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 12

Lady of Mann

Have the spouses of the Lord of Mann ever used the title Lady of Mann other than Elizabeth de Vere, Countess of Derby who was Lord of Mann? Also how about the title of Queen of Mann? See List of Manx consorts for wives of the rulers of Mann.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte Murray, Duchess of Atholl did in an order to the officers of the Island: "I, Charlotte, Lady of Mann and the Isles, Baroness Strange, with consent of the Honourable John Murray, of Strewan, my husband." (An Abstract of the Laws, Customs, and Ordinances of the Isle of Man, ed., With Notes (on 'The Supposed True Chronicle of the Isle of Man'), James Gell, vol 1., 1866, p 103). ---Sluzzelin talk 07:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

For a discussion about the title Queen of Mann, see[1]. Alansplodge (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Differences

Why are there such extremes between people? Some are extremely nice, others are horrible and once step away from punching you in the face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KAELLKTPIN (talk • contribs) 13:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Read things like Nature versus nurture - there's arguments about how much of our behaviour is 'learned' (nurture) and how much is 'inherent' (nature) for a start on 'why' people turn out different. ny156uk (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the people who are extremely nice may not be extremely nice all of the time, and the horrible ones might have better days. The circumstances under which you meet them probably matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You could also look at personality type and personality psychology. Looie496 (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It helps not to describe people as "nice" or "horrible" or anything in between, based merely on their observed behaviour. It's the behaviour itself that can be so described. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A very "nice" neighbor, all smiles and friendliness, turned into a snarling asshole when I asked him to remove a tree which was likely to fall onto my house. Do not be deceived by appearances. Edison (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point. People's behaviour varies. We've all done bad things, but does that mean we're all bad people? No, it doesn't. Who we are (whatever that is, and it takes more than a lifetime to find out) is not the same thing as what we do. That neighbour is no more an asshole today than he was a nice person yesterday. Criticise his behaviour if you need to, but deciding that he himself is an asshole is not your right, because you don't even know who you are. (Jack of Oz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Amendments to the US constitution

In what sense is the word amendment used in regards to the amendments to the US constitution? I understand amendment to mean change. Were the amendments contained within the Bill of Rights changes or additions? Was there an original US constitution which was changed and added to? What brought about the amendments contained within the Bill of Rights? Shouldn't the people that drafted the original US constitution have thought to have included them?

I've tried to read the articles on Wikipedia, but with little success. The articles are written, quite understandably, from an americentric point-of-view. They assume that I should be au fait with the basics; but I'm not! The articles become quite heavy, quite quickly. As an Englishman, I would really appreciate some help. Don't forget: K.I.S.S. Thanks is advance. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically they drew up the Constitution (the one with Seven Articles that explain how the government works) and ratified it by 1789. Then some people said, "this isn't enough, we need a Bill of Rights!" So the Bill of Rights were drawn up as Amendments to the original Constitution, and these were ratified and went into effect by 1791. United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Background is the relevant section. The distinction between "changes" and "additions" is not really relevant here; they are both, in a sense. As for whether they should have thought to include them, well, there was a long debate about that. The Constitution in general says, "here's what the government can do." The Bill of Rights on the other hand is more along the lines of "here's what the government cannot do." There was strong disagreement about whether the powers of the government should be defined positively or negatively; the Constitution (positive powers) + Bill of Rights (negative powers) was a compromise, of sorts. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perfect; I love it! Thanks for your time. You hit the nail on the head. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As to this question, "Were the amendments contained within the Bill of Rights changes or additions?", there was some disagreement about this when the Bill of Rights was adopted. Some initially believed that amendments were changes to the Constitution, and so the original needed to be reworded to reflect these changes. But in the end it was decided that it would be impractical to rewrite the original document every time an amendment was passed, and so amendments have always simply been tacked at the end of the Constitution as additions. These additions often change or invalidate earlier language, but that earlier language is traditionally not removed from the original. Instead, editors usually use brackets, italics, footnotes, etc. to indicate that an amendment has made the original language obsolete. —Kevin Myers 17:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

