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

August 26

slaughterhouse 5 and The Things They Carried

I recently finished reading slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut and I thought it was pretty great; however, I was struck by the glaring similarities between it and the things they carried by Tim O'brien. I haven't read the things they carried since my last year of high school (...so like, three or four years ago) so it could just be that I've totally misrememebred it, but it really seemed to me like O'brien had ripped off Vonnegut.

Some examples of what I'm talking about:

The self referential style where vonnegut/o'brien break the fourth wall (or whatever it's called in literature) and talk to the reader as themselves sort of assessing the story.

The repetition of some phrases, "so it goes" in slaugtherhouse and none come to mind in the things they carried but I remember the first chapter/story having a bunch.

The revision of stories.

Temporal disjointendness, in slaughterhouse this is used as a pretty major plot device, and in the things they carried it seems to be because time o'brien is a bad writer (ok maybe my highschoolness got the better of me, but I really just thought o'brien sucked as an author)

the whole "going back to where it all went down" thing

There were a bunch of other similarities that struck me in the moment but I can't quite recall all of them. I'm in the process of trying to find my copy of the things they carried so i can re-read it... so for now my question is pretty much thus:

I am reading to much into it or did Tim O'brien rip off Kurt Vonnegut? flagitious (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "ripped off". Look, all artists "borrow" or "pay hommage" to earlier authors; they use and reuse plot elements and themes all the time. Even Vonnegut himself did this early in his career: Player Piano, his first novel, is basically Atlas Shrugged with a little more humor. Regarding the O'Brien/Vonnegut connection: There are lots of disjointed war stories; predating Slaughterhouse 5 is Catch-22, which shares some of the same themes and absurdities regarding war, and is similarly told in a highly disjointed fashion. Vonnegut's contemporary Thomas Pynchon published Gravity's Rainbow a few years after Slaughterhouse-five, and again, you can see the similar influence. A more recent example is the film Jacob's Ladder. Some of this is because Heller and Vonnegut and O'Brien and Pynchon come from the same literary tradition; their style of writing is typical of the late 20th century American authors.--Jayron32 06:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok yeah, fair enough. Obviously all authors borrow from eachother, I just sort of felt that O'brien did a little more than borrow. But maybe I'm being too harsh. A re-read is definitely in order. I just definitely got the "haven't I read this book already" feeling within the first few pages of slaughterhouse 5, and I guess I never really shook it. 209.167.165.2 (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Modern Day Grand Tour

What is the modern day equivalent to the Grand Tour? That is which countries is an upper class Westerner (American or Brit) generally supposed to have visited in order to be considered worldly, knowledgeable and well educated? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say the former Warsaw Pact nations.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A better question is whether there is a modern day equivalent to the Grand Tour, rather than assuming that one exists. The closest modern equivalent I see is the gap year, but I don't think it matches very well to the notion of the "tour of all things civilized", nor is it a prerequisite to being considered well-educated, etc. Barring references to the contrary, I find the correct conclusion to be that there is no agreed-upon modern day equivalent. — Lomn 14:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The idea that there exists some kind of list of places to have been, which one can tick off with a "been there" and then be rated as "traveled", is not an upper-class concept.--Wetman (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It used to be. That's what the Grand Tour was all about. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

c.f. 1,000 Places to See Before You Die. --Jayron32 05:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I know a lot of European people that do a "round the world" trip, lasting 3 to 6 months, during their twenties. They do this with a single airline ticket that allows you to stop as long as you want in all the places on the way. It is quite expensive, but it is not an upper class thing, as many middle class people can aford it and do this. --Lgriot (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State

I know that in America, we have this ideal, and it's supposed to be upheld by the constitution. But some theists counter this by saying that no where in the constitution is Separation of Church and State mentioned. Is this notion merely derived from the 1st Ammendment or is there something more specific? 148.168.127.10 (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As our article on the separation of church and state lays out, the basis in the US is the establishment clause. The phrase itself is derived from Thomas Jefferson and has been used multiple times since by the Supreme Court. However, saying that "'separation of church and state' isn't found in the amendment, so the concept isn't there" is a gross fallacy. A comparable example is to note that the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible -- and yet it's a core tenet of Christianity. — Lomn 14:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

When you say "the Bible," you are of course referring to the "Christian Bible," also sometimes known as the "New Testament". You are of course, not referring to the Torah, sometimes referred to as the "Old Testament"—in the Torah there is of course no mention of "trinity." I just wanted to clarify that, as "the Bible" can mean more than one thing to more than one person. Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop, that paragraph was unnecessary. If "trinity" is in neither the New nor Old Testaments, then indeed it is "not found in the Bible", as Lomn said. Comet Tuttle (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, "the Christian Bible" is not "sometimes known as the New Testament": it incorporates the Old and New Testaments. Marnanel (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of driving this way off topic, no, the above "clarification" is not useful. Christians (substitute your own "encompasses the major traditions" definition here) subscribe to a definition of "Bible" that is not limited by "the New Testament". Theological justifications for the trinity are cited across the Testaments and in the Apocrypha as well, yet the word "trinity" appears in none of them. The overriding point, though, is to illustrate that concepts are not bound by the descriptive terms we assign them. If you prefer, I could also note that "veto" never appears in the US Constitution, and that hasn't kept scores of Presidents from vetoing legislation. — Lomn 15:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

See also, more specifically, Separation of church and state in the United States, especially this section and below. It is very clear that the Founders intended that the government and religion not be administratively intertwined. This was seen not as a slight against religion (though many of the founders were, at best, Deists, and would be barely recognizable as Christians in the modern US) so much as a protection for those of minority sects and against the possibility of state religion (which they saw as both detrimental to state and religion). Like nearly all Constitutional ideals, there is a small reference in the Constitution that was later elaborated upon greatly and through precedent. This is not unique. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Some US states continued to have established churches for years after the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment was originially only a restriction on the power of Congress, and said nothing about state-established churches. The Bill of Rights was ratified and then basically forgotten for a century (its original advocates were really just trying to block adoption of the Constitution), and did not become judicially important until the 20th century. Separation of church and state did not constitutionally apply to the states until the 1940s (see incorporation of the Bill of Rights). Founders like Samuel and John Adams would have been horrified at the modern idea of separation of church and state, but it's what Jefferson and Madison wanted all along; see Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. —Kevin Myers 22:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

side discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As a native speaker of English I don't know what "the Bible" is. There is too much leeway in that terminology. Much depends on context, such as who one's audience is. We are of a diverse background. I don't think it is sufficient to say "the Bible," assuming everyone knows what you are talking about. In fact the very notion of "Bible" implies uniformity of mindset. This is inaccurate. Bus stop (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC) You don't know what it is, and yet you thought you'd tell Lomn what Lomn was referring to by use of the term? Marnanel (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Marnanel—I hardly think I told Lomn what he was referring to. I should add that I agree with everything else Lomn has said. There was just one turn of phrase that I took exception to. Bus stop (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC) You were soapboxing about your objection to the term "the Bible" in the way Lomn used it. Totally unnecessary and derailing; it was perfectly obvious what he or she meant. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC) On the contrary, the way in which Lomn used the phrase "the Bible" contained a slight hint of "soapboxing." But my aim would not be to use language to enlarge a relatively small exception that I was taking to what was said, so I would not initiate the use of such a word as soapboxing. Nor do I think it was intentional of Lomn—one more reason why I would not refer to his turn of phrase as soapboxing. Again: this is a diverse population. It is to be assumed, at the least, that we do not all share a uniform understanding of what "the Bible" is. Let us not make mountainous terrain of molehill environs. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC) "...found in the Bible -- and yet it's a core tenet of Christianity." Even if one wasn't sure what this meant, the context clue is obvious. As a Jew myself, I always think of the Christian Book when I hear "Bible". I read the Tanakh myself, also known as the Hebrew Bible to some. Considering there are 2,300 – 2,500 million Christians compared to 14–18 million Jews, it's clear I am in the minority. :) AFAIK, (few if any) other religions really use bible as a term for their holy books, instead having other names for them. Qur'an, Avesta, Tao Te Ching, Book of Mormon, etc. Avicennasis @ 19:23, 16 Elul 5770 / 26 August 2010 (UTC) Ennasis—"the Bible" can refer solely to the Five Books of Moses (and not include the New Testament or any other Christian text). That is how a speaker speaking from a Jewish perspective would probably be using the term. Such speakers do exist—Jews also use the term "the Bible," though I think they tend to use that terminology less frequently than their Christian counterparts. Bus stop (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Chilean Miners

I heard a news report saying authorities are withholding from the trapped Chilean miners the estimate that it will take four months to free them. What do you suppose are their motives for this course of action, and is it a good idea? --Halcatalyst (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Í

This article says they have now been told, and the article discusses why the information had been withheld. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

UK Tax Law

I was doing some research and have a question about UK tax law. In the United States, individuals and corporations are able to claim income tax deductions for charitable donations. Does the UK have the same sort of deduction? If so, how does it work? (I assuming that someone who knows the UK practice wouldn't know the US practice and vice versa, but if someone could make a comparison that would be awesome.) If not, is there a equivalent benefit for charitable contributions? TNXMan 19:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, both individuals and companies can claim tax relief on gifts to registered charities. There is also a Gift Aid scheme, whereby qualifying recipients of such gifts can claim back the tax paid on them, increasing the real value of the donation. There's a good official summary of the rules here for individuals and here for businesses. Karenjc 21:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! TNXMan 22:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to remember the name of a book...

This has been bugging me for the past ten years. When I was in third grade, my teacher had a little classroom library, and there was this one book in particular I absolutely loved. For the life of me, though, I can't remember the title or the author, not even what it looked like!

What I do remember is that it was a book about a family of ghosts that lived in this big old haunted house. There was the mother and father and two sons, and I believe they'd died something like 100 years earlier from a lightning strike? I'm pretty sure the main character was one of the two sons, probably the younger one. At the beginning, the two brothers went into town at Christmas and watched the Christmas lights being put up, and while the workmen were somewhere else, they finished decorating the Christmas tree (they were invisible, so it looked like the lights were flying). Later, the main character brother ghost met a (living) boy about his age, and ended up becoming friends with him. I remember he (the ghost) ended up going to school with the other boy. At school, for some reason he went out in the hall and just went through the wall, although he had to stop and use the door, because his books wouldn't go through. For some reason, there were some people who came into the haunted house and were going to measure the rooms and take pictures. The ghost family played tricks on them by appearing just as the camera's flash went off so they showed up in the pictures, but the photographer never saw them. The photographer, as I recall, didn't really believe the house was haunted, but thought the room got cold when ghosts were around and that ghosts looked like "cellophane" (I distinctly remember that word, as I didn't know what it meant then!). At some point, the (living) boy met the ghost boy's family (I think he complimented the ghost mother on her old-fashioned dress?), and for some reason the ghost parents rode in a car with someone (maybe the teacher from school), and the ghost mother was frightened because they went so fast (forty miles an hour, I think). The ghost boy also ended up appearing to the photographer, proving ghosts did exist.

The book itself I remember as being fairly old, maybe published pre-60s (the cover and drawings were oldish, I think, and some of the words were older, like "cellophane"). I believe it did have some illustrations, but it was a chapter book. I have a vague impression that the cover was gold, although that could be wrong.

I know this is kind of rambling, but this is all the little bits and pieces I remember! If it jogs anyone's memory--or you know how to Google it better than I did--your help is greatly appreciated! 24.247.162.139 (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it Ghosts Who Went to School? If not try searching in Google books. Ariel. (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The thirty-two types of personality

Simplifying greatly, the Big Five personality traits imply that there are 32 different types of personality if people are crudely grouped as just being either above or below average in each of the traits. Is there any website that gives information about these 32 types, such as commonness, likely occupations, and so on? And where do various mental illnesses fit within this scheme? Thanks 92.28.254.27 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

August 27

jewelry from gulf oil disaster

Recently I saw on CNN a teenage girl and her father creating jewelry from tar balls collected on a beach near their home in Alabama. (The tar balls are from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.) The jewelry looks nice. (The girl intends to use the profits from the sales of her jewelry to pay for college.) Where can I order some pieces of the jewelry? If more information is available, please let me know. Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Googleing "tar ball jewellery" gets me to http://www.oilcoastjewelry.com/ Rojomoke (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Heir presumptive of Thurn and Taxis

Albert, 12th Prince of Thurn and Taxis says his heir presumptive is "Prince Max Emanuel". Who is that? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It depends on German inheritance laws, but generally an heir presumptive means its his current heir, who could be replaced by a better heir if one came along. Heir presumptives are often daughters (where there is no son), but in this case, since its a male, it is likely a brother, a nephew, or a cousin. My guess is that it would be his brother, since under normal circumstances of male-only or male-first primogeniture, if you have no children, then oldest brother (usually the next youngest from you, but it could also be an older brother) is next in line, followed by the children of your oldest brother, then the next brother, and then his kids, and so on. --Jayron32 02:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking in more detail, he has no brothers and no nephews, so the heir in question is actually his uncle, my guess is the unnamed "younger brother" of his father, as described at Johannes, 11th Prince of Thurn and Taxis. --Jayron32 02:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Karl August, 10th Prince of Thurn and Taxis, the younger brother of Johannes is named Albert. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind that, according to his grandfather's article, Karl August, 10th Prince of Thurn and Taxis, that brother died at 5 years old. Doing some more digging, it is NOT Prince Max Emanuel of Thurn and Taxis, his great-uncle, who is a now dead monk. The closest I can find from Wikipedia articles would be a possible grandson of Prince Ludwig Philipp of Thurn and Taxis, who had one son who lived long enough to have kids, though there is no indication that he would have. In that case, Max Emanuel would be Albert-12th-Prince's third cousin (nearest common relative to both is their common great-great grandfather). Other than that, there's not even a potential heir closer than that, so Max Emanuel would need to be at best fourth cousin, or possible third cousin once removed (the nearest common ancestor would be Maximilian Anton Lamoral, Hereditary Prince of Thurn and Taxis), but he only had 2 sons, the 7th prince (who had no issue) and the 8th prince, who was the grandfather of Albert-12th-Prince's grandfather. So now that pushes Max Emanuel back to at best 5th cousin. The necessary great-great-great-great-grandfather would be Maximilian Karl, 6th Prince of Thurn and Taxis, who had MORE than enough kids to produce a line down to today. Among Maximilian Karl's male children, there's two by his first wife who may have had kids, Egon and Theodor, and by his second wife I count at least 9 sons who may have had viable lines of their own. --Jayron32 03:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Prince Max Emmanuel of Thurn and Taxis is the 12th Prince of Thurn and Taxis's first cousin once removed (father's first cousin). He was born in 1935. He has two sons, Hubertus (b. 1973) and Philipp (b. 1975). [1] Max Emmanuel will presumably die before the 12th Prince, so Hubertus will replace him as heir presumptive (unless the 12th Prince fathers a son soon).

