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

September 4

Absolute pitch

Hi again all. My music teacher last semester said that it's very likely that I have or could develop with some training the absolute pitch. (This is probably based on I have played piano for almost all my life, I speak a tonal language natively, and both my grandparents have it). I know what it is, but my question is how do I know if I have it, and how can I train or develop it? 99.13.222.181 (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, absolute pitch is genetic, not learned. If you have it, you can develop it; if you don't, you can't. All absolute pitch means, effectively, is that you can recall and reproduce pitch accurately from memory: in other words, if I say "Sing a C", you can produce the correct pitch on cue. easiest way to test if you have absolute pitch is to pick a note on the keyboard, hit it a few times and try to memorize it, and then come back to the keyboard the next day and try to sing the note again, testing it by hitting the same key afterward. If you get it right (or very close) then you likely have it. --Ludwigs2 00:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As always Wikipedia has an article or two about this... Absolute_pitch#Nature_vs._nurture, Ear training--Aspro (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This is often known as perfect pitch, which relates to the same article page. However, there is another "gift" which I only met one person with it; that is the ability of "seeing music". MacOfJesus (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a form of synesthesia, which isn't all that uncommon among musicians. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; I did not know it's name. Beethoven, apparently had it, explained why his deafness did not hinder him. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to adduce synaesthesia in Beethoven's case, just because he was deaf. Close your eyes, turn off all external music, and silently imagine someone singing your country's national anthem. Or, imagine them singing it deliberately off key. You've got it, haven't you. But does that mean you're experiencing synaesthesia? No. If, whenever you hear music with your eyes open, you see letters, numbers, colours, shapes; you get certain tastes in your mouth; you experience certain smells - or vice-versa - that's synaesthesia. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, This one person, who reached dizzy heights in Music, convinced me that he had something that was different. His ability to "balance" music was extrardinary. I take your point that a learning process can bring this about, but to what level? MacOfJesus (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The question is, why would you want perfect pitch? It would presumably be fixed to the pitches of whatever instrument you used to learn it, making other pitches and tunings sound 'off'. Would you learn concert pitch? What will you do if you have to play an instrument that is tuned to a different pitch? How much recorded music will sound distractingly 'off' to you? Far better to learn relative pitch and (possibly) a reference sound for a given note, so you can recall it if needed. Although even relative pitch can be distracting: I wish someone had told me about just intonation and equal temperament when I was tuning and retuning my violin, not understanding why the strings could seem to be tuned to perfect fifths and yet a perfectly in-tune scale (based on scales I played on the piano) could sound a little off. Nowadays I hear a range of acceptable tunings as I play two strings together, choosing how 'perfect' I want it to be. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

ʃ

last question, I promise! In older English you see the long s. What are the rules about where ot use the long s? I need to use them in a project —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.222.181 (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It was used most places except after another long "s" or at the end of a word. By the way, I don't think you have a real long s character above; our article has "ſ"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The long s looks different in different fonts. While the glyph used above is Unicode U+0283 (Voiceless postalveolar fricative - not to be confused with U+01A9, Esh (letter), or U+222B, Integral symbol), it does have the same look (on my computer) as some of the more script style long s's - like the first one in the long s article, whereas the actual long s glyph (U+017F) looks more like the one in the Paradiſe Loſt example on that page. (Personally, I prefer it with the descender, but realize that would be more appropriately handled by changing the font.) -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The "ʃ" that you use in the title is or is very similar to what we use in my Phonetics class for the French sound "ch", which is like the English sound "sh". The "ſ" proposed above looks more correct to me. Falconus^{p t c} 04:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The long s stops at the line and has no descender. It is generally used as the first of a pair of s's in a word, or as a single s. The small s started out as the form used at the end of a word. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to use long s, just recognize it, and enjoy the Flanders and Swann rendition of the old fong "Greenfleeves".--Wetman (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Or Shakespeare's "Where the bee fucks there fuck I". (Sorry.) AndyJones (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Family Fable

There is a story of my family that I was always told and was wondering how I can do some (academic) research on the subject. It goes like this: Brigget Von Schyler was to be married in the morning. Alas, her fiance died in an unforeseen carriage wreck in which he drowned. Brigget was consoled by the [insert noble title] and taken into his castle to help with chores. Unbeknownst to Brigget the duke had actually had her fiance killed to take her as his mistress! Buisness being done, Fritz Carl Schyler Raadt is born. Being an illegitimate child, he soon immigrates to Montreal and then to Buffalo, New York in the late 19th century. Fritz's son's son's son's son is me.

Some facts are known, like Fritz was indeed raised at Orebygaard estate and did immigrate to Montreal. His mother was named Brigget. No one, however, knows who his father is.

The story takes yet another mysterious twist when Fritz's grandneice visited Lolland in the 1930's. Upon inspection of the castle she found that the "hall of portraits" was sealed off, unable to compare fritz's photograph with that of the noble-in-question.

Even more interesting, I have recently discovered from a comrade of mine who knows Danish that my last name (Raadt) can be translated 'Advisory Committee,' which seemingly comes from a committee which was convened to name this recently born illegitimate child, and naming him after the committee which was formed to name him.

Altogether quite interesting. I want to know how to get some more facts. Any help would be greatly appreciated! schyler (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. I am posting a related question to translate a letter into Danish to mail to the Bed and Breakfast that now occupies the estate.

Your best bet is to consult genealogy resources in the area where this is proposed to have happened (See Genealogy#Genealogical_research_process if you haven't already). Frequently the village churches recorded births, deaths, marriages and the like. As you have names of people, you can look them up, to confirm they existed and lived in the appropriate time period. Occasionally, the record will also indicate what people's jobs were, and where they were employed. As the events have to do with a nobleman, there may also be some indication of them in the local paper. Looking up church records and newspaper records may require you visiting the locality in person, though (although a few places have put records online). On this side of the Atlantic, you can double check ship manifests to ensure that Fritz actually immigrated when and from where he said he did, as opposed to making the story up to impress his wife/grandchildren. (Which happens surprisingly often.) (Also, while I wouldn't necessarily recommend pursuing it, I will note that as a direct male-line descendant of Fritz, it would be possible to confirm/disprove the identity of Fritz's father if you could locate a (legitimate) male-line descendant of the nobleman, and apply Genetic genealogy.) -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Even more interesting, I have recently discovered from a comrade of mine who knows Danish that my last name (Raadt) can be translated 'Advisory Committee,' which seemingly comes from a committee which was convened to name this recently born illegitimate child, and naming him after the committee which was formed to name him." This sounds highly unlikely. In Danish it would be "Raad" or "Raadet", and I have never heard of a committee being formed to name illegimate children nor that such a committee would name the child after itself. Such a name would sound odd to Danes. I suspect "Raadt" is of Dutch origin, at least there seems to be a lot of people on Google from the Netherlands and South Africa of that name. You may also consider that the name of the ancestor may have been "Birgit" or "Birgitte" or something similar. "Brigget" is not a Danish or German name, in fact I am not sure it is a name at all. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You may also want to check out the Danish Wikipedia article on Orebygaard. It has a list of owners, showing the noble family in question would have to be Rosenørn-Lehn, of which the progenitor was Otto Ditlev Rosenørn-Lehn (1821-29) who was the foreign minister of Denmark for 21 years. Christian IX of Denmark, George I of Greece and Alexander III of Russia was present at his funeral. It is a nice story, but I must say that it often turns out that the truth is a lot more prosaic than the family legends. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Greatest disparity in standard of living between neighboring countries

This map may help as well. schyler (talk)

I was just thinking about differences between San Diego and Tijuana. This made me wonder, which two neighboring countries have the greatest difference in standard of living? My hunch is to say North and South Korea have the greatest difference. Other than these two, what are some other prominent examples? Where would the difference between the US and Mexico rank? Do they have the greatest difference in the Western Hemisphere? (not a homework question, curious) Thanks, 24.62.245.13 (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Gini coefficient measures this. schyler (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. The Gini coefficient measures the income disparity within a country, it's not terribly useful in measuring differences in overall or average standard of living between two different countries. For example, by Gini coefficient, China and the U.S. have comparible values; that doesn't mean that China and the U.S. have the same standard of living, it means that they have a similar "spread" of standard of living within their borders. That is, the difference between the richest and poorest Americans is similar to the difference between the richest and poorest Chinese. What the OP would want to compare is something like GDP per capita or GDP (PPP) per capita. Perusing List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita and the map below will give better results. Using the CIA World Fact Book numbers from the List article, it looks like something like Zimbabwe ($100 per capita) vs. South Africa ($10,100) is a pretty stark difference; it represents a difference of over 100 fold, or 10,000% difference. Using the same set of data, the U.S. ($46,400) vs. Mexico ($13,500), or about a 3.5 fold (about 350%) difference isn't nearly as great. South Korea ($28,000) vs. North Korea ($1,900) is also pretty big at about 15 fold (1,500%).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 4 September 2010

This map is better for the comparison the OP wants to do.

Botswana ($13,100) > Zimbabwe actually gives a higher differential than South Africa > Zimbabwe - at least 130 times, using those figures. Some other interesting differences:

Libya $15,200 > Niger $700 (21.7 times)

Equatorial Guinea $36,600 > Cameroun $2,300 (15.9 times)

Kuwait $54,100 > Iraq $3,600 (15.0 times)

Israel $28,400 > West Bank / Gaza $2,900 (9.8 times)

Oman $23,900 > Yemen $2,500 (9.6 times)

Argentina $13,800 > Paraguay $4,100 (3.4 times)

Instructive ! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Spain 29k > Morocco 4.6k (~7 times) Steewi (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, this turned out to be a much different list than I expected. 24.62.245.13 (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Without providing data, just off the top of my head, Saudi Arabia / Yeman; North Korea / South Korea; Australia / Papua New Guinea; Singapore / Indonesia; Russia / Finland; Hong Kong / China (if looking at WTO, ADB, Interpol or other “country” members); and Japan / Russia. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Selective service system

Will Barrack Obama remove the selective service system for good in the near future and if not, when will the selective service system be completely be removed and abolished? Is it close to being abolished at the moment? I heard that troops in Iraq were withdrawn so I think that's an indication that selective service system will be abolished. Am I right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.226.126 (talk)

I don't think the connection you're making between the Iraq withdrawal and the Selective Service System is necessarily valid - the USA has concluded many conflicts and undertaken many troop withdrawals since the inception of the system and hasn't removed it. I haven't seen anything to suggest there are any concrete plans to remove the system entirely - the general idea being that it's much easier to keep such a system ticking over without actually conscripting anyone, rather than having to create it again from scratch should conscription become urgently necessary in the future. ~ mazca ^talk 11:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

President Ford ended the selective service in 1975 (largely as a backlash to the Vietnam war), but it was reinstated in 1980 by President Carver (and retroactively applied to most of the people who had been exempt). See Selective Service System#History. So it's not unprecedented for it to be discontinued after a long, unpopular war. However, if I were a betting man (and I don't have a crystal ball, mind you), I wouldn't put money on it. The war in Iraq (unlike Vietnam) was fought by a volunteer army, and there hasn't been any backlash against a draft, because there hasn't been one. Buddy431 (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

But haven't people finally realized conscription is a bad thing and should be completely abolished? I mean Australia and the UK have abolished it. And Australia is a small country no where near the military power of the US and yet they've still abolished it. I don't get why tthe US having one of the strongest military in the world want to keep the selective service. Is there a valid reason for this? Could someone eexplain? And anyways I though US was a modern country that has moved on from conscription where as countries like singapore aren't modern so cconsciprtion hasn't been removed. How come it's been removed in Australia a small country but not in the US? Thanks guys ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.242.18 (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a big difference between actually conscripting people and simply keeping the system active in case of a possible need to conscript people in the future. I'm not sure I take your point that conscription is unambiguously "a bad thing and should be completely abolished" - the reason it's generally been abandoned in recent decades is because there hasn't been a particularly manpower-intensive, wide-ranging war being fought. In World War II, for example, the outcome may have been very different if the USA, Britain, etc had not chosen to implement it. I suspect the US government keeps the Selective Service System around so that, should a massive military problem occur and conscription become necessary again, it could be implemented with minimal difficulty. ~ mazca ^talk 13:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. But Britain has completely abolished it. So if Britain had any plans to bring it back or implement it wouldn't they have done something similar to the US with the selective service and all? They didn't. That's kind of what I'm asking. Britain has abolished it. That suggests people at least in Britain (and don't forget Australia) have moved on from the idea of a draft. Even if a war were to break out the draft wouldn't be reinstalled in Britain would it? So the US keeping it means a lot different. And my other question is more on this "moving on" business. I mean in the middle ages people were so religious they used to prosecute people who dared speak against the church. That's considered ridiculous nowadays. THat will never happen again. And as people become more educated other things like that are changing as well. Like rascism has stopped whereas it was common a few decades ago. Women are now considered equal to men. That kind of thing. WHat I'm asking is does this trend have any likely impact on the idea of conscription? It seems so. Slowly countries are removing the idea of national service and abolishing it by law. Like Spain. SO this means that even if a huge war started, since conscription is abolished by LAW, no one can be conscripted. Will this likely happen in the US? doesn't also the recent revolutions mean that a world war is impossible since people now think more before they act? And my other question was that the US has the biggest military in the world. THey'll be stronger than any other military in the world. So what's the need for having conscription. I can't think of an emergency that would require more than 20 million professional highly trained soldiers.

What makes you think Singapore isn't modern? It's one of the most developed countries in Asia Moreover both China and India have bigger militaries. :/ 76.230.146.8 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Your approach is one of Teleology. It's not uncommon, all humans like to use it - whatever our views, we say we're making progress, going forward, as if there is some ideal endpoint that we will eventually reach if we keep going where everything's perfect. It's easy, comforting, but completely wrong. Examine, for example, the thousand years of regression Europe took after the fall of the Roman Empire - technologically we overtook Rome a few centuries ago, socially, in terms of minority rights and attitudes, there's a good argument to be made that we're barely their equals (I'm aware I'm describing this in a teleological manner. As I said, not uncommon). Your assertions that religious extremism, and minority oppression, and military conscription will never return are optimistic, but baseless. We can but hope --Saalstin (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

From a UK perspective conscription was ceased a long time ago. It keeps being raised as worthwhile, predominantly from a right wing political perspective as a panacea. There are a number of reasons why the military wouldn't want to implement it in our current situation. In fact it's not been abolished, it's just not implemented. Manning figures do account for a need for a massive increase in manpower, but the circumstances that would lead to that are quite extreme.

From a practical perspective there is neither the training infrastructure to accommodate the sudden increase in numbers, nor really the time available to integrate the new personnel into the system. Training for modern warfare takes a long time, even infanteer training takes over six months.

ALR (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any link between being "modern" and not have selective service. Plenty of industrially and culturally "modern" (by Western standards) states have conscription laws on the books, even if they haven't been used for a long time. And the idea that "people think more before they act" these days is pretty much unsupportable. The idea that we won't have any "world wars" of any major sort in the future is also pretty much just speculation and not tied to any actual recent events. (In fact, one could argue that the possibility of major conflicts has been greater in the last 10 years than it was in the 10 years before that). --Mr.98 (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Countries that drop selective service will reinstate it if they need a larger number of soldiers than volunteers will supply. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as the UK is concerned, I don't think anyone is advocating conscription to meet any military need - and the sort of military operations that the UK has been involved in recently require highly trained professional personnel - conscripts would probably be quite unsuitable. You do hear of people (typically right-wing as someone mentioned above) saying that "National Service" (as it used to be called here) should be reintroduced in some form, but this would be for the purpose of instilling discipline etc in young people, or just getting them off the streets, and possibly achieving some (non-military) purpose as a by-product, --rossb (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Last I heard, the Swiss still do just that: Every able-bodied adult male is expected to have the skills to defend the country if necessary. Rest assured that if the need arises, the U.S., the U.K. and anyone else who currently lacks a draft, will be quick to reinstate it... or to try to, anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Swiss system is a key part of their political neutrality position, every able bodied male is a member of the military reserve and is required to fulfil a reserve training commitment accordingly.

From a command perspective I don't see any realistic circumstance where it would happen. Even when we were waiting for the third shock army in the Fulda Gap there was no expectation of requiring a conscription system. We've moved quite far beyond a situation where we need a low skill, massive force. From a UK perspective it would also lead to a massive change in how we conduct warfare. The whole concept of Mission Command, that is fundamental to how we in the UK conduct warfare, is predicated on a motivated, educated and well trained individual who has made the choice to be in the force.

ALR (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Enemies have a way of screwing up your plans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

From a British Military perspective our main enemies are in Whitehall and the White House.

ALR (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So most of your Heathrow Airport bombings originate in the USA??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Heathrow farce wasn't a threat to the British Military.

ALR (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure Neville Chamberlain thought the same way in 1938. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsurprised that the subtlety is lost on you, but the biggest threat to those of us who are in the military are the political decisions of those who direct our actions, make decisions on the funding that we receive, and legitimise our actions.

From a personal perspective as a former Squadron Commander that means that politicians are responsible for those decisions that constrained my actions in command, defined what I was expected to achieve, and what I was expected to achieve it with.

If we restrict our attentions purely to the Counter-Insurgency and Counter-Terrorism domains then political decision making has a direct influence on the threats that we face. The two are very different beasts, with different drivers, and different mitigations and actions required. You may be aware that Chamberlain was dealing with a state actor in 1938, not a terrorist threat. The dynamics in dealing with each of those are mildly different, as I'm sure you appreciate.

ALR (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

General James Mattoon Scott had similar thoughts, but he went just a little too far. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Public opinion of conscription

If conscription was introduced suddenly because of a world war III or something like that what would be the public opinion of it? (based on current or recent polls) Would people start revolting so the government won't conscript anyone anyway? (based on current or recent polls) And would it be possible to dodge a draft like that by just going to another country or is it harder to do that nowadays because of technology? (based on federal laws) I hear the current US senate is 402 - 2 majority do not want conscription. HOw would this number change in a world war? (based on recent wars such as Vietnam war) Last question, why do the US having the biggest military in the world want to have sa conscription called selective service? (this is a kind of a continuation from a question above but it's a different question so I ask here). Notice the things in brackets are the information I'd like my answers in (like the public opinion question can be answered based on recent polls) so I'm not asking opinions or anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.208.57 (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Volunteers are reminded that we deal in factual information on the Reference Desk, rather than speculation, and that parts of the above question may not be answerable. Please confine your responses to public opinion survey data, references to scholarly works, and other reliable sources. The Reference Desk is not a debating forum. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. Senate has only 100 members not 404. The U.S. House of Representatives has 435. So your numbers seem off.

Where conscription is concerned, the "leading edge" is no longer about military service, but various plans (highly unpopular outside a certain sector of the government) to force "volunteer" service in a "civilian national security force" (see Rahm Emanuel, who served as a volunteer for the IDF). In other countries, as I understand it, volunteer service is often presented as a draft alternative for conscientious objectors, sometimes with a longer required term. To many Americans the idea seems foreign, unfree, communist, exploitative, and seems likely if not intended to damage cultural variations.

Where repealing the draft is concerned, it seems like Democrat-controlled legislatures (but alas, not so much those controlled by Republicans) profess a great limitation on their time to take action, and many good bills e.g. GINA have been lost for many successive years simply because they "didn't get to it". Oddly, they always seem to have time for symbolic resolutions and little holidays no one ever heard of. Wnt (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

wysiwyg vs. wysiwym

Having read the articles, I still don't get why someone will nowadays use the second one. A modern graphical tool for layout could, theoretically, have all options that a non-graphical tool has, and indeed even export the result in Latex. What is wrong about seeing what the output will be?--Quest09 (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with WYSIWYG, of course. Some people feel they get better control, better precision, and better understanding of the underlying structure of a thing if they can see a representation of the markup.

