianism. You can easily have a perfectly balanced vegetarian diet (assuming you allow eggs and milk, which most vegetarians do - even if you don't, you can have a balanced diet, but it's not very easy), such a diet has a much lower energy cost (if you get the energy from plants by eating animals that have eaten the plants, a lot of energy is wasted by being used by the animal) and there are no animal cruelty concerns. I think your only chance in the debate is to point out that the "natural" state for humans is to eat an omnivorous diet and therefore the burden of proof is on the vegetarians to prove their way is better. You can then just counter all the points made by the vegetarians, rather than trying to make any points yourself. If you can counter every point they make, then you win by default. --Tango (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot the one good argument against vegetarianism: meat tastes nice. That means the downsides of eating meat have to be enough to outweigh that pleasure people get from eating it. (Of course, there is plenty of nice tasting vegetarian food, but there is nothing stopping people eating both.) --Tango (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything Tango said. Our Vegetarian nutrition article does list a number of "risks" of various vitamin deficiencies among vegetarians, so another argument could be "it's a pain in the ass to monitor everything you eat, which vegetarians practically have to do to make sure they aren't deficient in one of these crucial vitamins". An opponent in the debate could of course crush you if one of the vitamins you mention isn't supplied by meat, so be careful with that one. I would use "Hitler was a vegetarian" for sure in a debate society in order to get a laugh. I think the general idea that "humans evolved to eat meat, so we're supposed to eat meat" is a bit lame (it is faith-based, in a way) but also hard to refute, sort of. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

All of those strike me as extremely weak arguments, every one of them. One should, in principle, always argue against the strongest objection—it makes your side all the more convincing, and shows you aren't a straw-manning twit. Saying that vegetarianism requires people to have a varied diet is really not much of an argument. The "humans evolved this way" is an obvious naturalistic fallacy. If I were trying to do a good debate, I'd steer clear of such things, because that's exactly what the opposing side is going to be prepared to clobber you with, and they will, if they have done their work, be exceptionally able to do that (because these are largely fallacious arguments). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't disagree with you; they're quite weak arguments. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are weak arguments. As I said, there aren't really any arguments against vegetarianism (other than meat tasting nice), so if we need to come up with some arguments they will be, by necessity, very weak. --Tango (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It is up to the clever debater to set the terms of the argument. If it were me (as I've gone on for quite too long below), I would concentrate on framing my side of things in a way that defuses the strongest arguments of the opponents. If you end up agreeing with them on 90% of things, it comes down to that last 10% for the real pitch. Saying up front that nobody in their right mind would argue that one should eat all meat, or that one should eat as much red meat as people do, defuses a huge amount. If your side of thing is that for moderation — hey, why be diet extremists? — you make the other side look like the ones with the higher burden of proof. Make the argument not about carnivores vs. vegetarians, but balanced omnivores vs. people who want to draw extremely sharp lines around what can and can't be eaten. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the suggestion I made above - you need to force the burden of proof onto the other side in order to avoid having to make any arguments yourself, since they will be very weak. --Tango (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I ate a vegetarian diet for most of my childhood and we never worried about individual vitamins. If you read the article you linked, pretty much all the sections about individual nutrients say that most studies haven't found there to be any problem at all. That argument won't get you anywhere (except with reference to vegans - if we're arguing against vegan diets then we have a much easier job). --Tango (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The key to any good diet is to just eat a lot of different things. Being a vegetarian is not eating all lettuce, just as being an omnivore is not eating all hot dogs. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I would do, personally. I'd skip all of those goofy arguments about nutrition and Hitler and supplements. They are nibbling if not completely wrong, or enhance values (like not having a varied diet, like people not valuing what they put in them for its nutritional value) that a clever opponent will be quite ready to shoot down. Your opponents will, if they are clever, probably also point out that excessive focus on meat consumption has completely warped American attitudes and habits regarding food to a disturbing and disgusting degree. You will probably not be able to win that particular argument.

Instead, I would say, straight up, that you are not arguing for the status quo at all. That meat consumption could be part of a varied diet and that the larger question of whether humans should eat meat should be distinctly separated from questions about factory farming, the beef economy, and so on. You say up front that eating large amounts of red meat has been shown to be decidedly unhealthy, but being a meat eater doesn't imply that you eat cheeseburgers for every meal, obviously. You diffuse the opponent by posing yourself as the moderate, non-straw man argument.

Then you perhaps look at what the philosophy is that underlies vegetarianism. Do we really consider animals to have the same moral and ethical status as human beings? The primary philosopher of vegetarianism/veganism is Peter Singer. I would introduce who he is, how important he is considered (it is easy to find a few quotes to that effect), and how basically, nobody thinks that there is a strong logical argument against his conclusions. But what are these conclusions? Singer basically believes that there is no reason to consider human and animal lives to be morally or ethically different—killing a cow is as morally problematic as killing another human being, in Singer's eyes. Sounds logical, if you don't believe in souls or separate creation or "speciesism". But what are the implications of that? Singer does a great job of running through all of the ways which philosophy (which he believes in) obligates us ethically and morally to totally change the way our society is run, changes our relationship with animals (can we have pets?), changes the entire ethical calculus of our culture. For most people it is a disturbing world, very unsettling, not the world they want to live in. Articulating exactly where this attitude leads to would, I think, be sufficiently uncomfortable to most of those in the room. (Singer is not a very fun or enjoyable read in this respect.) I think then asking if that is the world we want to live in, if that is the world we should live in, would be a pretty broad and hard to answer assault. Most people will intuitively say, "no, I don't think so." (Whether that is logical or not is a different question.)

The nice part of this is that you are actually arguing the side of the opponent but taking it farther than they will be inclined. You use their own philosophy against them. They won't see it coming and they won't have any way of effectively recourse—except to argue against their own position (e.g. that humans and animal lives are morally equivalent). Well, maybe it would work that way—in my head it does. I think it would be a lot cleverer, anyway, than trying to snipe nutrition facts, and being just completely overwhelmed by opponents who are prepared to shoot those kinds of arguments down. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder, when they say "against" vegetarianism, are they arguing it should be outlawed? Something was said about meat tasting nice. Contrariwise, vegetables often do not taste nice. How often has a parent had to say to a child, "Finish your steak or you won't get any vegetables." Not often, I daresay. There's a problem also with morally equating animals to humans. They're using it to mean that killing an animal is just as immoral as killing a human. Good luck finding any broad sourcing on that. But consider the other side of it - that it implies killing a human is no worse than killing an animal. That's an anti-human philosophy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

When I was a child I hated eating meat, vegetables I liked. Similarly as an adult. Don't assume that the whole world has the same tastes as yourself. I find it difficult to believe that a child would eat a steak with joy: more likely the reverse is true. 92.28.240.114 (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Vegetables do taste nice. A lot of people just don't cook them right (usually massively overcooking them). If you prepare your vegetables correctly, they can be delicious. --Tango (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Especially with a little butter on the corn and a little bacon on the green beans. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If all you have is vegetables, you probably learn to like them. I'm reminded of a Garfield where he's eating a house plant and thinking, "When you're starving, anything tastes good." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I've found that what most people imagine to be "vegetarian food" is quite laughable. Here is vegetarian food: imagine a huge turkey sandwich, with all of the fixings, but minus the turkey. Still pretty dang good. Doesn't require you to eat a raw turnip or anything. I speak as someone who is maybe 80% vegetarian most of the time, in practice. It doesn't have to be some big extreme, "only eat beans" kind of thing. It's regular food, just minus unnecessary meat or extreme focus on red meat (which is just too unhealthy to justify being a major part of one's diet). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not personally a vegetarian and often eat meat, but when I'm eating with my mother, who is vegetarian, I eat vegetarian food and thoroughly enjoy it. I'm not enjoying it because it's all I have; I'm enjoying it because it tastes nice. Tonight, I had a spicy bean-burger, mashed potato (with milk, so not acceptable to a vegan), carrots and cauliflower. It was very simple and easy to cook and very nice (although, had I made it, I would have replaced the cauliflower with broccoli, which I prefer - it has more flavour). That meal was very similar to meals eaten by omnivores all the time ("meat and two (well, three) veg"), just with the meat (a pork chop, say) replaced by a bean-burger. --Tango (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

the argument against vegetarianism is about people: people have meats in their national dishes, by not eating meat, you deny acknowledging this heritage. Hitler was a vegetarian. 84.153.180.220 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As Mr. 98 already implied, that line of argument will probably not help you win the debate. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually using that argument could backfire, as supposedly the reason Hitler switched to a vegetarian diet was that meat was making him sick. Oops. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

IMHO your best bet is to make a defence of mixed farming, where the stock rearing and cultivation of crops are planned to harmonise with each other. Such methods were common throughout the world until the advent of agribusiness. Consumption of moderate amounts of free-range meat is of great benefit to farmers who aim to minimise inputs. They were the basis of the American family farm and are still common in much of Europe, Asia and Africa. If we had no animal rearing then we would be completely dependent on fertilisers derived from fossil fuels. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If the debate must be against vegetarianism itself, the following won't work; but if you can frame the debate such that you're opposing government-mandated vegetarianism, or even government-provided economic incentives to promote vegetarianism, then I think you could create a meaty (HA HA) argument, centered on the unlikelihood that humans, en masse, can be converted, because we have evolved to love, inter alia, bacon. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Question why Insects and pests are not given the same status as animals. Ask whether they feel hypocritical chewing down on their tomato and onion salad knowing that the crops have been farmed using techniques that wipe out billions of insects every year. Ask how it can be less immoral to kill things such as Green Fly than, say, a sheep. Is size the factor? I have to note that I don't really buy the "it's immoral" line because culturally, socially meat eating is the dominant choice of human kind, and morality is a human construct - not a universal - so it suggests that the consensus is firmly in the camp that eating meat is not immoral. ny156uk (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The nutrition argument is certainly not that weak - getting enough iron out of a vegetarian diet is not trivial, especially for women. But another argument is the cultural aspect. Food is something very much part of our culture. No more Bacon and Eggs, Goulash, Spaghetti bolognese, Prosciutto di Parma, Filet mignon, Lasagna, Salami, Saltimbocca, Chilli con carne, Pot-au-feu, Coq au Vin, thanksgiving turkey, Hamburgers, Chicken Tikka, Doner Kebab, Bratwurst or Shashlik. Isn't that a loss comparable to burning all Baroque music? Or all impressionist paintings? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that assertion about iron? Vegetarianism#Iron says it isn't a significant problem. --Tango (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, citation needed. And really, the culture argument would only apply if you were banning it for everyone, and in any case, food culture morphs over time. A lot of "historic" dishes are a hundred years old at best, maybe two. And just because something is "part of culture" doesn't make it a good thing. Ritualized female circumcision is certainly "part of a culture," as are a lot of other barbaric practices. I think it is a weak argument. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