• Albert, 8th Prince of Thurn and Taxis
  • Karl August, 10th Prince of Thurn and Taxis
    • Johannes, 11th Prince of Thurn and Taxis
      • Albert, 12th Prince of Thurn and Taxis
  • Prince Raphael
    • Prince Max Emmanuael

The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for the research, guys. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Credit card questions

1. How much will getting another credit card hurt my credit score? Or will it hurt it? Currently I have one installment loan and a credit card, the latter for which I only use about 6-7% of my credit limit (I always pay in full at the end of the month). I've found another card for which I really like the benefits, but I don't want to hurt my credit score significantly. I live in the United States.
2. I've heard very good things about Discover Card - I understand they have good rewards because of high merchant fees. Does anybody have experience with this, or know a card with better deals? Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting another card should help your score. I read once that the ideal number of cards is 3. Adding another card means you have more available credit, if you don't tap that credit then it helps your score. Ariel. (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ariel's last sentence is untrue beyond a certain point. Credit score is our article on this, which has sub-articles for some countries. This Federal Reserve link states, "A mix of installment loans and credit cards may improve your score. However, too many finance company accounts or credit cards might hurt your score." Sorry I don't have a better reference at hand; it would be nice to get the actual formulas used by the rating agencies, so you could just see what happens when you add a credit card. As for the Discover card, it has a tiered cash back reward system. It was the first credit card with a cash back program that I am aware of, but now these systems are popular; American Express now does this, too, with some of its cards; and so do a number of Visa and Mastercard cards. Now common is a system where you earn one-fourth of one percent of your purchases for the first US$3,000 you spend per year, or whatever, then the rebate climbs to one-half of one percent, etc. up to some rate ceiling like 1%. There are sometimes extra rebates for particular kinds of purchases (dining out, or groceries). There is often a hard limit of a US$500 rebate per year. Cardratings.com (warning, it looks like it's fundamentally a sales site, so take this with a grain of salt) lets you search for cash back cards. (Note that these are presumably cards that paid cardratings.com to show them.) I used the Discover card for a decade or so and had no problems I can remember. You now have to call them and ask them to send your cash rebate checks, I believe. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Right but I don't use very much of the credit I have right now anyway. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A bank teller once told me that applying for multiple credit cards within a short period of time will hurt your credit rating. I tried to google for a source but most of those are blocked by wikipedia's spam filter, not sure what to make of this. Royor (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. And Comet Tuttle: it's correct that having many cards is bad, but adding a card (when you have less than 3) helps, it does not hurt. By adding a card you increase the total credit available to you, which makes you look better - assuming you don't actually use that credit. Ariel. (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Are there any Africans with only African ancestors?

Whenever I hear the terms "foreigners" or "foreign blood", I always think about the fact that we are all Africans originally, so we all have foreign blood. However, I wonder if there are any African people or individuals who only have African blood, whose heritage has never left Africa, and so completely lack "foreign blood" (or rather, intercontinental blood)? That would require that they have never been in contact with the peoples who have left Africa and returned later. So is it possible that there are any African homo sapien who's every ancestor has been African? 83.250.53.18 (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The article Most recent common ancestor has some discussion of this, and a link to this paper: [2] which suggest no. That is, as far as I can see, mostly based on a theoretical model, though. Jørgen (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A few months ago there was a story in the news about a discovery made by some scientists who found that a few percent of the DNA of modern humans actually comes from Neanderthals. This Neanderthal DNA however was not found in the people they tested who were from Sub-Saharan Africa, which suggests that at least since the Neanderthals went extinct they had no "intercontinental" ancestors (if they had they would have had at least some Neanderthal DNA) - and I doubt there was a lot of intercontinental travel before that. P.S.: Wouldn't this question be better placed at the science desk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean they didn't have Neanderthal ancestors, just not Neanderthal DNA. You don't have the DNA of all your ancestors, just some of them.

Does anyone has a ref to these news articles about neanderthal DNA? I'd like to read them, somehow I missed them in the news when they first appeared.--Lgriot (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's one article. And yeah, you're right, with just two Sub-Saharan test subjects the conclusion that there were no intercontinental ancestors is not justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of it is also referenced in the articles on Neanderthal admixture hypothesis and Neanderthal genome project (and other places linking from these articles). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

rice paper block print

I have a rice paper black wood block print of a Mongolian Warrior on a horse. I am trying to identify it. Can you direct me in the proper direction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.132.211 (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be very difficult without a scan of the print. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Where in the world for the best standard of living for the least money?

Say I was from the UK or US, aged 50 and single, and had the equivalent of one million dollars which had to last me another 50 years (being an optimist) until death, without any other earnt income during that time. Where should I settle in the world to give me the best standard of living (and most fun, pleasure, enjoyment etc) for my money?

One qualification is that, a British citizen would get "free" healthcare, pension and other benefits if they stayed in the UK, and I think in the EU also. The downside to the UK is the high cost of "real estate" or "property" as they say. Thanks 92.15.21.39 (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

We had a similar question maybe a year ago. I don't remember enough to be able to find it (maybe somebody else does), but I do remember that one of the suggestions was to buy a boat and just float through the rest of your life, harboring wherever might seem appropriate and leaving when bored. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not a good idea though if you don't know what you are doing, especially since you can not buy a particularly large craft for $1M and you don't want to sail the thing into a reef or a hurricane. One major qualification here is do you require a location that speaks English, or can we assume that you would learn a new language for a new location? Googlemeister (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, for under $100,000 you'll get a good 34" boat, which is a comfortable size for one person and can handle most waters. - Bilby (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume you meant a 34' boat for that price. D<fontcolor="#00ccff">bfirs 13:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

For an oceangoing vessel, 34' is practically a raft. Googlemeister (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You'll need the most impoverished local economy, since you'll be living as a parasite and will require cheap servants, and at the same time you'll need cultural and political stability. Not an easy match nowadays.--Wetman (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I object to "parasite"; surely this person will produce a net injection of money into the local economy. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's try and return this discussion to the original question, shall we? The OP proposes a life of leisure in retirement. You are interested in places with the best standard of living and the most fun available. What you don't elaborate on is, what exactly do you expect? Best standard of living might be easy enough, but what do you mean by "most fun, pleasure, enjoyment etc"? We don't have an inkling of what you consider fun etc. You could be interested in cock-fights. You could be interested in opera. You could be interested in easily accessible prostitution. You could consider walks in the country and picking mushrooms fun. We can't really help you without knowing what it is you're looking for. In any case, while Wetman is being harsh in his wording, he does have a point - ultimately you'll probably be looking for an economy that is weak enough for your money to be worth more than you are used to and at the same time stable enough to not involve you in any bothersome coups-de-etat. TomorrowTime (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I do remember this question coming up before and if I'm not mistaken, Southeast Asia and South America were suggested as possible candidates. I can't remember which countries exactly but there was also something about being able to easily gain citizenship as well. Dismas|^(talk) 06:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, what I would like even more than fun, pleasure and enjoyment would be freedom from fear. Freedom from the fear of crime and either medical care not being available or not being able to afford it. What I would most enjoy would be space and nature - the ability to live in a spacious home with my own land around it, preferably out of sight of neighbours and with lots of trees and greenery to look at, and with many potential walks and cycle rides nearby. Plus a comfortable climate. 92.15.13.128 (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like I'm promoting my country (heck, it's what I know about), about ten or maybe 12 years ago, a Brit real estate agent discovered Prekmurje, the Easternmost part of Slovenia. It's the economically least developed part of the country (due to misguided economic history in Communist times - the enlightened rulers of the people figured they'd just build a factory or two in this predominantly agricultural part of the country and instantly transform the farmers into factory workers, but ended up with kaputt factories and a generation of farmers' children who didn't really know how to farm anymore) and there are heaps of little cottage style farmsteads with surrounding land that are abandoned and left to decay. The said Brit bought one of these, moved in and started scouting for further houses he could buy and then sell on the British market. For a while he was pretty successful and I think the top number got to something like 30 or 40 people buying the houses (in a relatively large area, mind you, so it's not like all of the sudden it was Ibiza there, with more Brits than locals). It was a perfect deal, the Brits got cheap rural houses in beautiful scenery, the Slovenes sold their ancestral homesteads that would otherwise be left to slowly rot away untended to. I did read an article on this about two or three years ago, in which the original Brit was lamenting that things weren't going so well anymore and that some of the people moved back to Britain, but I'm unsure of the reasons for this. In any case, it might be an interesting venue to look further into - Prekmurje pretty much fills all of the requirements you list above - it's wine country and there's great scenery, it's not too expensive (not really dirt cheap either, though...) health care wouldn't be a problem for an EU citizen, language shouldn't be too much of a problem - young people universally understand English, and there's the ex-pat community to show you around and get you started, Britain's relatively close by due to flights from Graz and Maribor so hopping back home for the weekend or having friends over for a visit is completely feasible etc. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

1066 - victory or defeat?

For contemporary english people, should the battle of 1066 be considered a victory or a defeat? 92.15.21.39 (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose technically it would be a loss (since the invading Normans won). ny156uk (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary English people should consider it a victory for the Normans and a defeat for the Anglo-Saxons. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Very few people have an opinion on the matter (our language, for example, uses both). One thing that is certain is that the other battle of 1066, at Stamford Bridge, is considered a victory for the British people. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

...even though Stamford Bridge was actually a victory for the English, not the British - the British and English were still fighting each other in Wales. So far as modern attitudes towards 1066 are considered, it is essentially considered by most to be a formative but ancient part of history - the Normans and their descendants intermarried with the English, and the modern "English people" descend from both groups, as well as from the many immigrants in later centuries from Scotland, Wales, Ireland, other parts of Europe and the rest of the world. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point, only put forth much more eloquently. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

English attitudes to the Norman Conquest changed over the centuries. 12th c. writer William of Malmesbury looked back upon the Battle of Hastings as "a fatal day, the sad destruction of our dear country." Richard FitzNeal talked about "the conquered Enlgish and the hated race of Normans". But by the latter half of the 12th c. distinctions between Normans and English were becoming blurred. And in the 19th c. some polemical historians such as Thomas Carlyle were celebrating the Norman Conquest for shaping English unity and identity.--Pondle (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

1066 is generally remembered as the last time an invading army was sucessful in invading/conquering the UK - all other attempts since have failed, not a bad record. Exxolon (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That claim could do with some scrutiny. The United Kingdom was a much later invention, from the year 1707. In 1800, the Kingdom of Ireland was incorporated into the UK. But the island of Ireland was itself conquered by English forces and absorbed into the English realm, after 1066. Not to mention the squabbles between England and Scotland, that ultimately led to 1707. So, while continental forces have failed to conquer the British Isles since 1066, there has certainly been some internal conquering going on. We should of course mention the Channel Islands, which were occupied by German forces in WW2. They're not formally a part of the UK, but are still British possessions. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

We English like to say that it was the Normans who began the conquest of Ireland, Wales and Scotland in the same way that they conquered us.

A recent BBC series[3] has highlighted that historians are now coming back to the view that the Norman Conquest was bad for England, as they did a very effective job of removing almost every Englishman or woman from any position of influence and erasing as many traces of English (ie Anglo-Saxon) colture as they could. For instance, within 100 years of the Conquest, all of the great English churches (Westminster, St Alban's, Waltham, etc, etc), some af them brand new, had been demolished and replaced with Norman ones. The view that England was an uncivilised backwater that needed to be modernised is now being challenged. Alansplodge (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• • If you were the wrong side of The Doomsday Book then it was defeat. MacOfJesus (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Jogging Kilburn, London

I'm going to be in a hotel in Kilburn in London next week (at Kilburn High Road, specifically). I really like to jog every morning (for between 40 and 80 minutes). I'd prefer to run in a park, but I'm quite happy on a quiet streets, as long as the pavement isn't scary narrow and the traffic isn't too heavy. I appreciate that Kilburn isn't very close to a decent sized park. Is Queens Park a decent place to run? Or would I have a nicer time running through back roads to Regent's Park? 87.112.196.193 (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask this question on the Miscellaneous desk.--达伟 (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Paddington Rec (Paddington Recreation Ground) is not far from Kilburn High Road and is reasonably large. There's a running track there as well. You can get into it either on Carlton Vale or Randolph Road. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I was about to suggest Paddington Recreation Ground, just off Maida Vale, the name of the road that continues into Kilburn High Road, very close to you. Being a Marathon runner, may I suggest, never to refer to it as "jogging", which is a jaring motion, the very thing you want to avoid. You should not hear your feet touch the "floor" when running. You will get a better result all round. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Fictional medals for a WW2 military themed website...