This is especially true for non-print formats like web-pages where there is no single "what you get". (A web page looks different depending on browser type and version, browser font settings, size of browser window, zoom levels, etc, etc.) APL (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between the two is that you tell a traditional WYSIWYG editor "this is italicized text in 24 pt sans-serif font", whereas you tell a WYSIWYM editor "this is a chapter heading" and "chapter headings should be italicized in 24 pt sans-serif font". There are several benefits to this. For one, it ensures consistency between all of similar elements, and it makes it easy to change things (For example, if you wanted book titles to be bold, 20 pt serif font instead, a traditional WYSIWYG editor would make you track down and change all 20 chapter headings individually, whereas a WYSIWYM editor has a single location you change.) Another thing frequently cited as an advantage is separating producing content from formatting issues. It's not uncommon in a WYSIWYG editor to be typing along, and then come across a differently formatted section, and then waste 5-10 minutes getting it to look right. A WYSIWYM editor encourages you to produce all the content first, and only after you have completed that do you spend time tweaking the document to make it look right. It's this last point which is probably the reason for any conscious decision not to let you see the final formatted document while you're editing it. The creator of the WYSIWYM tool doesn't want you to get "distracted" by formatting while in the content-production phase. (There are also technical reasons - most WYSIWYM systems like latex rely on batch-process toolchains, where it's computationally intensive to reformat a document, so you're not going to get the instant feedback like in a WYSIWYG editor. But, of course, the reason for that batch design is the "separation of presentation and content" philosophy of the WYSIWYM tool creators.) But you're correct in that you could have a semantic markup editor with instant formatting feedback, though "purists" may not think of it as WYSIWYM, as that term is specifically a counter-reaction to WYSIWYG. -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical notation is easier to read in its rendered form ($\Gamma \vdash s_{0,i}\in r\quad f(i,s)\Rightarrow \Gamma \vdash f\cdot s\in \mathbb {X}$), but it's way easier to write and edit the LaTeX \Gamma \vdash s_{0,i} \in r \quad f(i,s) \Rightarrow Gamma \vdash f \cdot s \in \mathbb{X} than to muck around with a symbol map and click around in an equation editor. You can even write macros to simplify your textual notation, which makes life easier when you decide to adjust your notation. Paul (Stansifer) 03:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

national anthem

I noticed that most national anthems are happy (duh) Are there any sad ones? By sad I don't mean violent because violent can well be jubilant (ie, in La Marseillaise, they sing happily about how their enemies blood will water their fields) Thanks. 76.230.146.8 (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

How about India's, it's actually in Bengali, written by Tagore. It's not sad but it's boring. That's worse than being sad. No ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear of one. Hatikvah isn't really a candidate, because as our article says: The harmony of Hatikvah is arranged modally and mostly follows a minor scale, which is often perceived as mournful in tone and is rarely encountered in national anthems. However, as the title "The Hope" and the words suggest, the import of the song is optimistic and the overall spirit uplifting. Marnanel (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese Kimi ga yo is pretty slow and with prolonged vocals. I'm not sure if that counts as "sad", but there you have it. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case, the UK's God Save The Queen would be a candidate - it's not sad, just very boring (my opinion). I personally find Kimi Ga Yo to be a bit more interesting. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

National anthems are (as a rule) a pro-nation celebration of the nation's existence. You might find some different emotional tones (for instance the American national anthem is a bit whiny, IMO), but you're not going to find one that's sad - who'd choose a mournful anthem to celebrate their nation? Club music is danceable, rock music is loud, folk music is acoustic, and anthems are uplifting - that's the genre. --Ludwigs2 16:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Whiny"? Have you read the verse where they mock the fleeing British military? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Shhh! Be vewy, vewy quiet. We're fishing for wabbits!" 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Rabbits are primarily land-dwellers. You might be thinking of beaver. Better head to your local singles bar and check them out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(Tell it to President Carter!)APL (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hungary's anthem, "Himnusz", isn't too cheerful. And the lyrics get more miserable as it goes on - the last verse starts "Pity, God, the Magyar, then...". Warofdreams talk 19:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've always wondered about the Moroccan anthem, the "Hymne Chérifien". The lyrics are very optimistic, but the song is in minor and, though perhaps not sad, the music does sound grim. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd imagine that to be rare at best, for reasons cited above. I suppose you could generate this with a historical perspective - the English translation of the Soviet anthem began 'Unbreakable Union of freeborn Republics/Great Russia has welded forever to stand!'. Bright, self-confident, optimistic, arguably every single claim in those two lines proven false. For those who believed in it, and witnessed its destruction, the benefit of hindsight must make that at least slightly bitter. --Saalstin (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If Google is owned by two Jews, why does it include links to antisemitic and racist websites?

It seems a puzzle. Can anyone explain it?--SuperFeminineState (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it doesn't censor its results, more or less. Because believing in freedom of speech means tolerating opinions you don't agree with. See their explanation that comes up when you search for things like "Jew", as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Google's great claim is its credibility: that it uses complicated distortion-suppressing heuristics to pick search results and doesn't stack its answers (as do almost all other search engines) to favor paid advertisers or a particular government. Once it started doing that, apart from the principles involved (allowing users to conduct their own research and reach their own conclusions, as well fighting censorship), it would in fact feed and give a spurious credibility to the conspiracy theories of such sites. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This may not be an appropriate answer for RD, but is nevertheless a humorous anecdote pointing to Jewish creativity. Those with antisemitic bent of mind may even find it offensive ! Read at your own risk.

Google is here to tell you about everything. OK ? Historically Jews had the God-given responsibility to tell us everything. Believe me, we'd be lost without them. First came Moses, a Jew. There was no Google then, so when we questioned him "where is everything ?" He pointed to the sky. Then came Jesus, a Jew. When we asked him where is everything, he pointed to a little lower,i.e. to his heart. Then came Karl Marx, a Jew. We asked him the same question, he pointed towards to his stomach. Then comes another Jew, Sigmund Freud. When questioned where was his everything, he pointed even lower than Marx did, that is to his you-know-what. Then comes the greatest, the most intelligent Jew ever, Einstein. He didn't point anywhere but answered "Everything's Relative !. You see, now we have their Google to tell us where everything is, and it works.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC) And where did Groucho Marx point? APL (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Peter Ustinov put it simply: "The Jews are a wonderful people. They produced Jesus Christ and Karl Marx, two of the most influential men in history. And they had the sense to believe neither of them." (unsourced) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Cuddylable3, you of all people would appreciate knowing the correct Ustinov quote is: "I believe that the Jews have made a contribution to the human condition out of all proportion to their numbers: I believe them to be an immense people. Not only have they supplied the world with two leaders of the stature of Jesus Christ and Karl Marx, but they have even indulged in the luxury of following neither one nor the other." [1]. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Mr 98 calls my response "most nonsensical and useless answer of the day." Isn't that a bit wicked ?

OK, you win the prize for "most nonsensical and useless answer of the day." Congrats. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Theory of knowledge

G'day all! I'm taking a TOK class as a graduation requirement. Some of the stuff we're examining (the professor stresses that we not say "learning about" because that suggests rote memorization) implies that you should know it before doing any other kind of learning so you can look at it critically and not just take everything at face value. Then why don't schools teach TOK in elementary school instead of all the way up at the end of high school? It doesn't really require any prerequisites other than an open mind, which elementary schoolers have better than high-schoolers, I would magine. 99.13.223.146 (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a long response that isn't entirely specific to your question, which has a lot of different dimensions, but perhaps will raise some of the "theoretical"/non-practical (e.g., not related to how curriculum choice actually works) issues.

In my experience there are generally two major approaches to what to do about things like this. One is to say, "teach them a bunch of facts and basic stuff first, then when they have gotten all that more or less down, teach them how the whole edifice that said facts are built up on is somewhat more pliable than they've been lead to believe." The other says, "teach them that facts and theories are pliable first, and they'll learn things more deeply from that point forward." There are legitimate arguments on each side.

Just as an example, when I was in high school, "conceptual math" was all the rage. "Teach them the basic concepts, don't make them do rote memorization!" Well, it sounds nice on paper, but for myself and most of my classmates, from what I gather, now know some basic concepts in an OK way, but have really hard times actually trying to apply them, because a lot of those "rote memorization" steps are really just about training your mind to do certain types of common problems. I vaguely remember how matrices are supposed to operate, for example, from a fundamental level, but could I do matrix multiplication without looking up how to do it again? Not really. Can I quickly divide and multiply numbers in my head? No. This is anecdotal, of course, and perhaps on the whole people who do these kinds of programs do better than those who do the "traditional" approach, but I remain a bit skeptical. I don't think it served me well, in any case. I think if I had done something a little more "disciplined," I'd have developed more of the patterns that would keep me from getting hung up on the really basic math stuff, and would have let me branch off more intelligently later on. As it is, I'm basically not numerate, and find even calculating a 15% tip in my head very frustrating. Obviously the school doesn't take all of the blame for this, but I'm not sure a focus on "concepts" was the right path for me (I'm the kind of student that finds "concepts" ridiculously easy, and "implementation" quite hard, so I skirted through high school math, and then hit a total brick wall when I got to college).

Another anecdote. At one university I was at, they teach history by basically throwing facts and memorization at you for the first couple of years, and then gradually making the classes more specific and heady as you go through the program, and finally you end up learning methodology in your very last class. That is, you start by learning "just historical facts," you end by learning "how historical facts are made." At another university I was at, they try to start with "how historical facts are made" before you actually have any "historical facts" given to you. Then presumably once you know how they are made, you go out and learn a bunch of new facts. My experience is that the history undergraduates at the first university do better, because learning "the facts" is more about getting the baseline information in place that you'll later be able to add to, modify, and poke holes in, as you accumulate more information and experience. (Having a basic feeling for what happened in World War II, for example, makes assimilating new facts, details, and arguments about World War II easier.) At the second university, the students often forget the theory/methodology stuff pretty quickly, because there isn't anything for it to "adhere" to, or they decide, "well, all facts are arbitrary and all historians are biased, so who is to say which is true?" Which is kind of a flip, 19-year-old response that doesn't really encourage taking the "learning the facts" stuff seriously. I'm sure there are exceptional students who really benefit from the latter case, but my general inclination is to think that the great whole benefit from the former. Again, just anecdotal. Not data.

All of which is to say... I think there could be two very different philosophies at play here. One is, "teach the theory of knowledge first, and the knowledge second," and the other is the exact opposite. My personal experience leads me to think that teaching the facts first, and the theory second, works better (and is more fun, anyway — who doesn't like to find out, when they get to college, that everything they've learned is somewhat false?). But there are good arguments on the other side of it as well, and plenty of room for honest disagreement.

I've always thought basic psychological biases should be taught earlier on than they are. A book like How We Know What Isn't So should probably be required high school reading for all students, I think, because it's about the limits of human knowledge in a very practical, "how not to get suckered and duped" kind of way, without tying it up with too much abstract philosophy, and roots everything in common human experiences and familiar human cognitive biases (e.g. belief in lucky numbers, "hot streaks" of sports players, etc.). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)TOK = Theory of Knowledge, yes? and I'm interested - you say you're in high school, but high schools do not normally get into theory of knowledge stuff, not do high schools generally call teachers 'professor' - color me a bit confused.

at any rate, part of the problem you're dealing with is the education model that's been in place in the US (and most English speaking countries) since the 1950s - it's a corrupted Dewey model. Basically what's happened is that high schools and grammar schools have adopted the idea that they are preparing students for entry into practical life, rather than training students in the rudiments of higher thought: this means that the schools focus on cramming both technical information and certain rules of self-discipline and obedience into students - the kind of material that will prepare students for work-a-day blue-collar or low-level white-collar employment. Critical thinking skills are not generally considered necessary for such jobs, and are sometimes viewed as an impediment. Private schools (which I assume you are attending) are usually more attentive to critical thinking skills because they are aiming to place their students in upper-level professional or academic positions, but private schools generally don't extend below 8th (or sometimes 6th) grade, and are obligated to meet standards imposed by government bodies (which standards are usually based on the corrupted Dewey model).

really, we should be teaching children independent critical thought down as low as 4th/5th grade (that's when you first start getting students capable of formal operational thought), but... --Ludwigs2 18:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Passport types

Machine-readable passport says that the second character of the machine-readable zone is used, by certain countries, to indicate the document "type (for countries that distinguish between different types of passports)". Is there a uniform list of such codes, or are these codes defined by each issuing countries? Can the codes used for passports (or other travel documents) be found online (I am especially interested in Austrian documents) or elsewhere? Apokrif (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In the passports I've seen in UK all have a "more-than sign" as second letter, is this helpful? MacOfJesus (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The less-than sign (<) is used as a filler character in machine-readable passports. (It's used in place of a blank, because the symbols are readily countable for manual entry and automatic character recognition.) It appears that a filler character is widely used to mean 'regular passport', based on Bernard's experience with UK passports, the image of a U.S. passport page in our article, plus the output from Google Image search for a handful of other countries: Israel, Kazakhstan, Australia, Slovenia. The same appears to be true for Austria. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate images of (or data regarding) the codes used to indicate diplomatic, government, military, emergency, or other passport classes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This Swiss emergency passport uses the letter "D" (but the picture is barely readable) and the MRZ on this Latvian travel document for stateless persons begins with "PB". On these US refugee travel documents [2], the first two characters are "TP" instead of "P something": does this mean that "T" is used instead of P for travel documents which are not passports ? But Machine-readable_passport#Official_Travel_Documents_.28e.g._identity_cards.29 says that besides P, the first character can be only I, A or C. Moreover, document 9303 (page 57) of the ICAO says that "In documents other than passports, e.g. [...]refugee travel document[...], the first character of the document code should be P." (as is the case on this Canadian travel document). Apokrif (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Disease in the age of exploration

When European explorers began to colonize the Americas, they introduced many diseases that wiped out countless native Americans. How come this didn't happen the other way around as well? I mean, there must have been loads of diseases that the Spanish, British and French had never come into contact with and thus weren't immune to. Why didn't they perish like the native Americans did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.213.233 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

For a good article on this topic, check out The Straight Dope : Why did so many Native Americans die of European diseases but not vice versa?

Short version : Europeans had been living with close contact with both farm animals, and a wider assortment of foreigners, which gave them better immunity and deadlier diseases. (They did, of course, bring some diseases back with them, but they didn't have nearly as devastating effects.) APL (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read Guns, Germs, and Steel. In general, it was because Europe was so full of packed-together people that they had gone through just about every disease nature could impose on them, whereas the peoples of the Americas lived in small, generally isolated groups that didn't pass diseases on to each other. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

However, see Syphillis#Origins. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies 1997, will give you some perspective. An analogous question: when the Isthmus of Panama joined the island continent of South America to the world-continent, in the shape of North America, why did North American mammals overrun South America, triggering a wave of extinctions, whereas only armadillos and possums made the reverse trip? You may also be interested in Alfred Crosby's Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900 (1986) and its concept of portmanteau fauna from the world-continent, introduced all over the formerly isolated parts of the planet.--Wetman (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Well, it's likely there were diseases passed the other way. Syphillis is the classic case of a disease that is thought to have likely originated in the Americas, for example. (It's hard to know for sure; historical records are not so great on this point, and distinguishing a "new disease" from existing ones is a tricky matter, even today, certainly historically.) A broader question is why a Native American version of the common cold, though, never had the same effect. A few speculations of mine: 1. It's different when you're traveling to someplace versus traveling from. If there was a disease that killed Europeans with the same virulence that smallpox or the cold had on the Native Americans, it'd probably have killed them on the boat ride back. 2. Europeans may have had boosted immune systems anyway, from their practice of living in cities and their already increased means of travel. They likely would have been pre-exposed to diseases from Asia, Africa, other parts of Europe, and so on, by the time they were exploring the Americas. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The main issue is that Native Americans went a long distance with a very limited number of people to get to the New World. Some figures, which I don't believe, have been as low as 20 founders, if I recall correctly. Because this was a long, slow migration through (most suppose) arctic conditions, a disease would have to linger in some person for many years in order to keep a foothold in the population, and animal hosts were largely unavailable. Oh, and remember that the Americas don't have other great apes besides humans.

There is an idea that syphilis rode with Columbus back to Europe, but it's not certain. Wnt (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

September 5

Addressing a noblewoman

I'm reading a book set during the British Regency period. One of the characters is "the Marquis of X". The book refers to his wife, the murder victim, as "Lady X". Is this correct? I know that she would probbly be referred to as the "Marchioness of X", but I don't recall that ever being used in the book. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Forms of address in the United_Kingdom#Peers and peeresses should answer the question, given the weight of history behind these titles I doubt it's changed between the Regency and the present. Going by that table, it appears that "Marchioness of X" would be the technically correct term, with Lady X being an alternative that's probably not quite correct but would doubtless be used informally. ~ mazca ^talk 00:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on that, it looks like "Lady X" is acceptable. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

All peers except for Dukes can be referres to as Lord X, where X is the designation (as in "Viscount X", "Baron of X", etc). Thus, their wives are Lady X. The Marquess of X would normally be addressed as Lord X and his wife, the Marchioness of X, would be referred to as Lady X. Surtsicna (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

For an example of Surtsicna's first sentence, read our article on the last noble Prime Minister of the UK. He was a marquess, but he's typically referred to as "Lord Salisbury". Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just one point: There are no "Barons of X". They're all "Baron X" (long form "Baron X of Y"); except for a small number of "Baron X of Z" (long form "Baron X of Z, of Y"). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have articles on a few, such as the Baron of Renfrew, Baron of Dunsany and the Baron of Kells. Warofdreams talk 20:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but they're peerages in either the Peerage of Scotland or the Peerage of Ireland. My comment was about the Peerage of the United Kingdom since we're talking about British affairs. -- (Jack of Oz=) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Marriage

What is the Chinese practice in which a male marries into his wife's family and their children take the wife's surname instead of the husband's?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Also if anybody know if it's exist anymore because I know it still exist in Shantou where my both my female cousins does this but I'm not sure if it exist elsewhere in China or the world.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Have no idea about China, but the Japanese term is mukoyoshi... AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, from my readings in Heraldry and related matters I have come across this occasionally happening in Britain in order to maintain a peerage title that would otherwise have become extinct, though I can't recall any specific instances at the moment. I suspect it has been an occasional practice in many cultures. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Every double-barreled name in Britain, like Bowes-Lyon, records an example where the man is marrying an heiress, and applies her family name, which he now represents to his own. -- 18:02, 5 September 2010 User:Wetman

Be careful of universal statements. There are cases where a person has a double-barrelled surname because both of that person's parents wanted their surname propagated to their offspring. Such cases have nothing to do with heiresses. Marnanel (talk)

However, when referring to the 19th century upper crust (as opposed to those influenced by feminist sentiments since the 1970's), Wetman's comments have a certain validity. Even among those who didn't change or add to their surnames in any way, there was the phenomenon of "heraldic heiresses"... AnonMoos (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The term (in simplified Chinese) in which a male marries into his wife's family is 上门女婿(common term, more polite), 倒插门(common term, derogatory), or 入赘 (technical term). Please note all the baidu links above may not be very reliable, but they are the best sources I could find describing this practice. 70.68.138.196 (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to mention all the above links are in simplified Chinese; and yes this practice still exist in China today. 70.68.138.196 (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am an Australian born man who married a Taiwanese born woman, in Chinese script I have taken my wife's name, as our daughter has too. All official Taiwanese documents are in chinese script. In Australia we use my western name.

