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 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[1] 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. [2] 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 [3] - 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: [4]. 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)

Be aware that the word "forest" does not only refer to a wooded area. It can refer to royal hunting grounds (e.g. the New Forest in southern England) and unenclosed, sparsely populated areas. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:07, 12 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)

There's also XXXX. P. S. Burton (talk) 13:20, 12 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)

My understanding is that acting & modelling, and waiting tables in a restaurant (i.e. being visible to customers), but not cooking in a backroom kitchen, are the main areas in which racial discrimination is not illegal in the UK. Race counts as a "genuine occupational qualification". From the Race Relations Act:

5. Exceptions for genuine occupational qualifications. -

(1) In relation to racial discrimination [F8in cases where section 4A does not apply]—

(a) section 4(1)(a) or (c) does not apply to any employment where being of a particular racial group is a genuine occupational qualification for the job; and

(b) section 4(2)(b) does not apply to opportunities for promotion or transfer to, or training for, such employment.

(2) Being of a particular racial group is a genuine occupational qualification for a job only where—

(a) the job involves participation in a dramatic performance or other entertainment in a capacity for which a person of that racial group is required for reasons of authenticity; or

(b) the job involves participation as an artist’s or photographic model in the production of a work of art, visual image or sequence of visual images for which a person of that racial group is required for reasons of authenticity; or

(c) the job involves working in a place where food or drink is (for payment or not) provided to and consumed by members of the public or a section of the public in a particular setting for which, in that job, a person of that racial group is required for reasons of authenticity; or

(d) the holder of the job provides persons of that racial group with personal services promoting their welfare, and those services can most effectively be provided by a person of that racial group.

BrainyBabe (talk) 12:24, 12 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? [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].--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)

There was a prison ship in Belfast Loch called "The Argenta". This was used at the beginning of the uprising in Ireland. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:24, 23 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)

In psychology that may be true, but in anthropology he was following along a well-worn path of 19th-century "just-so story" fanciful speculations about the origins of human societies, at a time when the leading figures in anthropology were already trying to steer the field in a different direction -- and as a factual account of human origins aspiring to scientific accuracy, Freud's yarn-spinning is even less adequate than that of J. J. Bachofen over 50 years before. And Freud's general theories are often presented as an all-or-nothing proposition, which encourages many people to go the "nothing" route... AnonMoos (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

who's arguing with that? Look, AM, we're doing different things here: I'm trying to point out that Freud's theories were valuable, you're trying to point out that Freud's theories were wrong. If you think those two statements are mutually exclusive, then you misunderstand science. Think of Freud a bit like the way you think of Galileo: Galileo thought the sun was the center of the universe and that the tides were generated by the acceleration and deceleration of the Earth's surface as it revolved and orbited the sun, and he was influenced enough by his society that he recanted most of his theories under pressure from the Church. if you spent all your time disrespecting him for those stupidities, you'd miss the brilliant insights he had in other venues.

I understand why Freud ticks people off. Freud is the first (and strongest) challenge to Liberal ideology that the western world has seen. Galileo was the first (and strongest) challenge to Christian ideology, mind you, so this is not something special. However, the world is still deeply mired in Liberal ideology (the pretense that humans are rational, self-willed, self-determining individualists - Robinson Crusoe is the Liberal ideal), and so Freud's suggestion that we are not rational, not exactly self-willed, not self-detemining by nature, and not even fully individuals in the Liberal sense of the word, is bound to grate on peoples' nerves. But trying to toss Freud into the dung heap is not going to make his insights go away. a hundred years from now, when neuropsychology has made some decent inroads into understanding the human brain, I have no doubts that they will look back at Freud just the way we look at Galileo - as correct in principle but flawed in application and hamstrung by his society. --Ludwigs2 06:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Galileo did not create an all-encompassing ideology which claimed to putatively explain all aspects of human life, and when it came to things such as the movements of the moons of Jupiter he was a sober empirical observationalist (as opposed to a bloviating armchair theorizer). Galileo made a number of mistakes, but his basic revisions of Aristotle's laws of motion and acceleration were correct as far as they went, and stood until they were refined and expanded by Newton (while Newton's laws were further refined by Einstein etc.). In all these respects, Galileo is not really any better an analogy to Freud than was Edison... AnonMoos (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh...

1. Thank you for not reading my post, but confirming it nonetheless.
2. 'bloviating armchair theorizer' is an ad hominem attack that does nothing except display the irrational dislike you have for all things Freudian.

end of conversation - I cannot convince you of a point on which you are incapable of using reason. Please, feel free to hate of Freud to your heart's content; just keep it off wikipedia. thanks. --Ludwigs2 16:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Laud him with whatever encomiums you will -- I just wish people would stop making pseudo-comparisons with figures such as Edison and Galileo, which obscure far more than they reveal... AnonMoos (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

@AnonMoo: All of the above criticism of Freud is pretty much valid. And Totem and Taboo was certainly ridiculous from our perspective 100 years later.

But whatever his faults (and he corrected some big ones with his theory in his lifetime), Freud was just absolutely brilliant. You should check out Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (originally given to a med-school crowd). The basics are all there, masterfully elucidated, and even you may agree that there's still a lot of really great stuff in it. WikiDao (talk) 18:03, 11 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.[11] 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. [12] 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)

During the American Civil War, there were several drummer boys who were quite young. John Clem was eleven. I can't find anything on the legalities. Surprisingly, Wikipedia doesn't have an article on drummer boys. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This says the legal age was 18, but doesn't give proof. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The best I've found so far is Tom Walsh (politician). Born October 31, 1942, he "enlisted at the age of sixteen in the United States Army as a private." The date is unspecified, but would be sometime in 1958-1959. There is no mention of a waiver, but no mention of him misrepresenting his age either. -- ToE^T 00:25, 12 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)

If you cannot tell us which country you are from, have a look at this page here. It contains a list of organisations that fight violence against women, from Afghanistan to Australia. You and the young woman in question are best placed to know whether it would be a good idea to approach her parents: in many countries, that could be dangerous, as this series of articles reminds those of us in more fortunate countries. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:00, 12 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)