Hi everyone. I admin a WW2 gaming site and want to add medals for user achievements. I've been looking at the photos of American military medals on Wikipedia (nice collection, btw!) and am wondering if there is any rhyme or reason to how they select the colors on the ribbons, or how many colors the ribbons have? I'm probably going to design my own medals to avoid offending anyone, but I also don't want to inadvertently come up with something obviously ridiculous/inappropriate. Any help/suggestions? 61.189.63.133 (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm - this [4]] suggests colours derived from the countries/areas fought for/against/in for USA medals. Exxolon (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A good fictional medal for allied players could be called "Axis denied".--178.167.189.165 (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Gag!

New Netherlands

If the Dutch hadn't given the New Netherlands to the British in exchange for Suriname, could they have feasibly used the funding from their extensive trading in the Indies (and, to a lesser extent, their fur trade in North America) to colonize a much larger area of North America, persisting in competition with the British colonies to the south? --70.134.48.188 (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. schyler (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a more historical question: what arguments would have been made by the Dutch at home in 1674 in favor of Suriname as the more valuable colony?--Wetman (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

At that time, South America was of much more value to Europeans than North America. The silver, gold, and non-British/Spanish land were there, and the Guyanese Shield hadn't really been populated. They probably figured that if they went inland, they would find something like the Spanish did when they got to modern-day Peru. In addition, Suriname was a perfect place to set up a port, because they were located right in the middle of multiple colonies; the Spanish were in Venezuela and several Caribbean islands, and the Brits had Guyana and their islands to the west, while the French had French Guiana and several Caribbean islands, and the Portuguese had Brazil to the east. It would have been the perfect stopping point for trade between those colonies, and Paramaribo is still a trade center. Suriname today is an odd place; 70% below the poverty line, but not a huge amount of violence (outside the occasional spat with Guyanese troops). What can you say, other than it's nice not to have Hugo Chavez on your border? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

August 28

Crime in Denver

Is crime in Denver and its mafia really that bad? Now I know that Chiristophep Walken and Andy Garcia charachters are fictional,but are they modeled after real criminals. Is Denver the worst town in the USA as far as crime is concerned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.65.192.93 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

[Geography of crime in the USA] should be of interest to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royor (talk • contribs) 03:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Denver's fine. Are you getting your info from Christopher Walken characters? Shadowjams (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

See United States cities by crime rate. Denver has lower than average rates of crime in all the categories listed, so pretty safe as far as U.S. cities go. —D. Monack ^talk 17:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hitler as a Surname

In most (all?) Western cultures, it is rather uncommon that a surname is used only by a single person or family. What about "Hitler", as in the Nazi dictator? I wouldn't expect to see a person with that last name today; yet, to me, it appears to follow German spelling rules and as such one would believe it to be a not that uncommon German surname. Did every "Hitler" change their last name after the end of World War II? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

According to this BBC article "German parents are not permitted to name their children Hitler". However, I assume that is limited to first names, and not for people who already have the surname "Hitler". Gabbe (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it originated as a semi-idiosyncratic or dialectal alteration of "Hiedler" in the generation preceding Adolf, which would explain why it's not a common German surname. However, there are reportedly a number of Himmlers in Bavaria who see no reason to change their name... AnonMoos (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

According to one of those people search engines, there are several people named 'Hitler' living in the US. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not just individual names, either — I've seen one part of the USA where there are two Hitler Roads. The Indian mound in the picture lies near the intersection of Hitler Road No. 1 and Hitler Road No. 2 in Circleville Township, Pickaway County, Ohio. Nyttend (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I remember seeing an old news item originally published in the 1940s, in which an American named Hitler was quoted as saying "It's not me who's causing all that trouble -- let the other guy change his name!" --Anonymous, 04:38 UTC, August 29, 2010.

Heh. If that's true, the joke was re-used 50 or more years later in Office Space, this time by a character called Michael Bolton. "Why should I change? He's the one who sucks!" 81.131.68.208 (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

See William Patrick Stuart-Houston. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

According to our article, Paula Hitler lived as Paula Wolff after the war. Hut 8.5 11:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest: Belgian child killer Marc Dutroux was so infamous that 1/3 of Belgians who shared his surname changed it when the case came to light. --Sean 17:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Crusades

Were crusaders considered wise men?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, but not in general. Individual crusaders might be considered wise, like Godfrey of Bouillon, Richard I of England or Louis IX of France. But nobody really became wise just because they joined a crusade. The First Crusade was the most celebrated crusade, and many of the crusaders who returned to France were celebrated as heroes (Robert II of Normandy, for example), but anyone who came back before reaching Jerusalem was usually despised so much that they were forced to go back and do it properly (Stephen II of Blois, for example, who ended up getting killed the second time). Even for the First Crusade though, there were episodes that were not considered wise - the whole Peasants' Crusade, the huge amounts of adultery and prostitution that occurred during it, the possible cannibalism, the massacre in Jerusalem at the end...basically anything the crusaders did right was attributed to God's favour, and anything they did wrong was because they were sinners, a standard medieval explanation for everything. The Second Crusade was considered very unwise, and most people thought the Fourth was pretty unwise as well. There was also a lot of criticism of crusading in general in the Middle Ages, and some authors noted that the kinds of people who went on crusade (other than the kings and other nobles who led them) were often criminals looking to escape punishment at home, who then continued their criminal lifestyle in the east. James of Vitry and Burchard of Mount Sion wrote about that. Vitry actually made a list: "criminal and pestilent men, wicked and impious, sacrilegious, thieves and robbers, homicides, parricides, perjurers, adulterers, and traitors, corsairs - that is, pirates - whoremongers, drunkards, minstrels, dice-players, mimes and actors, apostate monks, nuns that are common harlots..." (from Historia Orientalis, ch. 83). The presence of these kinds of people in the east led to the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, according to critics like Vitry. I would suggest reading "Criticism of Crusading, 1095-1274" by Elizabeth Sibbery for more information on this. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Took the liberty of closing AnonMoos's wlink to Stephen II of Blois. Deor (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The early crusades had several aspects, some of which (such as bigoted religious fanaticism directed at both Jews and Muslims, and the avaricious land-hunger of younger sons of the aristocracy) would not be considered too edifying by modern standards. However, another aspect of the crusades was that the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 A.D. opened up the possibility of a two-pronged Muslim military assault on Europe -- so that if an advance on the Balkans through Anatolia could be combined with a revival of Muslim power in Spain, then Europe could be vulnerable on both eastern and western fronts simultaneously. From that point of view, the first Crusade was partly a sober strategic maneuver to strike a military blow behind enemy lines, and so distract Muslim states from expanding into Europe, and perhaps ideally form an alliance with the remaining Christians in the middle east that could form a solid Christian beachhead in the heart of enemy territory. The first Crusade was actually rather successful in accomplishing some of these goals, at least for a time; however, subsequent Crusades after the second quickly deteriorated as far as having any real strategic military importance...

Of course, yet another aspect of the Crusades was seeking simple revenge for the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 A.D. AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Creation of Pashtunistan and consequences for NATO

It seems to me (and I'm by no means an expert on the matter) that the Taliban, in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, are at least to a certain extent driven by a sense of Pashtun nationalism that has co-opted a certain interpretation of Islam. That is, just as the Viet Cong were at once a Communist and a nationalist movement, so the Taliban are at once fundamentalist and nationalist. In that case, what would be the effect of the creation of Pashtunistan in southern Afghanistan on the Taliban? It seems to me (please reference above caveat) that the likely outcome, supposing that the borders were drawn such that there were no major Pashtun populations excluded and that the ISAF withdrew completely from the new country, would be that the Taliban would quickly take it over, and then redirect most of their efforts into the Pashtun areas of Pakistan. Pakistan, in turn, would immediately try to either gain control of or destroy the new state, because it would be viewed as a threat to the stability of Pakistan. In which case, the ISAF would have transitioned from fighting an insurgency that is partially based in and sometimes even aided by a neighboring country to sitting on the sidelines of an conflict between two states -- i.e. the attentions of the Taliban would be directed to regional actors, and would cease to pose a significant threat to the US or Europe.

Obviously, this would never happen, not least because of the glaring immorality of essentially throwing the civilian population in the area to the wolves, so to speak, and also because it is probably a Very Bad Idea to do anything to encourage the rise of a fundamentalist state in a country with nuclear weapons. But considered as a hypothetical, without reference to whether it SHOULD be done (answer: no), do you think I am generally accurate in my analysis? What factors have I not considered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.0.81 (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The Reference Desk does not engage in speculation. Rojomoke (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, RD contributors quite frequently enters into speculative arguments. However, there cannot be an definitive answers to hypotetichal scenarios. There are streams of Pashtun nationalism, in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, but it seems very, very unlike that those forces would be able to acheive full separation from the two existing states. Pashtun nationlism in Pakistan carries secular values, and is sometimes somewhat leftist. If that movement would acheive major success (as the separation of Pashtun areas from Pakistan), it would probably affect the balance of power inside Afghanistan (as Pashtun nationalism could emerge as a political alternative to the Taliban). That scenario is, however, again one of the least likely outcomes of the present conflict. --Soman (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

killing

Why do we kill people too show that killing people is wrong. --86.41.133.57 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the Reference Desk. How may we help you?--Wetman (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume from the phrasing that the questioner has an essay on the paradox of capital punishment... have you tried our article on Capital punishment debate? --Saalstin (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Good deductive thinking, Saalstin.--Wetman (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• • If the question is just "killing", we do this consistently in Abortion, no? MacOfJesus (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing

In fact, what this guy's saying is quite right. Capital punishment should be abolished. We have no right to take someone's life even if he is a killer (locking him away for life is enough ). Gandhi is perfectly right when he says that taking an eye for an eye will make whole world blind. But some religions have killing (those who commit adultery, homo or not follow your religion) as principle. Even punishments like cutting someone's hand (for thievery) is not OK, and should be banished.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We need Peace, no ?

Excuse for soapboxing masquerading as a valid question.

We know like anything that islam is a religion of peace, infact it literally means peace. Then what is problem in letting 'em build a mosque at ground zero ? I mean it will bring peace, and that's all we need !  Jon Ascton  (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Islam means submission to God, a very pious goal indeed. Peace is not the goal of Muslims, however it is (seems to be, I'm no islam expert) total conversion of the human race see this. The question one must ask themselves is what is important in life and how does one accomplish that which is at the top of the list. If your list includes subjugation of a religion which you think is false, rather than conversion of that believer, then your prerogative is just that. I assume you are an American Christian. I would urge you to crack open your bible and read Matthew 28:19 and Isaiah 2:4.schyler (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC) This is the problem - What Schyler is saying is perfectly right but most people in west will discourage him from being so open or even mark him racist etc. Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Islam does NOT in fact mean "peace" in Arabic. It is, however, derived from the same triconsonantal root from which the Arabic word for "peace" -- salaam -- is also derived (which is quite a different matter). As for the phrase, see article Religion of Peace... AnonMoos (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC) And of course it's not a mosque and it's not at the WTC site, but you know...details. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Yeah, it's not exactly a mosque, but something close enough to islam. That's enough to be seen as a trophy of triumph of the only true faith over the infidels, future generations will be held in awe  Jon Ascton  (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Well, that shows the value of taking you seriously. Foregone conclusions all round. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Well, there is something wrong with the way we think (I sound damn impolite to you. Political correctness required.) You should read brave muslims like Ali Sina. They will open your eyes (provided they are in working condition)  Jon Ascton  (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Swastika ...Said the guy who had a swastika in his userpage [5]--151.51.145.104 (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Just wanted to see how an animated .GIF looks in userpage. I could have drawn any shape, but this shape looks most interesting while rotating. I have no Nazi or even religious affiliations.  Jon Ascton  (talk) ...Said the guy who wrote Yeah, it's not exactly a mosque, but something close enough to islam. That's enough to be seen as a trophy of triumph of the only true faith over the infidels, future generations will be held in awe.--151.51.145.104 (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC) ...and this does prove that perfectly sane people with no prejudices or racist bias are not very happy with islam  Jon Ascton  (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC) ...Quipped the IP user who was quick to jump to conclusions and didn't bother to look further to find out the user was Indian and the swastika could very well be first and foremost ornamental or of religious significance to him. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC) I will add a Swastika to my user page too, we have to stop this silly assumption that anyone using it is a Nazi. You might as well say the same thing about the cross, which appeared on many Nazi medals. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Well, I actually expected this. That swastika is more similar to this [6] than this [7]. Then try to explain the artillery and Stalin picture too...--151.51.145.104 (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC) I hope I will not be accused of being a fascist or similar for pointing out that the intended meaning of a Swastika (at least partly) depends on the context it's used in. For example, deliberately wearing one outside a Jewish Community Centre/ Jewish person's home or a Synagogue is obviously a very provocative act. The symbol predates the Nazis by many thousands of years. From WP Swastika, "it is widely used in Eastern religions and Dharmic Religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism." It was in use in the US by Native Americans, Boy scouts and sporting teams. It was used as a good luck symbol. This of course changed in the 1930's when Hitler chose it as a symbol for his regime. One recent story was from New Zealand where a Hindu migrant painted a large Swastika on his roof. A neighbour, who as I recall was a WW2 veteran (and had a good view of the roof) was understandably a bit dismayed by the sight. The Hindu was surprised by the ruckus it caused.[citation needed] Because of the Crusades, Muslims seem to feel somewhat the same about the Christian Cross. This symbol is used by some "white power" groups, it has other meanings and was used by a martial arts group I was involved with (more like this ) meaning something entirely different. Context! This page Western use of the Swastika in the early 20th century and external link, Reclaim the Swastika may be of interest. I'll get off my soapbox now. If my post starts any argument or trolling, I'll be happy to see it deleted! 220.101 talk\Contribs 08:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC) One of the names for a Greek cross inside a circle is "Sunwheel" or Sun cross, and it's been claimed to have many meanings in various contexts... AnonMoos (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Considering that the Crusades caused far less damage and disruption to middle-eastern societies than the Mongol invasions, I wonder why Muslims don't claim to be offended by the Soyombo symbol... AnonMoos (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Because the Mongols are no longer a threat to the Muslim world? The notion that the Golden Horde would rise as a world superpower again is really, really distant, whilst quite few Muslim countries have experienced Western colonialism or occupation during the past century. (One could of course argue that the modern USA is by no means a direct incarnation of the Crusaders, but such an argument is not helped by the discourse of George W. Bush & Co.) --Soman (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC) In other words, it has far more to do with modern politics than with genuine ancient grievances -- exactly as I was implying... AnonMoos (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Human Height Over History