Sad classical piece

What is the saddest, or if that's too subjective, what are some especially sad or melancholy pieces of classical music for piano? I mean sad as in depressing, not creepy like Bach's T/F in Dm. FOr my purposes these should be ca. Classical-period classical (i.e., Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.) not neoclassical. 76.199.167.204 (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Moonlight Sonata —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vxskud (talk • contribs) 01:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the saddest classical piano pieces I know is the 2nd movement (Adagio) from Mozart's Piano Sonata in F, K. 280. This movement is in F minor, so it's already right in the sad zone. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 02:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How about "The Minstrel Boy", a traditional Irish song about a very young man sent off to war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps too modern, and "melancholy" might be an oversimplification, but personal favorites (I like to play) include Scriabin's Op. 2 No. 1 and Grieg's Elegie (there's more than one) Op. 38. No. 6. There's also Grieg's Elegie Op. 47 No. 7. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Beethoven himself would perhaps have chosen the cavatina from string quartet op.130; Carl Holz reported that "it cost the composer tears in the writing and brought out the confession that nothing he had written had so moved him; in fact merely to revive it afterwards in his thoughts and feelings brought forth renewed tributes of tears." [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the OP asked for piano pieces. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

True. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Katisha's lament "Alone and yet alive" is sad even if played without the words. With the words (video). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a piano arrangement for it, but the second movement of Symphony No. 3 (Beethoven) ("Heroic") has sometimes been used as a funeral dirge. It kind of picks up the pace toward the end, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No need to make a piano arrangement of an orchestral work to fit this particular bill. There's a number of funeral marches written for piano, the most famous probably being the 3rd movement of Chopin's 2nd Piano Sonata. In fact, the sonata is nicknamed "Funeral March Sonata" because of this movement. It's extremely famous and rightly so; though, whether it's all that sad per se is a moot point. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The minor-key variations from Bach's Goldberg Variations might fit the bill. Gould, #15 [4], #21 [5], #25 [6]. Riggr Mortis (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Concur on the Goldberg Variations. I also find some of The Art of Fugue quite sad, like Contrapunctus III. But I'm putting my money on Chopin's Preludes, opus 28, #4, "Suffocation". Pfly (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on the Chopin #4! PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Hammerklavier Sonata is sometimes described that way. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sad? The Hammerklavier? Anything but, I'd have thought. Can you show me 10 cites from 10 different reputable critics or commentators for that description of it? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No changes

How do you call a legal outcome of a trial that orders to keep things at their current state? (or the state before the dispute began). In Spanish it's known as "No Innovar", but a quick search at google suggest that "no innovate" (the direct translation) is not the term used for this. MBelgrano (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Something to do with status quo? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In US law you're probably talking about a dismissal (in which the case is simply dropped by the court, with or without the consent of the claimant). There are cases in which a judgement in favor of the defendant is tantamount to restoration of the status quo (particularly in criminal cases, when a defendant is released as not guilty). is that what you're looking for? --Ludwigs2 05:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Cannibalism

Of course there are laws against killing but is there any law in US specifically targeted against cannibalism ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I googled [cannibalism laws] and this[7] is one of the first things that came up. The answer seems to be that it varies from state to state. That stands to reason. The cannibalism article is nearly all about murder and cannibalism. There are a few examples of historical cases of cannibalism "by necessity". However, the wikipedia article doesn't seem to address legality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If cannibals invite you to supper don't arrive late because you will be told that everybody's eaten. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's early yet, but I feel confident in giving you this award now.
The pun is mightier than the sword. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As the cannibal chief's widow said, thank you for your condiments. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You're way ahead of me. I'm just trying to ketchup. Here's an oldie: Do you know what Dahmer said to Ms. Bobbitt? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm dying to hear this one. Turns out JWB is a distant cousin.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"You gonna eat that?" (So old it's new again.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Watch it please; We're strolling into BLP territory here Buddy431 (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dahmer's dead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Lorena Bobbitt is still alive. Buddy431 (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is phenomenon in itself, conversations about cannibalism often turn into unwanted humour. Perhaps we unconsciously strive to get away from the topic. I remember some people bending backwards to prove that cannibalism is pure fiction.

[unindent] Going back to the original subject — I vaguely remember reading that there aren't any such laws. For example, Marc Sappington confessed to killing and eating a person; apparently the cannibalism was widely reported, but he wasn't convicted of cannibalism, even though reading his article indicates to me that his confession was part of the reason for his murder conviction. Perhaps the best-known case of cannibalism in recent US history was Jeffrey Dahmer, but his article says nothing about him being charged with or convicted of cannibalism. Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Morbid jokes arise from human nature - we joke about things that scare us, in hopes of being less scared. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reading about Albert Fish, possibly the most notorious American cannibal ever, at least prior to Dahmer, it suggests that they wanted to avoid the subject of cannibalism at the trial and make it strictly a sexually-motivated murder. That leaves open the question of whether cannibalism is technically illegal by itself or whether they just didn't want to put the family through that testimony, especially as the murder itself was sufficient to fry Fish; they didn't need to add the cannibalism factor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If cannibalism is illegal in and of itself, don't bite your fingernails in the presence of police. Googlemeister (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

See autocannibalism and autophagia. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In Sweden it is a crime (brott mot griftefriden) to move, damage or defile a corpse or the ashes of a deceased. I'm sure that cannibalism would be covered and I suppose that there are similar laws elsewhere.Sjö (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In the old Royal Navy in the UK, I believe that where required, killing and cannabolism was murder unless all were in agreement and then lots were drawn.

Does everyone eventually fall in love with someone?

Is it possible to reach say 40 and never have falled in love or experienced Limerence? Or does everyone eventually fall in love with someone? Do people who have never fallen in love by a mature age have any distinctive psychological traits? Thanks 92.15.30.74 (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

While this may verge on medical advice, the answer is no. There are plenty of people who have gone through life without meeting 'the one' (I cannot, however, cite any specific examples). Love is part inexplicable ideal, part discerned choice. "Falling in love" is the ideal; "happily ever after" is the choice. schyler (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Your second sentance suggests you meant "Yes" rather than "No", if you were refering to the first question. 92.15.30.74 (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if this passes RS muster, but Dean Martin says "Yes." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean "Yes, is it possible to reach say 40 and never have falled in love or experienced Limerence" or do you mean "Yes, everyone eventually falls in love with someone"? 92.15.30.74 (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course there are people who never "fall in love" with anyone.--Wetman (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

But, is there a person who is in love all the time? MacOfJesus (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean the love of God, father...? Jon Ascton  (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"Falling in love" with God? I don't think that's the concept. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on how you interpret the religous ecstasy of St. Theresa of Avila. I'm more concerned by the thought that Jon may be saying he expects a father to be in love with his children D: 86.164.78.91 (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, though surely off-topic. And I'm more concerned about this shift (and the second more than the first) from "love of" to "in love". Wikiscient (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The first two replies are ambiguous and tell me nothing. So still mostly an unanswered question, apart from Wetman's reply. 92.15.7.161 (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

And that's likely. Actually this word "love" is the most mysterious word we have ! And to top things, everyone's got his own history that somehow comes up and gets in way of communication.

"does everyone eventually fall in love with someone?" No. There is no law requiring everyone to fall in love at least once before they die (as far as I know; I'll get my lawyers on that in a moment). Some people are very self-involved and are happy that way. Some are just unlucky, and never meet the right person. But if you are linking to the Limerence article in your post, you seem well on your way to researching this question here at WP yourself. Can you narrow your question down to something more specific (and directly answerable)? Wikiscient (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

We could learn from the Ancient Greeks here, who had different words for love. Hence, I think we are looking at this question from within our own culture. 1. Filio; brotherly love. 2. Agape; "laying down ones life for ones friend" love. To mention just two. Forgive me if I'm over simplistic. The kind of love we are describing here would be viewed as infatuation, but not genuine love. Hence, it is going to be hard to answer the question as it stands. MacOfJesus (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

From Love and Death:

Sonja: "There are many kinds of love, Boris. There's the love between a man and a woman, love between a mother and a son...:

Boris: "Two women; let's not forget my favorite."

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What is a special commission

In connection with Ely and Littleport riots 1816 and the associated to-do list, what is a special commission?

By the special commission issued to try the Ely rioters the judicial authority vested by charter in the Lord Chief Justice of that Isle will be superseded. Mr. Justice ABBOTT and Mr. Justice BURROW [sic], it is said, will be the presiding judges on this occasion.

— The Times, Tuesday, Jun 04, 1816; pg. 3; Issue 9852; col B

Ignore the mis-spelling; Sir James Burrough, judge of the common pleas.

Who sets a special commission up? Why (in this case)? What are its terms of reference? What is the wording? See also Warren (1997) p. 1 "... meet the Judges appointed by the Special Commission ..." and Johnson (1893) p. 25 "A Special Commission was appointed for the trial ...". Further background: according to Sir James Burroughs entry in the ODNB, In May 1816 Burrough was appointed a judge of the common pleas, when Charles Abbott was removed into the king's bench — the Ely riot trials were held in June 1816 --Senra (Talk) 16:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

See Royal Commission. Such commissions are (nominally) set up by the Crown, which means (in practice) by the appropriate branch of the executive - probably the Home Office in this case, but I'm not familiar with it specifically. The Scarman Report into the 1981 Brixton riots was produced by such a commission, set up by William Whitelaw, Home Secretary at the time. The terms of reference will be established in detail when the commission is set up. I assume they're publically available somewhere for the commission in question; the Public Record Office might be a good place to start. Tevildo (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree with Tevildo, but I think the special commission referred to in the Ely and Littleport riots was not a Royal Commission of Inquiry (which would not have the power to bring prosecutions), but a special commission of Oyer and terminer. Such special commissions were instituted in the name of the Crown, but I believe on the advice of Ministers. There is a blank example of a Special Commission in this book. The procedure is not used any more. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for the above responses. I have searched The Times and the London Gazette trying to find the words of this special commission without success. I take the point about Oyer and terminer made by Sam Blacketer but this Law French stuff is way beyond me. If anyone can find this particular special commission wording it would help the article; in the meantime, thank you for the responses so far --Senra (Talk) 12:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have always found the staff at Cambridgeshire Archives to be very helpful in cases like this, and would refer you to them. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you TammyMoet; I find the staff at Cambridgeshire Archives very helpful too! Indeed, I have two outstanding queries with them at the moment; as a result of your response above, I have added a third :) Still, I cannot help wondering if this special commission would not have been instigated in government somewhere; perhaps visible in Hansard? I believe the Prime Minister at the time was Robert Jenkinson, the Lord Chancellor was Lord Eldon and the Home Secretary was Lord Sidmouth. Just had a quick look at Hansard and the period 1816 seems blank, so I am stuck really --Senra (Talk) 10:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Information on participation in Class Action lawsuits?

Hi, so I've posted my question to reddit, but would like to post it here too. Note: I'm not asking for legal advice, just a simple point in the direction of the information that I would need, a starting point.

Thanks in advance. 70.18.129.59 (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My non-legal understanding: In most class actions you're included by default along with all other affected parties. The court will require notification to be made when the class is certified. Presumably Google could do this pretty easily. If you are left out, you can get in touch with the plaintiff's legal representation.

But I will note that I think your idea that you'll get $2500 is pretty laughable. Class actions of this sort — where the class is extremely huge, and proving direct harm is hard — always end up funneling most of the "award money" into legal fees. The few class actions I've been part of have gotten me whopping checks of $5 or so. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I got about $12 in the big CD lawsuit. Just to make the point, I spent it on a book. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In general I think one should see class actions (ideally) as being punitive in nature. They punish companies; they don't really redress victims. You take part in them not because you want your $5, but because you want the company to pay massive fines. Or because you like enriching lawyers, I don't know. If I were going to take part in a Google Buzz lawsuit, it would be to send a message to companies of this sort who are cavalier with their privacy. It would not be because I thought I was going to get much out of it myself. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to be pedantic, but our Class action article answers these questions. Shadowjams (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

War

Is it true to say there was no single cause (or catalyst) to World War Two, and that it was a combination of things in a certain order that caused it? This is what my history professor said, but I find it hard to believe that the worst war is history had no cause. Flyinaweb (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It is true that there was no single cause, but that doesn't mean there was no cause at all, it means that there were many causes. See causes of World War II - it's massive. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Almost everything complicated in history — that has many groups of people involved for different reasons — has multiple causes. Rarely are international relations monocausal. The superficial observer of history, of course, can find something that they've decided was the "true cause" (Germany invaded Poland, 1938), but this is a poor way to do history, and does not stand up under any thoughtful scrutiny. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

1939, surely? 86.164.78.91 (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) War is a complex event that rarely (if ever) has a single cause. Some wars have a trigger event (e.g., the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was the immediate trigger of World War I), but those are not causes, merely triggers that set off a conflict stemming from multiple other factors. --Ludwigs2 21:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be nice to point out that history of WW2 looks a bit biased.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean our article history of WW2? --Lgriot (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have the answer for you. Once upon a time there was a historian who was fed-up with the histories and wanted to write a REAL history, I mean a no-nonsense, UNBIASED history, so un-biased that no one could find faults in it. So he stopped all other activities, brought a lot of books, did a lot of research, tasted dust of all the museums he could and sat down to do the MS. It took years. When he was almost through, one evening a fight broke out in his neighborhood. He went out to have a look. He asked a neighbor what has wrong ? The answer was - a murder. Someone had been stabbed to death just across the street. As was his wont he begun questioning everybody around what had happened exactly. Each person gave a different answer ! Then it struck him - whom to believe ? He went into his study and threw away all he wrote into fire.

I hope you understand what I mean... Jon Ascton  (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you mean he was a really incompetent historian. All textual research turns up incomplete and contradictory material: the job of a historical researcher is to weigh the likely reliability of different sources, seek for further corroborations or definitive data, reconcile the remaining alternatives as far as they can be, and - in a scholarly context - present the results with the appropriate caveats. For popular accounts the last step has sometimes to be elided or omitted. (87.81 posting from . . .) 87.82.229.195 (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Had he been a really incompetent historian the experience would have left him untouched and he would have stubbornly gone ahead with his new "unbiased" history

Jon, please go and read Historical method. There is no historian in the world who behaves like that: it's something you would learn in any properly-taught history class. Herodotus is long dead. Marnanel (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that is the main purpose of your "properly-taught history class" - to keep producing historians who are dumb enough to carry on the burden

Monarchies

Why are so many "democratic" countries still monarchies? (England, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, etc.) --75.33.216.97 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably a couple of main reasons: power tends to lie with a more or less democratic parliament or assembly rather than with the monarch; and because during revolutionary times, such as the late C18 and early C19, the governments of those countries avoided revolution. There is a plethora of ancillary factors. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Why should a democratic (no scare quotes please) country not retain a constitutional monarchy? England isn't a nation state but the United Kingdom remains a monarchy because the people wish to remain subjects of Her Majesty. Some other countries have considered the issue directly - referendums in Italy in 1946, Greece in 1973 went against their monarchies, but Australia in 1999 voted to retain the monarchy. Spain restored its monarchy by referendum in 1978 and was by all accounts very grateful for it in February 1981. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

At the 1999 referendum, Australians were asked to say Yes or No to: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament. That is, they were given exactly one model of how a republic might work (of many such models), and asked to choose between that specific model and the status quo. They chose the status quo. However, there’s plenty of evidence that, had they been asked the threshold question "Would you prefer Australia to be a republic or a monarchy?", they would have gone for the republic option. Or, had they been given a range of republican models along with the status quo, they would have chosen a different republican model. So, it’s not safe to say Australians "voted to retain the monarchy", as that was just the surface appearance of what was being asked of them. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

But why do those countries claim to have a democratic form of government when they're ruled by a monarch instead? --75.33.216.97 (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others, but England is not in any real sense "ruled" by a monarch. She just sits on her throne, waving (or whatever it is monarchs do) while England is ruled by its government. Vimescarrot (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As QEII would undoubtedly be happy to confirm, she reigns but does not rule. This is not just a semantic game; she really does NOT: sit on her throne (except on special ceremonial occasions); make up laws on whim; issue commands to have people's heads chopped off or to have their taxes doubled; or anything else the King in the Wizard of Id does. She is for the most part told what to do, and she does it. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

For more on the "for the most part.." bit in the above contribution, see Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See Monarchism in Canada for an example of the arguments used in favor of keeping a monarchy in one democratic country. In reality, the biggest hurdle to a republic in a place like Canada is simply that it would be so much work politically, constitutionally and bureaucratically to bring about, and there are seemingly far more pressing issues to address. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The word "monarch" in the modern day need not necessarily mean "the person with the ultimate power" - the monarchies you mention have monarchs that are primarily symbolic figureheads with no real power in affairs of state. The situation is similar with the Emperor of Japan - he gets to stay in his palace, speak to high guests and twice a year to his countrymen, but other than that has no real power. Or see this example: President of Germany - the president in the German model of governance has almost no real powers, he's merely a symbolic figure. I live in a similar country - our president is, while elected directly, almost completely without real power: he gets to confirm ambassadors, he is the (symbolic) CIC of the army and that's about it. His power lies mainly in being a moral influence to the people - he sometimes chimes in with current events and gives his opinion, but nobody in power is legally bound to listen to those opinions. Incidentally, this question chimes in with a question that was posted a couple of days ago: obviously the OP was taught that democracy=good, monarchy=bad and is now having difficulties trying to come to terms with the fact that the world is far from quite as simple and black-and-white. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Most republics have non-executive presidents (the US and France are exceptions) which do pretty much the same thing as a constitutional monarch and cost their country about the same amount of money. In most monarchies, having a king or queen is part of a long standing tradition that carries great cultural significance and adds pageantry, colour and national identity. Alansplodge (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The monarchy is also (rightly or wrongly) regarded as being "above politics" - so avoiding the issues that arise when a parliament (or its equivalents) and a national head of state are each elected, often at different elections and with different political outcomes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the quotes around democracy in the question, they aren't needed. These countries are democratic. We vote for our representatives, and they make the laws, Queen or no Queen. Republicanism isn't the only type of democracy. Aaronite (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

But can't the Queen of England withhold Royal Assent, effectively vetoing a law? --75.33.216.97 (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In theory, but that never happens -- it hasn't happened, anyway, for 300 years. If Queen Elizabeth II were to start doing that, the UK would presumably become less democratic. Note that some U.S. governors could, under their power of pardoning, have all of their political enemies killed and then pardon their killers. But that never happens either. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It has happened in Belgium.. Baudouin of Belgium refused to sign an abortion law. He left the throne for a day so the government could sign the bill itself. Unilynx (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) King Baudouin of Belgium, a devout Catholic, was so personally unhappy with a proposed law legalising abortion, that he arranged to (in effect) abdicate for a day, leaving the signing of the law to others. That was his solution to not being a party to a law he could not countenance. That kind of demonstrates that simply refusing to give Royal Assent is not really possible in modern constitutional monarchies. I mean, he could have said "No, I will not sign", but the consequences could have included his being deemed permanently unfit to reign; kings do not give up their thrones so readily. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion has come up before, except I don't recall the answer, or if I even asked it this way: In theory, does the Queen have the power to "veto" a law that she considers to be so outrageous that it could cause great harm to the nation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically, she has the discretion to withhold Royal Assent on any bill at all, for any reason at all, no matter how capricious. But the reality is 180 degrees different. If she felt so strongly about a bill, she'd obviously raise her concerns with her Prime Minister. He might agree to propose some modifications to assuage her, but it would be up to the Parliament to agree to them. If she still felt so outraged by the bill, I think it's more likely she'd just abdicate than refuse to sign. Refusal to sign would bring the Crown into sharp conflict with the Executive, and in such contests, the Crown always comes off second best. Charles I had his head chopped off for his troubles, and the monarchy was even abolished for a while. The Queen would not ever get into that sort of territory. She'd just quit. But think about it: If she was so outraged, there'd be plenty of others of a similar view, and it would become a political issue first and foremost, not a constitutional one. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

According to our relevant article (mentioned above) the answer to BB is Yes. "The monarch can force the dissolution of Parliament through a refusal of royal assent; this inevitably leads to a government resigning. By convention, the monarch always assents to bills; the last time the royal assent was not given was in 1704 during the reign of Queen Anne. This does not mean that the right to refuse has died; George V believed he could veto the Third Irish Home Rule Bill; Jennings writes that "it was assumed by the King throughout that he had not only the legal power but the constitutional right to refuse assent". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent responses, both of you. I see the bottom line being that it's theoretically possible, but very unlikely due to a variety of reasons both political and practical. About the only way it should come to something like that is if the Prime Minister and the ruling party have defied all advice and public opinion, and have sent the bill on to her anyway (for example, a bill to outlaw tea), the Queen would have some options, and triggering a dissolution of Parliament seems the most politically astute. However, if it was clear the people and the Parliament both favored the law after much public discussion, she would be pretty much stuck with it even if she didn't like it (which I am sure happens sometimes, but she keeps her royal mouth shut about it.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Baudouin of Belgium may have refused to sign the law legalising abortion because all of his wife's 5 pregnancies had ended in miscarriage. However, the Queen's 5 miscarriages were not revealed to the public during his lifetime. Surtsicna (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

September 6

Alone on a quest narrative

Hi, I'm looking for references of stories from classical and modern literature where the hero undergoes a lonely journey, going ever deeper in enemy territory. I guess it is a classic narrative but I can't think of any off the top of my head. The protagonist travels alone and face various difficulties before confronting the main opponent at the end. Any suggestions? Thank you. 190.244.191.109 (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See: Monomyth. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets seems to fit the profile. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Lord of the Ring, the bits where Sam isn't there, or when Frodo is eaten by the spider and Sam continues alone. Also you could think of Sam and Frodo as one entity and it fits your requirements. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this fits your needs, but most First and Third person shooter video games, like Tomb Raider and Half Life fit this description. Rojomoke (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than having us just naming things, have you tried playing around with TVTropes? It basically does what you can — allows you to identify common tropes and shows a length list of all sorts of media that follow it. It has a page on the Monomyth, which is exactly what you are describing. Click around a bit and you'll find a ton of links there. We could literally be here for weeks describing literature and movies and games that fit the structure, because it's basically the most common myth structure in all of recorded human history. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ACT/SAT