My references are [1], and [2], so I get your point. But our article is, at best, ambivalent. Sure, someone in a modern western society with access to any foodstuff grown on this planet via a trip to the local supermarket will be able to get enough iron. But that represents only a small part of the worlds population. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why the culture argument is weak. You don't need to ban everyone from eating meat for it to apply. The opposing team is saying that people shouldn't eat meat - if they are right then this would directly impact our culture. Female circumcision is clearly a violation of human rights while eating meat is a violation of animal rights, which violation this debate is all about. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be careful with 'dominant choice of human kind' sort of thing. Arguably at various points in time, allowing ownership of slaves, discrimination based on sex including perhaps girls or wifes being consider property, racism including killing people for being the wrong race, whipping children for wrong doings, the death penalty, punishing or even killing people for homosexuality, marriages and sex at 12 years old or younger, punishing or even klling people for being the wrong religion, doing whatever you want and damn the consequences to nature and everyone else indirectly affected etc were the dominant choice of human kind yet some of these have clearly changed. Others (like the death penalty) are probably still in the okay camp. So even if consensus is currently firmly in the camp that eating meat is immoral, consensus does change and for many people there would be at least one area of previous consensus that they would agree was wrong. Consensus can change as they say. Clearly this doesn't mean that the consensus is wrong or that eating meat is definitely immoral but the idea that eating meat is immoral needs to be discussed on merits, the current consensus is IMHO not particularly useful in such a discussion since the people who agree with it will say it's right, the people who don't will say it's wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You can include arguments from a biological perspective - for example how human teeth match not only animals that eat vegetables (with our molars), but also animals that eat mean (with our canines). I suspect that there are other biological arguments, to do with the human digestive system and the flora in it. I know that vegetarians also use biological arguments, but the omnivores have their arguments too. It is likely true that humans (in the developed world) eat far more meat than they need to, for the most part, but that's not an argument for stopping eating it altogether, only for reducing the amount of meat in the average diet. Steewi (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Good zinger: If we aren't supposed to eat animals why are they made of meat? --mboverload@ 01:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

An strong argument which hasn't been discussed is the idea that vegetarianism potentially kills more animals than meat eating does. That is, if you consider all animals morally equal which many vegetarians do. The reason is that farming, esp. the production of grain, kills a lot of animals: rodents and insects mostly. Grass-fed beef kills much less when you consider that a single cow can feed many people. See http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2002/Mar02/vegan.htm . Jonathan Safran Foer in Eating Animals concedes that beef causes less death and importantly less cruelty than some farming because the slaughter of a cow can be carefully controlled to minimize pain, but the millions of mice torn apart by tillers and tractors aren't so lucky. —D. Monack ^talk 05:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If I were you I'd try this approach: Either present animal welfare laws in the meat industry are adequate, or they're inadequate. If they're inadequate – that's an argument in favour of tougher animal welfare regulation, not abstaining from meat eating altogether. Arguably, with sufficiently stiff regulations regarding anaesthesia, cage sizes, transportation, and so on it would be possible to kill animals without any suffering involved. That way, palates are satisifed (for those humans that so desire) at no cost to animals. There are of course counter-arguments to this, but even Peter Singer recognised that if we personally knew and trusted a farmer that we knew for a fact reared and killed animals in a fashion that was entirely painless to them – then consuming their meat would not be unethical. Singer's own response was that this scenario would be unlikely, rare and unavailable to most meat-eaters. See for example Practical Ethics, page 64, where he kind of dodges the issue of whether there is such a thing as "ethical meat-eating". Gabbe (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's an argument against vegetarianism: People don’t eat cows in India, and as a result they wander around and disrupt traffic. If there is no reason to keep all those animals currently used for food, the alternatives are to kill them – not exactly at the heart of the vegology – or turn ‘em loose. Would the resulting traffic jams and increased pollution be worse for the environment than just maintaining the status quo? DOR (HK) (talk) 10:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's an exceptionally uncompelling argument. Just because you don't eat cows doesn't mean you should let them wander around aimlessly. Just because the Indians choose to do it one way (for religious reasons) doesn't mean anyone else would copy them. The goal here is to come up with good arguments, not stupid ones. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If most people were vegetarians, there would be no need to raise animals for food, so we wouldn't have the same diversity of meat-producing animals/numbers of animals that we have now. The landscape is dictated by its use and would look very different and less aesthetically pleasing (in the UK anyway) if it were all laid down to crops instead. Without cows and sheep grazing, arable farming would have no need for hedgerows, leading to less biodiversity. But not everywhere is suitable for crop growing. What about the poorer soils that are only suitable for animal grazing? Do they just return to scrub? On an individual basis, you might argue that vegetarians can be difficult to cater for by non-vegetarians when they come around for dinner. :-)

Organic farming would be a lot harder without animal manure. Alansplodge (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There are scientific arguments FOR animal proteins and fats, and against overconsumption of wheat, soy, even fruit, etc. which tend to be vegetarian staples. Also for low-carb/high-fat diets, which is hard to do as a vegetarian. wholehealthsource.blogspot.com, westonaprice.org, marksdailyapple.com, high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com, beyondveg.com, homodiet.netfirms.com. The conventional wisdom of the badness of "red meat" and saturated fat is being questioned much more publically. 209.89.177.187 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW vegetarians LOVE "The China Study" as a source and it has taken a few beatings, including recently, it may get brought up by your opponents. [4] 209.89.177.187 (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was a vegetarian. --138.110.206.100 (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yours is an easy side to debate, since you can refute or deflect any of the arguments put forward by the vegetarians. For example, they'll discuss bad farming methods (agree with these and call for reform: bad animal husbandry does not mean there is no good animal husbandry: and show how an organic ecosystem needs mixed farming), nutrition (agree that some people eat too much meat but not enough veg, but show that meat in moderation is healthy and offers many nutritional benefits). The "moral" argument of not harming the poor dear animals is nonsense. As mentioned above by many, arable farming and vegetarianism kill animals of all sorts, and destroys habitats. Vegetarians who eat milk or eggs can take no moral highground at all. Cows only produce milk after calving...the calf is taken away, so she can calve again and keep supplying milk. The calf is kept if female (for more babies and milk) and killed (when mature) if male. If we don't kill and eat males, then dairy farming can't happen. Hens lay eggs. To get hens, we need baby chicks born. Half are male, who won't lay. So we eat them. If we aren't prepared to kill most of the males, then we won't be able to keep flocks of hens to give us eggs. (Similar for sheep/wool...basically, we only need a few male animals to become mature and mate with the many females. You can't keep them all.) Also, true animal lovers/conservationists recognise the need for farming. Farmers look after animals because they can make a living from it, not because they're pretty and sweet and such dear little things. If we don't eat them, they won't keep them or breed them. Since domesticated animals can't fend for themselves, and have no natural habitat, they'll die out if not cared for. The conservation of rare breeds, for example, shows this: they started dying out because people stopped farming them...saving them requires a market for their meat...if people eat them, farmers breed them. Leather and wool require farming (therefore death of animals). If our ecosystem and sustainable farming practices needs us to keep animals, and to keep animals means some have to be culled, then it makes sense to eat them, and not waste the resource (ie. meat, skin, fur) they offer us. Just a few starting points...you can also refute pain (animals killed for food can live good lives and experience no pain, if farmed properly) and so on.... Gwinva (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Blacks' rule in the SA

Is it fair to say that after Blacks managed to rule the South Africa, the growth of this country started to decrease? 83.31.120.41 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean purely economic growth, or do you have a broader definition in mind? - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the major factors are to be found in our article Economy of South Africa. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an economist, but it doesn't seem "fair to say" that at all. The GDP went up quite a bit, owing no doubt to vastly increased trading after various anti-apartheid boycotts were removed. In any case, characterizing it as "Black rule" is I think a bit misleading. What you're talking about is formally making the democracy actually open to all citizens rather than a small racial minority who had been systematically concentrating capital and political power. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

When the economic powerhouse of Europe, West Germany, unified with East Germany to form Germany, its growth decreased.
Sleigh (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, but that's a different scenario. That's a modern, "powerhouse" economy suddenly merging with a falling-apart, formerly socialist state of roughly the same size. One would expect that the economies of the two would roughly equalize as the falling-apart side consumed the resources and infrastructure of the modern side, at least for awhile. One wouldn't necessarily expect the same scenario in the South Africa situation, except for the fact that social services were probably being offered to the formerly oppressed majority that otherwise would have been cut, and that there would be a fair amount of social disruption for quite awhile. The South African "economies" were not separate so much as "rigged". As I understand it, anyway, but I am no expert on economics nor South Africa. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

East Germany and West Germany were not "of roughly the same size". At the time of unification, West Germany had around 60 million inhabitants, East Germany had around 16-17 million. 80.163.68.22 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, there's the inherant misassumption in the OPs statement about black rule in South Africa. Blacks didn't take over the country, they were granted due access to power. They, and whites and South Asians and all other groups living in South Africa have the same legal rights. Also, as a modern democratic republic, no one rules. People are elected to serve in certain roles in the government. People are citizens, not subjects, and the government governs, it does not rule. --Jayron32 03:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• The short answer is absolutely not. South Africa was actually in the midst of a prolonged, crippling economic depression in the years leading up to the first multiracial elections in 1994. Since 1994, South Africa did not have a single recession until the 2009 global recession. --M@rēino 15:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

was this girl okay?

did this girl end up all right? I can't tell from the photo how large the drop was, or if she caught herself on the railing... 84.153.180.220 (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there is grass sticking up just behind the platform, which suggests the drop is very small (a couple of feet, say). --Tango (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to know more about the location to be really sure. If it was a really steep drop off, that would be bad for a human being, not so much for a plant. She looks pretty caught on the railing to me, anyway—her arm and her leg are wrapped around it. I suspect she very inelegantly pulled herself or was pulled up. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For heavens sake! Look at the heading of the page. It was an example of a set up shot using the camera shutter delay. It was set to look like a spontaneous moment when someone is coming to grief (who doesn't smile at that situation) but it was all under control as can be deduced from the unsurprised look on the girl's face. I guess she is not an actor. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not really what it says. It says she set up the shutter delay, then (below the picture) that she ran to get into the frame and jumped to sit on the fence, and fell over. The other girl doesn't look very composed to me. Anyway, I'm sure the girl was fine, because they probably wouldn't joke about it on the Internet if she killed herself (although, it is the Internet, so maybe...) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

July 19

Chittenden County, Vermont

I've been there twenty years ago... and today Burlington made the New York Times front page: [5]. The article makes an impression that this once nice town has become a kind of internment camp for the Africans. Indeed, other sources confirm that Chittenden County houses the absolute majority of refugees in Vermont; the number does not seem too big but it is big for a single town. Two questions:

• Is this a managed program (managed by who? who selects target towns and how?) or the Africans just follow each other?
• It appears that US Census data for Burlington and the county does not account for the refugees (the racial percentage is too low even discounting the immigration back to 2000). True or false? East of Borschov 04:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Its more likely that refugees from the same area simply conglomerate in the same area, for security and cultural purposes. A similar thing happened in the 1960's and 1970's in Lowell, Massachusetts with Cambodian refugees from the "Killing Fields" era of the Khmer Rouge; at one time it had the largest number of Cambodian people outside of Cambodia. Something similar could be happening in Burlington. --Jayron32 04:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I live about a half hour outside of B'ton, so forgive my WP:OR, please. You have to understand something about where Wheeler Elementary (the school in the article) is located within Burlington. Wheeler is in the North End which is known for being a low income area of town. So, it's not surprising that refugees would go there. They'd be less likely to find a high paying job considering a possible (probable?) language disadvantage. They would need somewhere both close to a job (easier to get public transportation and not require another large expense, namely a car) and somewhere that they could afford to live in a state with a fairly high cost of living.

I don't know of any state effort to bring in refugees. That said, I can attest to there being many (considering the population figures for the state) people who are originally from other countries living here. Out of the 30-40 people that I work closest with, I can easily come up with a half dozen names of those who moved to the US from Africa, the Middle East, or Eastern Europe.