Is there a graph showing the average height of humans throughout history? --Cgpgrey (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The Biological Standard of Living in Europe During the Last Two Millennia is confined to Europe and has zig zag graphs. Dug up by Rockpocket as an answer to this similar question. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

In several parts of the world, height seems to have gone down with the adoption of intensive agriculture supporting dense populations in prehistoric times, since such settled agriculturalists often had less-diverse and lower-quality diets than their hunter-gatherer or slash-and-burn agriculturalist ancestors. In the last century or so, it has tended to go up in the nations with "advanced" economies... AnonMoos (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

On seeing a suit of armour in a Castle in, or close to, the Black Forest, Burg Eltz, the impression given is that the people then were small in stature, even allowing for short plating to give a better freedom of movement. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Whereas, in fact, height has varied widely with time and place, as shown in the link. We should be careful not to sort history into 'here and now' and 'all other times and places ("then")'. I remember seeing an interesting (written for laypeople) article on how the heights of (I think) Fins had varied in recent generations, and it was very dramatic: I think it then went on to broader points about height variation across history, but I'm struggling to find the article. I think I may have the country wrong. Does it ring any bells for anyone? It might have come out about the time people were starting to talk about the epigenetics of height. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To go back to my experience at Burg Eltz, it was the historians familiar with this branch of study who made the inference, (the words are theirs). The families there (directly related) did not show any shortness in stature, and were embarrassed. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

May I add an important point here. The Child Growth Foundation, have just published their figures (BBC News). They say: We are overall 1" taller than we were 100 yrs. ago! I present this to show how professional people often relate to us their findings, often forgetting Logic! MacOfJesus (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an article page; Human Height, this may be the article you are looking for. It contains the graph, I think, you are looking for. (Also, there is a long list of "see also" at the end). {The Historians who gave their lectures were using their shades of humour.} MacOfJesus (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

August 29

Who painted the iconic "The Sad Clown" painting?

I assumed this painting was pretty famous but there is no Wikipedia article on it to my knowledge, and its painter remains a mystery to me. It seems to be called The Sad Clown, going off the fact that it dominates the Google image search results for that term: http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=%22the%20sad%20clown%22&biw=1280&bih=641 . I do know that the painting is of Emmett Kelly and that his official painter was one Barry Leighton-Jones, but a scan of Leighton-Jones' website does not show this specific image and a Google search doesn't show it either meaning I doubt he actually painted the legendary "Sad Clown" painting I'm referring to. Any ideas? NIRVANA2764 (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Barry Leighton-Jones? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you click my google link? That is clearly a different image from this one. --NIRVANA2764 (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Some kid named Aiden claims that it is his painting, a copy of the style of Leighton-Jones. Responses to his claim are filled with people claiming that he is certainly not the painter. I agree. Leighton-Jones made many paintings that look exactly like this. -- kainaw™ 14:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

1907 pogrom in Poland

The front page of the July 18, 1907, Pittsburg Press describes a horrible pogrom that had just taken place in "Skonitz," which the paper described as a Polish town on the border with Austria. I can find no other information on the Internet about this event, nor can I find anything about a town of "Skonitz" -- there is no place of that name in the JewishGen Communities Database. Chojnice, Poland, known in German as Konitz, is not in the right location. Does anyone know what town "Skonitz" might be or have any more information about this massacre? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Chojnice was right on the German-Polish border, but that would mean the NYT made two separate and considerable errors. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

When I Google "Skonitz" I find this from the NYT: "le maSsacre of Jews has occurred at Skonitz. Russian Poland, r. car the Ausirian frontier. In reply to query, the correspondent at Jtarsaw of tile Russian ...", which is filled with Optical character recognition-errors. Could "Skonitz" be an OCR-error too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I saw it in a graphical reproduction of the Press page. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the original article, and it says "Skonitz". N.b. I think I'm wrong about Konitz. Our article says it was in Germany at the time. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to muddy the waters with a little ignorant Googling, there was an attack on Jews in Konitz (Prussia) in 1900, according to this tabulation : http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/HistoryJewishPersecution/ citing "P.E. Grosser & E.G. Halperin, Anti-Semitism: Causes and Effects, New York: Philosophical Library, 1978". The American Jewish Year Book for 1908-9 ^{[PDF, 1.35 MB]} (page 131) does have a simple timeline listing of a massacre in Skonitz on July 18, 1907, which I suspect was based on the same press reports as The New York Times and The Pittsburgh Press. The two-sentence dispatch in the former from St. Petersburg, July 19, quoting the Warsaw correspondent of the Russian Telegraphic Agency as knowing nothing of such a massacre, is here (PDF from microfilm or photocopy rather than an OCR transcription). —— Shakescene (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This map: File:Galicia 1897 1.jpg shows the region in question. The Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria was part of Austria, while the white area to the north is Russian, or Congress Poland. I am pretty sure this is roughly the area known as Volhynia. My best guess, looking at that map and checking the cities listed, is the city of Kremenets, which is noted for having a large Jewish population pre-WWII, though no progrom is noted there. According to the article on Volhynia, the area had a large concetration of Jewish Shtetl, or villages. See also Pale of Settlement for a more general history of Jewish areas of Russian Poland. The article Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire notes that the years 1903-1906 were particularly bad for Jews in Russia at the time, but states that by 1907 they had mostly subsided due to large exodus of Jews to the U.S. Apparently "mostly subsided", since there were still some. I can't find the exact city you were looking for, but these articles should give you some ideas on where to look. --Jayron32 05:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if The Pittsburgh Press is a reliable source about Jewish pogroms in Central Europe, but the name "Skonitz" seems made up to me. It sounds like a Germanized version of a Polish toponym, which would be "Skonice" in Polish, but there doesn't seem to be a village or town of this name of Poland. Besides, if the alleged pogrom took place in the the Russian Empire, then why would the reporter use a Germanized name? I can't vouch for an American journalist's knowledge of European geography, but I would interpret "Russian Poland" in 1907 to mean the "Congress" Kingdom of Poland and not the entire Russian partition of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (mostly coextensive with the Pale of Settlement). — Kpalion^(talk) 11:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is almost certainly from a newswire, or a collection of newswires. Even in 1907, a mid-size American daily wouldn't have reporters in rural Poland. I also can't imagine they would just "make up" a story like that, although it's possible a correspondent in Warsaw or St. Petersburg may have had his information wrong. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

mma fighter

WHATS THE UPDATE ON MIKE WHITEHEAD mma fighter sry caps legal case. what did he plead he was arrested almost a year ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

According to article Mike Whitehead he was arrested in April, hardly a year ago. This indicates he's still fighting. And this shows his case is up sometime this month Rojomoke (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we add "WP is not a news service", to wp:NOT? I thought it was already there, but...NOT! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 13:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Highly classified US government information — only for the president?

File:CIA Memo.JPG is a now-declassified briefing that was prepared for George W. Bush in August 2001; with a few words redacted, it was made public in 2004. The bottom of the page bears a marking of For the President Only. Why would the Vice President be restricted from seeing such a document? Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The President's Daily Brief is generally considered to be maybe the most highly-classified document out there, and it is at the President's discretion to show it to the Vice President or anyone else. Now as you can tell from that particular document, it is not necessarily the case that it contains information that is very exciting or even unknown (Bin Laden wants to attack the US? You could have learned that from Newsweek at that point). I suspect the classification level is due to a few things: 1. high-level programmatic information (you can tell what all of the parts of the CIA are generally worried abou), 2. high-level foreign policy info (you can tell who they are spying on, what decisions are being made, etc.), 3. liability issues (as with that particular memo, for example — it shows that the President had something brought to his attention, and if he doesn't act on it and it does become a problem, then he's wide open for attacks of mismanagement), and 4. it is probably usually an example of over-classification, where in reality the information warrants either just "secret" or maybe even "confidential" at times, but it gets a blanket "top secret" just based on the fact that it is a PDB.

As for why in general would the President not want to tell the Vice President things, there are lots of reasons. Some Presidents have only trusted their VPs with certain amounts of information. Roosevelt famously never told Truman about the atomic bomb in his lifetime. Presidents often do not regard the VP as being a political equal in any way, and quite a number of VPs have openly clashed with Presidents. The key to keeping a secret is not having many people know it; if the VP knows it, maybe he mentions it to his staff, who mention it to someone else, and onward. Maybe the VP has lunch with a Senator and accidentally leaks out the information, and the Senator doesn't realize it is secret, and so on. In this particular case, I would be surprised if Cheney was not in on the PDB's, but again, that's at the President's discretion in this case. The whole point of that classification level is to give the President the option to share or not share it. It is worth noting, of course, that "For the President Only" is not a legal classification level, just an administrative directive. The document itself was probably graded "Top Secret", which is. An easy indication of this is that when declassifying it, they didn't need to cross that line out, whereas they did cross out the classification category (the line just to the right of the "For the President Only" line). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I recall having been in discussion with a software vendor in about 2004 who provided a package that allowed the brief to be protectively marked at quite a high degree of granularity. As part of the management of that the various copies of the PDB were personally labelled for the reader, as the protective markings may vary according to who the reader is. One can be sure that the whole brief is open to the President, but other readers may only have access to a subset.

ALR (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

In general there is often a high degree of granularity in classified summaries. It used to be that some of the Executive Orders from the 1970s required each paragraph to be marked separately, or something along those lines, so it could be segregated if possible. (E.g. "Someone has set us up the bomb. (C) Make your time. (U)" — the first statement is "Confidential", the second is "Unclassified". Usually this would not be a sentence-by-sentence thing.) It doesn't surprise me that the software would make this easier, assuming that all of this stuff is going to be not just typed up by people in Word anymore. The late Clinton and Bush E.O.s changed classification procedure quite a bit so I don't know if that applies today (or applied in 2004) in the same way as before. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The approach at the time was using Word with an XML plug-in allowing paragraph by paragraph classification. The vendor in question were permitted to use the brief as a sales credential so we discussed it in quite a lot of detail. It was then passed through a processor that disseminated as a PDF with a page by page decrypt. Quite impressive although in real terms of limited value for most clients.

ALR (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This document "The U.S. Intelligence Community and Foreign Policy: Getting Analysis Right" by Kenneth Lieberthal of The Brookings Institute mentions this declassified document directly (see p.9) as part of the President's Daily Brief(as mention by Mr.98). It was at one time "produced and presented by the Director of Central Intelligence", so it presumably would be an amalgam of data that, in total, was not possessed by any other single person in the US Intelligence Community. I imagine the President could pass that information on to anyone with the requisite need to know and security clearance, (such as the VP, but I am naturally unfamiliar with the exact details, which are probably classified too!). It may be that as the Commander in Chief the president can pass it to anyone they believe needs it, with clearance or not. One possible reason for the high classificiation is that even what the President knows is potentially a useful piece of data.
• ALRs' comment is interesting as I have heard of software that makes each copy of textually identical documents individually identifiable. I believe it was by uniqely altering the spacing between words, or perhaps even individual letters, for each copy. 220.101 talk^\Contribs 15:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The President has the authority to declassify (or downgrade) at will, basically. Note that it is not clear that the Vice President actually has that same level of declassification authority. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, thanks. I had no idea that the President could downgrade classifications or show information to someone whose clearance wouldn't permit it. I had expected that if Bush had shown Cheney this document, either or both would be in violation of some law or another. Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason the President gets to do this is, I believe, 1. almost all regulations on classification in the U.S. is done by means of Executive Orders, not laws (there are a couple exceptions — Espionage Act, Atomic Energy Act, and Patriot Act, I believe); 2. the idea is also that the President could not be forced by, say, the Air Force, or the Army, into not revealing information. Other agencies are more interconnected in this respect — the DOE can't release military information without getting the DOD's approval, or foreign policy information without getting State's approval. If the President couldn't release things without getting approval, it would mean for a sticky authority issue. Congress on the other hand cannot release anything without agency approval. The Courts run into all sorts of odd problems with regards to classified information disclosure. (Everything from the state secrets privilege to graymail.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

As to why the PDB is top secret, I'll add one point to the numbered list above: 5. If its classification level is known to vary, then people know which days the President is seeing things that are more highly classified. So it makes sense for it to always be the same level. (Of course, if I actually knew anything about this, I'd now have to kill you.) --Anonymous, 04:15 UTC, August 30, 2010.