In California, in order to be a write in candidate, you must register. If you don't, votes for you won't get counted. I don't know if the campaign rules are different for official vs. write in candidacies. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not so in Pennsylvania. All write-in votes count. However, should a write-in candidate actually win (it does happen in some local elections), he or she must then file the necessary paperwork that they would have had to before the election, or they will not be eligible to assume office. — Michael J 13:25, 10 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 name. → 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 Abraham'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)

In the Jewish “Prayer before going to sleep at night” the names of angels are mentioned, “… may Michael be at my right hand, Gabriel at my left, before me Uriel and behind me Rafael and above my head the Divine presence.” The source for this is the Zohar parashat Bamidbar, “Michael mimina”. The angels Michael and Gabriel are also mentioned in the liturgical poetry recited at the afternoon service on Yom Kippur, “Michael on the right hand utters praise and on the left Gabriel declares …” Simonschaim (talk)

Since the question was, "Where's a list' of all named angels in the Bible?," whether or not anyone believes in the accuracy of the Bible, or what their religious beliefs might (not) happen to be is entirely irrelevant. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I did that; listing where and names, from the Bible. (The first to reply. You will find my entry with references, too) - MacOfJesus (talk) 15:46, 13 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)

Yes, The BBC ran a number of accounts of this. Some local NHS areas refuse to pay for some Onconogy treatments as the drugs are too expensive, yet a few miles down the road it was acceptable. The OP specifically mentiones UK. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide links to specific articles please? 92.15.0.50 (talk) 11:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There are two factors involved, one being the recommendation by NICE of the value for money of specific pharmaceuticals, and the other being the commissioning decision of individual Primary Care Trusts. there are a number of cases where the recommendation from NICE becomes a short term cause celebre in the media, a recent one was about a treatment for bowel cancer that could extend life by around six weeks.

The PCT commissioning issue is described as the postcode lottery, essentially different trusts prioritise their spending in different ways, and sometimes that means that one PCT will not fund a treatment that a neighbouring PCT does. that's a classic centralisation/ localism tension.

In practical terms a pharmacist would be in breach of both their own code of practice and privacy legislation.

ALR (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This was a news item aired, probably on Panorama, but it was some time ago (approx. 2 months). BBC (020) 7224 2000. They will, probably, not have those details now on their active Internet Page. I will look. Panorama by E-Mail only: panorama@BBC.co.uk - Also News desk: (0208) 743 8000. MacOfJesus (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If your Chemist is willing, and these and other situations are known to him/her you might be able to (behind the scenes) aid the funding of these very expensive treatments. He/she will not discuss names. Or indeed the Pharmacutical Society may be willing to do this. Don't be put-off. There is a way. I can enquire.MacOfJesus (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cannot see any links to specific articles, or any named cases, yet. 92.28.252.63 (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Just "Google": "BBC tv", and at the appropriate box put in "Panorama", but speaking to someone in BBC is best, you do have to do some work here! MacOfJesus (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If you Google: "Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain"; then you will find: 1, Lambeth High St., London, SE1 7JN, Tel: (0207-735 9141), and a seperate add. for Scotland. E-Mail: enquiries@rpsgb.org - Hope this helps. MacOfJesus (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You still have not provided any links to evidence. I cannot see how the Pharm. Soc. GB or the website of a tv series could be considered evidence. 92.29.119.29 (talk) 13:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless those names have been published by BBC or others, then even if I knew could not give. I am only giving this information to aid someone giving to a good-cause. MacOfJesus (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe that you truely do not understand that I am asking for evidence for your assertions. You have repeatedly provided no evidence, therefore I doubt your assertions. 92.15.25.239 (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A UK-based initiative called Giving What We Can describes themselves as an unaffiliated "society of concerned people, who have made a commitment to give what we can to help those much less fortunate than ourselves". They investigate the relative efficacy of various charities (how much bang for one's buck) and make suggestions accordingly. Many of its members have pledged to give 10% of their income to international development charities. Its founder, Toby Ord, estimates that over the course of his life of giving, he will "save around 500,000 years of healthy life". It puts things in perspective. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have given precise links to Panorama, News desk of BBC, and the Pharmacutical Soc., with their active tel. nos. So, if you are serious in giving to a good cause that you appear to be, you will be able to do the rest. Others have come in here to verify what I've been saying. For me to go further, your name would help. MacOfJesus (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I add one last point: After raising funds for charities and seeing how funds are used in some cases, I have noticed one charity that I've seen really works. The fast-food chain "Mac Donalds" promotes; "Ronald Mc Donald House". These are Houses/Hotel-Hostels built close to Hospitals that deal with sick children. These houses are like hotels for the sick children convalescing and their immediate families. Otherwise, they and their families would have to go to hotels with the inevitable impossible costs. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:03, 19 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)

Thanks everyone, thats very useful. Mhicaoidh (talk) 10:19, 10 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)

"Prayers for Rain" is about Angie Gennaro and Patrick Kenzie's reactions to the death of Amanda, it isn't about the girl, per se. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:30, 10 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)