OK, I'm taking the ACT and SAT later this year. After doing some practice tests with the Reading sections of both I have got all the concepts tested. I get the majority of the problem right, but there are usually a few where I eliminate all but two answers, which are usually the most ambiguous of all the questions, one of which is correct, and my main loss of points results from my picking the wrong one. In a situation like this (broad unfotunately because this occurs in a variety of contexts) how can I reduce these mistakes? I realize that practice is an answer but I'm already doing that, so are there any others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.209.53 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ACT and SAT questions are generally structured to have two answers that are fairly obviously wrong if you have a basic grasp on the material, and two answers that are hard to distinguish between unless you have a strong grasp on the material. If you only have a basic grasp, then you will maximize your score by (quite literally) flipping a coin. trying to pick randomly using your head is problematic - humans don't randomize well (they are always influenced by some factor or another, and that may very well work against you). best bet of course is to make a list of the questions you get wrong, and do some focused studying to improve your grasp on those topics.

this will not work on the LSATs, GREs, MCATs, or other high level exams. sorry, but for those test reasoning skills more than knowledge, and that's a very different ball of wax. --Ludwigs2 01:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Even the SAT and ACT are, to some extent, Aptitude tests (that's pretty surprising that we don't have an article on that topic). They claim they're not, and the SAT certainly doesn't correlate with IQ as much as it used to, but at some point some people are going to be able to do better than others no matter how much preparation is put in. Not everyone is capable of pulling a 36 on the ACT, no matter how much tutoring they get and practice tests they've taken. Buddy431 (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm sure you know this, but the SAT penalizes ¼ point for each incorrect answer, so if you aren't really leaning at least moderately towards one of the two answers it would be probably best to leave that question blank (they do not penalize for unanswered questions). On the ACT this isn't a problem, as there is no penalty for incorrect answers. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. If you can narrow a question down to at most three answers, then it's statistically favorable to guess. If you randomly choose between two answers, you have a 50% chance of getting 1 pt (and a 50% chance of loosing a quarter point), for an expected score of 0.375, well above the zero you're going to get if you leave it blank. Buddy431 (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair point...I've always been rather conservative when taking tests, and the result was usually less ¼ point deductions (at least on the PSAT; I've never taken the SAT itself) compared to friends who were more liberal with their guesses, and it actually made the difference to where I ended up with the higher score...purely OR, but that was my experience with it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 04:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

as I mentioned before, though, you ned to keep in mind that guessing is far, far from random. I remember seeing something in Scientific American (I think) ages ago: a guessing game which someone had constructed (using psychological research) so that the average player would score very very low, even though every question was a simple binary guess. (wish I had a reference for that, but I'm too darned lazy to thumb through 20-40 years of SA to find it). you can be pretty sure that the SAT people have detailed statistics on what kinds of wrong answers appeal to people. --Ludwigs2 04:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Prostitution

Which countries have really legalized prostitution ? I mean where it goes like smooth, guilt-free business, and authorities really do not interfere ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on Prostitution and the law has a list of them: Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal, Lebanon, Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Netherlands, Switzerland, Turkey, Mexico, Panama, United States (Nevada), Australia (in most eastern states), New Zealand, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Or better yet, Prostitution by country, where is looks like pretty much every nation has their own article on the subject. Buddy431 (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please reread the question - the word "really" stressed...

I'm not sure what answer you're looking for. I'm in the US, and I've never heard that the authorities prevent the brothels in Nevada from their business, or their clients from patronizing them. If they did, they could certainly be held accountable through the court. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It is really nice to know that. But what about moralists, ain't there any lobbies protesting ?

I googled "Nevada brothel protests" and didn't turn up anything very significant-sounding. I think if you're just looking to hire a prostitute, you should be able to go to a legal brothel in Nevada and not experience any legal difficulties. You might get a better answer by looking up brothel web sites and contacting the managers directly to ask how likely it is that you'll encounter protesters or unfriendly police. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are getting too personal. I am talking about the politics of the legal prostitution. My question is about the fact that self appointed moralists (in India the right-wing) are fiercely opposed to legalization of prostitution. What I'd like to know is how active the church etc. are in west in getting things back to what-they-think-is-normal.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In New Zealand, the leaders of most of the major denominations (Baptists, Methodists, Salvation Army, Anglicans, and Roman Catholics— I certainly wouldn't call all of them "right wing") wrote an open letter to Parliament opposing the bill which legalised prostitution when it was being considered. But I don't know whether they have an official position on the matter now after the country has had seven years' experience of this law. (I should mention that the fact that some people protest against a particular legal phenomenon doesn't mean that the phenomenon is "not really legalised".) Marnanel (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that any place where "the authorities don't interfere" will have a "smooth" prostitution business; prostitution, and indeed any business, has a tendency to become shady and corrupt if it is not tightly regulated. I would say that the places where prostitution acts the most as business like any other: Switzerland and The Netherlands, for example, are where it is very tightly regulated. Workers are required to pass health checks, for example, and revenues are taxed. Buddy431 (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Here in New Zealand it is "smooth" if you mean that the authorities don't harass them at all (though the community may protest should you put your brothel by a school); however, as Buddy says, the business is rather shady still and workers' health and wellbeing is neglected a bit. sonia♫ 09:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sonia. I am very pleased and relieved to hear that.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Haha, You might want to clarify which part of Sonia's statement you're relieved to hear about. APL (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Family of William of Gellone

What was the name of the family of William of Gellone? It seems many Frankish noble family had names ie. the Agilolfings, the Bosonids and the Etichonids. So what was William's family's name, it seem they should have one since they were quite powerful controlling much of southern France and being married to the relatives of the Carolingians.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, most families, even noble ones, didn't have surnames. The three you mention were all taken from an illustrious ancestor (Agilulf, Boso the Elder and Adalrich Eticho), and used to identify their descendants or their houses. I'm not even sure if that was done contemporaneously or if it was applied by historians at a later date. Lacking that, they would have been known by nickname ("Court nez" == Shortnose) or by the house they already belonged to (d'Orange). I don't know where "Fierabrace" comes from. Rojomoke (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See Family name#History: "The practice of using family names spread through the Eastern Roman Empire and gradually into Western Europe although it was not until the modern era that family names came to be explicitly inherited in the way that they are today." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the Bosonids commences with the statement "The Bosonids were a dynasty that have been named in modern times by their descent from Boso the Elder."--Wetman (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Winston Churchill - had to earn a living?

Did he have to earn a living, or did he work as a soldier, journalist and later as a politician by choice? I understand that although he was born in Blenheim Palace he did not live there in later life. 92.15.7.161 (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph of his military career section of the Wikipedia article seems to imply that he was not entirely financially independent as a young man and took up war correspondence as a means of supplementing his income. So I would suspect that this would imply that if there was a lot of family money, he didn't have unrestricted access to it. It doesn't seem like being a layabout was an option. But one doesn't get into either military, journalism, or politics for the money, really. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Churchill did have to earn a living. His grandfather was a Duke but his father was a younger son, and also died young in 1895. Churchill inherited almost nothing but he bumped up his income from being in the Army by writing for the Morning Post. When out of office in the 1920s and especially in the 1930s he was largely dependent on earnings from journalism; by no means were all his published works on political topics. It seems hard to think of Winston Churchill as a hack journalist but in the early 1930s that would not have been totally inaccurate as a description. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Winston was born at Blenheim by accident; his mother was just visiting the wealthy in-laws when she went into labour (it was on the Antiques Roadshow last night so it must be true). Alansplodge (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Churchill was a very prolific writer and made a lot of his money from journalism, but he also wrote a number of best-selling history books. His history of The World Crisis (World War I) was a major income source, and he also wrote his biographical series on the Duke of Marlborough during the thirties. Also his A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, but that didn't come out until the 1950s. And his history of World War II was a huge bestseller. In short he made his living by writing. Looie496 (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the recent biography (excellent book) by Roy Jenkins, Churchill lived most of his first 30 or 40 years barely making enough income to support his tremendous spending habits. When he was first assigned to the India corps, in addition to his officer's salary, he received an allowance from his mother (who was living off Lord Randolph Churchill's estate) to cover these costs, and only later did his war journalism and war books start to contribute significantly to his income. Later in life he made loads of money on speech-giving tours. I wish I could remember some of the quotes from that book (and I don't have it handy) but - suffice it to say - he always lived large and spent every dime he made. You asked about where he lived, for example; the construction and operation of Chartwell - his primary non-government residence - nearly bankrupted him. I got the impression that, as a young man, he craved fame and the glory of a big life - perhaps one that eclipsed his father. In my opinion, fighting and writing in the colonies then running for office was just a means to that end.NByz (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I expect he spent every shilling he made, not every dime. Googlemeister (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Every penny" is the usual idiom in these parts, if you're being VERY picky! Alansplodge (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Homemade pomander

How far back (centuries) is the tradition of making pomanders from studded oranges or studded apples with cloves?

From the relevant Wikipedia articles:

Pomander: "A pomander....is a ball made of perfumes, such as ambergris..., musk, or civet......Pomanders came from the Arab world to Europe and was first mentioned in literatute in the mid-thirteenth century. They were used in the late Middle Ages through the 17th century."

Use of the word 'orange': "The first appearance in English dates from the 14th century."

Cloves: "...found their way west to the Middle East and Europe well before the first century AD. Archeologists found cloves within a ceramic vessel in Syria along with evidence dating the find to within a few years of 1721 BC."

But the pomander article also says: "A modern form of pomander is made by studding an orange or other fruit with whole dried cloves..."

So according to the article, less than a century. 92.15.19.57 (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This book (on p.60) suggests that the tradition goes back to "the Middle Ages", as an olfactory prophylactic device at times of plague. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vkWJXKt7lbIC&pg=PA299&dq=pomander+orange+history&hl=en&ei=8H2FTIXFGJGUjAf-_sCeBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=pomander%20orange%20history&f=false says that the orange pomander was invented by Cardinal Wolsey. Searching for 'orange pomander history' in Google Books produces many results. 92.28.248.94 (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice lead, Thanks. This would put the idea back about 500 years or so if we are talking of Thomas Wolsey.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Wolsey, this site quotes Cavendish's Life of Wolsey as follows: "He being thereof then advertised, came out of his privy chamber, about eight of the clocke … holding in his hande an orange, whereof the meate or substance within was taken out, and filled up againe with the parte of a spunge, wherein was vinegar and other confections againste the pestilent aires; the which he most commonly held to his nose when he came along any presse, or else that he was pestered with any suiters." That does not sound quite the same as the modern version. This suggests that "the use of clove-studded fruit, dusted with ground spice mixes, as pomanders, were introduced by the Arabs." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that pertaining to the Arabs - however it doesn't seem to give a time period. The book of potpourri by Penny Black indicates on page 72 a time period of the sixteenth century, which would put it in Wolsey's time. Further down on that page in the book I obtained from the library today it says: Citrus fruits, studded with cloves and rolled in spices, are described in literature of the sixteenth century. It looks like perhaps this tradition goes back some 500 years according to literature references.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Biblical quote

According to Johnson (1893) p. 25, a sermon was held on 17 June 1816 at Ely Cathedral preached by Henry Bate Dudley from the text (I Tim. i. 9). Rather than assume, would someone please confirm ...

1. ... if this would have been from the authorized King James Version?
2. ... if this is Book 1 Timothy i 9 the correct way to reference this text?
3. ... what the reliable source is to this text?

--Senra (Talk) 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes, almost certainly - the first significant revision of the King James Version, the Revised Version, was not published until the 1880s.
2. Yes, I Tim. i. 9 is short for the 9th verse of the first chapter of Paul's 1st letter to Timothy (there are two letters from Paul to Timothy in the New Testament).
3. There are lots of on-line texts of the KJV - picking one at random, the verse referenced reads "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers ...". The list continues in verse 10. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Q1 Yes, the KJV was the only version allowed in the Church of England until the advent of the Revised Version in 1885 and then the New English Bible in 1961. The 1885 revisions were rather minor IIRC.

Q2 I have often seen the chapter numbers in lower case Roman numerals, perhaps to avoid confusion with the verse number. However a look at Google shows that most modern sources use Arabic numerals throughout.

Q2 This[8] shows the verse in context although whether this is a "reliable source" or not, I'm not sure. Alansplodge (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Much appreciated both of you and, incidentally, thank you Gandalf61 for your support here :) --Senra (Talk) 16:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Correlation between Oil Prices and Bond Yield.

Is there any relationship between Bond Yield and Oil prices? If yes, how does one affect the other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilthemacho (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Bonds are a very wide category. Corporate bonds within the oil and gas sector may indeed show a correlation with oil prices, since the health of those companies may directly correlate. Did you have a specific sector or type of bond in mind? Antandrus (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, corporate bonds is the category I am considering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilthemacho (talk • contribs) 18:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a homework question. But maybe a more pertinent question is what currency is your oil denominated in and what currency are your bonds paying in. Shadowjams (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Finding "modest" feminine attire

For a girl or a woman who wants to dress "modestly" for the classroom or the workplace, what are some good sources of garments (blouses, skirts, and dresses) whose upper extremities are not too low, whose lower extremities are not too high, whose material is not too diaphanous, and whose fit is not too tight? I am interested in all countries and all regions, so please answer for any place for which you are able to do so?.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
[I am correcting my punctuation, by changing a question mark to a full stop (period).—Wavelength (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)]

Wikipedia can't substitute for your local business directory. This is a Reference Desk.--Wetman (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

She is asking us to refer her to a place. That's certainly a reference question. Aaronite (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're trying to find something that would cover the bases for all possible countries and regions, the Burqa might be your best bet. I can't think of anything more modest than that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Modesty standards vary quite widely among countries and cultures, so it isn't possible to answer the question without more information about where you are. In the United States, I often buy my clothing from Lands' End, which has a wide range of clothing which is cut modestly enough to be quite appropriate for my own culture, but I don't know whether that meets your modesty standards or not, because I don't know very much about your modesty standards. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends on whether he's looking for one outfit per culture, or one outfit that will work everywhere (which is why I suggested the burqa). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that illegal in France now though, Bugs? Wikiscient (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So is bathing, I've heard. So, what do the French consider to be "modest" attire? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the question, but t-shirt and jogging bottoms are casual and comfortable, and good for all situations. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I guessed that she was looking for clothing for herself- her userpage says she's a native English speaker, so I made an educated guess that the modesty standards prevalent in the US, Britain, and Australia were the most likely. But I don't know, for example, whether she considers a skirt 'too short' when it shows the ankles, or when it shows the knees, or whether a blouse is 'too low' when it shows the neck. In my own culture, modest clothing would not show the tops of the breasts or the thighs and knees, but showing clavicle and calf would still be modest- but I know that there are cultures and subcultures that have different standards of modesty. It would also help to know the purpose of the information: whether this is someone looking for work clothes, or putting together a web directory of businesses. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not looking for a universal answer to fit all places, and my expression "please answer for any place for which you are able to do so" allows for variation of standards and sources among countries and regions. Also, I wish to add the criterion "not too casual", so the answer "t-shirt and jogging bottoms" is not satisfactory. Some businesses require a more "professional" appearance. After I posted my question, I found the website http://www.modestclothes.com/, which seems to be a very good directory of sources. Thank you, all answerers, for your interest.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, I'd say perhaps Marks and Spencer. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

One problem with Marks and Spencer is that often their tops are quite low cut so that some cleavage shows, or even your bra. If it is an M&S blouse, you need to check where the top button on a blouse is as for many of their styles it is too low, depending on your shape. I used to buy a lot of my workwear from there but now tend to get blouses from LandsEnd because of this problem.

[I am revising the heading of this section, by removing the question mark. [9] I hope to be more careful in the future.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)]

Look for stores that cater to religious Jews or Muslims. (Google jewish clothing, or muslim clothing.) Ariel. (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

How about a Salwar kameez, the modest alternative in many UK schools that have a uniform or clothing guidelines? Astronaut (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What a waste of the privelidge of being female. If I was a woman, I'd dress like a tart. 92.28.242.240 (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite apart from professionalism and controlling the view people have of you, I experience harrassment and threatening behaviour fairly often, even when dressed modestly. I can't speak for others, but I personally have little desire to increase the harrassment I experience for little gain: when with a group of friends, partying, the tradeoff is often worth it. Most other times, it isn't. You could always dress like a gigolo every day, or a rent-boy. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I had lots of serious and frequent harassment when I was a youth, despite being modestly and smartly dressed, so it is not just for women. Besides, what would have been considered tart-wear not so long ago is just everyday High Street fashion now. Leggings, hot pants, or kinky boots, for example. 92.15.20.52 (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the article you linked, you'd dress like a pastry dish?

To original question: What is "too"? My skirts tend to come up to just above my knees (with stockings), my blouses form-fitting (not skin-tight) but not showing cleavage. Would that be immodest by your standards? sonia♫ 12:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted my original question on behalf of all females who have experienced difficulty in finding garments that conform to one dress code or another. I am aware that there is some variation among standards set by different organizations and different institutions, so I deliberately worded my question to accommodate those different standards. I appreciate any information which helps with any part of the range of possibilities.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Here in NZ it's not that difficult to find such clothing; just about every department store will stock decent (although sometimes plain) modest blouses and long pants. Skirts that are suitable are a little harder to find, especially since there are so many cuts of skirts that suit different figures. The thing I've observed here is that some stores go through a "season" of selling skirts then just revert to one or two that are either street-fashion miniskirts or just plain weird. That said, I live on a musician's budget, so a lot of my clothing is from second-hand shops. I find that if you know where to look these can give your dress style a lot more originality and personality. sonia♫ 21:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Take professional women in public life. They usually dress in Suit style outfit. If you have thought this long and hard about it, then a more formal attire is required. MacOfJesus (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Maj.Gen.Ashmore

Hello, I have spoken to Wikipedia help desk, I was told maybe you can help me. I am researching a Maj. Gen. Ashmore, I have found an article on him on Wilipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Ashmore_(British_Army_officer). I trying to find information on him before he he went to the "Royal military academy Wolwich" his early years, for example who were his parents etc. his social background, edication. I hope you can help.

Thanks Astonboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astonboy3 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is from the ODNB, a standard British reference work - "born on 20 February 1872 at 18 Radnor Place, Paddington, London, the son of Fitzroy Paley Ashmore, a barrister, and his wife, Marian Bailey. He was educated at Eton College and the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich". I hope this is of some help. DuncanHill (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Class hint: toff.--Wetman (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No, not a toff, not with a lawyer father. Middle-to-upper middle class. DuncanHill (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm... educated at Eaton is always going to get you to the toff-ish end of the spectrum, at least to those of us in the lower orders ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Dunno about Eaton, but there's an awful lot of "trade" at Eton. DuncanHill (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Pregnancy Frog Test

I heard on some Chinese television show that ancient Chinese believed that if a frog smells the urine of a woman if she is pregnant it'll croak if she isn't it won't. Is this true?--CHANLONG (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on Pregnancy test indicates that frogs were used in pregnancy testing, but not in this way- if I understand the description correctly, a frog injected with urine from a pregnant woman would produce eggs within 24 hours. I googled a bit, and couldn't find references to an ancient Chinese frog test involving the death of the frog, but that doesn't mean some Chinese folk-culture scholar won't be along in a moment with that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "croak" refers to dying here. 80.123.210.172 (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha! I missed that entirely. My mistake, I think. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Rabbits were used in this way; you would inject a woman's urine into a Rabbit's ovaries, and if then examine them under a microscope some time later; if the ovaries showed certain signs, then there were pregancy hormones in her urine, and she was pregnant. The practice showed up in an episode of M*A*S*H and in the Aerosmith song "Sweet Emotion", the line being "You can't catch me cuz the rabbit done died". See Rabbit test. --Jayron32 04:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

With hypodermic needles and microscopes these Chinese weren't so ancient.--Wetman (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sociology

I'm just finishing up my sociology homework (I know, I'm working on procrastinating less ;) and there is a question at the end that goes something like 'In some television series and films, the directors will have an attractive female major character wear glasses at least part of the time. This usually will be rarely referenced and will not affect the plot." It mentions a few examples, most of which I just skimmed but I noticed Allison Cameron from House as one of them, because I sometimes watch that show. THen it asks what the purpose is and if I can think of any other examples. I realize that in sociology there is more than one "right" interpretation but there is also something the authors are looking for. I have something along the lines of "The glasses create a perceived 'flaw' in an otherwise unattainable character. They thus allow female audiences to better relate to a character who is far more pretty than themselves, effectively increasing female viewership while not reducing the character's 'sex appeal' (and the male viewership with it), as might a more pronounced flaw." For examples I put Penelope Cruz in Sahara and Tina Fey (well..., practically anywhere). By my class's standards this is probably already full points, but my 2 questions are, is there anything I'm missing or any other reasons, and what are some more examples? I don't really watch that much TV so that's all I could think of. 76.229.163.32 (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I can't be of help in answering the question, I don't think a "do your own homework" stock answer is appropriate. The questioner has shown that he or she has thought through the question and gone as far as he or she can with the answer, and is satisfied that their existing work would score full marks. That's normally the point at which we'll pick up and add useful pointers. FWIW, glasses are also sometimes used to make people look more studious, intelligent or authoritative than they otherwise would; not sure if this is ever their purpose on the stupid box. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There might be some stuff on tvtropes.org, such as this or this or, indeed, the main glasses trope list. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an antique stereotype that women who wear glasses are "bookish", i.e. intellectual more than sensuous. This newer approach might be a way of bridging that gap. But the question seems pretty complicated. If I were doing that essay, I would start by googling ["men don't make passes at girls who wear glasses"] and see where that goes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Glasses are a classic sign for "intelligent, bookish, smart." Put on a lady they emphasize her cerebral side. I don't think they are meant to create a "flaw" unless you have already determined that cerebral is not your thing. The obvious stereotype is "pretty women aren't smart," which the glasses are meant to subvert. I find the analysis you've offered up to be pretty unconvincing — a real leap. Tina Fey is a good example of someone who much is made of because she subverts the "pretty women aren't smart" trope in real life as well. (As TV Tropes discusses.) See also, Beautiful All Along.--Mr.98 (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Purchase Ensure at PX?