The long blanks look like a foreign intelligence service and the short one looks like an allied service.
Sleigh (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "an _____ service" is most likely "an Egyptian service"; see the "Redactions" section of Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US, our article on this memo. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not Israeli? Googlemeister (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know; the article said that this determination was made by a group of top cryptographers. Nyttend (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Rawsons

Was Arturo Rawson a descendant of Amán Rawson? LANTZY^TALK 12:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wills' letter to Lincoln

Looking at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Gettsyburginvitationpage2.jpg , I cannot understand the last sentence of the second paragraph (the one beginning "I am authorized..."). Where I lose it is after "... invite you to be present and participate in these ceremonies, which will...". Could someone with a better grasp of cursive please to transcribe it for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.0.81 (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"I am authorized by the Governors of the different states to invite you to be present and participate in these ceremonies, which will doubtless be very imposing and solemnly impressive. // It is the desire that after the Ovation, You, as Chief Executive of the Nation, formally set apart these grounds." TomorrowTime (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!69.120.0.81 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that Wills used the long s multiple times, writing "ſs" when today we'd write "ss". Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Just in the interest of complete accuracy, I missed three capital letters - I was writing my response in a dash, and haven't been at a computer since that, that is why I'm a little late with this. The capital letters I missed are the s in "states", the y in the first "you" and the c in "ceremonies": "...Governors of the different States to invite You to be present in these Ceremonies, which will..." TomorrowTime (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange colon

Hia. I came across the name of Benjamin Perley Poore in a book by Michael Kammen, where he is consistently spelled "Ben: Perley Poore". I found some other contemporary sources like this New York Times obit, but I still can't make sense of that colon; is this some unusual (or even usual) way of abbreviation or did this guy simply have a quirky name? --Janneman (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's frequently used to indicate that the "Ben" is an abbreviation, and not his name. I've seen it used when a man's name was John and he was referred to as "Jno:". Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to based on the system used in American libraries in Charles Ammi Cutter influential work Rules for a dictionary catalog where the colon means the name is abbreviated and not merely being used like a middle initial would be with a period (C: A. Cutter). B: is used for Benjamin in that work though and I would have guessed Jno: would be Jonathon perhaps. meltBanana 00:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Th: Jefferson", Thomas Jefferson's signature

The colon was commonly used in the 18th century to abbreviate a personal name, as you can see by looking at the signatures on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States; George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, among many others at that time, regularly used a colon to abbreviate their first names, though others used just a period. Somewhere along the line in the 19th century, the colon dropped out of style and the period became the norm, as it is today.

Also, I know that my grandfather, whose first name was John, not Jonathan, on a few rare occasions did abbreviate his name as "Jno." - an old-fashioned style that is all but forgotten today. Textorus (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all, that was helpful; I'd just never seen it written before (it seems Jefferson forgot the colon when signing the Dec Declaration of Independence...) --Janneman (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Ratzinger "subsequent illness" during Wehrmacht service

The Wiki article concerning Pope Benedict XVI includes the following quote:

"Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry, but a subsequent illness precluded him from the usual rigours of military duty. As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household. As a German soldier, he was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the end of the war in the summer of 1945."

These three sentences are completely unsourced. In particular, I am interested in the phrase "but a subsequent illness precluded him from the usual rigours of military duty." I googled this phrase and came up with over 6700 hits using this precise language, including the English spelling of the word "rigour."

What is the source for this? Is Wiki the source being quoted by everyone else (I don't think so), or is Wiki quoting another source without attribution? And from what "subsequent illness" did he suffer?

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Nrglaw (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it's so unlikely that a few thousand people have quoted Wikipedia's article on a figure as notable and controversial as Benedict XVI. The phrase doesn't appear at all in Google Books, and Google gives no hits with site:.va, so I doubt it's a copyvio. The fact that it's unsourced is a pretty major problem, though. I suggest digging through the history until you find the user who added the text, and then asking them. Also, add an unsourced tag. (Pet hate: please don't call Wikipedia "Wiki". It's not the only wiki in the world.) Marnanel (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Relevant link: WP:NOTWIKI. Vimescarrot (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

English language with most speakers

This is kind of language and society, so I'm putting it here. I'm an English upper-school student from Suffolk spending a semester in here the US as part of an exchange programme for children from well-off families to be exposed to the culture of other Anglophone countries. In History class one day we were discussing the English language and its international use, and the teacher asked why English was so widespread in use. A student said that this mainly was because of US influence around the world and somehow tied in the US 'winning' the World Wars!!! These weren't very young students either, they were 16 and 17 (albeit in a state school). I was dumbfounded, and more so when the teacher said that was correct!!! BEfore I could respond the announcements came on and the students started pledging their [blind] allegiance to the flag which is a totally different question in and of itself, and it was for some reason regarded as mandatory. What could have caused this total ignorance of a particular empire upon which the 'sun never set'?! 76.235.109.75 (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's no mystery. It's common for people to overestimate the historical importance of their own country. In the words of Enoch Powell, "I sometimes wonder if, when we shed our power, we omitted to shed our arrogance." LANTZY^TALK 21:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The British Empire may be responsible for the prevalence of English in India, Canada, Australia, etc., but you can't deny the impact of "American hegemony" in establishing English as the world's second language in non-Commonwealth places like France, Germany, Japan, China, Latin America, etc. Incidentally, if your school is portraying the Pledge of Allegiance to be in any way mandatory, it's breaking the law. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

on your last statement. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

[8]. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Times change! Thank you for the link. I will point out as a quibble that this would not be "breaking the law" because there is no law stating that students can't be compelled to stand and say it; rather, any law compelling same is (now considered) an unconstitutional law. Comet Tuttle (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of going horribly off topic, the law that is broken is the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution as shown in the cited reference. —D. Monack ^talk 20:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to be pedantic like me, you'll assert that the Constitution is the Constitution and not a mere "law". Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Teachers, being employees of the state, can be compelled to lead the Pledge, in a public school, but the students are under no legal obligation to participate, although peer pressure usually fixes that problem. Private schools are probably a different matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

While I think it laughable that they "won both wars" I do agree that it is US influence that has caused English to become such a prominent language (Irish so I consider myself unbaised).--178.167.189.165 (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Our article section English language#Significance sums it up well, I think:

Its spread beyond the British Isles began with the growth of the British Empire, and by the late 19th century its reach was truly global. Following the British colonisation of North America, it became the dominant language in the United States and in Canada. The growing economic and cultural influence of the US and its status as a global superpower since World War II have significantly accelerated the language's spread across the planet.

Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as a year in a US public school is concerned, you've been "traded down"; you'll find you have some catching up to do when you return to Britain.--Wetman (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

One can certainly make the case that although the British sacrificed far more to achieve the Allied victory in WWII, it was really the U.S. that, along with the Soviet Union, came out as the "winning country." Before the war, Britain was the world's leading imperial power. After the war, the UK was dependent on U.S. aid and credit and quickly lost its empire, while the U.S. became a "superpower" with involvement on all of the continents. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a complicated issue, and I am not sure entirely related to this topic. But one can say in the first place if the UK had not held its ground in the first year of the war it is unlikely the US would have bothered entering the war with the force it eventually did. The outcome of the war, at least, would have been very different, and would probably have played out more like a cold war scenario, considering the difficulty of each party to launch a full scale invasion then. Next, as you mentioned, the Soviet Union, was as much part of "winning the war" as the US, in fact one could say with their relatively greater losses much more so. So a statement that the US won the wars is not incorrect (after all they were among the winners), but if it was implied that the US singlehandedly won the wars is plain wrong. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Britain went to war to fulfill its obligation to protect Poland from foreign invasion. At the end of the war, Poland was still under foreign occupation, which means that Britain failed to meet its original goal and thus lost the war. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not quite true - we went to war to stop Germany invading Poland. Also in 1945, it wasn't clear that the Soviets weren't going to restore democracy in Poland - at least to optimists. But we're drifting badly off-topic here. Alansplodge (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

---

76.235.109.75 -- It was rather striking that in the 1880's, 1890's, and early 20th century, when Britain's share of world industrial output started to significantly decline (from 22.9% in 1880 to 13.6% in 1913, according to Paul Kennedy), and there came to be strong rivals to Britain's naval predominance, the English language did not correspondingly lose momentum, but instead went on ever greater strengths. The main countervailing force inhibiting the peaking and eventual decline of international English usage was the influence of the United States... AnonMoos (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Whereas I agree that the nationalism shown by the students was quite ridiculous, I 'essentially' agree with them. Prior to World War II, English, French and German where more or less equal in importance - probably French was somewhat ahead the other two as a lingua franca in international affairs. In the second half of the twentieth century, however, English quickly became the undisputed lingua franca - almost exclusively due to the rise of the US as the foremost world power. --Belchman (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The second part of the question, regarding the allegiance to the flag, is an important one. C. G. Jung warned against this. This question does seem to colour thinking, here. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There's something deeply funny, maybe even reassuring, that every British-U.S. conflict on Wikipedia has familiar contours. Person from country A says that they don't understand something from country B, quite understandably, then country B responds with a rational response, although maybe with a bit of their own version of history, then country A responds similarly, repeat, repeat. Shadowjams (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

At last, Logic prevails. I keep thinking of a song: "I'm an Englishman in New York, I'm an Alien....". C. G. Jung also spoke of the collective unconsciousness, perhaps we are now "proving" it. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

August 30

Historical population continent statistics - these seem highly suspect to me

Asia 1800 - 649,000,000. Europe 1800 - 9,000,000. See the article continent. I find it extremely hard to believe that THAT much of a disparity existed between Europe and Asia in 1800. Can we make sure that the article is relying on accurate statistics?--CokeIan (talk) 01:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that is way off. See page 6 (table 2) of this UN report for example.--Cam (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone should change it then if it is inaccurate, especially on a page like continent which is probably viewed by a lot of people, it's getting 4000 views or more almost every day. Isn't it in the interest of Wikipedia to be accurate?--CokeIan (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been removed now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes... by me. See Talk:Continent#Historical populations. Astronaut (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A good source on historical populations is here, under "Historical Statistics". (we have an article on Angus Maddison who compiled the data). I might have time to make the sums and add that, but not right now, so posting here in case anyone else feel compelled to do it. Jørgen (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

U.S. National Defense

Is it right that if someone sabotages or tries to sabotage commercial aircraft in U.S.A. it will be taken as breach of U.S. National Defense and State will react accordingly ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There's probably half a dozen agencies that would like to take a crack at you if you sabotaged a plane. Likely, whoever got you first would arest you, and then you'd be prosecuted under federal criminal law. --Jayron32 04:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking whether or not it would be treated as a "criminal" action or as a "war" action, it is not clear, at the moment. Terrorism (which sabotage of an airplane would probably fall under) is currently a murky category in the U.S. legal system, half way between criminal law and acts of war, and so you could either be sent to federal court to be tried like a common criminal, or you could be sent to Guantanamo Bay to be held as an enemy combatant. This is even more in flux since the Obama administration has on the one hand been saying it is going to phase out this Bush blurriness, but has only phased it out in some places in a limited fashion.

If you're asking whether it matters that the aircraft is commercial and not, say, a military plane — I don't think it does, no, but it's an interesting question. Certainly hijacking a commercial plane can put you in jeopardy of being attacked by the military in retaliation, for example, not just the civilian police force. This is a notable difference; if you hijacked a car or sabotaged a train, I don't think military authorities would intervene unless the civilian forces were totally overwhelmed. Planes are treated differently though because of their ability to be used as weapons, etc. I don't know if this is specifically a post-9/11 thing or not. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If cars can't be used as weapons, why is there a crime called, "vehicular homicide"? Googlemeister (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Patent - General Question

If I have an idea then, should I check whether it had already been patented, before I start implementing it. If yes, what is the rationale behind this. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are only doing it for your own experimentation, say, in your basement, it doesn't matter much whether you do a prior art search first. Most jurisdictions (but this is not legal advice!) have it so that if you are just researching or experimenting (in the U.S. you have to be doing it for "purely philosophical" purposes), you are not infringing on other people's patents. If you plan to use the patent in any kind of commercial context, though, you will need to check for prior art, because you could be infringing, and open yourself up to legal risk. Imagine you set up your business based on your great idea, and it turns out it is already patented. You've just set yourself up for a massive lawsuit from the patent holder, who will happily clean you out of whatever profits you were making and probably some more. That's a pretty strong rationale for checking the prior art first! If there is any doubt, one should check with a lawyer first, obviously. These terms, like "commercial" and "purely philosophical" and so forth have precise legal meanings in whatever jurisdiction you are talking about, and one should not assume one understands them without legal training. (I certainly don't!) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's already been done, why reinvent the wheel? (article?) Dismas|^(talk) 12:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There can be good reasons to reinvent the wheel — because often that leads to innovating on the wheel. Edison for example had a large library attached to his workshop that contained probably thousands of patents by competitors. Reinventing the wheel often means finding a new or slightly different way to do something, or at least ending up with the deep understanding one would need to actually improve on things (as most inventions are not, in fact, bolts out of the blue). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't know where you live, and that will make a difference. I know for a fact that in the United States there are several software corporations that specifically tell their staff to not research patents for this purpose, because if the staff notices that their work infringes a patent and they proceed anyway, and get sued by the patent holder, then they could be found to have willfully infringed the patent, which means the infringer may pay triple damages to the patent holder plus their attorney's fees.[9] Personally I think this sounds like a risky legal stratagem that would not be advised by patent attorneys outside of the software area, but I am not a lawyer, so what do I know. As another aside, I'll ask whether you've attempted to search patents in the past to look for a particular invention. Many patents, lately at least, are impenetrable to understanding, what with having 96 claims, all phrased absolutely as broadly and generally as possible, in an effort to claim as much "territory" as possible. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why corporations and researchers generally employ professional researchers to look at the prior art — people who understand both the law and the relevant field of study. Both are quite difficult things to investigate. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I know patent prevents someone else from doing what was patented. My question is, how one can say, like, I got this idea first so no one else can do this. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking about how to file a patent, generally speaking, you come up with the invention, you hire someone to investigate the prior art for you to see if it is already patented, then you usually hire someone who is experienced in writing up patents to work with you to write it up as an application, then you submit it to the patent office. It costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time, which is one of the reasons learning how to do a prior art search on your own, or hiring someone to do it for you, is pretty important. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually Mr98's original post isn't really correct. Patent, unlike copyright, requires no knowledge of the patent to be an infringement. And doing it in your basement, while nobody'd probably ever know enough to sue for it, is likely a violation. There's no general exception to patent law for personal or small-scale use. Shadowjams (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my post is correct. There is an exception, but it is very narrow. See Madey vs. Duke University. Basically if you are doing it in your basement "solely for amusement, to satisfy curiosity, or for strictly philosophical enquiry" (e.g., in no way for a business model), you are not infringing. It is narrow (as Madey makes clear) in the sense that just doing something for academic purposes does not count as "strictly philosophical enquiry." --Mr.98 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I never learned about, or forgot, this exception in the little patent law I took. Thank you. I would point out that the experimental use exception is narrow and has become only more narrow since Madey, the case that your link's discussing, and that the statutory language contains no such exemption. The Solicitor General in an amicus brief to the Madey appeal actually wrote: it is "improbable that a 190-year-old, judge-made defense with little rooting in any statutory text could anticipate the challenges of the modern academic and research environment and adequately accommodate the competing policy concerns." I guess I'm not the only one surprised by the experimental use doctrine. There's an excellent law review article about it here Shadowjams (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Pledge of Allegiance