This is an interesting question, but some specification is needed about exactly how to adapt it at the top. At lower levels it is clear that employees would be accountable to middle level managers and so forth like at any big company, so there'd be no difference. But at the highest level the typical capitalist enterprise has an overpaid CEO (I wonder how much of that money goes to bribes and paying criminals...) and a board of directors. Would your scenario replace them with a different means of high-level planning, or maintain them as is and only replace the stockholders? Wnt (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The system is theoretically possible, but without taxes the only way for the government to get enough money is to print it, which leads to inflation. It may be worth noting that we actually have a version of your item 1 at the highest level of banking, in the form of the Federal Reserve. Looie496 (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be unlikely that a government would be able to be as profit-seeking as shareholders. Government corporations frequently perform quite poorly because they consider many factors other than profit. They are often at the mercy of unions, unable to easily cut jobs or services and face electoral issues rather than simply business ones. Popular is rarely efficient.124.171.201.251 (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well this scenario did not mention that it was in a democracy, so perhaps many of those issues would not be applicable. I suspect that China is at least a little like this. Googlemeister (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the bigger economic issue. given a 'Government as shareholder' structure, just who would the government be competing with? Apple competes with Microsoft, and the result (theoretically) is that both Apple and Microsoft will improve their products to try to secure customers and profit for themselves. but if both Apple and Microsoft were owned by the government, where's the incentive towards improvement? the government makes the same profit whether the two companies make good products or bad products, so everyone might as well kick back and relax.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of cut-throat capitalism. But capitalism functions the same way that baseball functions, by pitting one group of people against another. If everyone ultimately belongs to the same team, capitalism falls apart (picture MLB where every player was on the Yankees - how would that even work?). you'd need to find an entirely different mechanism for motivation in a system like this, because the capitalist presumptions no longer apply. --Ludwigs2 17:27, 10 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[13] 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)

It's been said that contracts were invented by Melqart of the Phoenicians, the "lord of the city" (baal zebul) of Tyre. Thus an oath or contract, as a matter of religion, is sworn between three parties, the third being Beelzebub... Wnt (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A Christian would not swear upon The Bible if he/she is familiar with its content. They should not swear at all, Saint Matthew's Gospel says so, in the words of Jesus. Mat: Ch.5 v.33-37. - MacOfJesus (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

They should let their yes mean yes and their no mean no. schyler (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this is a matter of dispute; many of us understand Jesus' words in Matthew 26:63–64 as him taking an oath in a courtroom setting. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the text you linked: "But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. / Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Are you saying that Jesus took an oath because the high priest said "I adjure thee by the living God"? Wnt (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, Quakers and Moravians each have a special affirmation that allows them to avoid swearing an oath whilst not appearing to be atheists[14].

The US Constitution allows a Presdient to "affirm" instead of "swear". I believe Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to swear when they testify in court. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The article Oath of office of the President of the United States has some interesting minutae over the practice. Apparently, only one president Franklin Pierce, used the "affirmation" version of the oath; though his religion (Episcopalian), does not, as far as I know, specifically prohibit swearing oaths as a matter of doctrine. Perhaps it was a personal thing. Pierce also chose to use a law book rather than a Bible to take his oath, apparently repeating John Quincy Adams, who did the same thing. --Jayron32 04:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason why Jesus told us not to swear at all is that we, unlike Him, could not see the future or "turn a single hair white or black", unlike Him. So, also we were not to judge. But, He could, and did. When Jesus was demanded to speak the truth He did. And, if you remember this was the reason why they executed Him. So, the President should not swear but affirm. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well not white or black, but my mother said I gave her a lot of gray hair. Googlemeister (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In the Church of England, a priest being installed in a new parish is required to swear two oaths in front of the congregation, with the New Testament in his (or her) right hand; The Oath of Allegiance (to the Queen) and The Oath of Canonical Obedience (to his bishops)[15]. Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well he/she should be brave enough to say no. I had to, and explain to the judge (in the High Court) why. By the way; someone or another has given me a head-full of grey hair! MacOfJesus (talk) 23:45, 10 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)

You could use an automatic rule to deal with this. Something like: "if new mail arrives from 'Billy' and I am not the only recipient, then move it to the folder named 'Billy's spam'". An occasional whizz through the folder will let you sort the interesting/useful from the pointless crap. Astronaut (talk) 09:44, 10 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)

Sadly people seldom have big bonfires on Guy Fawkes Night like they used to. But when I was a child they did, and big bonfires would keep burning all night without needing any attendance or extra fuel. 92.29.121.183 (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See needfire. Wait, no, the deletionists have been here already. Wnt (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean the article at need-fire, Wnt? The deleted article formerly at needfire was about some band. Now redirected. --KFP (contact | edits) 23:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that - leapt to the wrong conclusion. I see force-fire is even more useful. Wnt (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Plague fires in London. Here is a link to the edict issued by the mayor of London in 1665. Basically, everyone paid for keeping the fires burning for three days and nights. Need-fires etc. are something else entirely. The plague fires were to purify the air rather than to evoke any mystical mumbo-jumbo. Defoe's History of the Great Plague in London --Aspro (talk) 12:43, 11 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)

In reply to a comment saying that people were rounded up from the "Jewish quarter", although the comment has now disapeared: I do not think there were any "Jewish quarters". The ghettoization was something that the Nazis themselves has deliberately created by force, not something that existed before the persecution started. 92.29.121.183 (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If I recall, they performed a pretty comprehensive census not long before all of their Holocaust activities. See Edwin Black's (controversial) IBM and the Holocaust, which describes in some detail the Nazi's use of information technology to identify and round-up German Jews. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading before that the Germans did indeed mark this long before the Holocaust, but trying to search for it now I came up with an apparently opposite result [16] saying that they had to mark Jews' passports with a "J" so the Swiss could deny them entry in 1938. This is indeed an issue that is desperately underappreciated. The holocaust in Rwanda also relied on such cards - without them, not even the residents could tell the "races" apart. Wnt (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ghettos may not have been developed until later, but Jews were largely self-segregated: Jews and Christians across Europe frowned on intermarriage and Jews tended to congregate in Jewish quarters and maintain (as they do to this day) traditional Jewish names, and were thus fairly easy to locate and identify in a loose sense. There were likely reasonable numbers of Jews who had European names and lacked semitic traits who passed in German society, at least until the Nazi's began checking into parentage. --Ludwigs2 22:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Wermuth book mentioned above makes no mention of any Jewish quarters. Jewish people just lived dispersed like anyone else. 92.15.0.50 (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