And lastly, you said "big for a single town". You have to take into account the fact that B'ton is the largest city in the state. Even the capitol, Montpelier, is only about 1/5th the size of B'ton. Once you leave the surrounding area, there's a big change. Public transportation drops off. The towns are widely spaced and work within them is limited. There are fewer services in the small towns such as welfare offices, public health services, etc. Also, rural schools are less likely to be able to handle children in ESL (English as a Second Language) programs. So, while B'ton is just "a single town" it's also the best place in the state if you're moving here as a refugee. B'ton is an island of urban in a sea of rural. Dismas|^(talk) 05:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Windward Passage

Why is the Windward Passage called the Windward Passage?  Chzz  ►  07:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Presumably it has something to do with the nautical terms Windward and leeward (although I don't know about this specific passage - it is far away from the Windward Islands and Leeward Islands). Adam Bishop (talk) 05:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And, oddly enough, the Leeward Passage would appear to be east of, and thus "windward" of the Windward Passage, given the direction of the local winds. --Jayron32 06:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The article on Windward Islands states: "The Windward Islands are called such because they were more windward to sailing ships arriving in the New World than the Leeward Islands, given that the prevailing trade winds in the West Indies blow east to west. The trans-Atlantic currents and winds that provided the fastest route across the ocean brought these ships to the rough dividing line between the Windward and Leeward islands..." I assume that a similar reasoning applies to the Passage, but being a landlubber I don't know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What services and/or benefits does the monarchy provide the UK?

There was an article recently that the monarchy costs Britons about $1 per person per year. A question a few days ago led someone to point out that the royal family has no real power. Full disclosure - I'm American. I have to ask - in the 21st century what's the damn point of supporting powerless people solely because of their heredity? It seems to be to be the world's most expensive welfare case. I am 100% serious - how do "monarchists" defend this situation? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one, the monarchy is an important aspect of British national identity and culture. The U.S. spends money every year on things which exist solely as representations of American national identity and culture, and have no further "purpose". Think of all of the various monuments, the national 4th of July celebrations, etc. etc. The monarchy is certainly no less important to the U.K. than anything like that is to the U.S. Additionally, the British Constitution is built largely on tradition and little else. While the monarch has no real power, its historical power, even if today it is largely a legal fiction, is an important aspect in lending credibility and weight to the British legal and political system. The British transition from absolute monarchy to democratic republic has been a gradual one, not marked by a single event, and as such the monarchy has an important role in maintaining the continuity of constitution that supports and justifies the entire apparatus of the British state. As Americans, we have a distinct time when we came into being. Our nation has a birthdate (July 4, 1776) and our current state has one too (September 17, 1787). We have a single document we can point to as the organizing instrument of our entire national state. Britain has nothing like that. What they have is a continuum of historical changes which have led up to today, and the monarchy is part of that continuum. Its a very different way of organizing a state, and it can be hard for an American, like myself and you, to understand, but it works, and so like many things that aren't broken, doesn't need fixing... --Jayron32 05:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It was all going so well until those last 14 words, Jayron....  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though I think Jayron32 pretty much covered it above, see Republicanism in the United Kingdom#Arguments in favour of constitutional monarchy, the "arguments" page from the Constitutional Monarchy Association and this interview with a monarchist for examples. Gabbe (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't sit down and design a system like ours; it has evolved over a thousand years or more. If a bit of it is seen not to be working (like the House of Lords) we evolve it a bit more. It's ours, it works and most of us like it. We tried being a republic but decided it wasn't for us. Aside from the constitution, the Royal Family work hard to promote UK businesses[6] and highlight the work of charities[7]. They also project the UK image abroad. Queen Elizabeth is well known in many foreign countries; but, for example, how many people in the US know who the President of Germany is? Alansplodge (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Bah! The Hun is always switching his head of state – sometimes more than once per decade! How is an honest chap supposed to keep track of such fickleness? Gabbe (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How much money does the Monarchy bring in as a subset of the Tourism industry in the U.K.? Is there any information on that? To put it another way, if the Monarchy were abolished, how much might the U.K. lose in Tourism? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Impossible to know - you'd need to know what motivates tourists to come here, and how would you define what is the contribution of the current monarchy anyway? Trooping The Colour??!! The history of the monarchy would still remain intact, as it is in places like France. You also have to bear in mind the benefits of abolishing the monarchy, such as, perhaps, having a few new world class museum and gallery venues (Buck Pal, Windsor, Sandringham etc etc), containing treasures long hidden from view, not to mention visitors to all the future sites of the great revolutionary uprisings of the mid 21st century.  ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Queen is not for the benefit of tourists - she's there for us! Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

..although she also performs the ancillary function of bolstering American self-esteem, by reminding them that other parts of the world still have antiquated (but quaint) modes of administration that they outgrew centuries ago. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Consider also that nearly all democracies find it necessary to have both a Prime Minister (or equivalent, differently named) and a President (ditto), with the former [latter D'oh!] usually heading the day-to-day business of government and the latter carrying out more ceremonial duties, providing a national emotional 'focus', and - through a degree of detachment from party politics - providing continuity between changes of the former. The US is somewhat exceptional in partly combining the two roles, and is (I suggest) widely perceived as being somewhat administratively inefficient in consequence. If the UK were to abolish the Monarchy, it would probably have to replace it with a Presidential system of some kind, which (judging by comparisons with other counties) might well prove to be more expensive to run. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In the kind of government the UK has, a head of state is essential to the workings of the system, not only to cut ribbons, but to exercise reserve power. For example, right now, the UK is governed by a coalition of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, the largest and third-largest parties in the House of Commons, respectively. If the coalition were to break up, the Conservative prime minister could ask the queen to dissolve parliament and hold a new election. It would be up to the queen to decide whether to grand the prime minister's wish or give the opposition Labour Party a chance to form a government instead. The question is whether, in this day and age, a hereditary monarch is the right person to do that. Monarchists say only a monarch is untainted by politics. Republicans say a directly or indirectly elected non-executive president, like Israel's Shimon Peres, can do the job without all the extravagances. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Because when the Head of State represents the UK, with foreign statesman visiting the UK or the Queen travelling abroad, it saves Britain from having the indignity of an ignoramus like George W. Bush as its representative. That was worse than a hereditary monarchy precisely because such a person was chosen to represent them.--Britannicus (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally. Like when he gave your Prime Minister a collection of 25 DVDs that would most likely not even play on his DVD player, or like when he returned a bust of Winston Churchill, or when he insisted on shaking hands with an on-duty marine, or when he told Jay Leno that his bowling "was like Special Olympics, or somethin'," or when he credited his conception to the march at Selma, even though he was 4 years old at the time, or when he claimed that his uncle helped to liberate Auschwitz, even though it was the Russians that did, or when he claimed to have campaigned in 57 states, or when he asserted that 10,000 people died in Kansas, when only 12 actually did, or when he was giving a speech in Sioux Falls and called it "Sioux City," or when he claimed that Hugo Chavez came to power under his predecessor's watch, or when he recommended breathalyzers for asthmatics.... Oh, wait. That wasn't Bush. Kingsfold (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Symbols are important. Jayron32 mentioned a few in his reply, and it applies to every country in the world. This short interview from the Czech Republic talks about their symbols. They act as rallying points and, well, symbols that represent the land, and often that alone is worth the price. On a personal note, the attitude of "the Monarchy is outdated" is insulting and naive. It serves its purpose, even if that purpose is largely symbolic. Sure, the US doesn't use it, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. See the Bush bashing above for an equivalent attitude that ought to be annoying to Americans. Your nation rejected the Crown, but many countries had the opportunity and didn't. Aaronite (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Disgruntled Jews heading east

Chapters 9 - 10 of the Book of Ezra mentions Ezra forbidding Jews to marry non-Jewish women. One book I am reading claims a disgruntled band of them who did not agree with the decision "set out on a journey to the east...never to be heard from again." Ezra only has 10 chapters, so where did this extra info come from? Is it mentioned in another book of the Bible or is it just speculation on the author's part? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There are several additional "apocryphal" books of Ezra, usually referred to as Esdras in English; not sure whether that particular story is found in any of them... AnonMoos (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Many would argue that the only parts of the Bible that are speculation on the part of the author(s) are the parts between the front and back cover.DOR (HK) (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, since scrolls don't really have covers. Googlemeister (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Judaism maintains that Ezra and Nehemiah are one book and were erroneously split by Christians, but this is largely irrelevant because nothing further is said about this small opposition to Ezra. The Book of Ezra says nothing of anyone "heading east." Ezra 10:15 states: "Only Jonathan son of Ashael, Yachzeya son of Tikvah stood against this, and Meshulam and Shabtai the Levites supported them." No mention is made of where they were, what they did and where they went. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Try an inquiry of the author's basis for that plot element by pursuing direct avenues such as:

• See whether the author (and this book) have a web site with a forum for asking question on matters of content
• Contact the author and the publisher's editor(s) via the publisher's address

-- Deborahjay (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been in contact with the author in the past and he is rather fickle. If you challenge his research, he either sends you an angry email or doesn't write back at all. He certainly doesn't have a forum. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's usually a good sign that the book is useless. (And looking at the book on Google Books, and the address of the publisher on Google Maps, it is either self-published or published by one of those places that will publish anything for the right price.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually writing a lengthy review for the book that refutes many of the author's claims. I just want to make sure I don't make any mistakes in the process. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the Mormon take on this, see Lehi (Book of Mormon prophet). Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

We are talking purely about Judaism here. I realize Mormonism has a proclaimed connection to various Jewish tribes, but I'm looking for sources referring only to Judaism. Thank you for contributing, though. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)—

Meh. Sorta. While it's true that Lehi and his group left Jerusalem traveling east (well... southeast...) they didn't leave to protest Ezra's marriage prohibitions-- they had already left more than 100 years before (around 592 BC). (Additionally, they weren't "Jews" in the "descendants of Judah" sense of the word, so the prohibition wouldn't have even applied to them.) Kingsfold (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A term to call a "sale with right of redemption"

According to the law of certain civil law countries, a "sale with right of redemption" is (§491 of the Civil and Commercial Code (Thailand))

"A contract of sale whereby the ownership of the property sold passes to the buyer, subject to an agreement that the seller can redeem the property within the period prescribed, provided that such redemption right must be exercised by the seller within the period prescribed by law."

Is there, in everyday use English or in another legal systems, for instance, common law system, any term to call such sale?

Thank you so much.

203.131.212.36 (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Money-back guarantee"? Wait, let me channel... almost have him... all right, I've -- HI BILLY MAYS HERE WITH TRY AND BUY PROPERTIES. ARE YOU TIRED OF BUYING PROPERTY ONLY TO REALIZE YOU DIDNT NEED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? TIRED OF PEOPLE RIPPING YOU OFF WITH SUBSTANDARD PROPERTIES OR OVERINFLATED PRICES? WHAT IF I TOLD YOU THAT YOU COULD BUY PROPERTIES FROM TRY AND BUY PROPERTIES WITH A FULL, THAT'S RIGHT FULL MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE? IF YOU AREN'T COMPLETELY SATISFIED, JUST SEND THE PROPERTY BACK WITHIN 90 DAYS FOR A FULL, THAT IS 100% REFUND, NO HASSLE, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE. WHAT IF I TOLD YOU THAT IF YOU BUY NOW, WE'LL INCLUDE NOT ONE, BUT TWO FREE EASEMENTS, AT ABSOLUTELY NO CHARGE TO YOU. BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! IF YOU DECIDE YOU AREN'T 100% SATISFIED FOR ANY REASON, JUST RETURN THE PROPERTY AND KEEP BOTH, THAT'S RIGHT BOTH EASEMENTS AS OUR THANKS FOR TRYING THE PROPERTY! NO RISK, NO OBLIGATION, PICK UP THAT PHONE AND CALL RIGHT NOW! 84.153.180.220 (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful, 84.153, if you had spent more time understanding the question and less time writing gibberish. The question is about a term for a situation in which the seller has the option to buy back, not a situation in which the purchaser has the ability to return the goods for a full refund. The best thing you could do with your answer is to delete it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

oh. well that would colloquially just be called a "buy-back option" or more fully "but with the seller's option to to buy back". Everyone understands that. We didn't even need Billy Mays again. 84.153.180.220 (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have learnt of the equity of redemption, but I am not certain if it is the same as the right of redemption in civil law.