To US Navy

I do not know wether this is a proper method to send it or not. Anyway, I am trying to find out whether I can shop at PX in the US Navy or not. Also, I am elibible for the social security benefit as of December, 2010; however, I do not know how much the Yen I can get due to the unfavorable recent excange rate. Consequently, I would like to know whether I can utilize PX facility or if I can get a part time job there or not since I am US citizen.

Thank you very much for your prompt response to the above matter.

Best regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roykohama (talk • contribs) 22:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has nothing to do with the US Navy, and I doubt that anybody here is going to know what you are talking about; sorry. Looie496 (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The article Base exchange, of which the PX is one type, doesn't fully answer the question; but buying at these stores seems to be restricted to military people and their families, and also civilian, government employees that might be operating the stores. The best bet is to contact the Navy directly and find out what the rules are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It would surprise me if you could spend Yen at a US naval base, even one in Japan, especially if you are not yourself in the US military, or a dependent of someone who is. Googlemeister (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ensure is certainly available at most PXes. It is a staple of the modern American sailor. It is also recommended nutrition for detainees who are subject to "dietary manipulation" enhanced interrogation techniques [10] - because it provides enough calories to survive, but in a very unsatisfying way. I find it ironic that Ensure is used as part of a torture-method, because as I understand it, Ensure is also the staple voluntary dietary supplement of American sailors (and geriatrics). Some base exchanges are open to the public, but offer higher prices than they do for servicemen. Nimur (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

September 7

"Impossible Symphony"

I vaguely remember seeing a score for an "Impossible Symphony" that really would be impossible to play — it had lots of notes that were approximately 1/256th notes, along with plenty of other bits that a human simply couldn't play. Googling "impossible symphony", I found very little; the only relevant image was this one, which doesn't look quite right, but is rather close. Any ideas? Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed an excerpt from the most famous humorous score, which looks like this at full size. 61.7.120.132 (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, we have an article about it, Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz. I had thought that we had such an article, but what little I remembered of it wasn't enough to find it with a search. Thanks much for the pointer! Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hundred twenty-eighth note may be of interesting read as an aside. --Jayron32 05:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of an anecdote told by Howard Blake in an interview in CounterPunch:

(Blake is talking to a young composition student) ...He replied that he had actually won the top prize at the Royal College for the best modern music piece. I congratulated him and said that that was marvelous and asked whether I could take a look. He came over to visit me and brought out a score from his bag – a typical Stockhausen-looking post-Schoenberg/Boulez type of thing – and I looked at it. In the first bar it had 19 hemi-demi-semi-quavers played by the entire viola section in the space of a crochet. I asked, whether he thought it was playable. He said, “no.” I asked whether he could sing it. And he said, “no.” I asked whether he knew what it sounded like, and he said that it didn’t matter what it sounded like. He had won a prize and that, in order to get a degree, this was the way one had to write. Then he said he wanted to write film music like me. He had won a very notable prize that was against his very nature and intelligence.

--Rallette (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That says it all, really. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What a president once said

One of my coaches about a year ago told us a story about a president who wanted NASA to goto the moon (I think it was the moon). NASA came and told him its not possible, we don't have the technology to go there or something like that. The president said something like he doesn't care, just make it happen. Do any of you guys know the story? Sorry about being so vague, I just don't remember if it was the moon or not and who said it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Likely John F. Kennedy's famous "Moon speech", given at Rice University in Texas. The text can be found here: [11]. The relevent passage is "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..." (stress mine). The speech was given in 1962, at that point the U.S. space program had put its first person in space only 15 months before that speech (see Mercury-Redstone 3), and yet Kennedy's prediction would come through; Apollo 11 landed on the moon in 1969, in the same decade as Kennedy's speech. Your coach is undoubtedly talking about the Kennedy speech (Kennedy himself died in 1963, so he never saw it himself.) --Jayron32 04:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. Having a relative who worked for NASA back then, and from reading many first-person books and articles about the early U.S. space program, NASA's original plan was to slowly develop its program in a logical sequence, with the likelihood of reaching the moon in the mid-1980s or so. Then Kennedy came along (undoubtedly pushed by the Cold War), and the NASA guys rolled their eyes and essentially said, "What is he getting us into?" The breakneck speed that NASA had to work at to reach the goal led to rushed development and sloppy design, as evidenced by the fatal Apollo 1 fire. — Michael J 22:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that NASA thought that making it to the moon wasn't possible; they may have thought that it was risky and expensive. For an inspiring story about planning the Apollo program, check out how they settled on Lunar Orbit Rendezvous as a mission plan. For a while, the leading idea was a single vehicle that would thrust all the way to the moon and all the way back. Getting two vehicles to meet each other in the orbit of the moon was technically challenging, but it gave the mission two crucial pieces of flexibility: (1) they didn't have to take all of their fuel with them onto the lunar surface (which would have substantially increased the size of everything), and (2) they could build a specialized vehicle for landing on the moon. If it weren't for the efforts of a couple of people, and the intellectual honesty of NASA culture at the time, getting to the moon might have been harder or even impossible. Paul (Stansifer) 01:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and replys. I think it was JFK and going to the moon, but I believe there was something about NASA saying with the materials they have its not possible and he said something to them. Do you guys have any ideas about this conversation? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the Article page:John F. Kennedy at the section: Space Program? It goes a long way in answering your question. When you find the exact reference and citation perhaps you could place it in at the appropriate spot? MacOfJesus (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Is There Symbolism

File:Logo_GrandNationalParty(KOR).png Is there a story behind the symbol?204.191.66.89 (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Lebanon, Syria and Iraq

Is this true that Lebanon, Syria and Iraq were full of forests? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.201 (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Define forest. The all have trees, see Cedrus libani for the ubiquitous Lebanon Cedar tree which is also featured prominently on their flag. Unlike the current Western perception of these places, they aren't barren wastelands devoid of plantlife. --Jayron32 05:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Lebanon especially was full of forests. The Epic of Gilgamesh tells of the cutting of virgin timber guarded by Humbaba. Solomon sent to Tyre for cedar beams to roof the temple. Iraq had neither wood nor building stone; but it had grasslands in the Bronze Age that is desert today.--Wetman (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)--Wetman (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

history greece

a greek prince in exile came to kalimpong, india , in early part of twentieth century. what was his name ? is he the same person who was in morocco for sometime, also ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdpnkr (talk • contribs) 07:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A Greek prince who may well have spent time in Kalimpong was Prince Peter of Greece and Denmark. I don't know if he also travelled in Morocco.--Rallette (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If he's the same one I've heard about before, he was actually an expert on polyandry (not sure why it doesn't say that on his article), and might have travelled anywhere in the world where polyandrous customs could be found... AnonMoos (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

medicine chinese

is there some chinese herb , much akin to Indian 'Brahmi' , to boost human memory ? is there any such herb or medicine in ancient greek medicine also ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdpnkr (talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust any answer that didn't link to a published peer reviewed study, or 10 that did the same. Shadowjams (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(I don't know whether Cdpnkr is necessarily looking for scientific evidence. This is the Humanities desk, after all. Their interest may lie in the history of pharmaceutics). I don't know how trustworthy my answer is. It's not linked to Chinese or ancient Greek medicine, nor can it claim 10 peer-reviewed studies, but Salvia lavandulifolia was described as a memory booster by herbalists centuries ago, and one modern study seem to confirm. ("Sage Improves Memory, Study Shows"). ---Sluzzelin talk 08:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Traditionally, Ginkgo biloba is used to improve memory. In English herbalism, rosemary is also used to improve memory (Shakespeare wrote "There's rosemary, that's for remembrance"). In aromatherapy, basil and lemon are also reputed to have a positive effect on memory. Whether any of these herbs actually work is open to debate, but I think that's answering the question. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Mansfield Park: Modern novels to compare with

I'm looking for any contemporary novels (about 1990 - present) that I can talk about in comparison to Jane Austen's Mansfield Park. Specifically the novel's subject of the influence of morality and ethics at the cost of material gain in choosing a husband (or wife or partner...) Any suggestions for novels that discuss this subject greatly appreciated. Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arri66 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Was choosing a text yourself part of the homework assignment, or does the teacher say it's okay to get others to do this bit for you? We do sometimes help with homework, but we try not to do parts that your teacher wants you to do for yourself. I am not sure that I'd really call that the main theme of the novel, either... is that the aspect of the novel your teacher wants you to explore, or can you use other themes of the novel? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't for a homework assignment. I am a librarian and was asked if I knew any titles on this theme. Besides how does one choose a text without asking people for ideas?? Arri66 (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Although our article doesn't mention any titles specifically applicable to your topic, the recently emerged genre of Chick Lit doubtless includes some. You might try browsing in a Bookshop that has a section devoted to it. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my feeling too, that many chick lit books do deal with that sort of theme but I'm trying to get one or two recommendations that will engage a young person. Arri66 (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Query as to name of British Raj Culture

(I am copy pasting a question from the talk page of British Raj)--Sodabottle (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

HI folks, I am trying to find the sociological term I once heard during lecture to describe the nature of bureaucacy in India during the period of the British Raj. It was something like "hadyamaki" or something similar. Does anyone have a hint of an idea on this? 203.206.15.98 (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Terry In Perth

Panchayati raj? ---Sluzzelin talk 14:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly Oligarchy, essentially the Indian Civil Service was very small and individual officers had a significant span of control.

ALR (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Indian or Anglo-Indian clerks had a particular name, although I cannot remember what it was/is. Edit: it was Babu (title). Perhaps the OP misheard a word such as hierarchy, hierarchical, hierarchic, hegemony, administrative, or Hydrabad. 92.15.12.116 (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Amsterdam's flag

Is it just a coincidence that Amsterdam's flag and coat of arms have XXX on them? --J4\/4 <talk> 14:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the "coincidental" part refers to X rating, the answer is obviously yes. X-rating is much much newer than the coat of arms of Amsterdam or the flag of Amsterdam. You can read about some speculation on the origin of the crosses in those articles. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I just thought it was rather strange, given the prevalence of drugs and prostitution in Amsterdam. --J4\/4 <talk> 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to be a bit pedantic... The popularity of the XXX rating began in the early 70s. While the X rating had been around for a while, it didn't really mean "porn". It was not trademarked, so anyone could use it to mean "not rated". The porn industry was the main source of X-rated movies, so the public drew a relation between X and porn. Then, by the early 70's, film distributors decided to use XX to mean more porn than X. Then, XXX meant more porn than XX. Why they settled on XXX is not clear. However, the XXX rating was standard for porn by 1975.

What else happened in 1975? Amsterdam adopted a new official flag. Previously, Amsterdam did not have an official flag. The one that most people used was red, white, and black with two large gold lions on it. Between the lions was three X's in a vertical line. (It is the coat of arms.) The new flag was red, black and red with three large X's horizontally across it. So, this coincided with the new popularity of the XXX rating.

Now, this question appears to be based on an incorrect assumption that all of Amsterdam is similar to De Wallen. That is very far from accurate. One question that I do not know the answer to is: When was De Wallen legally set aside as a red light district? I am certain that it was long before 1975, which would leave very little room to claim that the new flag adopted in 1975 was specifically designed to increase tourism to De Wallen. -- kainaw™ 16:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

J4V4 - if you want to see a humorous parody version of the Amsterdam coat of arms, look at The Complete Book of Heraldry by Stephen Slater (ISBN 1843096986), page 242... AnonMoos (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A bit off-topic but in the UK, beer was traditionally graded in strength for tax purposes by a system of "X" marks. Although this fell into disuse many decades(?) ago, it was common in British cartoons for beer bottles and barrels to be marked "XXX" to show what they contained. A beer called Wadworth's 6X is still being sold. Alansplodge (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

'Ethnic' restaurants and the people they employ - can they discriminate on race? (in a UK context)

For example, would a Chinese restaurant be allowed to employ only Chinese-looking staff (at least those that serve the customers, as opposed to those working in the kitchen), or an Indian restaurant the same with Indian-looking staff? I'm thinking about calling up for a bar job at an oriental restaurant but don't know if I should bother because I'm white, or is that a form of discrimination or what. I imagine that Italian restaurants have no problem employing white British staff.--Querydata (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that the Ref desk doesn't provide legal advice, with this topic falling under the employment law category. However, employers cannot discriminate on the basis of race or appearance.

However there are clauses around the immigration acts for a very limited set of circumstances where the only suitable candidate would require immigration approval. The example sometimes used relates to Bangladeshi, and sometimes Indian chefs cooking specific styles.

So for a bog standard bar job there should be no restriction.

ALR (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If I assume correctly that US laws wouldn't be too different than UK laws, an employer can choose whomever they like from the collection of qualified applicants for a position and as long as decisions are based on qualification (or at least they can be explained that way), the employer should not be at risk. I'm an American dentist and it's rare to see a male dental assistant. So if one applies and doesn't get the job, as long as one didn't say to him that the reason he didn't get the job was because of his gender, what would be his legal options if the employer can show that the assistant he or she did hire is at least as qualified as the male applicant, despite being a female (in that that wasn't a factor). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In the UK all the Chinese and Indian restaurants I've come across are small family-run establishments. No doubt they find it quite easy to recruit from within their own circles. Larger restaurants or those without a local ethnic community no doubt need to advertise. I recently ate the large and lavish Sea Dragon Chinese Restaurant in Coonabaraban, New South Wales (recommended), and didn't see any Chinese staff (but no doubt they were doing the cooking; I hope so).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(Had connections problems so EC with all below) This clearly depends what country you're referring to. But even in countries with strong anti-discrimination laws, I would imagine it may be possible for a restaurant to discriminate based on how someone looks (not necessarily the race per se) if they can successfully make the argument it's essential for their atmosphere (somewhat similar to the way a movie company may only hire someone who 'looks Chinese' for a character who's supposed to be Chinese) but I'm not aware of anyone actually having tried that and expect even if it has happened it's a rather rare and risky thing to do. In any case other then what's already been mentioned, note that some restaurants may set things like the ability to communicate in a language other then English or test your knowledge of their food, ingredients, culture etc when it's relevant to the job which technically anyone could meet but is less likely for e.g. a non Chinese person to meet if the language is Cantonese or Mandarin and the food Chinese of some sort. This is of course only general comment, not intended to apply to any specific situation Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the last time I saw a job in a Chinese restaurant advertised in the Job Centre (several years ago - I haven't looked for a job in a Chinese restaurant since, TBH), there was no mention of race. However, it was clearly stated that 'applicant must speak fluent Mandarin Chinese'. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That would now be vulnerable to challenge under the relevant acts.

ALR (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? I can easily see that being directly related to being able to do the job. Your head chef speaks fluent Mandarin, but only broken English. All the recipes (and the labels on most of the ingredients) are written in Mandarin, etc. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In practice it should be fairly simple for an employer to demonstrate compliance, but essentially all of the points you mention can be mitigated for. The employer needs to show that the cost of mitigation exceeds the business value of the role, rendering it unprofitable to employ someone. Essentially one gets a mandarin speaker or doesn't hire anyone.

It does come down to a job by job comparison, a business owner can't stipulate that for all employees as most don't need Mandarin.

ALR (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember a meal I had in a Chinese restaurant in Manchester about 10 years ago - I think possibly the Little Yang Sing, though I wouldn't swear to it, where one of the waiters was definitely European. But surely the sign of quality of an ethnic restaurant is not the ethnicity of the staff but whether they get good custom from people of the same ethnicity? -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• The relevant articles are Equality Act 2010 and United Kingdom employment equality law. DuncanHill (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

When I see a restaurant of a particular ethnicity employing someone of a different ethnicity, I wonder about the authenticity of that particular ethnic cuisine, and I wonder about whether the owners and managers are more interested in profits than they are in providing a genuine experience of ethnic food. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 April 26#Certified ethnic cuisine.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You may wonder that, but it's not a factor that an employment tribunal would consider as having substance were it challenged. Lets face it, how realistic are the restaurants in question anyway?

A Chinese in the UK bears very little resemblance to eating in China, Hong Kong or Macau, an Indian doesn't compare to eating in Pakistan, India or Bangladesh. Personally I was quite badly caught out in a Thai place in San Francisco. I, along with some work colleagues, ordered Thai style as we would expect in Thailand, or the UK, and ended up with three times as many main meals as we expected. All of which were far bigger than a Thai meal would be anyway.

The immigration point I mentioned above does appear to be limited only to chefs given the style of cooking and the paucity of adequate quality training in these styles in the UK. In that instance is the ethnicity of the chef germane to the service provided? In the generic example, bar staff, the ethnicity really doesn't affect the service.

ALR (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone mentioned that many ethnic restaurants are family-owned businesses for which there are probably only rarely job openings, and family members might well be given priority. Also, being fluent in the native language might be a requirement, which would tend to narrow the range of applicants. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that "ethnic" restaurants are a specific exception in the UK employment law, which seems to be backed up by this:

Genuine Occupation Qualifications and Requirements

For some jobs it is possible to require that an applicant be of a particular race. This however is limited to areas such as personal welfare services, jobs as actors or models or jobs where a person of a particular race is required for reasons of authenticity – for example work in a Chinese or Indian restaurant.

I suppose in some establishment the difference between waiters and actors is not that great -- Q Chris (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand that has been challenged in a couple of Industrial Tribunals and is now in quesiton. the main argument being that the places affected aren't particularly authentic anyway.

ALR (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In New York City it's not at all uncommon to find a Mexican restaurant run by Chinese people barely able to speak English (let alone Spanish), and vice versa. This was less common in upscale establishments, but common enough otherwise. One of the things I liked about living there was seeing things like that. Pfly (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Why not call up the Chinese restaurant and find out?

If they do hire you, it might be a perfect opportunity for you to study Searle's Chinese room!

Any time anyone says anything to you in any language, just do whatever seems best to you at the time. With practice, you may even start to get it right in Mandarin Chinese! ;) Wikiscient (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

how to start accounting or being the least bit organized

man, I'm about six feet under. Feet of papers, that is. I need your help.

I'm an artist, I'm creative. I have way, way better things to do when I have 2-3 clients and maybe 15 hours of work per week than working to get another 5 clients to make it a full time thing. But there is no way I can schedule 8 people all in my head. Do invoices, etc, etc. I can do 2-3 clients while being an artist, but I gotta get professional or my wife will leave me.

So, how do I be an accountant and shit?? I don't even have 1 binder. I don't have, like, these calendar desk mats people use. HELP. What are the basics? Where do I start??

Excel? A, um, board on the wall to pin stuff to? How does that even help?