see the link I gave in the previous post. Ids it really your belief that you can conclude something doesn't exist because one person doesn't mention it? --Ludwigs2 14:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Did Freud, Einstein, or Anne Frank live in the 'Jewish quarter' then? The article, which is simply a list, does not distinquish between centuries ago, and the situation in the late 1930's. I've visited lots of European countries and read other memoirs from the time, and I've never come across any mention of them. I live in the UK, and there have never been any here. I think I recall mention of one several centuries ago in Venice, but that is not the 1930s, and may have been a compulsory ghetto. The Wermuth book goes into a lot of detail about the living accommodation of the author, his family, friends, and relations, and there is no mention of a 'Jewish quarter'. 92.28.252.63 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your issue here is. it was the 1930's: they didn't have genetic testing or effective computers, prior to Hitler there was no systematic means of labeling or identifying Jews, and yet somehow they still managed to do a decent job of it. obviously all Jews did not live in Jewish quarters, but the suggestion that there were no ethnic enclaves or that Jews were fully integrated into European society (to the point where it would be difficult to identify them) is ridiculous on the face of it. Jews aren't even fully integrated today. You seem to be trying to make an argument that the Nazis needed to do something extraordinary to identify Jews, whereas I think it's fairly clear that Jews were for the most part identifiable through a combination of appearance, location and association. so what exactly are you trying to say? --Ludwigs2 21:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Jews were difficult to identify by sight, apart from the very orthodox ones in traditional clothing. In the famous photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06b.jpg that I recall of a round-up, where a frightened small boy stands with his hands up, the Jews look just like anyone else. In other photos of Jews of the era they also look just like anyone else. Current actors and others in the limelight with a Jewish background also look like anyone else. Echos of Nazi propaganda about jewish people must still survive to this day. 92.29.119.29 (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel kind of like I'm invisible here. They used computerized genealogical records combined with extensive census records done before the Nazis came to power. There is a lot of scholarship on this. There is no need to speculate. They did not just go around and say, "hey you with the nose, into the ghetto." They esteemed themselves on their "scientific" and "impartial" methods. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

So how would that have worked where the census data was not so rigorously recorded? Remember that the Nazi's rounded up Jews (and other non-desirables like homosexuals, Romani, Jehovah's Witnesses, the disabled, etc.) from all over Europe. Maybe using Dehomag/IBM to process census records was one of the ways used to identify people, but many others were simply denounced by their neighbours.

Solomon Perel famously avoided the holocaust by "passing" as a non-Jew. The film Europa Europa tells his story. --Jayron32 05:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read, the identity documents and ID checks would prevent people from doing that. 92.15.0.50 (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I once asked a northern Irish friend how, during The Troubles, were the men of violence able to tell catholic from protestant. He said it was as simple as the family name and a subtle variation in accent. Maybe the same happened prior to WWII in Germany. Astronaut (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember that the two groups in The Troubles were really two historically separate groups, with Catholic/Protestant just being the simplest, most obvious difference to use. The different names, accents, football teams, traditions, etc, are linked to them being different groups, not to their religion as such. As you say, the same goes for Jews in Nazi Germany, since anti-semitism wasn't about them being a different religion, but about them being a separate group. Otherwise, a Jew could have 'converted' and been safe, and the Grandparent laws wouldn't have come in. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I just want to again reiterate my suggestion at looking at the article on IBM and the Holocaust. It was not a matter of subtle things or identifying by sight or where they lived or other "individual judgment" situations (which would have made it more of a pogrom of old than a Holocaust). The Nazis made extensive use of census data and historical data combined with punch-card computer technology in order to identify people with "Jewish ancestry" (according to Nuremberg definitions) so that they could later be systematically rounded up. In this way as in many others it was a terribly modern genocide: using information technology in order to identify people who were thought to different by subtle genetic qualities in order that they could be segregated, shipped to camps, and exterminated. The information technology was essential for their operation. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an article Kennkarte, but it is not very informative concerning the OP's question.--Saddhiyama (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The film "Inglourious Basterds" opens with the portrayal of a bureaucrat's attempt to patch-over a "loop-hole" in the system. There are many other stories of Jews escaping that system (or trying to), but the truth is that the bureaucracy was chillingly efficient, precise, and relentless. ID-cards were one of the means to that end, and were made possible in part by IBM. WikiDao (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

September 10

Colard, Belgium

Somewhere near Liege [17]

Is it a spelling error? can anyone find it.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a Colard-Seraing labeled at 50.6074°N 5.5192°E / 50.6074; 5.5192 on Google Maps, right next to what appears to be a coal mine labeled with the name of the company in question. Deor (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And entering "Chaussee de la Hulpe" in Google Earth points to the railway station at

50°47′41.82″N 4°24′30.13″E, with the street to the east. Rojomoke (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, it must be Colard-Seraing .

Resolved

Roman Admiration/Adoption of Greek Culture

Why were the Romans so strongly influenced by Greek culture? They conquered countless people (including the Greeks in the Battle of Corinth) but no other culture seemed to have an impact quite like the Greeks. Why didn't the Teutons and Cimbris in the Cimbrian War have a similar influence? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would they? To the Romans, the Teutons and Cimbri were barbarians. The Greeks were much more advanced. The height of Greek civilization occurred when Rome was a village of wooden huts. There were Greek colonies near Rome, and they had laws, literature, architecture, technology, even something as simple as an alphabet. It's the same reason the Germanic and Gallic tribes later copied the Romans. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

TheFutureAwaits -- The Romans were also significantly influenced by Etruscan culture... AnonMoos (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And some of the original Greek influence came indirectly through the Etruscans (who were also rather backwards compared to the nearby Greek colonies and were just as impressed by them as the Romans were). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

THe Romans respected the Etruscans and the Greeks because they were civilised.
Sleigh (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

On of Rome's two prominent foundtion myths was that it was founded by Greeks. Besides the more famous "Romulus and Remus" myth there is the story told in the Aeneid, that Rome was founded by the defeated Trojans after the Trojan War. While Virgil popularized the story, Aeneas's story was already counted as a popular founding myth of Rome. --Jayron32 02:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