203.131.212.36 (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The subsequent sections of Chapter IV of this document (page 6 onwards) might help clarify what this means.

I don't know if this is actually relevant to the OP's question, but it is illegal for non-Thais to own real estate in Thailand. This site discusses various methods to avoid this restriction (though I'm unsure how current or reliable that site is). Astronaut (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a quote

I think it was from a woman in the late 1800s or early 1900s who said something like "if there is a job for which there is a lot of opportunity now, by the time you get qualified, that job will be glutted." Anybody have a link to the actual quote? Thanks. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Dunno but you should read our article hog cycle on this exact subject. 84.153.247.76 (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

actually that article sucks. Anyway the subject is hog cycle (economics), look for it on the web or something. 84.153.247.76 (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If while you are in school, there is a shortage of qualified personnel in a particular field, then by the time you graduate with the necessary qualifications, that field's employment market is glutted. -- Marguerite Emmons 71.161.48.176 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Roman catholic MPS (Commons)

who are they please - as at todays date? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, it depends on what you mean by "Catholic". About 68 or 70. Gabbe (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

According to this there are 68 MP's who are Catholics (whatever that means...). Their names are not available at the official site. It's probably considered a private matter. Flamarande (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's private, then how does that website know how many there are? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Because they were asked in a statistical survey, and the organ doing the statitics has the obligation to release the stats, and also the obligation to keep the names secret. Just liek many other surveys about religion. --Lgriot (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

To the OP: You spell "Catholic" with a small "c". If this is purposeful? You will get a very different answer in both cases. MacOfJesus (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

MP & MPS differ. The "S" refers to Scotland, Scotish MPs. The MPs sit in Westminster (Commons). MPS meet in Scotland and Scotish Parliament. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's MSPs, actually. And it's spelt Scottish. Just ignore MacofJesus, he's got no idea what he's talking about. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why ask the question, in the literal sense and in the now aquired sense? Question to the OP. MacOfJesus (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Act of Settlement 1701

Two questions about succession to the thrones of the Commonwealth realms:

1. I recall reading that, if a Roman Catholic descended from Sophia through a legitimate line raises his/her child as a non-Roman Catholic, the child will have succession rights. Assuming this is true (i.e. parent's religion does not exclude the child), I am wondering what would happen if a man in the line of succession married a Roman Catholic descended from Sophia through a legitimate line, a woman who would've ranked above her spouse in the line had RCs not been barred from succession; which place would their child assume? Would the child come after his father or would the child assume the place his mother would've had had she not been a "papist"? I'd say the child would assume his mother's place but I am not sure.
2. "Illegitimate children are excluded in accordance with the general interpretation of English Common Law by which illegitimate children have no rights of succession to the British Crown. Illegitimate children whose parents later marry do not thereby gain any succession rights to the British Crown." What is a legitimate marriage - only a marriage recognised by the British authorities or a marriage recognised by authorities of the person's homeland? If a person in the line converts to Islam (thereby not losing succession rights because only "papists" are excluded), moves to Saudi Arabia and has two wives as the same time, would his children by both women be in the line of succession? How about children of any other marriage that could not be contracted in a Commonwealth realm? Surtsicna (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that non-Catholic children of Catholic parents are eligible to succeed to the throne. I think you are correct that the child would take the highest place they are eligible for. As for foreign marriages, I expect the same laws would apply as apply to non-royals who married abroad. You can read a bit about those laws here, but I can't find a particularly good description. --Tango (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but here are my two cents. If marrying a Catholic doesn't cut off one's kids from the line of succession, I guess you would still get a place in line for your highest claim. As for what marriages count, there are some people in the line who live in other countries and have marriages from those countries, not from the UK, so foreign marriages must count. Maybe they have to be Protestant marriages, but I've never heard of someone getting kicked off the list for getting a non-religious marriage at city hall. If you got an Islamic marriage, it looks like you stay on the list by the letter of the law, but they're going to make you convert to Anglicanism before they let you become head of that church. 142.104.215.130 (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In the event of a Roman Catholic marrying a non-Catholic, if they wish to have their marriage accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, the couple have to undertake to raise their children in the Catholic faith[8]. Therefore the first part of the question is less than likely. The Act of Settlement 1701 is also under review, and is likely to be replaced by something more modern at some time in the future. The new UK Coalition doesn't seem to be in any hurry to get entangled in the constitiutions of the Queen's 16 Realms[9]; but if there was any chance that anyone would be affected by it, then moves to reform it would become more urgent. The whole question is pointless speculation. Alansplodge (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Real" value of precious metals

I realize that precious metals (Gold, Silver, and Platinum) have a wide variety of practical uses (electronics, jewelry, chemical catalysts, etc.) However, I also realize that to some extent they are valuble "merely" because everyone agrees that they are valuble; that people have confidence that they will be able to exchange them for goods or services at a later date, without the metal ever necessarily being used for anything productive. I found this old thread: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009_February_17#why_is_gold_valuable.3F, which helps explain some of the why to this question. However, I'd like to know what Gold (or silver or platinum) would be worth if there wasn't this currency-ish quality to it. What if gold was only traded with the intention of someone, at some point, using it, be it in electronics, jewelry, or medicine? Is such a question even possible to answer (I would assume that someone's tried to answer it, but I just don't know).

According to this source gold is truly an exceptional case because of "the fundamental difference between gold and all other commodities is that gold is not consumed, it is accumulated." Flamarande (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That was interesting (especially since it came from a time with low gold prices, while gold is very high right now). I'm not sure that gold is completely unique in being accumulated; other precious metals (silver and especially platinum), and even certain non-precious metals, like copper, are mostly recycled and remain in the supply pool. That article correctly points out that the factors governing the price of gold are complex, and lie as much in politics and psychology as much as they do in commercial uses. But it doesn't answer my main question: what would the price of gold be if people didn't use it as a store of wealth, if it was only used in making jewelry and electronics. Buddy431 (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, these three metals are the only examples I could really think of where this is true (they are used, in addition to there practical uses, as a store of value, and this significantly increases there price). I mean, diamonds and other gems sort of apply, but I think that most diamonds that are mined are eventually expected to get turned into jewelry or drill bits, and that the inflated prices more have to do with restricting supply and a good advertising campaign (it's not like central banks keep huge stores of diamonds around to back there currency, or anything like that). And to be sure, there is speculation in any commodity, sometimes leading to artificially high prices (Tulip mania, anyone?). But is there any other examples like gold (or silver, or to a lesser extent platinum) where a large part of there value is just because everyone agrees that they're valuable? Buddy431 (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, probably Petroleum? Stock and shares who are traded in the Stock market are not commodities, but the same principles seem to apply. These things are valuable as long the buyers and sellers agree that they are valuable. Flamarande (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Petroleum is definitely not an example of what I'm looking for. Nearly every drop of petroleum that is pulled from the ground will be distilled, burned, refined, or made into plastic, probably within a short amount of time. It is not held to a significant extent, and what is held (like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve) is not to store value (as gold is), but to provide for short term shortages. The price that I pay for a barrel of petroleum is probably more or less what it's "actually" worth, given what it is used for. Similarly, stocks and shares are at least nominally based upon the intrinsic value of the company that puts them out - the potential future earnings, as well as current assets. Gold, and other precious metals, seem a bit removed from this - they are worth far more than their actual uses would seem to indicate. I was wondering if there are any other examples like this. Buddy431 (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact that people hoard gold is an effect of it's already being valuable. It terms of rarity and use, gold is worth a lot on its own (its more rare than, say, aluminum, and you only need a tiny amount to make a useful object). People only hoard gold because its already valuable, its easy to store (high cost per volume), and will likely remain valuable in the long term (unlike something like a vintage comic, which may be worth a million dollars now, but will lose that value if a generation stops caring about Superman). The same is sometimes true of petroleum; some corporations sit on known reserves without mining them just because it is a way of storing money and it is something they can trade later. A better example of something that is expensive just because its expensive is mined diamonds. For all practical purposes, like drills, we can use diamonds made in a factory. However, you have to use mined diamonds to propose to someone because they cost more and you have to spend a certain amount on an engagement ring. Because mined diamonds are expensive, demand increases and makes them even more expensive. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"you have to use mined diamonds to propose to someone because they cost more" Googlemeister (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We need to experiment. I recommend that we try proposing to a random sample of women, half of them with an expensive mined diamond and the other half with an inexpensive but nearly identical manufactured diamond and see what the results are. I hypothesize that a statistically significant portion of the second group will get mad once they find out where their ring came from. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The flaw with the experiment is that I think the women who would accept are going to have an inherent self selection bias, in that the only women who will accept a random marriage proposal from a man with a large diamond ring are going to care about the value of the rock, and not the man. Googlemeister (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess we would have to find men that were planning on proposing anyway and divide them into two groups. It might be tough getting ethics approval for this one. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's always seemed to me that we use gold because there's just the right amount of it to make it useful. There's too much silver to be the main precious-metal standard, and probably not enough platinum. Diamonds aren't really practical. Commodities certainly aren't. But gold works. Plus, it looks nice. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Socialism