One correction to Mr.98's description. The Bill of Rights wasn't an afterthought that was first discussed after the original Constitution was ratified. It was a central part of the debate on whether to ratify the Constitution at all; see the "Background" section of United States Bill of Rights. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That article is a bit convoluted; I can see why the original questioner requested clarification. It really needs a rewrite. The article also downplays the varied agenda of those who advocated a bill of rights. Some wanted a bill of rights to protect individual rights, as the article says. But there were many, like Patrick Henry, who supported a bill of rights merely as an expedient to block adoption of the Constitution. George Mason gets credit for being a "Father of the Bill of Rights", but his primary motivation was not the promotion of human rights. (This is a myth, according to a recent biographer.) Instead, Mason used the bill of rights issue to oppose the Constitution because he feared that a strong central government would have the power to abolish slavery, a possibility that he, like many wealthy slaveowners, greatly feared. —Kevin Myers 19:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty ironic then that both the constitution and the Bill or Rights were ratified and then later his exact fear was realized. Rckrone (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That which we resist, persists. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not irony! He suspected that if the constitution were ratified, slavery would be abolished, and then exactly what he suspected turned out to be the truth! That's the opposite of irony. APL (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A fascinating aspect of the "original constitution" is the signing statements various states included with their ratification letters. Various states ratified but with some reservations, which in some cases would fit right into today's controversies, or those at the time of the American Civil War. I can't find the collection of communications from the various states which ratified the constitution in 1788, but some were quite libertarian, others were wary of the government asserting the right to seize and hold or to assassinate citizens without process of law as the US government presently claims the right to do. The wariness of various states would be consonant with the views of many Tea Party or progressives or civil libertarians today. Edison (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Because the Federalists, led by Hamilton, Jay, Madison, Washington, won the political battle, the impact of antiFederalists is downplayed. The newly formed states refused to ratified the original Constiution without an express bill of rights. The idea was debated during the drafting of the Constitution. James Madison argued strongly that all the rights and liberties specified in the basic Constitution included the civil rights and liberties later amended. The battles on the state level are very interesting. The Bill of Rights truly originated from the people more than a political elite in Philadelphia. I find it sad that almost every college educated American is familiar with the Federalist Papers. The entire story includes the local ratification conventions at the state level. Many patriots who fought bravely during the Revolution opposed the U.S. Constitution on liberty grounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to supplement what others have said, while I don't think the wording has been changed (there are "typos" in the constitution; there was a West Wing (TV series) where Toby says he found one in the constitution...) there could be a distinction made between the Bill of Rights' general additions, and other sections that expressly modify certain sections. For example, the 17th Amendment directly changes Article 1 Section 3. Similarly 12th changes Article 2 Section 1. Others, like the 11th, change the Court's interpretation of the constitution, but don't specifically apply to any section (this could be said for the Bill of Rights too).

The fact they don't blackline change the constitution is not as strange as it might first appeal. Codification is a specific and intentional process: most laws aren't ever codified into a specific code (like the U.S. Code). Shadowjams (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Der Prasident Des Landesbezirk Baden Heinrich Kohler Weihnachten 1947 1948

I have two plates dates 1947 and 1948 with this exact writing on them. Upon doing much research, I learned the history of Baden and a bit on Heinrich Kohler.

I am trying to find out whom made these decorative plates, which are very large in size. There are crests (designs) on these plates but I am not sure if this indicates whom the maker is. The front of each decorative plate I have been unable to match to anything I have researched. I would be happy to attach photos if allowed. Perhaps someone can give information of point me in the right direction. Maggyscratch (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just to help other readers, we have an article on him at Heinrich Köhler. DuncanHill (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Photos would certainly help. Have you looked for marks on the back? Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You may want to contact an antique or antiquities dealer in your area. There are people who specialize in these sorts of things, and its a very small group of people. This is the sort of thing that you'd want to be directly appraised by an expert, rather than research yourself. --Jayron32 02:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of the back will be more useful than pictures of the front as far as identification is concerned. There almost certainly won't be any identifying marks on the front. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

is it still rape after the murder?

I now yous not loyers, but hypotheticly is it still rape after a murder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.49.133 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. 86.133.63.196 (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

can culd you be more Specific? what if you wait and how long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.49.133 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I take the question to mean, if a man murders a woman and then has sex with her dead body, would that constitute rape? The answer is that this will depend on the criminal laws of the specific place where it happened, so it's not possible to provide a general answer. It might be a different crime such as "committing an indignity to a dead body". --Anonymous, 20:25 UTC, September 12, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.104.133 (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As a non-legal opinion; at some point what you've done is so heinous that it's likely death penalty/life imprisonment. You can't really put someone in the electric chair twice...--Jayron32 02:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Necrophilia#Legality does not currently provide information about this hypothetical action taking place in Germany, but it's probably similar there to what is described for other places. WikiDao (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Those answering this question appear to be under the assumption that the question is asking if it is rape if the same person both murders and has sex with the corpse. The question literally asks if it is rape if a person has sex with a corpse that happened to be murdered previously. This is nothing more than a question about necrophilia, which WikiDao answered as best as we currently can. If anyone has a better answer, he or she should add references to the necrophilia article. -- kainaw™ 05:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to me that any legal system would consider sex with a dead body to be "rape". There are probably laws against it, anyway, but that wouldn't be the heading they'd come under. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Culture of poverty traits