How often is this done in schools? Is it daily? I was astonished to read that American school children have to do such an Orwellian and militaristic thing in America, of all places. I would have thought it was completely against the USA culture of do-what-you-like, and something I would only have expected in the regimented culture of North Korea. Do not parents object to it as brain washing? Americans must be used to it and take it for granted, but in Europe not even the most right-wing government would propose doing it. I'm not sure if the Soviets had something similar. 92.29.119.94 (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we used to do it on Friday, when they would play The Call to the Colors on the loudspeaker. And each classroom had a flag mounted. I suspect it's not done as much today, but maybe Pledge of Allegiance will provide further info. Someone asked a similar question the other day, and the answer is the same: While public school teachers can be compelled to lead it, being state employees, the kids cannot be legally compelled to recite it, although peer pressure might influence their decision. And have you even read the pledge? It's a positive thing, expressing ideals that we continue to strive for even if we often fall short: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." I say it proudly. And so should you, if you're American. And if you're not American, you should be envious. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

... and justice for all. Bears thinking about, doesn't it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Also stated standalone as "equal justice under law". An ideal that we often fall short of, for sure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a lot of issues with the Pledge. We can start with the problem that children who are too young to be able to understand the import of the oath, let alone pronounce "indivisible", are being asked by authority figures to swear it. Then again, I know what it means to pledge allegiance to the Queen. It means that if she turns up and tells me to make her a cup of tea, then I should do it, and if someone acting for the Crown asks me to do something, then I should do it. Similarly, I can pledge allegiance to the republic for which the US flag stands, because the officers of a republic can give instructions. But I don't know what it means to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth, or a red-and-white stripy design, since neither of these things is likely to be giving me instructions, and I sadly suspect it means nothing at all. Then there's the "under God" part, which is troubling in a secular environment like a school. Then there's "liberty and justice for all", which is a nice thought, but quite blatantly not a description of the United States at any point in its history. (I am actually a parent of a school-age child in the United States, so this isn't an abstract issue for me.) Marnanel (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact kids may not totally understand something yet, such as respect for their homeland, is no excuse not to teach it to them. The flag and the republic represent us. We are pledging allegiance to ourselves and to each other. The "under God" stuff apparently came from a misunderstanding of what Lincoln meant when he said "this nation under God..." which was more of a prayer than an assertion. I'm pretty much agnostic myself (as was Lincoln, supposedly), and I don't consider it a big deal, because you can define "God" in any way you want to. Meanwhile, if you think the American flag is just a stripy piece of cloth, you might want to go back to school yourself. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because I went to school in England, but yes, I think a "flag" may be a) a piece of cloth, b) a design, c) an identifying mark of an organisation or country. None of those are things which I understand pledging allegiance to. If you're saying that pledging allegiance to a flag is equivalent to pledging allegiance to the country for which it stands, a) then the pledge is tautologous and b) I have never in my life heard someone say "flag" when they meant "country". Marnanel (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The American flag means a lot more than what you think it does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Marnanel. A flag is a graphic design that represents our government. Pledging to the flag itself is another one of those great mysteries. If a flag ever asked me to make good on that promise I'd tell it to mind it's own business of looking pretty in the wind, and it didn't like it I could replace it with a Jolly Roger for about $10. APL (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Marnanel, you talk about taking instructions from an officer or from the Queen. Aren't you confusing allegiance with obedience. One can take issue with one's country's laws and be very publicly at odds with one's own government, while still being totally loyal to one's country. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the origins of "under God" as a phrase, it was deliberately added to the Pledge in 1954, with Eisenhower signing it in so that "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." It was not meant as a neutral phrase, but one explicitly meant to be a "dedication" of Americans to a monotheistic God. Whether you think that is a good idea, or in line with the First Amendment, or whatever, is up to you, but don't soft-peddle its origins. It was a move in the period of high McCarthyism to contrast the US against the "atheistic" Soviet Union, a nice piece of Cold War propaganda pushed primarily by Catholic interest groups that has been recited by school children for over 50 years now. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we said the pledge once a week in high school. It was read over the loudspeaker while the students stood. Relatively few students actually said the pledge out loud along with the loudspeaker -- peer pressure actually worked against it. I guess it was uncool then; things may have changed. —Kevin Myers 12:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I graduated high school in '92 just to give you a benchmark. We said it every day at the Catholic grade school that I attended for the 8 years previous to high school. Dismas|^(talk) 12:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Being a private school, they could probably also compel the kids to say it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of the schools that I attended (in the UK) had a flag or even a flag-pole, so it all sounds a bit odd to us Brits. Still, it would be a dull old world if we all did everything the same wouldn't it? Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Because in the United Kingdom the allegiance is to the crown not the flag which is why most public building in the UK dont have flags outside. Except for in American films showing Britain! MilborneOne (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In the UK we do not serve the government, the government serves us. 92.15.9.145 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In the US, the government is us. That's the ideal, anyway. That's why our "monarch" is an elective office. It's a job, rather than some kind of divine right. So do British kids actually say a pledge to the Queen? Or is Milborne being metaphorical? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Never. You may owe allegiance to the Crown as a citizen, but it doesn't mean you have to stand up and recite it every day like the Nicene Creed. Marnanel (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean subject, as opposed to citizen, or did you change that phraseology a few years back? Googlemeister (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, we've been citizens since 1981 - Subject is very different. Bizarrely, immigrants do swear loyalty to the Monarch, as part of taking citizenship, but for those born here it's just assumed - the idea of reciting something like that in public, particularly in normal discourse like any school day, is really quite creepy --Saalstin (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You think that to pledge allegiance to your home country is creepy? That's creepy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

It's the practice of being required to do so, and being required to do so every day, which is creepy. If it is appropriate, for instance on becoming a British citizen or on taking a seat in Parliament, there's no problem pledging allegiance - and once done, it is done forever (or unless revoked). But reciting a pledge of allegiance by rote, in a group, every day? Britons would ask "What's the point?" Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In American public schools, kids are not legally required to. Private schools obviously can set their own rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

But there is a strong element of 'coercion' if the whole class is being led in the recital of the pledge, is there not? See my favourite Supreme Court Justice, Anthony Kennedy, in Lee v. Weisman. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why forcing kids to pray is not allowed in public schools. And I say again, teaching American kids patriotism is not a bad thing, even if they don't fully understand it yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Well, there are two different things in play - first off, public displays of just about anything is deemed quite impolite (although less so for youngers) - being overtly romantic, religious, political, anything in public is simply socially inappropriate, it makes us feel awkward, so expecting something to espouse something like that would be considered rude - just think, what if they didn't agree, or approve?. Secondly, we look with bemusement at American displays of patriotism - stadium sized flags, military jets flying over sporting events, a flagpole on every home (until a couple of years ago, we rarely even flew one on the legislature) - it's entirely unnecessary, and we'd feel that what matters is what you think, not what you do, and people who need to show off quite that much are probably compensating for something. (That's an broad sweep, there will be Brits who don't agree. And that's all before you get into the philosophical issue about 'pride' in the actions of people nothing to do with you, and an organisation like a country where, certainly as a child, you had no choice about whether or not you were a member) --Saalstin (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in trying to get kids to realize there are other values out there besides just what they want for themselves at a given moment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, and that's why we study.... history and philosophy, why we get involved in civic society, why we think and form our opinions by sifting information through an open mind, why we expose ourselves to different ways of living, life experiences, and perspectives here on this desk - and I don't see how trying to make kids chant a set creed at a piece of cloth is anything other than anathema to that... I mean it's one thing in church, where people choose to be there, but if kids are legally required to be educated... I mean, OP successfully started a debate, and I'm trying not to soapbox, but it really is the sort of thing no European politician would seriously suggest enacting if they wanted to win - Brits would shuffle around looking embarrassed, Germans would ban it as dangerously nationalistic, French would have a seminar on the logical implications of forcing people to pledge to be free to do what they wanted... :) --Saalstin (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to the Bug's proposed idea that USA and USA's government are one and the same, (or that that is an ideal we should be striving for.)

The USA government is just a group of people doing a job for us. Nothing more. No need to get religious about it. APL (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand his intent. The government is formed by the citizens of the USA, ostensibly to serve the will of the citizens of the USA. Therefore, the people are part of the government and vice-versa. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We pledged some kind of allegiance to something when I was in cub scouts, but I've forgotten what it was. A fictional wolf, possibly. 213.122.54.123 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"I promise to do my best, to do my duty to God and to the Queen..." but then you don't have to join the Cubs if you don't like it. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

MilborneOne, can you seriously imagine a school in the UK asking kids to swear allegiance to the Crown? Because I can't. (I don't think I've ever sworn allegiance to the Queen, except possibly in Cub Scouts, although I have sworn allegiance to her husband.) Marnanel (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds a noble ideal, but, being British, I would mentally cringe if I had to say it, or if I had to force kids to say it. I expect it is just routine in the USA because they have been saying it since early childhood. Dbfirs 13:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And to Americans, the idea of pledging allegiance to a monarch is cringeworthy. We pledge allegiance to our country and its ideals, not to a person. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I would cringe at any pledge of allegiance to a monarch, flag, country or whatever, especially if forced to do so. Dbfirs 17:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for another datapoint of OR- I'm American and I cringe at it. The pledge is not to the USA's ideals, but to its flag (huh?) and the republic itself. Staecker (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The flag and the republic represent those ideals. Although it was better when it was "MY flag" and left out the somewhat pretentious "under God" part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a famous image that sort of sums up what I, as an American, think of forcing the students to say the Pledge of Allegiance. This has nothing to do with instilling patriotism. Comet Tuttle (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cute. Those kids all appear to be east Asian. Any idea where and when that photo was taken? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No they don't. And so what if they are Asian? Read Bellamy salute. Staecker (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Aha, that article explains the context. Just as the Nazis took a perfectly good symbol, the swastika, and made it an object of revulsion, so they did likewise with the Roman salute. Hand over heart is better anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Bugs: pledging allegiance to the Crown is not pledging allegiance to a monarch. Otherwise you'd have to take a new pledge if the monarch died. The Crown is a corporation that runs the country. The monarch is just a person. Marnanel (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes it is; "I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law." Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

So you're pledging allegiance to some other entity, whereas in America we are pledging allegiance to the government, which is us. Maybe that's the difference. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Not so different; the Queen only governs through Parliament, which is us too. "The King and the land are one". Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article on Oath of Allegiance (United Kingdom). 95.150.22.219 (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

National mysticism is the hazard in this kind of ritual. 213.122.54.123 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

(I am as guilty as anyone, but I think this discussion has moved away from Reference Desk territory.) Marnanel (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The question could have been zapped for being provocative. But I find the many answers here to be interesting and enlightening. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perish the thought that anyone might post anything provocative. 87.112.130.90 (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The OP's original premise was ridiculous and ignorant, but I learned some things today, so it had some inadvertent value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ignorant? Howso? This is a case where People from one country do a very unusual thing that is otherwise primarily seen in stereotypically strict dictatorships. The question is : Do they really do this, and why? Perfectly reasonable. I live here in USA and have asked the question many times.

Once again Bugs, you need to learn that some people are different than you, and that's OK. (Personally, I even think it's a good thing!) APL (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

When I was in high school I believe we had to recite it once a week, hand of our hearts, facing the flag. That was in the late 1990s. I certainly had to do it in elementary school, I believe every morning. Public school, all. I had no clue what the words meant, didn't care, and became immune to them through repetition anyway. "And to our republic for which it stands" never made any sense to me (I suppose I never thought about what "it" was supposed to be in the phrase). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"...And to the republic for Richard Stans", as one old joke goes. Kids often don't get what the words are of things they are asked to recite, and that's a failure on the teachers' side. We used to sing Christmas carols in school (even religious ones, in the public school) and for many years I wondered why "Silent Night" had a phrase about a "round young virgin". So, at what age did it finally click with you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

At school in Canada (or at least in Ontario) we heard the national anthem every morning, and since I went to a Catholic school we had a prayer every morning too, but we didn't have to actually sing or pray. Most people did; I didn't, and eventually I figured out I didn't even have to pretend to look like I was praying (this is the extent of my teenage rebelliousness). No one ever takes an oath to the Queen or anything else, except for politicians, new citizens, and I think we may have also done that in Scouts. Citizenship ceremonies take place on Flag Day, but that might be a coincidence, because Flag Day is not even a real holiday. (It's just a flag, after all.) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In my earliest school days, pledge was done every day. As for some comments earlier about monotheism, let us not forget that even Thanksgiving, per the original proclamation, was to give thanks to God. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving has nothing to do with the USA per se. It is pre-USA by a long margin, and certainly the Pilgrims do not and did not pretend to represent all Americans, nor is there any kind of requirement to actually celebrate it. (Not to mention it has been essentially secular for over a century.) It is not really comparable. More problematic are things like National Day of Prayer. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

When I was very early in school, age 6 or so, we did the pledge every morning, but later (age 13 on) we never did it. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Pledge of Allegiance has no force whatsoever. It doesn't obligate you to anything. Some people feel a wave of patriotism, as Bugs seems to, but many other people do not. It's a civic ritual, and all too easily abused, as in a recent Maryland case where a "troublemaker" child refused to stand for the pledge and was sent to the principal's office by her teacher. When, the following day, the child again refused to stand, the teacher summoned two school system police officers to remove the girl. The school system's own handbook says "You cannot be required to say a pledge, sing an anthem, or take part in patriotic exercises. No one will be permitted to intentionally embarrass you if you choose not to participate." Further, Maryland state law allows any child to be excused from the pledge, and the Supreme Court has held since 1943 (in wartime, no less) that children cannot be compelled to salute the flag.