Hello everybody. I am a Swedish university student majoring in English and doing research in the US for my paper. I've studied English since early grammar school, and I flatter myself that my proficiency in the language approaches a near-native level. I was talking to my host family, and my country's economic and the welfare system came up. In my family we have a peculiar habit of referring to the government welfare system as "socialism" even though this is not technically true, it's more of a social-market system. I did this in the conversation, and the person I was talking to made a face. When I asked what he thought was wrong with socialism, he said that socialism led to Communism (which I gathered was considered a bad thing). I'm no economist or political scientist, but doesn't believing socialism leads to Communism make you a Communist? And why would he have had such an aversion to socialism? Thank you. 76.230.249.131 (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if more than 5% of all Americans could tell you the difference between socialism and communism. As for the negative connotation, the U.S. spent much of the last 50 years in a cold war against communism. Since most Americans believe that communism and socialism are the same thing, socialism has been the enemy all that time. Of the 5% who may know the difference, some abhor socialism. Some love it. I doubt you were having a discussion with one of those few. -- kainaw™ 18:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In Marxist-Leninist discourse, a socialist society is a pre-stage to communism. Governments such as those that existed in Soviet Union and Eastern Europe never claimed to be communist, but socialist (developing towards communism). Under socialism class differences still exists, but the state apparatus is dominated by the working class. I doubt that your host family refered to socialism in this sense, though. --Soman (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless whether you agree with them or not, people like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh have lots of viewers and listeners in the US. Try searching for their names combined with "socialism" on Youtube and you can find examples of how "socialism" can be described in mainstream US media. Gabbe (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to add "liberalism" to the list. To those folks you just named, liberal = socialist = communist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, most Americans consider "socialism" and "Communism" to be synonymous. This is a fair exaggeration, to be sure. (The US has been a hybrid socialist/free market economy since the 1930s, at the very least.) But the legacy of the Cold War is that most Americans don't know the difference, and don't care. They've learned to associate "socialism" with "Communism," and don't necessarily consider things like government regulation of financial systems, government subsidies to various sectors of the economy, or the many other ways in which the government participates in the economy to be "socialism" in the strict sense. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear 76.230.249.13 -- In the United States the rhetorical and political battle over "socialism: was lost long ago, so that most Americans see it as a somewhat alien ideology which is associated either with grim Communist tyranny or with quaint Scandinavian exoticism, but which in either case has no relationship with American political traditions and no real solutions to offer to current problems. If the opponents of a policy proposal can firmly tag it as being "socialist", then that's generally the kiss of death for it in U.S. politics. One classic work which might still be interesting to read today is "Why there is no Socialism in the United States" by Werner Sombart (1906)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that Sombart is probably not going to be enlightening in regards to making sense of the USA after WWII, which is where the modern fear of socialism originated (as well as the modern contradiction of the US being, in fact, quite socialist in many respects). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the fear of "socialism/communism" in the U.S. dates well back into the 19th century. But as has been discussed here before, most Americans know of socialism only from its Marxist-Leninist variety, which is often called "communism." Few Americans know that all but a few Western European countries have been ruled by an ostensibly socialist party at some time. So you shouldn't expect your average man on the street in Atlanta or Sacramento to understand the difference between the terms. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that one could be quite enlightened by US reactions to 19th century or even early 20th century Communism. But I don't think that is what is salient about the modern usage of it, and I would personally dispute that it is a continuous reaction. Pre-Soviet fears of Communism are not quite the same thing as the Cold War ones, at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the core issue is the fear that socialism restricts people's freedom. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Social welfare, public healthcare and state education take away your freedom to be starving, ill and illiterate. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You are making a big assumption that BB would be starving without welfare, ill without public healthcare, and illiterate without state education. I cannot speak for BB. For myself, I have never used social welfare and I have never starved. I have never used public healthcare and I am healthy. I learned to read and write (and do math) long before stepping foot into a public school. While there are some people who need these services, the mindset that everyone needs them is a bit absurd. -- kainaw™ 15:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I meant a generic "you", not BB personally. To put my point more precisely - social welfare, public healthcare and state education mean that you do not have to live in a society in which it is common to be starving, ill and illiterate, and in which the success of the more fortunate members of that society is at the expense of the less fortunate. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the way you worded that because it allows for an understandable reason that an educated and informed person could dislike socialism. You stated "the success of the more fortunate members ... is at the expense of the less fortunate." Socialism could be described as: the success of the less fortunate is at the expense of the more fortunate. Members of the more fortunate could simply dislike providing the expense for socialism regardless of the benefits to society. Along those lines, it is also reasonable for someone to support socialism policies run by private industry while refusing to accept a state-run socialism policy (mainly because governments tend to be very poor managers of money and programs). So, ignoring those who are simply ignorant about the subject, there are certainly intelligent people with good arguments against state-run socialism. -- kainaw™ 17:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could describe socialism thusly, but I think it's way off the mark. Most of "socialism" as the US popularly considers it consists of social safety nets and not "success". Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone mentioned O'Reilly in this section, and while he could be grouped with the others who consider themselves conservative ideologists, he himself doesn't do so. Many of his views are conservative-leaning, or maybe "traditionalist-leaning", which is not necessarily the same thing. Also, I've heard him say, explicitly, that we need a "safety net", which you are seldom likely to hear a "true" conservative argue for. This is basically the same philosophy as that of the other Roosevelt, Teddy, a relatively liberal Republican, and a fair amount of whose vision for America has been fulfilled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about sweden, but many people in this country believe that goverment is "bad" - that freedom and happiness are maximized when gov't is minimized. This is a complex psychological issue, since even in intelligent people, these ideas don't get expressed logically. For instance, many convervatives are in favor of the "no child left behind" ideas started by G Bush, ideas which resulted in a huge expansion of fed gov't authority in what has been, historically, a lcoal issue in the us - primary education (education before college at age 18, often called K12 education). Yet this huge expansion of fed gov't power did not cause most conservatives to be upset, while Obama's healthcare reform, which is alos a large expansion of gov't authority, does cause people to be upset. I guess the upshot is that "socialism" is, in the US, a word that means the gov't, backed up by police, telling you what to do.Cinnamon colbert (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Modern US war dead

I'm familiar with the images, through movies and television, of two uniformed soldiers walking up to the home of the parents or wife of a recently killed US soldier while they were involved in wars like Korea or Vietnam. What's done now though? Is it still the same two uniformed soldiers making that walk up the sidewalk? Dismas|^(talk) 19:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- Google "Casualty Notification Officer". A good fictional depiction is the recent film The Messenger, though I can't say how accurate it is. In the Korean War, by the way, casualty notification was still done via telegram and not in person. —Kevin Myers 22:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Now I'm wondering how "casualty notification officer" gets abbreviated to CACO... Off I go Googling... Dismas|^(talk) 01:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems it stands for "Casualty Assistance Calls Officer".[10] Dismas|^(talk) 01:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

July 20

U.S. Legislative prayer.

In the U.S., is it true that prayer starts each day in the legislature? What are some resources I could find the answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanzerotree (talk • contribs) 01:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a bunch of info on this general topic: [11] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, lots of countries do this, for example the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Gabbe (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The chaplains of the US Congress also have homepages: see House and Senate versions. Gabbe (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The most legitimate complaint about it is that they are using tax dollars to pay those chaplains. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding the prayer against Establishment Clause challenges. From what I recall, the court found that the opening prayer is secular tradition rather than religious proselytization. The framers of the constitution never objected to legislative chaplains. It seems similar to public displays of the Ten Commandments. The U.S. Supreme Court has quite a nice depiction of the Ten Commandments, surrounded by ancient law givers. History is --75Janice (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)allowed. I believe early Courts would find Establishment Clause variations. There never was absolute separation of church and state in the United States. Indeed, several states had established religions after the ratification of the First Amendment. 75Janice (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)75Janice

. Please cite references and not your poorly remembered impressions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Kind of like when the High Court declared that Christmas was a folk holiday and that therefore it was OK for the U.S. government to honor it as a paid holiday? And I have ultra-strict constructionist pals who've informed me in the past that some individual states did, at one time, have "state religions". They don't anymore, at least not officially, possibly thanks to the Equal Protection amendment and/or High Court rulings that rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights cannot be denied by individual states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by the "High Court", Bugs? I thought the USA has a Supreme Court. Or is it colloquially referred to as the High Court over there? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's a media thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's something new I've learned today. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"High court" is often used in journalistic terms to describe to the highest court of the appropriate jurisdiction. In New York, the high court is the New York Court of Appeals, in the U.S. federal courts, it is the Supreme Court. I could be wrong, but I don't think the chaplains and prayer haven't been seriously challenged in modern jurisprudence. Modern establishment clause jurisprudence since Lemon doesn't address this issue directly. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That bit of journalese doesn't apply everywhere. In Australia, the highest court in the states is their Supreme Courts, and the highest federal court is the High Court of Australia. I've never heard anyone interchange the terminology. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Air Force One identification while in transit?

How does Air Force One identify itself when traveling outside the U.S.? Does it file flight plans in advance? It seems to me that there would be security concerns about being too open with that information, and safety concerns with being too secretive about the journey. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

All flight management is done using the airframe number, the designation Air Force One is purely to indicate that elpresidente is on board.

ALR (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, to rephrase the question - do the air traffic controllers//aviation authorities of a country passed in transit know that the president is aboard? What's the balance between security and obscurity here? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a recording between Air Force One and Ottowa ATC. They call it "Air Force One", that being its call sign. Here's a quote from some FAA regs: When in radio communications with “Air Force One” or “Air Force Two,” do not add the heavy designator to the call sign. State only the call sign “Air Force One/Two” regardless of the type aircraft. --Sean 13:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

THIS GUY IS TRYING TO KILL THE PRESIDENT!!! Bag him up and send him to egypt til they torture the truth out of him. Make sure they only pull out one eye from its socket, he might be able to identify the villains behind this plot. 84.153.179.98 (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

All aircraft in civil aviation must file flight plans, and the Air Force One is no exception. There was, I vaguely recall, an instance when GW Bush went to Iraq, and the security was so tight that a fake flight plan was submitted. Apparently the FAA could not comment on this afterwards, and I do not immediately remember any aftermath. 88.90.16.109 (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Would AF1 be a part of civil aviation? It is driven by USAF pilots, and I think the plane is part of the USAF as well. Wouldn't that make it military? Googlemeister (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Military aircraft still have to interface with civil flight controllers, else there could be embarassing collisions. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, we are not required to file flight plans except under certain circumstances. I, as a private pilot, can legally take off and fly an airplane from here (East coast USA) all the way out to the West coast without filing any flight plan (and for that matter, I don't even need to talk to anybody on the radio unless I choose to or am going to pass through controlled airspace). Generally, in the USA, only if you are flying under instrument conditions or above 18000 ft Mean Sea Level do you need to file a flight plan. Of course, the smart thing to do is to file a flight plan for any lengthy trip, but that's not remotely required, just encouraged. Falconus^{p t c} 20:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Air Force One will, on occasion, act like a normal plane for top-secret trips. For example, when Bush visited Iraq for Thanksgiving they acted like a small to medium plane (saw it on National Geographic channel) --mboverload@ 01:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Religious Wars in Antiquity