QI

I was watching an episode of QI on Dave and they said that in Katanonian Christmas scenes with jesus and the manger, there is always a man in the back dedicating? Is that true? My google searches have revealed little evidence Minky543 (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you mean "Catalonian" and "defecating", they might have been talking about the Caganer (see article). ---Sluzzelin talk 13:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(Beat me to it!) I remember the QI episode, yes it is the Caganer in Catalonian nativity scenes. DuncanHill (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Decking the halls, though not with holly

Holy shit! —Kevin Myers 14:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

[18] Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Thank you. I'll be here all week." —Kevin Myers 14:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please help: My husband doesn't understand me; I have PTSD and was sexually abused from age 2-12

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We were married 1 month ago. My husband wanted to look me over, naked, after I asked him not to and told him I needed to wear something. On our wedding night he still insisted and I let him because I felt like I had to, but I felt like I was out of myself and all of my desires for him, sexually, fell completely aside. He takes things personally even though I have explained to him what happened to me. To his credit, He did take time to read to me from the Bible the book of Song of Songs and explained that they had to be looking at one another in order to make the descriptions they made. One night he continued to play with my nipples after I asked him to stop and because I guess I was set back to being like I was when I was a child, even though I was giggling while I kept saying no, I held my breast tightly all night to keep him from me and the next day when I felt myself again, I told him that no means no no matter what and he was offended. I'm not very good at explaining things to him, either, esp., since he said I talked to him as if he was a child. After we took a couple weeks off (Help was there due to a bladder infection) and so that we were not expecting me to have any sex and we agreed that I would be the one to initiate things after our intrastate move was over (me in a new state with him)I finally felt comfortable and interested in having sex one night, then he began touching me and asking for sex the next morning after waking me up and I had a head ache and the sun was even hurting my eyes. I reminded him of that pack we made and he appeared to me that he was offended again, which seems to me like he distances himself from me. Is there a book / article out there somewhere or something that he can read to help him understand me? I pray so hard for some help here, because he is a very good man and I love him very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokenwoman78910 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia can not give medical (including psychological) advice. please consult a psychologist (your personal physician may be able to recommend one). --Ludwigs2 14:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Typically, a psychiatrist (a doctor) is consulted, and not a psychologist (a scientist). Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought this the last time somebody (Ludwigs?) appeared to confuse the two professions; but then I read the "Contrast with psychiatrist" section of psychologist, and wasn't so sure any more. 213.122.55.221 (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You should seek advice from a Psychiatrist or therapist. They will be able to help you far better than random people on the internet can Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Congress ratification of treaties

U.S. Presidents have a nice tradition. They may sign an international treaty and leave the houses not to ratify it. The prime minister or premiere of a parliamentary system country always belong to the majority party. Will they treat treaties with more honor? --Toytoy (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Australia was a party to the kyoto protocol for many years without actually ratifying it. Seperation of powers in parliamentary democracies means that, just like the US a treaty has to get through the houses of parliament. Often treaties are signed for diplomatic reasons then not implemented or implemented poorly for local political reasons. 124.171.201.251 (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

But our beloved Aussies finally ratified KP. Only the U.S. still fails to ratify it. Well, 2012 is coming soon ... -- Toytoy (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a matter of honor. Probably the most famous example is the US Senate's failure to ratify the League of Nations treaty; Woodrow Wilson was an enthusiastic promoter of the League, made it a centerpiece of his policy, and toured the country to try to raise support; but Wilson's opponents in the Senate were able to defeat the moves to ratify the treaty. Was Wilson dishonorable to sign the treaty? That's nonsense. However, there's something far dodgier under US law: see Medellín v. Texas, in which it was ruled in 2008 that a treaty has to be "self-executing", or else it's not actually binding domestic law, even if it was ratified by the Senate. Hopefully all future treaties will be phrased to be "self-executing" before being signed by the President and then presented to the Senate for ratification. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Wilson probably could have got the League of Nations treaty through, if he had been willing to accept a number of statements of reservations and limitations that Congress would have attached to it. As for the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the thing is that it was the US federal government which signed and ratified it, but in the vast majority of cases its obligations are binding on the individual states (not on the federal government itself) -- and under the U.S. constitution, the federal government cannot directly order state governments to do things which fall into the sphere allocated to the authority of the state governments (only the federal courts can do that). The most the congress or president could do is cut off some federal law enforcement funding allocated to the states to supplement state budgets (something which would be politically unpopular, and might not have the desired effect). AnonMoos (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

One clarification: only the Senate is required to ratify treaties in the U.S. The House of Representatives gets no say in the matter. See Treaty Clause. —D. Monack ^talk 22:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Victim of fanaticism - Search for a painting

Dear Wikipedia editors,

We have a deep interest in the Ukraine painter, Nikolai Pimonenco, and spacific in his painting "victim of fanaticism".

We sow on the entry "History of the Jews in Russia" the painting with a little explanation about it, and we want to know if you know more about it, and spacific - which museum does it presents in.

Thanks a lot for your time and you efforts,

Aviv ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.151.40 (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, it is located in the Kharkiv Art Museum. Here is some more info. I couldn't find it on the museum's own website, but maybe someone else can. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia his name is Mykola Pymonenko. I've linked to Wikipedia's image of the painting -- the File page contains some information about it, but I can't read most of it. Looie496 (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Berlin pre-war buildings

I am interested in knowing how many pre-World War II buildings exist today in Berlin. I read that only Goring's Air Ministry building survived the Allied bombings and Russian shelling. Could somebody please confirm this? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean 1933-1945 buildings, or pre-1945 buildings generally? -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

see Detlev-Rohwedder-Haus --Bgfx (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The monument to Catherine The Great is intact in the centre of the Main Street: Unter den Linden, ending then in the Brandenburg Gate, seen by me in 1969! MacOfJesus (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

gov.