I am lost and confused. Although I am not asking for legal or medical advice, I would like some of your answers or references for how I can start to get organized. Thank you. 84.153.248.52 (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

For the financial side of things, talk to other artist friends who use a bookkeeper, get a reference for one that they like, and try that out for a few months. On the non-financial side of things, find someone who manages artists and have them take you on as a client in return for part of the money you earn. If you are chronically, hopelessly disorganized, then getting human help like this may help you — after working with the manager for a while, you may learn more about organizing your time and your projects. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for the suggestion. I believe it is an excellent follow-up should all my personal attempts fail. But perhaps with some help here, they need not fail... :) Is it really that hard to get organized? Can't someone learn to do it, as someone who doesn't cook, or swim, or drive, or anything else can learn to do one of these activities with online resources and some gentle guidance? 84.153.248.52 (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If she's the one insisting on this, how about getting your wife to act as your manager (that might be more diplomatic than "assistant" (-: ). Of course, only you would know whether your relationship is likely to survive such an arrangement. Rojomoke (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(Multiple Edit Conflicts) This is probably too big a subject to cover in Ref Desk answers. Speaking as a professional (if unemployed) Office Administrator myself, I have two suggestions:

1/ Take a short course (maybe an Evening Class, to avoid interfering with your workday) in basic Office Administration - local Adult Education establishments might be running such courses.

2/ Advertise in your local newspaper (or newsagent's window, or whatever) for someone with relevant training and experience (maybe someone retired from full-time working, or married to a full-time breadwinner) to come and do it for you part time - I'd guess around 8 hours a week (say 2 half days) would be sufficient. Once they've got your admin routines up and running, you might be able to learn enough from them to take over, or you might find your now more efficient business will begin to generate enough income and further work to keep them or someone else on permanently and with increased hours.

Of course almost anyone can learn to do this stuff if they have the self-discipline, but you have to learn it from someone who already knows, and you can't afford to screw it up or you and your business will incur a lot of financial hurt.

Note that you will almost certainly have to employ an Accountant to prepare your annual returns, or the Taxman will make mincemeat of you, but so long as you find out how properly to keep the very simple records needed, their task will be very much easier (and therefore cheaper). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite being mundane and boring, filing is the bedrock of running a small business. Without it you will waste hours or days trying to find things. I suggest getting several lever-arch files. Keep everything in the files in date order. In one file keep all paperwork that records your income. In another keep all reciepts, invoices, bills, and other evidence of your outgoings. In another keep all letters or notes about telephone conversations, copies of important emails, contracts, and so on. Keep these files up to date by filing away paperwork in them as soon as you get it or have dealt with it. Also have a calendar on the wall that you write future appointments and reminders to do things on particular dates. A whiteboard or something to write to-do lists on is useful too. You can go through the first two files and add up the figures to get your total gross income and total expenditure. If you do a lot of business with each customer, then have a dedicated file for each customer where you keep the correspondence between you.

You should also have a file for your invoices, where you keep a copy of every invoice that you send out. When you get paid you move the invoice to the 'income' file. Looking through this invoice file tells you what payments are overdue. 92.29.118.254 (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Joint portraits of William and Mary

Why are joint portraits of William and Mary so rare? I had expected to find a lot of photographs of joint portraits of a married couple who reigned together but I found none. Can someone show me photographs of such portraits? Do they even exist? Surtsicna (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Don't forget that they only ruled jointly for 5 years. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I presume you are aware of the article page: William and Mary -- MacOfJesus (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am. Why? The article doesn't contain a joint portrait of them. Ghmyrtle, thanks but that's not what I had in mind. I was thinking of something like File:Felipe of Spain and MariaTudor.jpg. Mary I and Philip's joint reign was a year shorter than William III and Mary II's but Wikimedia Commons has a portrait of them together. Surtsicna (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In those days a portrait meant sitting still for hours a day for at least a few days. William was not the sort of guy to put up with very much of that. Looie496 (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but, if they ruled, jointly, for only 5 years until Mary died, then it may indicate that she was already unwell. They were probably, "walking on egg-shells" with Parliament, the last thing on their minds was that! MacOfJesus (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I demand my money back

One almost hackneyed expression I frequently read on sites where people comment on movies is "to walk out of the theater and demand one's money back". I've always assumed this was just a figure of speech, an exaggeration, but it stroke me that I don't know that for sure. Is this more than just an expression? Can you in some theaters really walk out of a movie mid-projection and demand your money back? Or at least, was this possible in the past? TomorrowTime (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing stopping you from demanding your money back. Whether they'll actually give it to you or not is another question. A theater with good customer service might consider it, especially if there was some fault on their end which caused the film to be unwatchable (e.g. technical glitch, advertising the wrong movie, etc.). They'd be less likely to do so if the reason was simply "I didn't like the movie". -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly a technical fault is rather a different situation. I was once in a cinema where the projector broke halfway through the film and couldn't be quickly fixed. They sent someone in to aplogise, gave everyone their money back, and a voucher for a free film. Warofdreams talk 15:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You can walk out of a movie as you like. There is no restriction that demands you remain in the theater. You can also demand your money back. It doesn't mean that you will get your money back, but you can demand it. I used to manage movie theaters. My decision on giving a refund was based on how polite the person was and how much of the movie the person sat through. For example, if a person started cussing in the theater, stomped out of the theater, and started screaming about a refund, I would just call the police and let the person know that the person on the phone was a police officer who is more than willing to come by and handle the complaint. Similarly, if someone watched the entire movie and then decided it wasn't good and wanted a refund, I wouldn't allow it. If a person left the theater within the first 30 minutes or so and politely asked for a refund, I had not problem giving one. -- kainaw™ 19:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I only walked out of a movie once, decades ago, and it was very early in the presentation, so they refunded. It's similar to if you complain about food in a restaurant, they might give it to you. The decision might be geared on the question of whether they ever want you back in their establishment or not! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

People can demand and get refunds. I never have, but my friend has (he was upset the movie was too vulgar... it was some comedy from about a year ago). I suspect timing and complaint have something to do with the success rate. Simply saying it "sucked" after sitting through the whole thing probably won't get you anything, but leaving early and saying that you felt you were deceived into thinking it would be something it wasn't would be more likely met with success. Being politely outraged is probably what you're going for. Matt Deres (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If demands don't work, you can always up the ante with "Don't you know who I am?".  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Rumor has it that if you tell George Clooney that you saw "Batman and Robin" in the theater, he will give you your ticket money back. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for refunds at least twice at first-run cinemas after deciding 10-20 minutes into a movie to leave. I just told them, "I'm not enjoying this at all", and they had no problem giving the refund. This was in Canada. I've also walked out farther into a movie or at a discount cinema and in these cases I would not ask for a refund. --Anonymous, 23:10 UTC, September 7, 2010.

My personal impression is that businesses are generally quite a bit more customer-friendly in North America than they are in Europe. I've walked out of movies in Europe, but the only time I asked for my money back was when I went to see an American movie that was advertised with its English title and no mention of being dubbed in German, which it was and which I can only bear on television. There was no problem. As 140 pointed out above, technical glitches, but also being dubbed or other things objectively making the experience less enjoyable regardless of personal taste are instances where I might demand my money back. Not liking the movie would not be such an instance. I should have read the reviews! Matt Deres's example of excessive vulgarity might fall in the first category, particularly in the U.S. (Though again: Matt's friend should have read the reviews). I read that a New York premiere of Privates on Parade had dozens of people demanding their money back.

I'm curious though. Could you return a book at Barnes & Noble saying that you just didn't like the first 20 pages? Again, inconceivable where I live (with the possible exception of a tiny bookshop where I'm a regular customer and have a personal relationship with the staff, but I've never tried it there either).

I'd be surprised if you weren't able to return a book. I'm not sure where you're from (you didn't sign - naughty!), but in Canada it would be no big deal to return a book - it's no different than returning a garment or other item. I buy most of my books through Chapters online and have returned a few of them at the nearby brick and mortar branch. They ask if there was something physically wrong with the book and then cheerfully hand me my money back (well, they don't hand it back, they reverse part of the charge on my credit card). Never any hassle. Matt Deres (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign. Here (Switzerland), the large bookstores often seal the books in plastic. Once it's opened, it will have to look in mint condition in order for them to even consider a refund. One reason they might accept, is having received it as a gift but already owning the book. Even then, it's more common for the large bookstores to offer you a gift certificate or a book of equal value, nstead of cash. And little chance of anything if the book looks like it's been handled and leafed through. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. One reason I prefer to buy books at bookstores rather than online or by mail order is precisely that in a bookstore you can read some of the book and decide what you think of it. --Anonymous, 13:44, September 9, 2010.

Yes, I was imprecise. Of course there is always at least one display copy for each book which you can leaf through to your heart's content while sitting in one of the shop's comfortable armchairs. The book you buy is sealed. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In the theatres I've attended, passes and 3-D are not refundable, and all others are refundable before 20 minutes have passed, otherwise it's manager's discretion, based on why the refund is requested. Aaronite (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you choose to see the movie, it's not the theater's fault and you DO NOT deserve a penny back if you do not like it. You CHOSE to see a bad movie. 76.169.33.234 (talk)Dave —Preceding undated comment added 07:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC).

Very true 76, but if the manager thinks that denying you a refund will prevent you from choosing to see other movies at his establishment, then he might give you a refund anyway. Googlemeister (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless, of course, you look like the kind of person who will take the refund, return, watch another movie, demand a refund, come back, watch another movie, demand a refund, etc... -- kainaw™ 01:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I would anticipate that a manager of even humble intellect would quickly figure that one out. Now if he thought Waterworld was a good film... Googlemeister (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Anecdata: when I lived on the west coast, the biggest movie theatre in town would grant an automatic refund to anyone who left a film within the first twenty minutes. No questions asked. → ROUX ₪ 14:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Life imprisonment for bedwetting?

It's become a fixture of various cop shows that a suspect can be branded as a sociopath by learning that he was a bedwetter as a child. Apparently this is based on a now-discredited (?) Macdonald triad of bedwetting, fascination with starting fires, and cruelty to animals. (The same is also mentioned as diagnostic for psychopathy, though I'd thought that was supposed to be something different). Question: About how many people are actually imprisoned or subject to civil commitment, because their parents foolishly trusted the secret of their bedwetting to the confidence of a therapist? Wnt (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC) Which cop shows? I watch just about everything and have never seen this come up,never mind become a fixture,..Hotclaws (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that anyone has been committed merely for bedwetting. The theory, as you say, puts together bedwetting, animal abuse, and fire-starting as signs that point toward psychopathy when found together, but arson and animal abuse are both crimes, while bedwetting is not. On its own, bedwetting can have a variety of physical and emotional causes other than psychopathy, and doctors know this. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Having worked in a psychiatric ward at a hospital in Canada i can tell you from experience that is extremely difficult to have someone minor or adult permanently committed against their will. At least in Canada and I imagine the USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, sectioning law is a very good safe-guard against indescriminate and ill-motavated interment. Two trained staff have to agree to the sectioning and must be reviewed after 10 days, with the patient. In the case of children a more controlled procedure is in place and their education cannot be neglected. Bed-wetting is a sign of deeper problems that need addressing, and I suspect that may be the reason for time-out. MacOfJesus (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Bed-wetting is a sign of deeper problems that need addressing, and I suspect that may be the reason for time-out" <-- Citation needed. Are you serious? That's Freudian psychoanalytic theory that's not at all an accepted diagnosis, let alone one to even suggest involuntary commitment. Shadowjams (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm reading the proposed situation differently to you. I'm referring to the situation in UK. What I'm saying is not a diagnosis, meant to be a pointer that suggests there is more to this than meets the eye. In the absence of OP coming in to clarify, we "have to" suggest reasons that may be helpful to the OP. MacOfJesus (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

bedwetting, fire-starting, and animal cruelty are statistical observations; people who suffer from extreme forms of psychopathy tend to show all three (though data collection is a problem, since a lot of it relies on self-report). The theoretical model is that the three signify a lack of impulse control and an inability to empathize with others. However, it's more useful as a descriptive measure than a predictive measure (e.g., if you have three suspects in a murder, look at the one with a history of bedwetting and fire-starting first)

This was indeed a major plot device in tv cop dramas, at least back in the 90's - Law and Order SUV coughed it up every other episode or so. it's a bit passé now, I think, though I don't watch enough television to know the current uber-cop way of detecting evil scumbags. --Ludwigs2 20:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

anti cow slaughter bills in india

im writing this essay on the cow slaughter bills im supposed to take a stand that goes against the bill .i couldnt think of any arguments in constitutional law . can u help here cuz directive principles of state policy do carry a lot of weight. moreover all the economic data available in india indicate there are too few cows .can i use right to livelihood and profession for butchers tanners craftsmen as a valid arguments. could any of u think of better arguments opposing the bill?Trustinday (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid we aren't able to do your homework. Thinking of arguments against the bill is an exercise in logic- your teacher wants you to learn to use your own mind to construct an argument, and you won't get to learn what you need to know if we do the thinking- instead, we'll get all the benefit and learning. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This pdf is actually “for” the bill. Maybe you could take a look at its arguments and try to come up with rebuttal for them? Royor (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a very controversial topic. Please read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_August_16#Stray_cow_problem_in_India

also read my marvelous (but censored) article here http://i.imgur.com/482hG.png .

Thanks  Jon Ascton  (talk) 03:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Prison boats

Is it right to use prison boats? What if there was bad whether and a wave struck and the ship sank? They'd all die. That can't be humane —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evlwty (talk • contribs) 22:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anybody who does that anymore (at least it's not mentioned in Prison ship). You could say the same thing about prisons on land. They could be destroyed by earthquakes or floods or tornadoes. There are no guarantees. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP is worries about the relative risk of marine-based vs. land-based prisons. But perhaps the premise is false -- what is the risk of a ship-sinking wave hitting a prison boat? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

For cost and practical reasons PSs are moored in shallow estuaries and docks. Deep berths are expensive. Offshore anchorage increases the costs of supply and ship to sore transport. Further, who wants to work in a prison that is bobbing up and down in open water? If one sank, I doubt very much if anyone would get their socks wet. --Aspro (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds difficult to secure. For a land-based prison you barely see it on the horizon when you run into the first no-trespassing signs, and obviously they're watching. But in many waterways there's no legal barrier to passage, and in any case it is hard to spot divers. And if they do manage to attach explosives, the effects are more serious than blowing up the outside wall of a land-based prison. And if they manage to snatch a prisoner away, they can stash him in any closed space beneath the water with a dozen air tanks a hundred yards away from the prison and you'd never find him. Dogs don't track under water. Wnt (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't they? What are these then... Atlantic dogfish or something? [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17].--Aspro (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't the US Navy train some warrior dolphins or sea lions or something that could find divers? Googlemeister (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes and as always Wikipedia has articles about that very thing U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program. What's the sea looking like today like Rover? “Ruff” --Aspro (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Joking apart. UK prisons ships are category 'C' anyway, (prisoners are those who cannot be trusted in open conditions but who are unlikely to try to escape) so the expectation of inmates getting sprung by the criminal underworld is not considered very likely. OPs question fails from the start, as it is the product of a non sequitur, at least in the UK --Aspro (talk) 08:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Cold War

Who started the cold war? Soviets were mad after WWII since they lost a ton of people and America came out mostly unscathed, then sputnik happened and America got all petty and jealous. But who initially flexed their muscles? 5dos4 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Cold war essentially originated about competition over who was to control Germany once World War II ended. The USSR dropped what Churchill called an "Iron curtain" over eastern Europe that finally fell in the late 1980s. Sputnik was about a lot more than "petty jealousy", it was about concerns that the USSR was working on putting nuclear weapons into orbit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as a small pedantic point: the fear was not about putting nuclear weapons into orbit, the fear was that for the first time the USSR had the means (the rockets) to put nuclear weapons onto the mainland United States. The same rocket that put Sputnik into the atmosphere, the R-7 Semyorka, was also the first Soviet ICBM. Before 1957, the USSR essentially lacked the ability to actually shoot nuclear weapons at the mainland United States. (At most, some of its bombers might have been able to hit some targets, but only if they went on suicide runs, and they were vulnerable to being intercepted after being detected by the DEW Line.) Of course the USSR could deliver bombs to Europe, but that was a different matter. (One can understand the British interest in developing an independent deterrent when it is put that way.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to decide what the "first move" was in the Cold War. When the Soviets reneged on their promise (surely never believed) to allow free elections in Eastern Europe? When the Soviets failed to withdraw from Iran on time in 1946? When the Western-backed government of Iran tore up the oil deals made with the Soviets? When the U.S. dropped atom bombs on Japan in part (probably) to stop the war before the Soviets could grab a chunk of East Asia? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There was certainly a cold war brewing well before World War II, in fact the coincidence that Germany was at war with both the US and the USSR put a bit of a hold on what was already happening prior to World War II. In the U.S. the First Red Scare dates from 1919-1920. At the end of World War I, the U.K. and U.S. led an allied invasion of Arkhangelsk to support the Whites during the Russian Revolution, see Entente intervention in the Russian Civil War. The major Western democracies did not really get along with Russia during the 1920's and 30's, though most of the tension at the time was between USSR and the U.K. rather than the U.S; still the seeds of the cold war clearly predate World War II. The scramble for Europe during the last days of the war was a symptom of the existing tensions between Communitst USSR and the Western democracies, NOT the cause of them. --Jayron32 23:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The origins of the Cold War is a topic of much historical debate amongst scholars. The article is good overview — most scholars put its origins long before World War II. It shouldn't be thought of as something that "someone" started. It is rather a series of evolving conditions which divided the world into essentially three major groupings of power (First World: US and allies; Second World: USSR and allies; Third World: non-aligned and neutral countries). All of your generalizations are not very helpful (the Soviets were not "mad" so much as "nervous"; America was not "petty and jealous" so much as "afraid"). If you want to understand history, you have to work to put yourselves into the perspectives of the people who actually lived then, and not regard their attitudes in a flip fashion. Otherwise you'll never come close to any kind of real historical understanding. They were no more dumb, gullible, devious, evil, what have you than the people you see around you today. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) We have a whole article on this: Origins of the Cold War. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Merely a C20 rehash of The Great Game. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Except the Great Game was based more on resources than on security. The difference is important. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

My comment was flippant. But the UK feared for the security of its Indian empire; I'd argue that security was a major driver; competition for resources seems secondary to this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Security of resources is different, and provokes different reactions, than security over the nation. I'm not trying to say that the Cold War was a fundamental break in the old "international rivalry" category, but it did represent something a bit different than what had come before. You don't threaten world annihilation to protect your resources, as an example. You do see that happening in response to the so-called "existential threat". What made the Cold War unique was the way in which security predominated over everything else (and became an argument for economic hegemony, rather than the other way around). If you wanted to say that the Cold War was the Great Game with nukes, anthrax, and VX gas, OK, but that's a pretty big change to throw into the mix. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

From the U.S. perspective, one of the first hostile Soviet measures was when Stalin blatantly and massively violated his previous solemn promise to hold free elections in Poland. From 1948-1950, there were a series of events which were perceived as communist aggressions, including the Czech coup, communist victory in the Chinese civil war, Berlin crisis, etc., with the crowning blow being the invasion of south Korea... AnonMoos (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Depending on your criteria it started with Operation Unthinkable (a British plan to attack the USSR with the USA after WWII) or the Berlin Blockade (an attempt by Stalin to get the USA, Britain and France to surrender West Berlin).--178.167.133.77 (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

United States Code and half mast during wartime

Has the United States Flag Code ever stated that the Flag of the United States is to be flown at half-staff during wartime?--Rockfang (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify your question. Are you asking if the code ever call for the flag to be flown at half-staff during wartime for that reason alone, or if the code has ever explicitly stated that it should or should not be flown at half-staff during wartime on a date in which it would normally be flown at half-staff during peacetime? -- 124.157.218.142 (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm "...asking if the code ever call(ed) for the flag to be flown at half-staff during wartime for that reason alone."--Rockfang (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The Flag Code has been pretty much the same forever. But check out the Flag Code Amendment Act of 2007 which suggests lowering the flag to half mast when a member of the armed services dies in action. APL (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for the responses.--Rockfang (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Freud in modern Psychology

I realise that different schools of psychology will have different views, but overall what is Freud's position in the modern psychological community? How are his theories (not those of his students or followers) viewed by psychologists today? I've read conflicting accounts (mostly from unreliable sources, saying things like Freud was a genius/no Freud was a madman) 76.235.111.140 (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a friend who's taking a beginning psych course and leaning toward Freudianism, and I told her Freud is not looked upon favorably today (but I'm not sure on that) and I'd do some research and get back to her tomorrow (I haven't taken psych in a looonng time). So basically how could I summarize this into a fair criticism of Freud that would be supported by modern psychologists/what should I tell her? So far I've got something about pop psychology and an analogy comparing Freud to Newton as Psychoanalysis is to Quantum Mech. but I'm not sure this is right and I need more 76.235.111.140 (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Conflicting accounts" is probably a good way to sum it up. There are some that think Freud is still great, at least in some kind of adapted form. There are many who think he was a crackpot, or at the very least, wrong in important and often unscientific ways. It also depends on what you define as the "modern psychological community", as there is a big divide between the academic research psychologists and those who are involved in clinical treatment (the latter are more favorable to Freud; the former generally not, though there are some who have worked to fit Freudian concepts in modern psychological or even neuropsychological models). A book I read awhile back which painted a pretty good picture of psychiatric training and practice of about 10 years ago was T.M. Luhrmann's Of Two Minds: The Growing Disorder in American Psychiatry (Knopf, 2000). We also had a discussion on this a couple years ago (where you can see me in my pre-account guise saying more or less what I've written here) which might be useful. And here is a more recent discussion on the same topic, with more long-winded blathering from me. Hrm.