Wikipedia's page on Religious Wars refers to wars involving the Christian and Muslim worlds, as well as the Israelite conquests of neighbouring Canaanite kingdoms in the Bible (which may or may not be historically accurate). Are there any examples of religious wars occurring in the ancient world between non-monotheistic nations or cultures? How about civil religious wars? Paul Davidson (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There are the Sacred Wars which took place between various city-states in Greece. You could probably argue that because religion and state were so interconnected in the ancient world, any war involving the Greeks and Romans (especially on a large scale, like the Persian Wars or the Punic Wars) were somewhat "religious" in nature. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Though I was not familiar with these wars, there's nothing in Wikipedia's write-ups to suggest they were fought over religion, even as a pretext. The Third Sacred War appears to have involved some intra-religious disputes, but I'm more interested in wars motivated by religious differences. Any other suggestions? Paul Davidson (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In ancient times, each group had its own particular gods, which were often closely-tied to the specific culture and particular way of life of those who worshipped them. Some gods were said to be on the side of their own people in war, but there was no real proselytizing fervor (in the sense of later eras). If tribe A conquered tribe B, it was sometimes said that gods of tribe A were stronger than the gods of tribe B, but there was generally no specific odium theologicum. The first true religious war in anything like the modern meaning of the phrase was probably the Maccabee revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes ("Epimanes"). AnonMoos (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is really only the Abrahamic religions (all monotheistic) that justify warfare for their defense or advancement. So I don't think that you will find religious wars, in the usual sense of that term, between non-monotheistic religions. However, other wars have been waged for ostensibly religious reasons. An example is the flower wars waged by the Aztec Triple Alliance against its enemies. These wars were waged to obtain captives ostensibly needed for sacrifice to gods such as Huitzilopochtli. There is evidence of human sacrifice to gods in earlier Mesoamerican cultures, such as the Maya civilization, which dates back to antiquity, so Maya warfare may have had a similar religious justification. Marco polo (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm…so what you're suggesting is that, Abrahamic or monotheistic religions aside, you really don't see a lot of wars aimed at proselytization, conversion, or religious eradication. AnonMoos: Yes, "Odium theologicum" is exactly what I'm getting at, although I wasn't familiar with that term before. Paul Davidson (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that odium theologicum is specific to the Abrahamic religions. They are the only religions that claim that there exists only one god who is the source and epitome of righteousness (as defined by their sacred scriptures), such that any other religion is evil and odious. Non-Abrahamic religions generally view other religions as misguided or deluded at worst, not as offenses meriting their adherents' annihilation or forcible conversion. (Note that not all adherents of Abrahamic religions take such a view of other religions.) Marco polo (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Mahayana Buddhism had a lot of "proselytizing fervor" in some historic contexts, and in periods of breakdown of order in medieval Japan, armed militant monks would often descend from hilltop monasteries and take a hand in factional fighting. Not sure that any of that would really be called a "religious war" though... AnonMoos (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Japan, there was a period during which Buddhism was the state religion and Christians were persecuted. Still, that was closer to modern times and not in antiquity. Paul Davidson (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Islam and Hinduism were, and are, frequently in conflict in India. That's not really ancient, and the conflict isn't always strictly religious, but Hinduism isn't monotheistic, so maybe that counts. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The separation of "religion" and "national culture" is a fairly recent thing in most places. If your consider your king to be a god, as did some ancient cultures, it's hard to draw a distinction between your king sending you to war and your god sending you to war. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Jurors taking notes

I am soon to be a member of a jury, for the first time in my life. It's spurred me to wonder why, in all the film/TV courtroom dramas I've seen over the years - and that's a lot - I've never seen jurors taking notes. There's often a lot of complex information presented to juries, yet they seem to be expected to remember it all; or maybe they're not expected to remember all the detail but instead they're required to form their impressions of the defendant's guilt or innocence based purely on the evidence they remember hearing and seeing, and not on their own interpretations of what they heard and saw, which is what their notes would be. Is this actually the case, or would it vary between jusrisdictions? And why would it be inappropriate or undesirable for jurors to take notes of what they're being told or shown? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is very appropriate. The average IQ is however astonishingly low. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the average IQ is precisely 100. ZigSaw 13:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The above rather "wtf?" comment notwithstanding, the answer is that – in the UK at least – jurors can take notes. See page 5 of this document. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 09:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have sat on two juries at the Old Bailey. In both cases, each juror was equipped with stationery for note-taking. In both cases, I was the only juror to take advantage of this. --Dweller (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, in American juries where taking notes is permitted, the notes have to be given to the court once the trial is over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This law blog entry and its comments by other lawyers has some interesting discussion of the pros and cons. --Sean 13:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The jurors do not need to take notes. A transcript is available to them during deliberations. Googlemeister (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A transcript is useful, but I don't see how it replaces notes. You would use notes to record your thoughts, impressions and conclusions when listening to the evidence. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You might have particular questions about particular testimony, and having only the massive transcript in front of you, plus our inherently faulty memory, might be insufficient. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Many universities record their lectures, yet students still take notes. --Sean 16:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In this passage from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Carroll has the jurors provided with slates in order to take notes. Their average IQ was however astonishingly low, as will be seen from the narrative. Sussexonian (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the info. It turns out I still haven't been a member of a jury. I attended court along with 50-odd other potential jurors, and I was one of the people who were selected at random to be in the jury, but I was challenged by the prosecution (they didn't have to give any reasons), so back I went to the rear of the court room. We challengees and non-selectees could not leave until the empanelled jury chose a foreperson, which took at least 20 minutes, and when they came back into court for the trial to finally begin, I noticed many of them were carrying notepads. (JackofOz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone who served on a jury for an Ohio criminal case told me she was not allowed to take notes, if I recall correctly. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

When I did jury duty, (In Massachusetts) I did not personally take notes, but I know that at least one of the other jurors did. Frankly, even though the case went on for three days, I felt perfectly confident that I was able to remember the facts of the case, which were not at all complex. (There were many witnesses called, but they had surprisingly little of value to say.) There were a couple of dates that were important, but the critical factor was the difference between the dates, not the absolute dates.

On the other hand, we were not given transcripts. The proceedings were tape recorded, but jurors did not have access to the tapes. So if the case had involved complicated details I pretty much would have been forced to take notes. APL (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW the thing you decide sounds like a Peremptory challenge. I know someone in NZ who had a similar thing albeit from the defense, she was a young female and I think it was a rape or male assault female or something of that sort so it's probably not that surprising. Nil Einne (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's described as "the right in jury selection for the defense and prosecution to reject a certain number of potential jurors who appear to have an unfavorable bias without having to give any reason". This was all explained to us beforehand, and we were advised not to take it personally, because it's more likely to simply be about getting a better male/female balance, or age/youth balance, than any perception that an individual person is more or less likely to go the prosecution/defence's way. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unidentified African masks

Hi there, I'm uploading photographs of African masks taken in Burkina Faso. The masks come from various origins, so I need help to identify them. Here they are : commons:User talk:Romanceor/Unidentified masks. Many thanks for your help. --Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 12:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You would need a specialist in West African art to identify these, and I doubt that we have such an expert on the reference desk. Your best bet might be to contact a museum with a good collection of West African masks and ask the curator for assistance. Marco polo (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that you live in France, there would be the Musée du quai Branly and the Musée Dapper, both of which should have curators with the required knowledge. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this really by Rush Limbaugh?

It reads like something his critics would love to hear him say, but if it were the case that someone else wrote it and put his name to it, it seems like he'd easily be able to sue them: http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-even-want-to-be-alive-anymore,11521/ I don't like the guy, but even to me, it's a very strange article. 71.161.42.141 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The Onion is a satirical news source. — Lomn 15:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And to follow up on that, even our conservative-leaning Supreme Court ruled years ago that even extreme forms of satire are protected speech. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

How about a reference? Bugs is alluding to Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be the one, yes. Regarding Onion, I thought everyone knew they were satirical. Do they have a disclaimer anywhere? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious. You know, like their headlines about Soccer officially announcing it's gay. --mboverload@ 01:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got some bad news for you. --Sean 15:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Information on Illuminati

Reading the article on Illuminati i faced a doubt that whatever was presented in the movie 'Angels and Demons', about the history of Illuminati, is that all truth or not? Was the great discoverer Galileo a part of Illuminati?? Were illuminati against the preachings of Bible and that of the church? And did they ever pursue hostile methods to prove themselves true? if possible please add few more details about Illuminati in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid.cosmo (talk • contribs) 15:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A better place for this request would be Talk:Illuminati. Angels and Demons should not be misread as a documentary.--Wetman (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen or read Angels & Demons, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that Galileo was not part of the Illuminati, based on the simple fact that the Bavarian Illuminati was founded 1776, more than two centuries after the death of the man. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what they want you to think. Googlemeister (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read Dan Brown's books. They are fictional novels. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you would like the more speculative (read nonsense) side of the illuminati, David Icke is fascinating if not mind-boggling.Jabberwalkee (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Animal Artist Robert Hickey

I have an oil painting of a Collie, Champion Fancycrest's Flash of Glory. It was painted in the early 60's on commission for my late father Joseph J. Williams who owned the dog, Flash. He also owned and operated Fancycrest Kennels from the mid 50's till it closed in the late 60's after the accidental death of the dog Flash. The painting is signed by Robert Hickey. I am interested in finding out information about this Artist and other works he may have done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.54.27 (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is his web site. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Death

Hey again. I was watching a French movie, and one of the characters was Death (personified). But it was a woman! This reminded me of another movie (also French) I saw maaannnnnyyy years ago, and death was also personified as a woman. Why was death portrayed as a woman? In English movies he's always a man. Thanks. 76.229.207.213 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: I passed the first time off as a coincidence, the writers trying to be creative or add diversity or something but now I think there might be something behind it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.207.213 (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it was Hel? --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would call it artistic license. Women are normally associated with giving life rather than taking it away. So making the death angel female is a different take on the usual. And it got your attention, so it must have worked. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Artistic license because in reality death is a man? It's just a different take than the (Western) usual. Staecker (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Could also be a valkyrie. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's too trite to point out, but death is feminine noun in French. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 22:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Death being male is, at least in part, a Judeo-Christian influence. Indeed, death (mawet) is a masculine noun in Hebrew. Some originally pre-Christian personifications of death such as Loviatar and Santa Muerte are female, and death is a feminine noun in a number of languages, e.g., in Russian (smert'). Plague is often personified as a female, too. --Dr Dima (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In Neil Gaiman's The Sandman (Vertigo) series, Death is a particularly interesting female character, who has come to have her own series. Steewi (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There have been a number of death goddesses (our article at death deity doesn't seem to mentioned sex statistics, though :-), such as the aforementioned Hel, as well as Ereshkigal. In Marvel comics, death is itself personified as a woman - to the point where the character Thanos falls in love with "her". Matt Deres (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was really just the Grim Reaper's Granddaughter? --Jayron32 02:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The French word for "death", which is mort, is a feminine noun. This might have had an influence on choosing the personified death's gender. For the same reason, in Bulgarian folk tales the fox is a "she", unlike English folk tales, where the fox is a "he". --Theurgist (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In my world view, dogs are always males, regardless of their sex; and cats are always females, regardless of their sex. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Charles Perrault probably didn't think so. --Theurgist (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Alalakh, Mukis

Allegedly there has been a state around Alalakg between the 16th century and 1340. ITs names were allegedly Mukis or Amka. Can you show me some English language reference about this state? For further information have a look at Mukis in the Hungarian Wikipedia. --Ksanyi (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on Mitanni which may be of help. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Quantitative easing and spending cuts

Why in the UK has the government been pumping money into the economy through quantitative easing, yet on the other hand is cutting back on putting money into the economy by reducing the amount of money the government spends? Just a secret plan to make bankers wealthy at the expense of government employees? 92.28.243.14 (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"The government" changed on the 6th of May this year. The original bunch, the Labour Party, did quantitative easing. The new bunch, the Conservative-Liberal coalition, are making cuts. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 21:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought the Bank Of England did the quantitative easing, and that they are supposed to be independant of politicians and not under their control. 92.24.182.138 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To an extent, yes. The Bank of England needs the permission of government to carry out quantitative easing, though. --Tango (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

See fiscal policy and monetary policy. They work in different ways and on different scales. The biggest advantage of monetary policy is that the government doesn't have to take out a loan to expand the economy. Also, the inflation created by increasing the money supply helps reduce the value of the government debt. Also, as a country with flexible exchange rates and free capital movement it would be expected that monetary policy is far more effective than fiscal policy (see Mundell–Fleming model and Impossible trinity. Basically, the Mundell-Fleming model suggests that any increase in government spending will cause the local pound to appreciate until exports have reduced by an amount similar to the increase in government spending.Jabberwalkee (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

'Economic work'

UNICEF defines 'child labour' here in terms of hours of 'economic work' or 'domestic work'. I couldn't find a definition of what they meant by either. Does anyone here have an idea?