i just put up a post on her titled gov. where is it its gone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed it. It had nothing to do with humanities. You have been warned about asking questions in the wrong place several times already. Looie496 (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

thi is the gov section. you are a vandal. i will put it back up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This is Humanities, not what is the New York department for environmental conservation laws? -- kainaw™ 18:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

its under politics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As we do not have a "what is the New York department for environmental conservation laws refdesk", either of humanities of misc would seem appropriate for the question, to me. I'm uncertain what crusade Looie496 is on, but suggest he or she is misguided. Neither did he or she have the good grace to alert the OP to the removal of their question. That's just rude. Finally, in the event that Tomjohnson357 is a troll - and I know of no evidence pointing this way - then at best he has had a very good feed indeed, which still makes the removal counterproductive. WOuld it not have ben as easy to give a one line answer, such as "your congressman" or other legislative assembly representative? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

i agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the answer is that New York State has multiple governmental agencies with responsibility for environmental protection or conservation, and links to them are available here. Particularly relevant to the question, of course, is the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. John M Baker (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

gov 2

who can i write to to complain about oil paint being outlawed in ny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (stated above). -- kainaw™ 19:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

they didnt outlaw it though —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The State Assembly would have passed the law, so if you want someone actually responsible for passing the law, you would contact your local assemblyman/woman. If you want someone responsible for enforcing the law, you would contact the agency named by Kainaw. --Jayron32 01:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

De-sanctification of Barbara?

According to the article titled Saint Barbara, she "was removed from the liturgical calendar of the Roman rite in 1969." No source is cited. I seem to recall that a long list of saints were removed from the calendar simultaneously at about that time. Was this one of those? Is there any account of that event in Wikipedia or elsewhere on the web? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'd ask about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism, since it could be accompanied by a suggestion that some information be added to the article, but it seems rare that anyone ever looks at that page. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You can read Paul VI's motu proprio on the matter, although he is referring to an earlier council decision (which I'm sure must be available somewhere too). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know much about it, except that the most famous of the delistees was probably Saint Christopher... AnonMoos (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic calendar of saints#General Roman Calendar is relevant. Deor (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That particular motu proprio caused headlines in newspapers all over the world. There should be a Wikipedia article about it, and it should be linked from Saint Barbara and other such articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

opening a rehab center

in order to open and run a rehab center what areas of knowledge should i major in university? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.90.159 (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Never having even been in a rehab center, I may be off a bit but my first thought would be psychology. Dismas|^(talk) 21:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends exacly what role you want to do. Running a rehab centre is more of an administrator/management job. Being closely involved with the clients needs more of a background in sociology or social work. Why not check out what qualifications are needed for jobs in this area? Here in the UK, The Guardian newspaper has good jobs pages for this kind of work (see here for example), but I'm sure there are sources of similar information in your country. Astronaut (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You might also find the article Qualifications for professional social work useful. Astronaut (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

More specific needed. Animal rehab center? Cleaning oil from birds wings and releasing them back into the wild? Or people rehab center for junkies? 14:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk • contribs)

What's the catch?

I received an email offer by the wording of:

“ Hello,

If you can spare 6 to 18 hours a week, possess some experience working on a computer and have an internet access, you can actually start working with us and begin to earn extra money. It is a part-time job and you can do it according to your own schedule. The job includes mostly survey completing and giving your opinion about different products. Everything you do, you do it online. All you need is just computer with internet connection.

If you are interested, contact me by my work email: <email removed> and I will send you further information.

”

When I replied asking how much it would pay, I got a templated reply directing me to a link which redirected here. Now, while the prospect of some money from this (although I highly doubt the claimed potential of $3-5k a month) seems desirable, something about this feels like it has a catch of some kind to it. What is likely to be the catch for participating at the website I linked? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There are many websites (SponsorPay and Super Rewards are two) that pay you small amounts to do surveys, although only small amounts. I guess if you were doing surveys really fast all day long for a month you would earn a couple of k, but most likely you only earn like $5 for doing many surveys. Often they don't even have surveys going. It's tedious and not usually worth it unless you want to spend it on say, a browser game, but there's no real catch: you do surveys and you get a small amount of money.--92.251.241.196 (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I should get a script going that will take the survey for me! Then I can be lazy and rich. Googlemeister (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Naturally enough they have measures in place against that, although I don't know what they are.--178.167.172.73 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The catch is the low rate of pay: if you divide the amount you're paid per survey by the time needed to take the survey, you'll get something well below minimum wage. --Carnildo (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

One- and two-movement works for solo piano

Resolved

 – –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What "classical" names are there for one- and two-movement works for solo piano? I've seen the word prelude being used so much, I almost wonder if it's a cliché, or if it's been diluted of any definition now? On the other hand, suite seems to me like a collection of movements, usually on the larger end, like four or five movements. Are there any other words that could replace either of these two examples? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

PS - Humanities seemed a more appropriate area for this question than Entertainment... I would consider classical music to be more in the realm of literature and art than pop culture. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sonatas are normally three or four movements, but there are some examples of two-movement sonatas. Many sonatinas are only one or two movements. Prelude and fugue has been a popular combination, as has toccata and fugue. Single movement works can have many names, including: toccata, scherzo, impromptu, ballade, nocturne, fantasia, waltz, mazurka, polonaise, bourrée, courante, allemande, gigue, barcarole, rhapsody, rondo, study (or étude if you want to be pretentious, or etude if you want to be ignorantly pretentious), berceuse, passacaglia, chaconne, and all the names in Category:Dance forms in classical music and Category:Western classical music styles that I haven't mentioned here. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This is wonderful!! Thank you so much, Papyrus! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

September 11

singapore dollar notes

why isnt the president smiling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.217.220 (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Why should he?. I doubt you'll find any smiling portraits on currency; presidents and monarchs they like to show they're being serious. I often add the smile myself.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Blonde stag film

Does anyone have idea when this Blonde stag film was shot? Was it in the early 20th century? Was porn legal at that time? --Galactic Traveller (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it is a silent film does not mean it has to be from the silent film era (i.e. before 1930) because amateurs kept filming without sound for a long time after that. Judging by the woman's hairstyle, I'd guess it is from the 50s or early 60s. Whether it was legal or not depends on what country it is from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the 1960s to me, probably USA. It is more modern than the similar films of Bettie Page. 92.29.119.29 (talk) 13:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you'd assume USA. I see no reason to justify that assumption. It could easily be European, even Latin American. The USA has no monopoly on blondes or fashionable haircuts. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