I don't think the Freud to Newton analogy works. There are no practicing Newtonians. There are practicing Freudians. Additionally, from Newton you can proceed stepwise to Einstein, and from there to QM. There is a logical progression, more or less. With Freud it is more of a complete break; you go from Freud to the Behaviorists, who were explicitly against everything Freud stood for, and from there to the Cognitive Scientists, and so on. Freud is not "incomplete Behaviorism," Behaviorism is not "incomplete Cognitive Science," in the way that Newton is "incomplete relativity" or "incomplete quantum theory." This is getting a bit beyond our discussion here, but the fact that the psychological sciences are/were not cumulative in the same way that the psychical sciences are is sometimes advanced as an argument against how well grounded they are, or at least for the placing of them in the "social sciences." But this is a topic of considerable debate.

Anyway, what's the real harm? She just started the course. She'll probably learn something more and decide that Freud doesn't quite cut it. Or she'll decide Freud is great and perfect (something I have heard people who appear to be reasonably intelligence and well-educated say). I think pointing out that there are really mixed opinions on Freud is probably as good as you'll do. The clinicians say, "well, it seems to work, so it's good as therapy." Most (but not all) of the researchers say, "it's pseudoscientific junk and can't be tested." But there's no harm in learning it. Personally I think the best tonic against taking Freud too seriously is taking him serious enough to actually read his major works. Totem and Taboo is a crazy, bizarre evolutionary argument. The Interpretation of Dreams is Freud making stuff up as he goes along. Civilization and its Discontents is very interesting cultural commentary, but not a great insight into the brain itself. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been said that the four most influential scientists/intellectuals from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th-century were Marx, Darwin, Freud, and Einstein. Comparing the current legacies of the four, Darwin and Einstein are looking pretty good (since they each came up with several major theories which have turned out to be basically correct, though of course with subsequent amendments and refinements by later scientists), while Marx's and Freud's legacies are looking a little wilted and shopworn (though both still have their vocal defenders). AnonMoos (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. While their end results may have turned out to be a bit wrong (or entriely wrong), both Freud and Marx are uber-important for the revolution they set off in the scholarly world. Both Freud, in terms of clinical psychology, and Marx, in terms of political economy, essentially founded major fields of study out of whole cloth. While actually Freudian psychology and Marxist politics have been largely debunked in terms of their content, they are still critically important for leading the way. Think of it this way: I wouldn't drive my corvette down a dirt path that has just been hacked by machetes through the jungle; but the fact that there is a nice paved road to drive on means that someone had to hack that path in the first place. Likewise, had it not been for Freud and Marx, then entire fields of study may have taken much longer to develop in their modern forms, even if the actual product of Freud's and Marx's work has been debunked. --Jayron32 00:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The question though relates to what I said above about comparing psychology to the physical sciences. It's not clear that you need Freud to get to modern cognitive science in any way. It's not clear that it developed into modern cognitive science. Marx's theories of economics are still important today (as I understand it), but his theory of history is essentially a complete non-starter. Einstein and Darwin have science that is "hard" enough to serve as the base of future theories and work. Does Freud? I don't know. There's a strong argument to be made that psychology does not "progress" in the same way that physics does, one theory building on the next, in part because nobody ever agrees on a baseline consensus of "what is correct." (I believe this is explicitly discussed in Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.) To use your metaphor, it's a question of whether Freud hacked away the brush that led to where you are now traveling, or if he hacked away brush in a totally different direction, one that is not at all where you are ending up. None of this is to discount whether Freud was historically important, mind you. You can still make a huge argument for Freud's influence even if you think his underlying theories are bunk. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that Kuhn is correct. :) 81.131.51.78 (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I agree with the preceding respondents. You may also want to have a look at our Psychoanalysis article, which further discusses some of the criticism Freud has been met with. I think you are quite right in saying it seems commonly understood that his ideas (the specifics of them, at least) are culturally/academically/clinically out of date and out of favor. And his work certainly is wide open to accusations of "pseudoscience" (though to be fair that's largely due to the nature of the material, and perhaps also just an artifact of the way much of "science" in general was understood and practiced at the time).

But I also remember Ellenberger's classic The Discovery of the Unconscious making a good case for Freud's lasting claim-to-fame as a "discoverer of the unconscious" (in terms of the lasting impact of that discovery on a very wide range of academic disciplines, on our entire culture really – I've even heard it said that Freud is to be credited with completing the "Copernican Revolution").

Certainly worth being taught in psych classes today, anyway. Why would you want to convince your friend not to learn about this...? Wikiscient (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is my attempt at a summary: (1) Freud was a pioneer in directing attention toward issues that modern psychologists think are important. (2) Nearly everything Freud said about those issues was wrong. Looie496 (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

lol! :) Wikiscient (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The important thing is that none of Freud's theories have been experimentally verified (as far as I am aware). So although they seem plausible, seductive, and appealling, they are not true. Nevertheless, Freud was a pioneer in his day. 92.28.242.240 (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My limited knowledge of Freud and psychoanalysis agrees Mr.98's comments above - and even Looie496's pithy comment. Just to put a bit of context in here, though... the kind of stuff Freud did, appearing to make up entire theories out of whole cloth and hand-waving away any serious scientific backing was very much the way social sciences were done in the 19th and early 20th century. My background is more to anthropology and sociology than psychology, but it's shocking for a modern reader to read through early "social science" texts and suddenly realize that a) there is no use of ANY actual evidence or first-hand experience and b) theories are built up out of nothing more than what sounds good to the writer. You get these grand theories of ancient matriarchal societies and symbologically driven mythologies and what went on when man was in a state of nature and on so - all built up on tales from sailors about what "Orientals" and "Savages" did for religious ceremonies - and worse. That Freud at least made some attempt to measure his success in treating his patients gives him a bit of a leg up on many of his contemporaries. Matt Deres (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Freud was instrumental for a number of reasons:

• He introduced the concept of mind, in the sense of internal mental structures and processes that are neither spiritual in nature nor related to obvious physical disease. we take that for granted these days, but at the end of the 19th century there really was no adequate way of conceptualizing mental symptoms (hallucinations or other distorted perceptions, aberrant actions, compulsive behavior, etc). Physicians were reduced either to casting them as unknown physiological issues or as moral issues.
• He introduced the idea of the unconscious - basically that some thoughts, behaviors, and etc were not subject to direct conscious control or open to rational investigation. 19th century philosophy was rationalist: it pretty much believed that anything 'mental' was a matter of reason, and could be moderated by proper applications of reason. Freud demonstrated otherwise.
• He introduced the idea that human personality was 'developmental', i.e. that one learned or became a full-fledged human. 19th century philosophy, again, generally held that being a fully-rational human was an inherent part of human nature, a kind of mental homunculus theory in which people were fully rational from the get-go and only needed training and knowledge.

all of these concepts are firmly implanted in psychology; all that differs in modern psychology is the approaches used to getting at them. Freud was limited by the standards of his time. He lived in a sexually repressed, colonial, paternalistic society, and could never quite escape from the societal preconceptions he was raised with (though he started to near the end of his life). His particular version of psychology - called psychodynamics nowadays - is still around and still a fairly major (though no longer the largest) element in clinical psychology (strict Freudians are rare, but most therapists will use certain Freudian conceptions and practices in their efforts to help patients). It has far less impact in academic psychology, which went through a phase of Skinnerism that it never quite recovered from (basic black-box model which denied - for reasons of methodology - the importance of any supposed internal working to the mind). But I daresay that without Freud, there would be no psychology whatsoever. --Ludwigs2 17:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well-stated. Freud was a pioneer and a visionary, and he did the best he could. I could make a parallel with Thomas Edison, who was a great inventor but wasn't always right (he favored DC over AC, for example; and thought the "talking machine" would never work for music). But regardless of their flaws, pioneers advance the science from where it was before, and for that they should be admired. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't think that the Edison-Freud parallelism holds up. Edison was for the most part a ruthlessly empirical pragmaticist, who tried out many thousands of things, and was wrong on the majority of them, but corrected most of his own mistakes. By contrast, Freud was something of theorizing bloviator, who seemed to love spinning out "just-so stories" and fanciful speculations at great length... AnonMoos (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is, incidentally, completely unclear whether Freud's version of psychology would have been better for the discipline than, say, that of William James (which looks far more like modern conceptions of the mind than Freud's) or the Pavlovians or many others. Freud was hugely popular in the early 20th century United States. Whether he did good things for science or not, or distracted more than he helped, is up for debate. I personally find that the people who think Freud was very "important" in this sense generally have not read much of him and are just cherry picking some of the rather broad things he said (and often did not originate) while ignoring the other 99% of his work, which is pretty nonsensical. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the article pages: Freud, and, C. G. Jung? -- MacOfJesus (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fascinated by the amount of anti-Freud sentiment that some people express - it's always well out of proportion to the problems with Freud's work. I can't think of any scholar that suffers the same level of abuse (except maybe Marx, and even with Marx the criticism is directed more at what others did with his theories than at Marx and his theories directly). Freud touched a collective nerve, and many people tend to act out when his name gets mentioned. I'm tempted to analyze that in Freudian terms (Freud as a threat to developmental complexes around the issues of rationality and self-authorship), but I'll refrain...

James' psychology wouldn't have held up as a separate discipline. it was really more of physicalized moral philosophy than anything approaching a proper analytic assessment of human mind. GH Mead might have done better a few years down the road, but Mead was clearly influenced by Freud so I don't know what his theories would have looked like without the Freudian precursor. --Ludwigs2 01:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's that damn science based medicine messing with armchair theories. Freud has his place, particularly in philosophy... take that for what it's worth... but the usefulness of psychoanalytic psychiatry in modern practice is an empirical question best answered with evidence based scientific method. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that the hostility to Freud is not some proper object of fascination, but instead progress. Shadowjams (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Very good comment, well said Shadowjams. 92.15.3.53 (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 -- Considering that he wrote a number of books (perhaps most notoriously Totem and Taboo) which were pretty much total crap, but which he seemed to expect other people to accept as priceless pearls of wisdom, it's not too surprising that such things would eventually create a backlash. And that's not even mentioning that Freud got his start with Wilhelm Fliess's Cosmic Nose Theory, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

@ ShadowJams: Allow me to correct you, because you're wrong. first off, psychoanalytic theory is a part of psychology, not psychiatry (Freud did have an Md., but his interest was in the mind, not in the brain). I'm a great fan of science and scientific medicine, but scientists, unlike (I can't resist this joke, though it'll probably get me in trouble) science fanboys, know the limits of their fields. "evidence-based scientific medicine" is a neologism intended to make the actual practice of medical science seem much more determinate and rigorous than it actually is. In truth, psychiatric medicine is mostly a guessing game: there are a number of drugs they have developed that 'evidently' calm and stabilize patients with particular disorders - i.e., they produce subjective experiences in the patients that lead the patients to more socially normative behavior - but psychiatrists have only the dimmest understanding of why these drugs alter a patient's subjective experience, and their means of defining the disorders in the first place is largely a function of normative procedures defined by psychologists (see DSM IV). Most psychiatrists will tell patients explicitly that psychiatric medicines should be paired with psychological analysis of one sort or another (though psychiatrists tend to prefer brief therapy such as cognitive therapy).

Research into the brain and its functions has a very, very long way to go before it starts being able to understand the relationship of the physical brain to subjective experience. I understand the urge to reify physical medicine as the be-all-and-end-all, but that ideal is (currently) science fiction.

@ AnonMoos: Yeah, yeah... we all know the power of ad hominem arguments. let's try to avoid them anyway. Freud had the disadvantage of having to feel his way through the problem blindly, from scratch. Hindsight will show us plenty of things he did wrong; If that blinds you from seeing the things that he did right, that is unfortunate. --Ludwigs2 16:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

September 8

Age of enlistment -- US history

Where can I find a history of the age of enlistment for the US armed forces? Enlistment age by country gives the current age of "18 ... 17 with parental consent" but I wonder how this has changed during the 20^th century and if waivers have ever been officially granted for younger enlistments. I have read articles of enlistees who lied about their age in order to join the military from the civil war to WWII, but I am interested in official policy, including the issuance of waivers. -- 58.147.53.113 (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it changed. As recently as 1904 you could join the U.S. Navy as a "apprentice boy" at age 14.[18] And the age for the draft differed from the age of voluntary enlistment at least at some times. Draft ages were: eighteen to forty-five for the Spanish-American War, twenty-one and thirty for WWI, eighteen to thirty-five for WWII, eighteen-and-a-half and thirty-five for Korean War, eighteen and twenty-six in Vietnam and currently if ever reinstituted. [19] Rmhermen (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you -- that's a start. I recall reading an article about someone who received a waiver to enlist in the US military at age 16 sometime during the 1970s or 1980s, but I can't find it again. Most of the the search results I find are about age waivers for those above the maximum age. -- (OP)124.157.218.142 (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

human mentality after a worst incident

a girl was almost attempted to rape, she was made totally naked by man who thaught her,and proffessionally he was teacher, he just took the advantage of her innocent thinking.., til now he blackmails her and she has become mentally very weak afetr this incidence.., till now she is suffering. can you please suggest how can she regain her strong mentality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raviraj.achari (talk • contribs) 09:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

See a psychologist. The police would probably refer her to one, if she talks to them about it - if not, any doctor should be able to refer her confidentially. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you will let us know the name of the country where she lives, we might be able to provide links to local rape crisis centres and similar women's organizations that help women who have been sexually harassed. 70.31.56.23 (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You should report it to the police. Fucker needs to go to jail for life. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that Wikipedia doesn't have any mechanism to deliver reliable medical advice - you're just talking to a crowd of anonymous people, probably none of us trained in medical treatment, on a site that disclaims all responsibility if people give you horrendously wrong information. There are even some people at the science desk who make a habit of removing questions like this, out of fears of lawsuits and such, which I think is an unreasonable response - but if it happens, please accept my apologies. Meanwhile, I hope that somewhere among articles like rape trauma syndrome, Stockholm syndrome, and PTSD you might find some inspiration to further action. Note that research is going on actively, and some new treatments like beta blockers differ from the traditional image of psychiatric medication; so don't assume that professionals won't be helpful without giving them a chance. Wnt (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The girl needs to to to someone. It's very important for her to do so. If she has a good relationship with her parents, she should talk to them. A doctor or psychologist is also a very good person to talk to, and she should be able to talk to them in confidence, without fear or embarrassment. Eventually, she may want to talk to the police, because when this man did was illegal, and the blackmailing must stop. But if the girl can't face talking to the police yet, she should talk with her parents, a doctor, or a psychologist first. Many countries also have crisis hotlines to call where they can listen to you and give you help for finding a doctor or a psychologist. Search on Google for "rape crisis hotline" and your country. — 63.138.152.135 (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not forget yourself. If you are the one person who knows this and perhaps the one who has been approached by the victim, then you are the best person to Counsel and Console at the beginning. The next step is to Secure a safe environment (place). Then seek professional help. (I work with/for the sick of mind).MacOfJesus (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

20 years to life

My understanding is that a sentence of "20 years to life" means that the prisoner has been sentenced to life imprisonment but that they become eligible to apply for parole after 20 years. They would then be released if they have shown good behaviour and are deemed unlikely to reoffend. (a) is this right? (b) should wp have an article on this - if so called what - and are there any good references which define this? I've only found a discussion: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=656624 . -- SGBailey (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The table in Life imprisonment makes it clear that for life imprisonment there are minimum years before eligibility for parole (which is what the 20 years means). As for being granted parole, it's a complicated thing. Good behavior and likeliness to not reoffend play big roles, but so do requests of the victims and their families, how high profile the case is, things like that. And of course you know that parole is not quite the same thing as being "released" out and out — there are all sorts of requirements they have to fulfill or else they can be re-incarcerated. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking from the point of view of justice, why should the wishes of the victims or the visibility of the case make any impact at all? Googlemeister (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Because the decision is clearly subjective, and in some cases, political. And anyway, at no point is the justice system actually very good at meting out perfect justice. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it can not be perfect, but it should at least make the attempt. Googlemeister (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Soapboxing collapsed

There's no "point of view of justice" regarding imprisonment. It is a cultural rite, which does as much to spread crime (through prison gangs) as it does to deter it. Countries like the U.S. imprison ten times more than others, with no discernable decrease in crime rate. Perfect justice, as the Christians have advocated, is to forgive, but that is a hard path; yet there is no perfect safety, even if you resort to on the spot execution, because who would guard you from the guardians? Wnt (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection and care of the community

The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, section 6 (4), prescribes: "Every mother shall be entitled to the protection and care of the community." ("Jede Mutter hat Anspruch auf den Schutz und die Fürsorge der Gemeinschaft.")

What does the "community" refer to? A conjugal community (cohabiting with her husband) or a maternal community (living with her child) or else?

Does the section mean that the mother must be protected from domestic violence and must receive proper care from the family?

—— Clumsily  • Talk | 2010.09.08, 17:34 (ICT)

Most of the contents of the articles 1 to 19 of the Basic Law doesn't apply directly to private citizens. It is more of an outline about what the legislature has to consider when making laws, and of course it sets limits about what can be legislated.

Now, the "communtiy" in the paragraph you mentioned refers to society in general and to the government. The paragraph is the base for laws about protection of pregnant women and women with (small) children. No mother can, for example, sue her relatives for violating the paragraph; but if the government would abolish maternity leave, she could complain before the Constitutional Court because this would be in violation of this paragraph. (I'm no lawyer or constitutional expert.) -- Bgfx (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

classical sheetmusic

Where can I find free classical sheet music for piano or organ? Preferably mid 18th C composers. Googlemeister (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, google is usually the first step. I see from searching for "free classical sheet music for piano or organ" there's a host of sites offering what you what. Perhaps you should try living up to your username. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I am boycotting google. Googlemeister (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And so you want other people to do the Googling for you? Bing Cuil. 63.138.152.135 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

See our articles. There are lots of links like this one. Oda Mari (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I like 8notes.com. Karenjc 16:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

http://free-scores.com is all right, but I also love what my conductor calls "Wikipedia for music": http://imslp.org/wiki . sonia♫ 23:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The that last one is great! Thanks. Googlemeister (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

When is someone considered to be "running for office" in the US, legally?

Hi all,

I have a bet going about whether someone will run for a state or federal office, and I want to know the best way to determine when they are running.

I know that, for instance, the the FEC requires candidates to file reports disclosing the money they raise from donations and PACs and stuff. Who exactly is required to file reports? If Joe Schmo says to his neighbors "I'm running for alderman" or "I'm running for president," if he at that point "running" and therefore subject to election law? Or is there some paper work that you file before you are considered to be running for office?