Thank you,

Daniel (‽) 22:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

From Schultz and Strauss (eds) Handbook of Development Economics, Volume 4: "economic work" refers to the "economically active, excluding the unemployed" (and 'economically active' means participating in the production of economic goods and services). "Domestic work" is non-economic work excluding community service or volunteering. 'Non-economic work' means participating in non-market household production. Hope this helps.--Pondle (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Daniel (‽) 10:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

criticism of ceremonies and rituals

i was thinking of ceremonies and rituals as a whole and questioning their validity. i've convinced myself that they serve little purpose and are not very constructive. before going further and perhaps writing some kind of thesis or essay (in part to practice my writing skills), does anyone here know of anyone in particular who has spoken against ceremonies, rituals and traditionalism as a whole? any helpful wikipedia articles regarding the subject? i'm referring to things like graduation ceremonies, holiday shopping, holiday meals, national leader inaugurations, funerals and the purpose of the activities that occur when performing them. 74.58.149.102 (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd start, of course, with the articles ceremony and especially ritual; and each of those has many interesting links to related articles. Rituals are not efficient if you're analyzing society like an engineer would; they probably are a drag on economic output; but they are super-important for several hard-to-measure aspects of society like social cohesion (unfortunately not a good article), and making people feel important and valued. On the darker side, they also help create an "us" within a society, meaning there's a disfavored "them". Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The primary purpose of these things is to bring people together. Weddings, funerals, ball games, church services, holidays, conventions, class reunions, family reunions, all of that stuff. It's cultural. And it was especially important in generations past, when travel from one place to another was difficult and expensive. So these kinds of gatherings were special events that people looked forward to and which broke up the day-to-day grind. You might start with things like holiday and reunion, and see where they take you. I expect there are many wikipedia articles that get into these various things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

i'm not looking to start a whole debate (although i'm not stopping you) but to clarify, i am not questioning celebrations and events themselves, i am questioning the protocols involved. like eating turkey on thanksgiving, firing gunshots into the air at a leader's inauguration, wearing black square hats when graduating, that sort of thing. i will read and do research on the subjects using those links but i'm wondering if this topic has ever been dicussed in a critical point of view or if historically, anyone in particular shared such beliefs. thanks for the help. 74.58.149.102 (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rituals are a cultural thing. They're something familiar in a world of chaos. A simple example: Playing "Taps" when a soldier is buried. It can evoke tears, whether you knew the deceased or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your points because I didn't see how User:Baseball Bugs' inclusion of "baseball games" fit under the umbrella of a ceremony or ritual. It's a process for determining the better of two teams and has a purpose whereas, as you contend, firing gunshots does nothing other than make a loud bang and symbolize something or other with no concrete result. Dismas|^(talk) 02:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I often have that same feeling while watching Cubs games. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ceremonies and rituals are unique to groups. Not all people observe funerals, weddings, births, "coming of age," and other of life's events in the same way. So — the ceremony and ritual is not just a marking of the ostensible event, but also a re-familiarization with the identity of a group with which one has ties. (Not neckwear.) "Generic" ceremonies and rituals of course also exist. I think they fulfill similar roles in the lives of individuals. They have their own "flavor." This is all just all of my own musings. Take it with a grain of salt, which should ease the blandness. Bus stop (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking out against the concept of ceremonies and rituals? That's a pretty broad thing to be condemning... every day at a certain time I play StarCraft and have a wank (not at the same time obviously). Is that a ritual, assuming it's done for the sole purpose of my own enjoyment? What separates that from a ceremonial meeting/luncheon of the local chapter of the Water Buffaloes? If it brings enjoyment to the people doing it, I don't see how it isn't "productive"... ZigSaw 13:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

that is your personal routine and i'm all for it. you made the conscious choice to masturbate and play starcraft. if it were standard to masturbate only at 11:30 while wearing a red shirt and hat, just as one is required to wear matching hats and exit stage left when graduating, i would fail to see the point. i'm keeping ritual and routine separate and keeping ceremonies and celebrations separate. there's nothing wrong with celebrating one's commitment to be in a relationship forever but if it's standard to break dinner plates as a part of that celebration, then you're in the territory of pointlessness. as for enjoyment, there is no way nearly every person celebrating thanksgiving had an appetite for turkey that day but some people find they are almost required to eat it because "that's just what we eat on thanksgiving". i'd rather eat wonton soup on thanksgiving and be thankful for that. 74.58.149.102 (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

How about being thankful for being there with your family, and thankful for having something to eat and not being homeless or something? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Some rituals do indeed have points. Such as, starting written sentences with capital letters. This makes the text easier to read; it really does. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Trinity House

Is there any connection or not (historically) between the Trinity House and the Hull trinity house. [12] [13] It's not clear to me if these should be in the same or different articles? 77.86.76.212 (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

All indications are that Trinity House Hull remains separate from the [London] Trinity House. The second document you link explains their separate histories, along with that of Trinity House Newcastle. The current Trinity House website FAQ gives a contact for Trinity House Hull alongside those for the Royal Navy, RNLI, etc, implying that it is not the same organisation. Warofdreams talk 13:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that's what I had gathered but wasn't sure - I was wondering about any formal or informal links between the "seamen's associations" prior to the actually formation of the different Trinity Houses, and whether they had close links as well (ie separate in legal terms, and in accounting terms - but nevertheless working together closely??) - this seems to be a difficult question to answer.77.86.76.212 (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation of a Wikipedia page

Hello, i would like to translate the page about Byron Katie in Romanian, maybe even add more data. How should i contact, or how could i start translating it? This is the link of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Katie Thank you very much.79.113.238.9 (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You can translate it yourself if you want. This is quicker than requesting a translation (Wikipedia:Translation)

I assume you want to use it on http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagina_principal%C4%83 , once translated it's helpful if you place a template such as Template:Translated page or similar with a link to the original article on the talk page.

If you want to use a translation outside wikipedia the only requirement is that you follow the relevant licensing arrangements which include attributing the source.77.86.76.212 (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

July 21

The Bunkers at the Greenbrier Resort

I have read that the government spent over 14 million dollars to build the bunkers at the Greenbrier Resort in White Sulphur Springs, WV. Today, 2010, who own the bunkers - the US government, or the present hotel owner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eensy-Weensy (talk • contribs) 00:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that "The Bunker" is fully owned by the Greenbrier. As per this page, "In 1995, the US government ended the lease agreement with The Greenbrier, and later that year, the resort began offering tours of the historic facility." --Zerozal (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

They could make quite the wine cellar out of that bunker... Googlemeister (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/technologynews/view/1068644/1/.html

If found guilty, the company could be fined or handed a prison sentence.

HOW DO YOU PUT A COMPANY IN PRISON???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.176.202.135 (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This would be a good question to ask the lazy reporter and his or her lazy editor. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In some jurisdictions, and for some violations, directors or executive officers could be jailed, as they were responsible for the actions of the company. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Pirates of the Carribean

Question

I would like some imformation on piracy in the carribean. how they lived, and why they beacame pirates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.172.1.2 (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Part of the origin of such piracy was that Spain prohibited ships of other nations from trading with its Western hemisphere colonies, yet its own ships couldn't really offer the colonists a broad range of goods at competitive prices. Spain's ability to enforce this trade ban was somewhat limited and sporadic, but if the Spaniards did manage to catch an illicit trading ship, then they were often quite brutal and viciously harsh in imposing punishments. This particular set of circumstances quickly transformed some who were initially interested in trade into armed raiders. Of course, piracy eventually developed into a whole way of life... AnonMoos (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of relevant articles at Category:Piracy. Piracy in the Caribbean is particularly relevant, and has a substantial (but unreferenced) section on the causes of piracy at that time. You might also want to look at Golden Age of Piracy, and some biographical articles, such as Bartholomew Roberts, Henry Morgan, and Edward Teach. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(I love the formality of that title, to get it away from sounding like the Disney ride/movies.) -- Zanimum (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(Wikipedia actually has a whole series of serious articles named "Piracy in [Geographic location]", while articles starting with "Pirates of" all point to fiction. "Penzance", for example. APL (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC))

You might also try Buccaneer, which is about the early origins of "pirates of the Caribbean". Pfly (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Third highest ranking official of the UN

Who is the third highest ranking official of the United Nations (following the Secretary-General and the Deputy Secretary-General). Is it the Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services? Cheers —P. S. Burton (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No doubt your question is inspired by recent press reports. No, there is no third highest ranking official. Below the SG and DSG is the Senior Management Group, akin to the UN cabinet. USG/OIOS sits on this group but only as an observer. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 11:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I missed the recent press reports. Link? --Sean 15:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This one, for instance. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 15:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Viennese for your quick answer.P. S. Burton (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

essay help

A tells his friend, B, that he wants a house built on his (A’s) land, but he cannot see how he will be able to afford the normal, full costs of having the house built. B, who runs a building firm, tells A that he would be able to find the time to undertake the job, and would be able to do it for a price which is lower than a commercial building firm would charge. While A and B are still in negotiation as to the price and other details about the final scope of the works, B starts the building work. When the house is nearly complete, A breaks off the negotiations because he finds that he cannot afford even the (lower than commercial) price which B wants to charge. What liability in contract, if any, does A have to B? can someone point me in the right direction on this one what should i argue here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.248.18 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

can u tell me what to argue ...please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.248.18 (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It will depend on the specifics of the contract (if any) that was signed and the particulars of the relevant jurisdiction. — Lomn 17:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And it would depend on what type of course this was for. A law school course would require a different answer than, say, a philosophy or rhetoric course. This sounds very law or pre-law to me, which would mean that there are specific lines of argumentation that are hidden away in your textbooks relating to the contracts or lack thereof. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And, jurisdiction is everything. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a pre-law contract homework question, but because the IP is from India, I'm not sure. I'll tell you though that this is easily a standard common law contracts question. You should try looking at promissory estoppel and should try to determine when an agreement becomes a contract, if it at all. Maybe that will get you on the right start. Shadowjams (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It does depend on whether A gave permission for B to go ahead and could stop the proceedings at all times. Would A know what the cost would be at all times? If there is an informal agreement, then the emphasis will be on what is reasonable. B is in the wrong in going ahead in working before agreement is given. B is expected, then, to keep the cost well within budget. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Pirate Latitudes

At one point in Pirate Latitudes, the characters get a large supply of silver bars, only to find out that they're tainted by "worthless" platinum. Is it true that platinum used to be worth a lot less than silver? If so, why? --138.110.206.100 (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is true. Platinium was considered more or less worthless (I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the Spanish conquistadors were frustated on finding here and there platin instead of valuable gold or silver). As to why, I can't truly help you. Perhaps because platin was and still is extremely rare and hard to find? Another factor is the refinement: how can it be refined and how much does cost? I suspect that platin was simply unknown to the public/customers and therefore not used in jewelry and currency. AFAIK the precious/valuable metals in ancient times (Classical Antiquity, Middle Ages and Rennesance) were gold, silver and copper (more or less in this order). Flamarande (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Platinum is much harder to work then gold and silver, which is one reason why it would be less desirable. Googlemeister (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, during the late 18th century/early 19th century, Aluminum was once considered a precious metal, on par with silver and gold. Before modern aluminum smelting techniques, it was very expensive to extract (despite being one of the most common metals in the earth's crust), and as such, caried a high price. It was used for coinage and in jewlery. The small pyramid on top of the Washington Monument is capped with aluminum specifically because it was so rare and precious. --Jayron32 02:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

that doorbell song

what's that song, going down, pause, and then back up: cabeebacECDG GDEC. I know I'm TOTALLY butchering this thing with the transcription, but I think you will recognize it if you play that. So, what's the name of that song? Thanks! 84.153.184.144 (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

See the article on Westminster Quarters. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal Question (Probation)

I am in Texas. If someone broke a law and was sentenced to 30 days in jail or 1 year probation, and chose probation. If down the line, they decided that they were tired of the classes, fines and endless hassles, and went ahead and let the state incarcerate them for the 30 days they were originally sentenced to, would that be the end of it ? Would the debt be paid and the book closed ?