Of course, if you're a 13-year-old, it takes a lot of grit to stand up to a fuming (albeit ill-informed) teacher, to say nothing of the cops.

I'm guessing that few people who think it's such a great idea to make small children parrot this stuff would quickly step forward to defend the individual rights underlying the refusal. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It was weird not saying the pledge in school. At least, I felt weird. No one really ever asked me, so I never told them my Biblical reasoning behind not pledging my allegiance to a government of mankind (which will be "crush[ed] (Daniel 2:44)"). And I live in Texas to boot! I remember a big fuss over being required to say the pledge at the outset of the Invasion of Iraq and being told I must get parental permission to not put my hand over my heart. I implicitly refused and nothing of came of it. My comrade in faith chose not to stand while the pledge was being said while my prerogative to stand respectfully. It is worth a note that I received a 'C' in that particular English class when I totally understood the material and a low rating in my classroom behavior. The teacher was an Army veteran. schyler (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We said it daily when I was in high school in the late 1980's. As a teacher, though, I've seen that it isn't a priority at most schools- the only school where I've been expected to lead it is a private fundamentalist Christian school. It does make me uncomfortable, but I am a state employee, so I'll lead it if I'm told to. I just moved into a new school building, and we don't even have flag-holders in our new classrooms, so I guess it's really not a priority. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I went to schools in rather liberal area, and occasionally they would start doing the pledge over the PA, then forget about doing it for a while. I agree that it certainly seems undemocratic, or just plain silly, to have children robotically recite a loyalty oath they can't understand every day, but most people never stop to think about all of the connotations of their cultural norms. A good example is the Christmas tree -- from a non-Christian's perspective, it sure seems odd to chop down a tree and drag it into your living room so it can drop needles all over your carpet and die, if not burn your house down, but most people have only warm and fuzzy feelings about it and would never think of it that way. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Particularly in the southern hemisphere, where Christmas comes at the height of summer, and allusions to snow, reindeers, sleighs, winter wonderlands, chestnuts roasting on open fires, and the like, are all completely out of place. But there you go, that's culture for you. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Historical basis

The OP could easily have phrased the question in a more neutral wording, but the question still stands, since at least in the Western world it is an unusual phenomenon. So I don't see how the question itself is "ridicoulous and ignorant". I think we need to get some history buffs on the field. How come the pledge of allegiance became common practice in schools in the US? --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Making a sub-section of this, to kinda bring us back on topic.

I don't have access to actual citations right now, but I seem to recall that the pledge was mostly just used on holidays and other historically significant days up until around the 1940s. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ruled that students could not be compelled to recite the Pledge in 1943, right during World War II. America's own military and national power had grown tremendously since the Great Depression, which led to a bit of nationalism. There was also a bit of anti-immigrant racism and fear which helped spur the "you're not as patriotic as me" sentiment among the dominant white class. The Red Scare during the 1950s cemented that, which is (IIRC) when many schools began doing daily recitals of the Pledge as part of their morning routine. Anyone who didn't participate was acting "unpatriotic," by those standards, and that could cause problems for that person in such a politically and racially tense period. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Medieval distillation of perfume

Was it considered a crime to distill perfume (alcohol based) in Medieval times?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My first reaction is "no", but we'll need a lot more information than that to figure it out...why would it be a crime? When in the Middle Ages are you referring to? And where? I'm sure you must be referring to a specific incident. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you suspect it might have fallen under laws regulating the distillation of intoxicating liquors, I gather such laws first appeared long after the middle ages, and mostly to tax spirits, not to prohibit them.--Rallette (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In particular I am referring to Charles V of France. In 1370 he received Hungary Water from the Queen of Hungary. Apparently he then started making this alcohol-based perfume himself with whatever ingredients. Did he make it illegal for others to make this type of perfume, since perhaps he desired to keep this new type (alcohol-based) perfume all to himself?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 10:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read something that suggests he would have wanted to do that? I really doubt he would. For one thing it would be difficult for him to make something like that illegal, and he had better things to worry about anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Just guessing, as he loved fragrances and I thought maybe he would like to control Hungary Water and its derivitives.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Let us also recall that fragrances substituted for hygiene, so generally speaking it wouldn't make sense for distillation to be illegal (being, rather, essential!), although I would expect that there might be some sort of guilds that had exclusive rights which would minimally prevent non-guild members from distilling for sale. Guilds were the original oligopolies. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Following up on what you say, I came across this of guilds and this related to perfume distilling that may have controlled distilled perfume at least to some degree - especially for resale.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

August 31

Proving file sharing in court

(This is not a question for legal advice, in that I am not actually implementing anything below nor am I in any kind of legal jeopardy myself. I considered posting this at "Computing" but it is more a law question than a computing one.)

Let's say that the RIAA was going to sue somebody for downloading mp3s, as occasionally happens.

First: How do they prove that this actually happened? I mean, I get that they can prove that an IP address downloaded a song as part of a peer-to-peer network, because they can sit there and watch it happen pretty much in realtime as a peer. But how do they prove that the IP is the same as the person they are suing? Wouldn't it look identical from an IP perspective if the download it question happened from someone freeloading on an unsecured or hacked network?

Would they need to actually confiscate the hard drive and find the file on it? What if the file had been since "securely" deleted?

I am just curious about evidence procedures in this situation, I suppose, combined with liability (e.g. am I liable for something downloaded on an insecure or hacked network?). It seems like both of these could be quite difficult to prove, especially when combined with the fact that I don't think the police are actually beating down anyone's door to check their hard drives, no? --Mr.98 (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This was one of the problems with Capitol v. Thomas; Thomas claimed someone could have put the songs on her hard drive without her knowledge. (And apparently her hard drive was never actually used as evidence anyway.) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, a hacked network would be indistinguishable. Similarly a shared network too. Civil cases like this won't regularly involve seizures like that. Often the IP information's enough. People could lie but lying under oath or to federal officials are both felonies. Many run of the mill copyright infringements aren't, although they carry hefty (one might say obscene) statutory penalties. A review of 17 U.S.C. § 506 should explain some of those thresholds, but I don't think anyone here can offer any precise guidance beyond that. Shadowjams (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Worth remembering of course the standard of proof in civil cases is different from criminal cases. And there's generally no presumption of innocence Nil Einne (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Legal differences matter, of course. But the original question references the RIAA, which is the Recording Industry Association of America, so I'm safe assuming U.S. law. That said, standard of proof in civil cases still is with the defendant, even in civil cases. It's merely a lesser standard. Shadowjams (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking in particular of advice that Bruce Schneier gave about wireless routers at one point, where he said that from a legal perspective, it probably made more sense not to secure them, because then if something dodgy happened on them (which might happen even if "secured"), you could always plausibly claim it wasn't you. I guess I'm surprised this isn't more common. Capitol v. Thomas was interesting, though I'm surprised more wasn't made of the evidentiary aspects. It seems to me like any good defense lawyer would focus on that angle of things, since it is the obvious weak point in the whole case. Once you let that go, it becomes unwinnable. It strikes me that a good Daubert hearing would make it easy to get a computer security expert who would say, "oh yeah, it's entirely possible that her computer was being used against her knowledge to do this." --Mr.98 (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 census info

When does the new census data come out? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

DR, you've been round here long enough to know that WP is an internationally based set up, and that it doesn't do to assume everyone here knows where you're from. Even so, it wouldn't necessarily be safe to assume you were talking about the census in your home country, wherever that is. Be a good editor and please tell us which census you're talking about. Thanks. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's [10] the answer. 81.131.52.4 (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Well, the U.S. does tend to do their census every 10 years.... and that might be a likely choice..... but you know, you could respond like that I guess. Thank you 81.131 for the pertinent answer. I might also add to Rosenbach that censuses give out aggregate data pretty soon, but full census results aren't available for about 70 years (that number might be wrong but it's in the right range) after their made, to protect for privacy. Shadowjams (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. The most important numbers for the United States Census's primary purpose, to equalize representation in the United States House of Representatives, must come out by December 31 of this year (2010) in order to allow state legislatures time to reapportion districts in time for the 2012 Congressional election cycle. Some states and cities, however, will hold elections next year (2011), and would like to have data that allow them to reapportion state legislatures, city councils and other multi-district bodies. The most important data are the number of people who can be classified as U.S. residents regardless of citizenship (excluding foreign diplomats, for example, but including those temporarily abroad on military duty). After that come data on race and ethnicity (such as Hispanic origin), in order to meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Acts and the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For the 2000 census, those data were released in summary form fairly soon after the basic numbers. According to the U.S. Census website:

The first data released from the 2010 Census are the official national and state population count, which are used to apportion seats in the US House of Representatives. As mandated by the US Constitution, this data must be delivered to the President of the United States by the US Census Bureau on or before December 31, 2010.

Then over the next two or three years, there will be a slow flood of data, both geographically-focused, for example, households, household income, school attendance, age distribution and housing starts in Pittsburgh, Pa. and Alpine County, California, and topically-oriented, e.g. a Census Brief on the Asian-American population, poverty in America or the distribution of American Indian and Native American tribes. In 2013, the Census will issue a County and City Data Book that will summarize many of these data. Every year, the Census publishes the Statistical Abstract of the United States; although the 2011 edition will have few data from the 2010 census, future editions will contain more and more.

For more information and time schedules, see our article on the United States Census, 2010 and explore the site at http://www.census.gov, especially the press releases.

You should also be aware that, since the first British census was held after the Union of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801, a number of interesting censuses will be taken in 2011, such as those of the United Kingdom, Canada and the Republic of Ireland. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And Australia. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a side question - Shakescene used the wording "American Indian and Native American tribes". What's the difference? I thought the latter was just the more PC expression for the former. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he/she meant "American Indian and Alaska Native"? That appears to be, or have been a category in the US census, see Race and ethnicity in the United States Census. Jørgen (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I was being deliberately imprecise; the actual terminology gets quite cumbersome and loaded with political nuances (often changing from census to census). I prefer "American Indian" but I understand why others prefer "Native American". Cf. (I'm approximating from memory, and conflating questions from different censuses) "Black, Negro or African-American", "Latino/a or Hispanic Origin", and various other choices offered to census respondents in order to include as many of the intended group without giving offense. And if you want to start a (perfectly-legitimate) side-discussion of all those thorny issues, please start a new thread. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Drug Cartel organizational structure

I'm an HR guy, and after reading the Wikipedia articles about some of the biggest Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, I've become interested in learning more about how they organize their operations. The articles don't really go into any practical details other than to say that some use weak cells. Where can I find detailed information about how a given cartel was/is organized? Surely there must be some academic work out there on some of the more famous, and deconstructed, cartels like Pablo Escobar's? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What's "an HR guy" mean? TomorrowTime (talk) 10:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Presumably Human Resources Rojomoke (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Freakonomics has a chapter studying this from the other end, asking why do so many street-corner dealers live with their mothers if drugs are such a lucrative trade. Their answer (I'm going from memory) was that, as with many other Multi-level Marketing (MLM) structures, the direct seller's hope is not to make a killing in direct retail (especially, in this field, considering the risks and costs of theft, violence and imprisonment) but to rise higher on the pyramid where he can profit more safely from the work of others. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What interest can a HR guy (which I hope is a legitimate thing) has to do with organised crime ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he's just curious. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned from the way criminals operate that could be used in legitimate business - stuff like The Art of War and The Prince are used all the time in business courses to provide theories on strategy. Frankly, I don't care why he wants to know. Matt Deres (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OP here. Organized crime, Jon Ascton, represents the extreme end of all HR. We are interested in motivating, retaining, developing, and - of course - at the end of the day controlling (though in a weak sense) employees. Criminal syndicates, the really big ones, do all of these things but with much, much higher stakes. If my company loses an engineer to a rival, we lose our investment in that person and perhaps a bit of our intellectual property. If a drug cartel loses a top member to a rival (or to the authorities), entire sections of their organization are compromised, families may be targeted, etc. Reading about Pablo Escobar and estimates that his syndicate made $60 million per day logically lead one to wonder how that was all controlled, how orders moved from top to bottom, etc. That's HR. 61.189.63.133 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

GDP deflator question

Sorry if this is a(-nother) stupid economics question, but I'm unclear about a property of the GDP deflator.

Suppose bread is £0.75 a loaf currently. Suppose taxes are increased purely for the purpose of subsidising bread, such that it now costs £0.33 a loaf, and this process is, in some sense, efficient (net cost to UK customers is the same). Would the GDP deflator change, and if so, how?--Leon (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry, I just had to jump in here, feet first!). In the UK there is no VAT on a loaf of bread, and as far as I know no tax! (Now to be serious): It is best to ask this question on the Mathemetical Reference page, but do change the example. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be VAT on bread to subsidise it from other taxes. Is Economics a branch of Mathematics, or a Science, or a Humanity, (or a Magic Art)? Dbfirs 20:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was/they were the Dismal Science. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "Household Husbandry" of "Country Husbandry", but there is'nt a Reference page with that title. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Um...how is this a mathematics question? Because it uses numbers? Incidentally, what I had in mind was slightly increasing income taxes such as to subsidise bread.--Leon (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Christian apologetics in the early 16th century

The article on Martin Luther states "In 1523, Luther advised kindness toward the Jews in That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, but only with the aim of converting them to Christianity.[193] When his efforts at conversion failed, he grew increasingly bitter toward them".