America produces most of the pornography in the world. It's laughable to suggest otherwise. "Pornography generates billions of dollars in sales in the United States......An estimated 211 new pornographic films are made every week in the United States." from Pornography by region. I suppose the US dosnt have much of a film industry either, or much of a military. Apart from that, my impresion is that in Europe porn was more illegal, more shameful, and hence difficult to distribute than it was in the US at that time. 92.29.119.29 (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The volume produced by a nation has no effect on the likelihood of any given specimen being produced in that particular nation. There is no reason to assume this particular one is American, and appealing to national rates or (assumed) local prejudices doesn't affect that. In any case, in the USA in the 1950s and so, it was very common for stag films to be made in Mexico, for example, where the enforcement of obscenity laws was far less rigorous than in the individual states, for example. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

By your reasoning, Hollywood is just a little cottage industry. 92.29.119.29 (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't be dense. What I'm saying is that if you found a random frame of a feature film lying around (not even knowing what time period it was), you couldn't assume it was probably "from Hollywood" just on the basis that many films were made in Hollywood. Similarly if you see a person with dark skin you wouldn't assume that they lived in Africa just because many people with dark skin live in Africa. You're just falling under the common logical fallacy of assuming that bulk statistics of a set tells you about the state of any specific item within the set. This is a common error in reasoning. You cannot infer about the individual only by looking at population statistics. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you can, in general, make such assumptions. It's called Conditional probability, and there a lot of statisticians who make big money doing things like that. No, you can't say that a film is for sure from America on the basis that America makes a lot of films, but you can (truthfully) say that it's likely from America. If you had more information about how many movies different nations produce, and how much of it is porn, you could put a specific probability on this movie being American. See also Bayes theorem. Buddy431 (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, non-safe for work warning for anyone in a restricted viewing situation. Secondly, oorn has never been illegal (although arguably it should be) but the distribution of porn is what is illegal sometimes. Quadrupedaldiprotodont (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't overgeneralize. The laws relating to pornography vary by region and time. In some places its creation and possession have been illegal. In the United States, there were state laws against the mere possession of pornography until 1969 (see Stanley v. Georgia). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mr.98 that there's no apparent reason to think that the film is American. The woman looks European to me, but your mileage may vary. From a technical standpoint, the most striking thing about the film is of course the use of a zoom lens. I'm no expert by any means, but I think that zoom lenses were not widely available for amateur 16mm use until the early 1960s. Without further information, I'd guess that the film dates from that time. —Kevin Myers 14:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The clip is from the Prelinger Archives (archives.org gives no date or location [19]), so I guess it's probably American. The scribblings in the beginning might be of help. I don't know what they're called. Not cue marks, but stuff written on the film itself, see the first thumbnail here. Maybe some forensic film buff can figure it out? ---Sluzzelin talk 15:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it says, "Carol Barker-HD." No way to know if that's the actual name of the person, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What would the Milesians of Irish mythology have worn at the time of their invasion?

I've gathered that they were apparently Spanish soldiers, telling from your own articles about the subject. From what I've been able to find on a time period, however, it would seem it was likely to have occured sometime around 50 to 100 A.D., which implies that at the time Spain was still under Roman rule.

However, I feel it is doubtful that the attire ascribed to Roman soldiers and civilians was entirely universal, as most of the internet would like you to believe. My basis for this line of conjecture is the distinct difference in attire between what is traditionally produced as Roman attire, and what is found when you search for British attire during the Roman rule. My source for the British Roman attire is as follows: http://www.fashion-era.com/ancient_costume/roman-costume-history-toga.htm

Also in the aforementioned source are good examples of what many view as typical roman attire. I would at least like a good illustration of what may be different between the 'traditional' Roman garb, and what a Spanish-Roman explorer (as in the Irish mythology would suggest the Milesians may have been, aside from soldiers) would have possibly been dressed in during this period. --66.189.24.40 (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on the Milesians, for a start - but you might be trying to make Irish mythology too logical. I don't think they were meant to be Romans. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's references that make it possible that the Milesians did actually exist, it's just that as a result of transliteration between the native language and latin, it resulted in the name Milesian, which I already gathered from the page for Míl Espáine, which is linked on the Milesians page. I've already sifted through the articles here, and I'm actually looking more for a possible idea of what someone of Roman-Controlled Spain might have wore, as opposed to what the Romans generally wore. The reason for this being that as the Wikipedia article explains, it could very well be a linguistic perversion of the latin phrase "Miles Hispaniae", or soldier of Spain, which again, I'm pretty sure for the majority of the time period that the Milesian invasion on Ireland appears to take place (sometime at least 150 to 200 years before 450 A.D.), Spain was Roman territory. Basically I've been making connections based off of everything I've been finding. My main reason for actually looking all of this up was mainly to find the origin of where the Milesians likely came from (figured that out) and from there, find out what people of that region at that time period actually wore. and again, looking at the differences between Romanized English garb and that of the traditional Roman attire, I'd find it highly unlikely for the traditional Roman attire to be universal throughout all of Roman Europe, save for Roman Britain.--66.189.24.40 (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Normal

Is "normal" whatever the majority does? If the majority put baked beans on their head, would it be normal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Growcress45 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sociologists don't define "normal" (or "norms") as just majority behavior, but as a series of social expectations within a given community. So what is "normal" for one group can vary for what is "normal" for another, and, importantly, just because something is done by the majority doesn't necessarily make it "normal". (So what is "normal" for graduate students to wear, read, and watch is different than what is "normal" for blue collar workers to wear, read, and watch. But on the other hand, just because everybody in a given community has children, there might not be an expectation that everybody has children — that is, it might not be "abnormal" to not do what the majority does.) But yes, social norms can be very arbitrary. I hardly see the firm distinction between wearing baked beans on one's head and spraying odorous Beaver sacs under one's arms or painting one's eyelids black, or any of the other multitudes of odd customs we take for granted. To quote George Bernard Shaw, "Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature." --Mr.98 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Normal can mean any of the following:

• sociological/anthropological norms (as above): expected/allowed behavior/attitudes in a given societal context
• moral expectations: behavior/attitudes that are expected of a good person (differs from the above because moral expectations are supposed to be non-contextual, though a lot of people will argue there's no practical difference)
• psychosocial integrity: behavior/attitudes that are not physically or mentally destructive (usually expressed in terms of abnormal behavior).

take your pick. --Ludwigs2 16:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

An additional interpretation of the moral/social might be that moral expectations are cooked up in order to reinforce social norms. (Hence most moral expectations that are taken seriously don't fall too far outside of given norms, and the people who do actually take them seriously usually fall very far outside of most social norms, and become self-segregating religious communities, for example.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A character in Larry Niven's Ringworld says "the majority is always sane". More seriously, some of the criticisms levelled against modern psychiatric practice (as expressed, for example, in DSM-V) is it that is claimed to medicalise hitherto normal human variation (this Harvard discussion is relevant). In the terms of your question, it doesn't change what is normal (it's still abnormal to have beans on your head) but it narrows the range around that which is considered healthy (that is, it reduces the number of beans you can have on your head and still be considered an eccentric rather than someone suffering from a mental condition that requires treatment). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, what some people consider normal and what others consider normal can differ wildly. Take the odious and grotesque practice (you can already tell which side of the fence I'm on) of wearing clothes that have had holes deliberately ripped in them. Who in their right mind would ever do that? That's just as weird as walking around with baked beans on your head. But people do it; well, some people do it. They've created their own peer-regulated normality. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

KIDNAPPING BUSINESS

WHY SHOULD NIGERIA BE SINGING ABOUT KIDNAPPING AS A CRIME WHILE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD APPLY THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WOULD FISH ATHEM OUT AND OVERTHROW THEIR ABODES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwokolopc (talk • contribs) 13:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

All the words of your question are spelled correctly but put together in that order, they don't make much sense. Can you better explain what you are asking? Dismas|^(talk) 15:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like something's going on over there, anyway. WikiDao (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

pre-1974 Coat of arms of Burma

Can anyone find an image of the pre-1974 Coat of arms of Burma, with the three chinthe? I had one when I was a little nerdlet in Kindergarden, from the 1970 World Book encyclopedia, but that was 35 years, 6000 miles and 17 garage sales ago. In addition, I am fairly sure there was one prior to the 1962 coup that was different. Yes, I have Google image searched, king-size bag o' nothin'. --Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this[20] any good? Alansplodge (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry, That seems to be India!! Try again... Alansplodge (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Godfather part I's language

What non-English language do they speak? Is it modern standard Italian language or Sicilian language? --Belchman (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was just Italian as spoken by Americans who don't really speak Italian. If it was really Sicilian it would sound so different from regular Italian that you would definitely be able to tell. The guy who played Michael's father-in-law (Saro Urzi) was Sicilian, but the girl who played Michael's wife (Simonetta Stefanelli) is from Rome, so I don't know if that means anything. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Precolumbian Civilisations

Was there any communication between the Middle American and Andean civilisations prior to the European conquests? The picture that's usually painted is of two separate centres of culture, the Incas and the Aztecs (and the Maya), in the middle of not much else. Rojomoke (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Metallurgy in pre-Columbian America discusses the development of metallurgy in Peru and its spread to Mesoamerica by 800 AD. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Date of creation

Many religious beliefs have a creation myth. I was under the impression, however, that Judaism (and by extension Christianity/Islam) was one of the few that set even a rough date on creation (e.g. 5770 or so years back by the Hebrew calendar; 6014 or so years back, if you follow Ussher chronology.) Is that impression correct, or are there other religions that put a specific date, or even an approximate one, to creation? (But let's exclude the linguistic trick of using a specific large number to refer to some unspecified large number.) Specifically, both Greco-Roman mythology and Norse mythology have creation myths, but were these placed at a specific time in the past, or just a vauge "a long, long time ago"? -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The List of creation myths article gives a list of links to creation myths. But I haven't gone through them to see which of them has dates -- they're going to have to be the ones from cultures that also have a dating system, of course, so see also List of calendars. WikiDao (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The Hindus are sort of known for having extremely long timescales associated with their stories (billions of years, which is actually comparable to the age of the universe). It's not specifically "creation" because they have a cyclic worldview, but I think that you can put a date on the last time Shiva destroyed the world, or whatever (I'm not that familiar with either the religion nor the time reckoning, so I'm sure someone else can come along and elaborate). You can try to wade through Hindu units of measurement, specifically for "day of Brahma". Here's another site about Hindu time measurements: [21]. According to this site [22], we're currently about 2 billion years into the current day of Brahma. Buddy431 (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

174.21.233.249 -- The creation dates in Christianity and Judaism have been arrived at by painfully adding numbers together in the Bible which were not really intended for the purpose of strictly consecutive chronology (the whole Book of Judges, for example), and often different numbers are found in the Masoretic Hebrew text as opposed to the Greek Septuagint text. That's why the date of creation has been set anywhere from 3760 B.C. (Jewish Calendar) to 4004 B.C. (Archbishop Ussher) to 5509 B.C. (Anno Mundi)... AnonMoos (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

But realise that Christianity as a whole, and most of the individual sects do NOT adhere to any chronology at all (some obscure small ones might). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A deeper meditation on Bible Truths reveals that that date is the instant where Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. The time between the creation event, which was six "days," and The Original Sin is never at all specified. schyler (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

See the article "Chronology of the Bible". -- Wavelength (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Further to Buddy431 above: the Hindu cosmology has cycles of "creation" called "Kalpas" each of which consists of four periods of time called yugas. We are apparently about 5112 years into the fourth, or "Kali", yuga of this Kalpa. Adding that to the duration of the preceding three yugas gives 5112 + 864,000 + 1,296,000 + 1,728,000 = 3,893,112 years since the last creation-event, according to this system. 68.55.212.251 (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)