Thanks Killa Klown (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be a question specific to Texas law, so I doubt wikipedia would have it. Have you checked google and/or called someone who might know, such as the prosecutor's office? The Probation article has a few what-if scenarios, but most of those have to do with violating probation, which I would doubt is the right way to go about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay if you believe it is specific to Texas law, that is cool, but do you or does anyone have opinions as pertaining to their state laws ? To me, I am curious how you guys would interpert this moreso than how the law might.

Thanks Killa Klown (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is what I would say. The person was given a choice: either (A) 30 days in jail; or (B) 1 year probation. They chose choice "B". That means that the two parties entered into an agreement (a plea agreement or a plea bargain) with Choice B being the operative terms of the agreement. This is essentially a contract. Now, one party (the offender) simply -- and unilaterally -- decides that he does not like the agreement/contract. He decides to break (breach) the agreement ... by not doing the agreed-upon 1 year of probation requirement. To me, that means that the original agreement becomes nullified. Now, both parties start off from scratch, back to Square One, if you will. So, when the two parties go back to re-negotiate a "new deal", the party of the State (prosecutor) may indeed offer up the same deal (30 days in jail) ... or he has every right to negotiate an entirely new deal. No one -- including the prosecutor -- is "bound" by the old deal, since one party reneged on (breached) that deal. In fact, the prosecutor would/should exact a stiffer sentence for the very reason of "teaching the person a lesson": you cannot renege on a deal, midway through, simply because you changed your mind and did not like the deal that you agreed to. Otherwise, every (future) offender would do the same thing: pick one choice, try it out, change their mind, and expect that the other choice is still available to them. This process defeats the entire point of plea bargaining (agreements), from the prosecutor's perspective. Thus, the prosecutor has the right to change the original deal and come up with a new deal, since the offender reneged on the original agreement. The prosecutor's proposed "new deal" may be stiffer, less stiff, or the same as the original deal. That is the prerogative of the prosecutor. At the same time, the offender may choose to agree with -- or not -- the prosecutor's proposed deal (whether it be stiffer, less stiff, or equal to the original deal). And, if the offender does not want to come to any agreement, the offender can take his case to trial -- as he had the right to do originally. But the ultimate bottom line: what incentive would the prosecutor have to stick with the original deal, if the offender has proven that he will agree to something and then, when not to his liking, renege on it? The prosecutor would and should "up the ante" to teach the offender a lesson: that he had his chance at a good deal, and that he blew it. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

Like I said, or tried to, it would depend on the approach the offender takes. If he blatantly violates his probation, there are probably separate and tougher penalties for that, very possibly with no options offered. But if he simply raises the question with his probation officer, maybe a new deal could be worked out peaceably. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Mohammedani Ibrahim

Does anyone know Mohammedani Ibrahim's year of death? Some of his photos seem to be copyright-marked, but can't google his life span. Twilightchill t 21:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

July 22

Dueling - how do the outcomes relate to one's satisfaction and restoration of honour?

In dueling, if the challenge is declines, is the honour of the challenger deemed automatically restored or still declined? If the agreement is to fire a single shot, the challenger misses and the challenge does not, is the challenger's honour deemed restored, unaffected, or further damaged? --78.148.143.76 (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This, of course, depends on when the duel took place, where, and who was involved. Is it a legal duel, or quasi-legal? Since you mentioned guns I suppose you must be thinking of the quasi-legal seventeenth/eighteenth century duels between nobles when one of them felt dishonoured somehow...and since those were technically illegal I don't think there was a formal set of rules. Generally it was dishonourable to decline a challenge, but was the honour of the challenger restored? Well, was the honour of the challenger at stake? Person A could accuse Person B of something, and offer to prove it in a duel, but Person B could also offer to defend himself through a duel, so if B challenged A, and A refused, would A's honour be impugned? Probably, and he might also be in trouble for making a false accusation (if his accusation could not otherwise be proven, and when requesting a duel that was probably the case to begin with). If A challenged B, and B refused, B would likely be considered guilty of whatever the accusation was, even if the accusation was actually false. If you go further back in time to when duels were perfectly legal and were fought with swords, then there were usually specific rules enshrined in law about who could challenge whom, and for what reasons, and how to get out of fighting with your honour intact. It's all very complicated (for example, a challenge could not be made if the matter was not about property worth more than a certain amount of money, a brother could not challenge a brother, etc). If you have a specific place and time in mind, it would help answer your question more clearly. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is at least one scholarly paper discussing the game theory of dueling. It concludes that dueling is a reputation statement in societies where other methods of enforcement are weak (I think). Google for something like "duel and game theory" or "duel and rational choice" or something like that. Shadowjams (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Identifying an artist

I was wondering if anyone would be able to identify the artist of a painting. I tried reading the signature, but I was unsure of some of the letters, and I wasn't able to find anything myself. The painting is here and a closeup on the signature is here.--十八 02:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears to read "S. Dressen", and some other websites, showing the same signature on other paintings, seem to agree. See this google search, for example. (Though here someone read it as B. Dressen). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: You will also find paintings by F. Dressen, but that artist's signature is different from S. Dressen 's [14]. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

updated Rosie versions

When the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park was officially dedicated, I saw some updated versions of Rosie the Riveter. There was one in particular. It's the same "We Can Do It!" with a modern day "Rosie". The reason I say "modern day 'Rosie'" is because the woman has bangs. I can't seem to find any products with that particular image anywhere. What's a good place to start?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Try TinEye. 92.28.250.141 (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried TinEye. But I have to be registered, and that website is complicated. Are there any other areas?24.90.204.234 (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

incest and family relationships

Let's look at two family's A's and P's, and then some family relationship. A marries B, has C, their only child, then C marries D, who has ten siblings. One of these siblings is from a marriage between P's and Q's son and D's aunt. Is there anything incestuous? 92.229.13.132 (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How can D's sibling be a child of D's aunt? Rimush (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You tell me. 92.229.13.132 (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"You tell me"? You're the one who posed the scenario. Perhaps you could be a little clearer in explaining it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of the information we have is irrelevant to the question of incest (there's no direct blood relationship between A's and P's families, and the number of D's siblings is not important), and the crucial bit of information is missing: the one sibling of D (let's call her D2) who is the child of D's aunt can only be D's half-sister, and they must have the same father because they do not have the same mother. So D's and D2's father (son of P and Q, so let's call him R) fathered D with one woman (let's call her M1) and D2 with another woman who is D's aunt (let's call her M2). The question now is, is M2 M1's sister (no incest, not even that unusual...R married M1, had a daughter, then they got divorced or M1 died or whatever, and R married M1's sister), or is M2 R's sister (in which case we have incest). - Ferkelparade π 09:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, many societies have traditionally considered it taboo (if not outright incest) for a man to marry the sister of his previous wife. See, for example, the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act 1907. Gabbe (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet in the Bible, men were expected to marrying their brother's widow to continue the family line. Aaronite (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That obligatory type of marriage was levirate marriage. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

closest thing pre-Holocaust to...

Reading this article Palestinian jailed for having sex with Israeli, what is the closest thing that happened to Jews in the pre-Holocaust German atmosphere? 92.229.13.132 (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Pre-holocaust? You mean the Nuremberg laws, among others? Shadowjams (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

if that's the closest thing. I'm wondering what the closest thing that happened to a Jew (a single time) was. 92.229.13.132 (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean "which pre-Holocaust incident is most similar to the one the Telegraph mentioned in their story?" as suggested by Gabbe.

In that case, I would agree with Shadowjams, the Nuremberg laws are similar, in that they prohibited Jews from having sex with non-Jews in Nazi Germany. There is a big difference, however, compared with the case you've linked. There, the man was not punished for having sex with the woman, but for letting her think that he was Jewish. Inter-ethnic intercourse is not itself illegal in Israel (unlike in Nazi Germany), but apparently not revealing your true ethnicity in order to acquire sex might be. Gabbe (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC) added correction Gabbe (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was not looking for a class of laws but the closest SPECIFIC case, for a single Jewish man. What is the closest thing that happened to a Jewish man (or woman)? (Of all the legal things that happened to Jewish men and women pre-Holocaust, which single case regarding a single Jewish man or woman was the closest to the linked event?) 92.229.13.132 (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiding your ethnicity is not a crime in Israel. The man was convicted for rape by deception, acquiring sex under false premises. Poliocretes (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

According to your understanding of what happened, what is the closest case (for one Jewish man or one Jewish woman) that you can think of or reference pre-Holocaust. This is a reference desk, after all. I'm not here to debate what happened in Israel just now or why (in fact, I didn't give my opinion of what happened) I am just interested in similar pre-Holocaust cases, specifically the most similar one. 92.229.13.132 (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one, there were constant threats of violence against the Jews in Nazi Germany, and there are constant threats of violence against the Jews in Israel today. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, Baseball Bugs, you are right to suggest that Nazi Germany was under outside threat, and in fact it was eventually conquered by outside forces, certain German cities are partly in ruins to this day. So, that is a correct analogy, as Israel is certainly under this threat from all sides today. However, I wasn't really asking you to think about the threat to Israel, however credible it is. I was asking about the Palestinian in the linked story, who was jailed for having consensual sex with a Jew after misrepresenting himself as another Jew. I was asking what the closest case to happen to a Jew in pre-Holocaust Germany was to this. For example (I'm striking it out, to show that this is hypothetical): "a Jew was jailed for rape after claiming to be Aryan" and "A Jewish man has been convicted of rape after having consensual sex with an Aryan woman who believed he was also Aryan because he introduced himself as [such]". ? So, you see what I have in mind: what was the closest thing to that to happen, to a Jew (not to Germany or its people as a whole)? I am asking for an actual, real case, as this is a reference desk. Thank you. 84.153.200.39 (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You misread what BB wrote. As for "closeness", there is no well-defined metric, therefore the question has no well-defined or unique answer. Circumstances are very different. Nazi Germany, e.g., rarely allowed such niceties as appeals for Jews (you do know that the verdict against Sabbar Kashur is not final, right?). Leo Katzenberger was killed for being unable to prove that he did not have a consensual affair... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(OP here, though I believe my IP has changed). I think we can all agree that a closer example would be one in which someone had lied about being Jewish. Your example probably comes to mind because it is a famous one - in fact the article seems to indicate that it was only a show trial to the extent that the presiding judge was all but debarred even within the NAZI regime. So perhaps a more usual case would be a better example, maybe from earlier in the period or for whatever reason with softer application of the law than the instanced execution, egregious even in the slewed justice system of the time. This of course, will require real reference work.... 85.181.50.210 (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Confusion of historical dates.

Wikipedia lists birthdate of Renaissance artist Sofonisba Anguissola as 1535 and her marriage to Don Francisco de Moncada as 1571. However, it lists de Moncada's birth as 1586, death 1635. Both she and he were very prominent people. email removedpolicy guidelines —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.127.47 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Francisco de Moncada, 3rd Marquis of Aitona is presumably not the same guy...we don't have an article about Sofonisba's husband, apparently. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)