Well, what did his conversion attempts consist of? What would he say? What would Jews say in response?--70.122.112.145 (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

His conversion attempts, according to That Jesus Christ was born a Jew, were that Jewish people should be treated friendly and instructed kindly through the Bible, and advocated dealing with them according to the law of Christian charity. We must receive them kindly and allow them to compete with us in earning a livelihood. That was in 1523. By 1543 in Concerning the Jews and their lies, he was instead advocating burning synagogues. What the response to his earlier attempts was, I really don't know. Marnanel (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't an active attempt at conversion. He didn't proselytize to them. He thought that by reforming the church (and society in general), the Jews would see how great Christianity was in it's proper, true form, and they would all convert on their own. I don't think there was any sort of actual dialogue between them, but their reaction was something like "yeah, right." We also have an article about Martin Luther and the Jews, if that is more helpful (heh, he thought the Jews tried to poison him with kosher food!). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's as Mordechai Becher says -- Mohammed and Martin Luther attempted to create religious philosophies that they felt would be so consistent and compatible with Judaism that Jews would flock to their new visions for service to God. Luther tried to get rid of paying indulgences ("the coin hits the coffer and the soul springs to heaven), etc. But Jews sensed that there was no gain to these novel forms of religion because they already had what they considered the true monotheism, and they noticed how Mohammed charged that the Jews altered the true word of God, even though the Jews had the Torah before Mohammed was even born. Then he misquotes passages from the Torah...and when the Jews rejected Luther (and Mohammed) it caused them to become rabid anti-Semites. Becher explains that this was a result of what he call the "rejected boyfriend hypothesis." For an exposition of this (in the context of Arab-Israeli relations, in which he specifically draws parallels to Luther), listen to this 1 hr lecture. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A Walk over water

Is there any historical evidence that Jesus did walk over water ? If yes how was it made possible ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

See Jesus walks on water. There is no historical evidence that Jesus and Peter walked on water as the Gospels claim, except for the stories passed down by his followers and recorded decades later in some books of the New Testament. Edison (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what sort of historical evidence you're looking for, other than the obvious: sources for an incident happening in the middle of a lake are going to be restricted to the accounts given by people in nearby boats, which is what the Gospels claim to be based upon, and I suppose people with telescopes on shore, which were in short supply in the first century. Marnanel (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There's very little historical evidence that anything before the year you were born actually happened. See Historical method. But yes, the historical evidence is that three evangelists recorded the story in their books. --M@rēino 14:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't answer "if yes how was it made possible". Three possible answers: a) It didn't happen and the authors of the Gospels were making it up. b) It did happen, but there was an enormous sandbank, or the lake was unexpectedly frozen, or something like that, and this detail was completely forgotten when the story was written down. c) It was a miracle, which is both the explanation given in the text, and also not a surprising occurrence if the claims about Jesus elsewhere in the story are in fact correct. I can understand the reasoning of someone who believes the story is made up, but it seems an odd idea to me to start positing non-miraculous hypotheses with the assumption that this one part of the story was true, while assuming that the other parts about Jesus's identity were not true. Marnanel (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a very important point now to be mentioned : There was an Indian saint Ramakrishna Paramhansa. One day another sadhu (Hindu holy man) came to see him. This chap said that has the ability to walk over water and offered to give a demo by crossing the river that had no bridge or boat etc. Ramakrishna was unimpressed, he asked him how many years has he spent to learn this art. The sadhu said he has spent twenty years in training hard to accomplish this feat. Ramakrishna repined him severely on the ground that he has wasted his life while one needs only 20 cents to hire a boatman to cross the river ! I have related this anecdote to show the philosophical state of mind of Indian saints. Such a spectacular feat (we'd give all we own to see a genuine miracle) looked a child's play to them. Does this mean that such feats were common in East ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

No, it just means that Ramakrishna pointed out that the sadhu spent 20 years learning a very useless thing. It's far more practical to simply pay for a boat than spend 20 years learning one trick that won't be useful in everyday life. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Little Red Riding Hood is not evidence that wolves in European forests used to be easy to mistake for old ladies, and could talk. When children are told this story, they are supposed to notice the more relevant messages. 86.161.108.172 (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a matter of faith, and presented as such. King Canute demonstrated that he was not a god by this method,(not being able to achieve this), to show his subjects he was a human leader. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There are four first-person accounts of Jesus walking on water. No others. schyler (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll bite. The articles you linked to note that today's critical scholarship is that these are not even first-person accounts. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And it's not in Luke either. Buddy431 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Distribution of oil/aid money ....

Some gifted or cursed countries have natural resources or nothing at all so their people do not work. How do their governments distribute oil money or foreign aid to their citizens? Is there an article on this interesting issue?

More specifically, how do Saudi Arabia and many other oil riches distribute money to their people? How did Nauru distribute phosphate money to their own people, well, a couple of decades ago? How do countries living on foreign donations distribute the money? -- Toytoy (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Foreign aid is handed out as food or blankets or whatever. Oil money doesn't belong to the government, it belogs to oil companies. The government taxes them and the workers get paid by them of course.--178.167.224.76 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Related, perhaps: resource curse. --Sean 17:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Abbey of St. Juste

Does anyone have an idea where this abbey might be?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The French WP gives some tantalising hints; one of the sons of Philippe II de Savoie[11] (also Philippe) was "abbé de Saint-Juste à Suze". That could be Suze, Drôme[12], or La Suze-sur-Sarthe[13], or apparently it was the old French name for Susa[14] in Piedmont, Italy. None of these seem to have an abbey, but the articles are not very good. There is a Cathédrale Saint-Just-et-Saint-Pasteur[15] in Narbonne but it doesn't seem to have been a Carmalite abbey. Apparently, St Just and St Juste are variant French spellings of any of these saints[16]; below that is a list of towns called Saint-Just. Of course, there are two St Justs - St Just in Penwith and St Just in Roseland - both in Cornwall, but neither have an abbey. Sorry I can't find anything more at the moment. Alansplodge (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I was having the same trouble. Google seems to think that the only context in which this abbey is ever mentioned is in this specific reference to the invention/production of perfumed water. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22abbaye+st+juste%22+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= Could it be a self-propagating false reference? I couldn't find a St Juste (or Saint-Juste or Saint-Just) on the French wikipedia list of abbeys in France: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_abbayes_et_monastères. Also no results on the French Carmelite order website http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=juste+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.carm-fr.org%2F&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= Best, WikiJedits (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This bunch seem to make Carmelite water (Eau des Carmes) these days. Their history page says that the secret of making it was obtained by one Father Damien of the Discalced Carmelites of the rue Vaugirard in Paris. They set about producing it, and it became incredibly popular. This site also gives a Paris Carmelite religious order as the source. I can't find any reference to an abbey or convent named Saint-Just(e) in Paris, on the rue Vaugirard or elsewhere, although there was a Carmelite foundation of St Denis and there's currently a convent in Montmartre, but it seems likely that if the stuff did indeed originate in a French Carmelite community, it may well have been in Paris. Karenjc 18:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it Against Wikirules?

This user User:Lihaas's user page has

en-us-3 This user has an advanced understanding of American English.

en-us-0 This user does not understand American English and doesn't bloody well want to.

at same time. There maybe other contradictions as well, for instance he claims to come from Lahore and Mumbai at same time. Other claims are also probably exaggerations. Is this all OK ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.129.74 (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Wikipedia:User_page or Wikipedia:How_to_use_your_user_space saying that what's in your user page has to be truthful. As long as it's not done with intent to deceive (as both contradictory statements are in plain view), I don't think this breaches any rules. Rojomoke (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And this should probably be asked at Wikipedia:Help Desk, not here. Rojomoke (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

fortunately or not, it is never against wikipedia policy to be an idiot. we should all bear that in mind. --Ludwigs2 18:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a tag that says: "I don't suffer fools gladly". & "Common Sense prevails always". "I have a sense of humour". & "Pull my leg at your peril". MacOfJesus (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There probably already is, and it presumably serves to label those who have no sense of humour, react badly to people disagreeing with them, and have a short temper. Or do these phrases not have this euphemistic sense where you live? 86.161.108.172 (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

fishing

In the US, do you need a fishing license to fish in the ocean? Googlemeister (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

According to The Fish and Wildlife Services website, fishing in saltwater areas require a liscense issued by your state. For instance, in Texas, you must have a liscense from The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and follow all regulations set out by The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Get a fishing liscense from your state and follow all fishing season regulations and you are legal. schyler (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Does that include fishing from a boat, and how far from shore before a license would not be required? Googlemeister (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A license wouldn't be required in international waters; I'm not sure how far from shore that would be. --75.33.216.97 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

. Some places require a fishing license to bring fish to shore at that location and don't care whether you were 199 or 201 miles out to sea when you caught the fish. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere in that second link to the GMFMC it says that after more than five miles out you require a commercial liscense, maybe. 71.21.143.33 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In Florida you may fish without a license in either fresh or saltwater provided your feet are on land. This does include wade-fishing or fishing from a dock. However, certain species of fish (like snook) require special "stamp" permits to keep. You must also obey any slot-restrictions in effect. The moment your feet are no longer on earth - be you in a canoe, kayak, inflatable boat, or any other sort of water craft - you need to be carrying a license. I apologize for offering unsourced statements, but I haven't time this morning. As a 22 year resident of Florida and diehard fisherman, please trust me! 61.189.63.133 (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Flag colors

Why do so many countries use a red, white, and blue color scheme for their flag? Off the top of my head, I can think of America, England, France, Russia, and Holland, but I'm fairly sure that there are more. --75.33.216.97 (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Cuba, Liberia and Chile, Australia and New Zealand also come to mind... Googlemeister (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think of how many countries there are (I think the Animaniacs count 180) and how many colors there are (hmm...12 or so, with primary, secondary and dark and light, and not including colors that do not seem statesmanlike, such as magenta), you can easily figure out how many permutations are possible and how it's not altogether strange that 5 or 10 countries use the same 3 colors. And it's at least somewhat likely that certain countries took the colors of other countries -- the US split from Britain, so maybe they used the same colors. I mean, come on...New Zealand's flag is a complete rip-off of Australia, unless it's the other way around, and both are rip-offs of the British flag. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why did France, Russia, Holland, Cuba, and Chile also choose those colors? If there are 12 colors, then there are 220 possible three-color combinations for 180 countries, so it's still strange that 6 countries (I'm counting America, England, Australia, New Zealand, and Liberia as 1 because they're all ultimately derived from the British flag) would share the same colors. --75.33.216.97 (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting a whole plethora of Slavic countries which use a variation of the Russian tricolor of, you guessed it, red white and blue. There's Russia (of course), Slovakia, The Czech Republic, half of the ex-Yugoslav states... TomorrowTime (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You may be intrested in a question, similar to this, asked on this desk on 29th July, entitled: flag question, 1.1 MacOfJesus (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

[written while other answers were being given (an edit conflict), so forgive some duplication.] Believe it or not there are Wikipedia articles and lists on this subject. Briefly and very partially, there are a couple of coincidences which happened among influential nations who inspired other nations to mirror their colo[u]rs. When England (St George's Cross, red on white or silver) progressively united with Scotland (Saint Andrew's Cross, white/silver diagonal cross [saltire] on blue), various combinations of these two flags were used at sea and on land, resulting (after the 1801 Union with Ireland) in the present Union Jack. See commons:Flags based on British ensigns. ¶ One such flag is said to have inspired Peter the Great to use a white-blue-red design for an ancestor of the Flag of Russia (as used before and after the Soviet period), which in turn inspired Slavic nationalists resisting Turkish, Austro-Hungarian or Greek rule. See Pan-Slavic colors. ¶ Various flags of the United Colonies copied, either consciously or unconsciously, the colours of the British East India Company (a Union Jack in the corner with red and white stripes in the rest of the flag). These flags evolved into the present Star-spangled Banner. Because the United States were an example to others of a republic breaking free of an imperial monarchy, red, white and blue were adopted by several new countries, especially those with a historical tie to the U.S., such as Liberia, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Panama. ¶ Many other countries are or were part of the British Empire, and when settled or conquered by Britain, adopted a flag with a Union Jack in the first quarter (like the East India Company's), e.g. Australia and New Zealand. While many independent former British possessions deliberately adopted their own colours (often historical colours, Pan-African colours or Pan-Arab colors), some of them kept a red-white-blue scheme, with or without the Union Jack. For a historically-unusual example, see Flag of Hawaii. ¶ In 1789, the French tricolore (blue, white, red) was adopted, both as a flag and as a rosette, to symbolize the union of the French monarchy's traditional white with the blue and red which dominate the arms of the City of Paris. See tricolour. This inspired a huge number of republican and anti-monarchist movements, both within and outside Europe. ¶ There's a separate history, with which I'm not very familiar, for the horizontal Dutch tricolour used today. I don't have time now to give the bibliographic references, but most general authorities on flags for laymen, e.g. those of Whitney Smith and Alfred Znamierowski, discuss this topic in some detail. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

See also Gallery of flags by similarity#Blue, red, and white —— Shakescene (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Lists of flags might be interesting, although not providing a direct answer.—Wavelength (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, on a completely unrelated but possibly interesting note, the Counts of Celje had a coat of arms design with a striking resemblance to the US flag. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Dante and physics

On the Dante's Inferno article, it says that Dante feels a change in gravity after passing through the center of the earth. Would someone (granted, an intelligent someone) from the 14th century know that much about something like that? Myth of the Flat Earth says they knew about a round Earth, but what about gravity?  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 22:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)