Thanks! — Sam 63.138.152.135 (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There are rules for getting on the ballot or if you want to do fund raising, or are spending a lot on ads but you can certainly do a small write in campaign without registering. Googlemeister (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that doesn't answer my question about what the rules are. — Sam 63.138.152.135 (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that no paperwork needs to be done for a small write in campaign. If you want specifics, it would be helpful to know what state (and perhaps specific location if running for alderman) the election is in. Also, different rules apply for if the person is running as a major party, or as an independent. Googlemeister (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't really see the point in answers that don't actually further the knowledge of the person asking the question in any way. Yes it is obvious that "there are rules for getting on the ballot," and that probably no one cares if my write-in campaign is just targeted at my wife, so probably that's not what I'm asking. I wasn't hoping for generalities about there "being laws," I was hoping to know when, legally, someone is considered to be "running for office." For simplicity, we can just say at the federal level. Thanks! — Sam 63.138.152.135 (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Election law varies from state to state, and nomination of candidates for federal offices generally is determined by state law. In general, the proper paperwork must be filed with a state or local office, such as the Secretary of State or the County Clerk. If you call your local County Clerk, they should be able to tell you the deadline, or tell you what office to call if theirs is not the correct one. Then you can simply call again the day after the deadline and find out if your person ran. John M Baker (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be in Massachusetts. Here is a "how to run for office" brochure for statewide elections in that state. It's dated 2006 but appears to be the most current version of the brochure. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The OP needs to be aware that there is no one broad answer to the question, other than to say, "He/she is running for office when he/she declares that he/she is running for office." The U.S. Constitution leaves it up to the states to determine their election rules. The Feds intervene on certain matters such as states trying to disenfranchise minorities and the like, and they specify the date for the federal elections in November of even years, and some other details. But generally it's state-by-state for all elections, and there is no one specific answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if we want to get into providing the rules for every state, but this document provides the rules for Pennsylvania. As has been stated, election requirements are set by the states, not the federal government. — Michael J 22:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear OP: you seem to be somewhat aware that the definition of "running for office" isn't fixed, so you might exercise patience with replies that don't seem to address what you were thinking of, rather than what you actually asked. "Running for office" is not a legal term, and so as others have pointed out, there isn't an agreed-upon way to say whether someone's running. Take the case of the street people who are ostensibly candidates for the Green Party in Arizona. The linked report makes clear that some people don't see them as legitimate candidates, while others do. So when did these people start running (if they're running at all)--when they downloaded the write-in requirements from the Arizona secretary of state? When they filed the affadavit of qualification? Further, if my candidacy is a gesture or a ploy, am I in fact running? The desire for a clear answer doesn't mean there is a clear answer. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Angels in the Bible

Where's a list of all named angels in the Bible? --70.129.190.74 (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Archangel Michael, Gabriel, Satan. That's all. (Possibly also Lucifer and Belial according to some interpreters) Rmhermen (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Satan is, in fact, Lucifer. Just another na,e. → ROUX ₪ 14:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Book of Tobit, in The Bible: Ch. 12 v. 15: "I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who stand ever ready to enter the presence of the glory of the Lord". (Only three are named in the Bible: Gabriel, Michael, Raphael). These are Archangels. {Ref: JB }. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that Tobit is not universally acknowledged as being part of the Biblical canon, either by Jews or Christians. 71.228.185.250 (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are really interested in the subject, the book Dictionary of Angels is a a good source. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Abaddon (Exterminans), the fifth angel. Wnt (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Do note; not everyone accepts the existence of angels, Christian and Jew. [See, for example: The many references to Angels in the Bible] - [Particularly see: Acts 23 v. 6-11, where the difference of belief in angels is expressed] - MacOfJesus (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's true that not everyone does, though all four gospels mention them, and in each gospel Jesus refers to angels (e.g., Matthew 26:53, Mark 13:27, Luke 15:10, John 1:51). Could have been metaphorical, as with the references to resting in Abraham's bosom. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

However, it is very hard to explain-away the angel sent to stay Abramam's hand before he slayed his son. In fact you have an up-hill journey if you are trying to establish a dis-belief in angels. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems surprising to me that modern society is so willing to accept the existence of recently proposed incorporeal entities (memes, blood libels, derivative works, corporations, morale) yet so unwilling to allow any place or meaning for more traditional expressions regarding angels, spirits, and demons. Wnt (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The more things change, the more they stay the same. I remember reading some theory (ages ago - can't remember where I saw it) which held that outré objects and experiences exist in all times and cultures, they are merely interpreted in terms of each culture's most prominent paradigm. thus, angels and demons get translated into UFOs and memes, tribes united by a common god become nations united by common heritage become states united by common sociopolitical ideologies. people need something to explain things they can't expalin - that's the only universal. --Ludwigs2 16:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This woman had a bit of ex-palining to do, but it didn't do her any good in the end. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is well known, that in the popular music, a song about angels gets an immediate spring-board to the top ten. But I am not going to be as upset as the people in Acts 23 v 6-11, who were prepared to riot over it! MacOfJesus (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ask instead what you can do for your country.

So I have a bit extra money and want to pay some of it back to my country (UK) in return for all that they have given me during my life. If I send it to the Government it will get lost in the system and I don't believe it will do any good as Departments will continue to spend their centrally funded budgets to the max. If I tear the banknotes into tiny pieces the government will probably not notice and will continue to print the notes they had already intended to anyway. If I give the money to a government sponsored, or any other charity, it will make no difference to the UK economy. So how can I pay something back that will actually make a beneficial difference to the UK economy (NB - NOT the Government - I mean quite specifically, the country)? 92.30.12.103 (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Give it to me, and I will inject it into the economy for you by spending it. 92.15.20.52 (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There are some sponsored charities that need funds. Prince Charle's Fund. Also, Diana's sons continue with her charity. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to stimulate the economy, just use the money to buy something you wouldn't ordinarily buy, at a small, locally-owned business. For example, lots and lots of baked goods for your friends and loved ones. Everyone loves pie, and your money will help the bakery not only stay open but also spend more themselves- perhaps on hiring a new pie-baker, or adding peach pie to their menu. And viola- the pie-baker or peach-farmer and their families have more money, which they go on to spend at the theatre, which takes it and hires a carpenter... it's the beautiful circle of capitalism. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

While he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the middle of an economically difficult time in 1921, Stanley Baldwin contrived to give a quarter of his wealth to the nation. He bought up a large amount of Government Bonds, and then burned the certificates so that they could never be redeemed. Baldwin then described what he had done in a letter to The Times; he signed it only 'FST' which meant that he did it anonymously while also making sure everyone knew it was him. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with the charity side of things, and that really depends on what interests you. There are a range of cancer charities for example with McMillan and Cancer research being pretty flush and others, such as Orchid, being less well off. Shelter perhaps, one of the childrens or animals charities, employment or development charities.

One thing to note is that the sum you're thinking about influences the best way to donate. The majority of charities prefer regular payments as it influences their cash flow. Large sums they'll use as part of their investment strategy but that tends to be more aimed towards bequests. Note that a charitable donation is also quite tax efficient, most can now exploit the gift-aid legislation and recover the basic rate tax on the donation.

All that said, I also agree with FQ. Spending the money in your local economy is an option, although I'm not quite so rose-tinted about the system :)

ALR (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is important to find out the ratio of expences/actual charity relief that your £1 will actually go to in the organization you donate to. Some have reported only 10P in the £1. MacOfJesus (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Due diligence around these things is always beneficial, but a fairly simple measure like that isn't all that illustrative of how useful the money is. Some charities include operational costs in the measure, some only include actual delivered end result so it's difficult to compare like with like. Moving away from a national specific charity to the international domain, Oxfam include their cost of logistics and cost of people in the charity OpCost, so they have quite a poor delivery/ cost ratio. Another charity that I won't name actively markets itself on a better ratio, but includes the cost of logistics into the delivery figure for that activity. In both cases they're paying for freighting, taxes, storage etc, but they communicate that cost differently.

The other thing to look at is how the money is managed. Some people object to charities using professional accountants and financial advisors although personally I see these things as businesses and they should be run as such. It's up to the individual to determine what appetite they have for that. different charities are at different places in their lifecycle. Going back to Orchid, about 4 years ago they went through a transition with respect to their founder and his role. as they got quite a lot bigger and neede properly managed he had to step back and take on a more promotional and evangelising role, letting other people run the charity.

ALR (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Locate a focus for your gift. Some activity, charitable enterprise, etc. that works in the area of your focus. Contact hte enterprise/charity direct and ask what exactly they could do with X amount. Then donate the money specifically for the opportunity that seems, to you, the best value. Thus your funds are not lost, they assist a specific attainment.95.176.67.194 (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)l'ancien

Unfortunately, the kind of sum that will make a real "beneficial difference to the UK economy" runs into the millions or even billions. Unless you are one of the World's wealthiest people you are probably looking at smaller scale philanthropy (that's a strangely US-centric article). For most people that means charitable donations. As other people have pointed out, charitable donations are quite tax efficient (you would have to particularly mean to not let the charity not take advantage of the gift aid), and charities usually have the experience and infrastructure to make the best of your donation. Astronaut (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest giving it to a deserving school, although I don't know if any bueaucratic rules would prevent them from accepting it. 92.15.3.53 (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is why I suggested The Prince Charles' Fund and Princess Diana's Charities, as your money is more likely to make a difference, as others are committed and already started them. MacOfJesus (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're trying to stimulate the UK economy, and there's no service or thing you want to buy, pick a charity that is likely to spend the money in the UK: you're both donating to a worthy cause, and stimulating the economy. If we're naming favourite cash-strapped charities, I'll throw the Cystic Fibrosis Trust out there. They're currently working on some promising gene therapy, but funding shortages are severely slowing progress and putting it at risk. They've run a single-dose trial, and are planning a multi-dose trial. Money sent to them not only will help a good cause especially relevant to this country, but could help British scientists carry out ground-breaking work. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to go-it-alone, then find out who is living in an area in the UK who cannot get the expensive treatment they need and are contimplating re-mortgaging in order to pay the treatment. The NHS will not pay as too expensive. The BBC may help here. Your Chemist, too. MacOfJesus (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you give any specific instance of this happening please, with actual names of people? I thought you were Australian - I may be wrong. 92.29.121.183 (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a facility for British people to give financial gifts to the nation, a practice which is usually called 'conscience money' (referring in particular to people who have accidentally defrauded the Exchequer and want to salve their conscience). If you simply give the money to the nation it is paid into the Consolidated Fund where it gets lost amid the general spending. However it is possible to specify that your gift goes to repay the national debt, in which case it is directed to the National Debt Office. I came across this when researching the story of I'm Backing Britain; there is a file in the National Archives recording the gifts by members of the public. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You could buy something nice locally and give it to the queen. Googlemeister (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The royals have warehouses full of stuff sent to them as gifts by the public. Some years ago there was controversy when the practice of Prince Charles gining away things to his staff was exposed. 92.29.121.183 (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

September 9

Cricket cages

The man on the right sells cricket cages

I was wondering, is there a wikipedia article on Chinese cricket cages or cricket houses - that is, cages for singing crickets? Could be hidden behind a native Chinese name, so I'm asking here. Cricket (insect) only mentions it. I've just heard a radio show with a guest from a museum speaking about their collection of cricket houses - most of these, she said, aren't really cages but rather solid lacquer boxes (pic of a "winter house")- curious subject. East of Borschov 02:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Cricket box doesn't go where I expected (instead being a version of Jockstrap#Protective cup), but this is the name I knew them by when my family purchased some ornately stamped brass ones while living in Pakistan in the early 1970s. I've no idea it they were presented as being authentic to the region. I'm surprised that we don't have an article on them. -- 114.128.215.195 (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

One was featured in the 1987 film The Last Emperor. A cricket in a small pierced cylinder was given to the boy-emperor at his coronation ceremony; 70 years later working as a tour guide in the Forbidden City he remembers where he hid it behind the throne. Alansplodge (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have an article about it. This EL would help you. Oda Mari (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Gone digging. East of Borschov 09:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Some more information here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Already been there! And there's also a book precisely on Insect musicians & cricket champions. Oh well, I knew of cricket houses, but they also stock them with cricket beds and cricket dishes, not to mention acoustic treatments. East of Borschov 14:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Conversion rate for ancient French franc

Shall much appreciate a pointer to a source to assist in the measurement of worth from the XVI century French currency to modern currency.95.176.67.194 (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)l'ancien

If you know the weight of a 1 Franc coin and the purity, you could figure out how much silver or gold they contained and compare with modern prices maybe? Googlemeister (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Due to the difference in buying power using hard currency in the 16th century as compared to modern times, any conversion into modern currency will be of questionable quality. The role of money in 16th century Europe was simply not the same as today. Most historians use relative comparisons from the historical period in question, for example the average daily wage of a workman vs that of a high official, the price of a specific amount of bread or grain at a specific date or similar examples to make effective comparisons between different amounts of money. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Saddhiyama, that is exactly the type of comparison I seek. I have found a site that is helpful for the US dollar and pound Sterling, but nothing (so far) for France. All advice gratefully received.Froggie34 (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The fr:Franc français article in French has some graphs for the amount of metal in francs of various periods. That might be a start. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks promising. The second last, Prices and wages in various French towns (non Paris), 1450-1789, looks like what you want. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Brecht Remark on War and Modernism

In a Guardian article, "A Handful of Dust", from 20 March 2006, JG Ballard wrote "Bertolt Brecht, no fan of modernism, remarked that the mud, blood and carnage of the first world war trenches left its survivors longing for a future that resembled a white-tiled bathroom." Can anyone give me the precise Brecht quote and a source? Thanks Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Poking around, I found this reference to a story about two war veterans. The passage appears in English:

There's nothing you can say to these sorts that will entice them out of their tiled bathrooms, after they've had to spend a few years of their lives lying around in muddy trenches.

The relevant footnote says "Bertolt Brecht, “Nordseekrabben,” in Gesammelte Werke: Prosa (Frankfurt am Main, 1967), 1:135. See also Klaus-Detlef Müller, Erecht-Kommentar zur erzdhlenden Prosa (Munich, 1980), 79 ff." (I don't know German and so may be misunderstanding, but that appears to be a Brecht collection.) --- OtherDave (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: That should be "Brecht-Kommentar zur erzählenden Prosa". Just pointing it out for research purposes. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sluzzelin. It was a copy-and-paste (I wouldn't have tried to write "erzdhlenden") but I wonder if that left the ä behind. --- OtherDave (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Does Prayers for Rain have any sequel info related to Gone Baby Gone

I saw the movie Gone Baby Gone and thought (and still think) it is the best movie story I have ever watched. I learned it was based on the novel of the same name from Dennis Lehane, so I bought the book and love it equally as much. I learned it is part of a detective series, but did not buy or read any of the other books in the series because I wasn't interested as much in the detectives as I am Amanda (the little girl). Now I read on wikipedia that a new book will be released in November called Moonlight Mile and that it is the sequel to Gone Baby Gone. I preordered it and am very excited about it. My question is, the book between the two is called Prayers for Rain, and I am wondering if it contains any info about the detectives that directly relates to Gone Baby Gone (maybe reflections on the case and how it has impacted them?) or is it just focused on the case of that book? I ask because I would like to know if reading Gone Baby Gone and then Moonlight Mile would contain the complete story - or if I have to read Prayers for Rain before Moonlight Mile to have the complete story? Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.137.73 (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Theoretical economic system

I will preface this with saying I have never studied economics so I have no clue what I'm talking about.

Would the following system work?

1. All (or most) corporations, small businesses, banks etc. are to be run as capitalist entities, except the owners are the state, and the disbursements and usage of the collected funds are undertaken by government employees who are just as competitive, profit-motivated, and subject to accountability as those in private firms.

2. No income, estate or sales tax.

Is there a name for this type of system? Has it been implemented? If so, was it a success or failure? If not, what are the possible drawbacks of this system? Maybe there wouldn't be enough revenue to support social programs? Thanks. 173.33.12.81 (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like it's trying to be a variation of state socialism, but it has some logical flaws. for instance, capitalism is based on the competition between competing capitalists, but if all businesses are state-owned, there is (effectively) only one capitalist (the state) with no competitors. This is, in fact, one of the common dysfunctional forms of state socialism, where the state takes over ownership of everything and begins to exploit all citizens unmercifully. 'Competition among government employees' is an ambiguous phrase - competition for what? If I am running a factory owned by the state, thus technically a government employee, I might be in competition with other people for better jobs elsewhere in the system, yes. but that personal profit motive would not work the same way as where my success was determined by the success of the factory (because I owned the factory). you've made a shift from a concrete competition based in commodities to an abstract competition based in politics, and that's not entirely healthy for the system. --Ludwigs2 15:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the OP had it spot on in his/her opening sentence> 92.30.216.152 (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

IP:

• People who ask questions when they know the answer are arrogant.
• People who ask questions when they don't know the answer are smart.
• People who don't ask questions when they don't know the answer are ignorant.

I know which the OP is; which are you? --Ludwigs2 20:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Book and swearing

US President George W. Bush swearing an oath with his left hand upon a Bible. Bush is the person in the front row, on the left.

In certain types of swearing ceremony, the person swearing put his or her hand on a book because of what reason? What does this represent? And what is the kind of the book to be touched? It is also noted that somehow the person swearing does not touch the book, but this kind of book is exhibited before him or her or placed somewhere important.

182.52.100.239 (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is to sanctify the oath. A Christian would 'swear upon the Bible' for instanceFroggie34 (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph of our article Oath has a cited claim as to why the right hand is customarily raised in Western countries. Its third paragraph discusses the book of scripture or the sacred object. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a very ancient practice - here's Harold Godwinson (allegedly) swearing to allow William of Normandy take the throne of England[20] in 1063. He's swearing on the relics of saints. After the Reformation, these ceased to be sacred to Protestants and so the Bible came to be the usual thing to take oaths on. Alansplodge (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

e-mailing

I have friends around the world - real flesh and blood people - not facebook contacts - of many cultures, colours, religions, political and philosophical beliefs, living in vastly differing economic and political environments, and I like them all. Indeed, many of them have visited us in our UK home many times and we all get along famously. But why is it that since the advent of e-mail, many if not most of these people, who would previously write to me about simple, polite, and informative, enquiring matters about family, work etc., have assumed/presumed that I am remotely supportive of their religious, political, ecological, economic, justice and other opinions, and think nothing of bombarding my INBOX with such subject matter, including links to Newspapers, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter etc., etc., when all I would like to have from them is the odd "Hello, how are you"? How can I say exactly that to them in such a way that I don't hurt their feelings and lose their friendship? I did try that approach once and have not heard ANYTHING since. O tempora O more. 92.30.216.152 (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I chalk this up to being an unfortunate consequence of the ease on the Internet of broadcasting a message to hundreds of people. Friends assume that you will be interested in things they are interested in, and it can be seen as offensive, as you've concluded, to tell them "Please don't ever send me information about things you are interested in." So, personally, I just hit the Delete key and move on, and accept that the Internet age wastes a bit of my time on this, daily. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Be aware that some of these emails may be automatic (perhaps something that got sent to every contact and was not intended for any one specific person) and that sometimes, these things are not from who they appear to be from. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comet Tuttle is close to the truth, I'm sure. My husband deals with large public institutions in the course of his work, and is constantly gnashing his teeth about the number of emails he receives from people who automatically hit the "reply all" button when sending a personal response to a group email. Since these institutions are large, with tens of people copied into emailed announcements, the upshot is that he has to waste time wading through tens of emails a day which don't look sufficiently like spam to be deleted unread, but which prove to be 50 different people all telling the originator that yes, George, they can come to the meeting on the 10th. In the same way, your inbox gets cluttered up with irrelevances from people who see something that takes their fancy and can now, thanks the the wonders of technology, forward it to everyone in their address book at the touch of a key, with little or no thought about whether it is relevant to you personally. Short of hurting their feelings or cutting them dead, there is no easy way round this if you love them. You could try bombarding them with links to something you think will bore them rigid and see if they get the message, but this may backfire if, for example, they have always nursed a secret passion for Morris dancing, Goth culture, vintage lawnmowers or the plight of endangered shrews. I'd develop speed-reading skills, bite your tongue, and try to be grateful that so many people are thinking about you. Karenjc 20:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Black Death bon fires

In 14th century Europe apparently they had bonfires in towns to keep away the bubonic plague. Were there certain people in charge of this (who, what title or position) and how often did they refuel the fire to keep it going? Who watched the fire at night? Was it a continous thing (to feed the bonfire) or were there various designated "time periods" when more fuel was put on the bonfire?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

ID cards and the Holocaust

During their persecution, how did the Nazis identify who was a Jew and who was not? Did the identity documents of the time identify people as Jewish? I'm wondering that if there had been no identity cards, then there could have been no Holocaust and other persecution, at least not to the same extent.

The first stage seems to have been that Jews were forced to wear the Star Of David outdoors (thin end of the wedge). People were afraid to go about without wearing the Star Of David because when their ID cards were checked (according to Henry Wermuth's survivor memoir Breathe Deeply My Son), their Jewishness was revealed and they would be severely punished or worse for not wearing the Star. The next stage was that people wearing the Star Of David were persecuted, segegated, deported, and murdered. So were ID cards the first link in the chain that led to the Holocaust? 92.29.121.183 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)