Oscar Lewis wrote: "In the introduction to The Children of Sanchez, I listed approximately fifthy traits which constitute what I call the culture of poverty." What are the traits he listed please? Is a list of them available on the internet anywhere? Thanks 92.15.30.158 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You can read the introduction online on the Amazon page for the book as part of its "Look Inside" feature. I didn't see a systematic, numbered list of traits, but the introduction itself does contain lots of observations sprinkled through it. I was able to read the whole thing online. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Painting based on Petrarchan conceit

I'm trying to find a painting which matches this description: a portrait of a woman based on various Petrarchan conceits taken literally (e.g., the metaphors used in Shakespeare's "my mistress's eyes are nothing like the sun"). So her cheeks are literally roses and her eyes are sunbursts. I would at least like to know the title and artist's name, if the image isn't readily available online. 68.123.238.146 (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Giuseppe Arcimboldo is most famous for his portraits in vegetables, though he did at least one, Flora, in flowers. Did the portraitist you are searching for actually use the sonnet to which you refer, or was it just "something like"? Bielle (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall that the artist referred to a specific sonnet, just that the painting was based on these poetic metaphors in general. 68.123.238.146 (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

September 13

American Citizenship

Hello everyone. I'm interested in various colleges but I will need scholarships. However, I am a (mainland) Chinese citizen holding permanent residence aka a Green Card in the united states. My question is, how much will my scholarship opportunities be limited by my citizenship? Is this more or less at a better college (i.e., Ivy League). Additionally, what are some drawbacks if I at the end choose naturalisation? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC) [EDIT: REWROTE UNCLEAR INFORMATION]

As a general rule, there are plenty of private scholarships available, as well as special programs for international students. I'm sure other people can flesh this out in more detail. 61.7.120.132 (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

For your second question: If you take out U.S.-based loans while in college, such as Federal Student Loans, you must pay them back if you remain in the United States. If you return to China, U.S. law does not apply. While the U.S. would like you to pay back the loans, they cannot force you to or deduct what you owe from your wages. -- kainaw™ 05:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement "U.S. law does not apply [in China]" is a gross oversimplification of a very complex legal situation. China will probably not extradite you, but we can not interpret your particular legal situation. Nimur (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that such loans are made by banks, not the government, and the bank would be very interested in your willingness, and ability, to pay back the loan. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Federal Direct Student Loan Program handles a majority of student loans in the United States and it is backed by the U.S. Department of Education, not a bank. -- kainaw™ 13:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Are those loans available to foreign nationals though? Googlemeister (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I know many foreign students who have Federal loans. -- kainaw™ 14:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are relevant links: you must file a FAFSA application and determine if you are an eligible non-citizen. Kainaw's point about "skipping the country" may have legal ramifications; the debt is not "forgotten" just because of non-payment. There are easier ways to "get out of paying" - there are many programs to forgive or cancel some or all of the debt, subject to conditions. Nimur (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If you leave the country without paying your loan and return to China, as has been stated, you probably won't be extradited back to the United States. Should you ever apply to return there, though, you can expect a less than friendly welcome. As Nimur presents above, it's not the best option and you'd be better off paying off your loan even if you return to China. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You also asked about getting citizenship yourself, which I don't think has been answered. Typically, it's (relatively) easy for foreign nationals to get visas to go to school in the United States, but much harder to get work visas (and eventually citizenship) after they're done with school. Sometimes you'll hear complaints in the United States about us helping give foreigners a good education, but then not benefiting from it because we ship them back home after we're done. Do you have a specific reason why you think you could become a citizen after you get your degree (have close family here, for example, or have a lot of money to start a business)? Buddy431 (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I should have clarified. I am not a foreigner or visa student, I am a Permanent Resident ie holder of a "Green Card". Would this change anything? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you received no reply to this. A green card will make it easier for you to get jobs on and off campus. I don't think it has an impact on scholarships, but I might be wrong. 61.7.120.132 (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Why tax capital gains less?

Why is capital gains tax in the United States lower than normal income tax? Has the effect of this on the actual progressiveness of federal taxation, or on class mobility, been studied? NeonMerlin 01:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically because of risk. If you make money on your investments you pay taxes, but if you lose money afterward, you don't get your taxes back. You can average your gains over multiple years, but there still is substantial risk. For example, right now I personally have paid several thousand dollars in capital gains tax over the past few years and have less money than I started with. Looie496 (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The article says "Capital gains are generally taxed at a preferential rate in comparison to ordinary income. This is intended to provide incentives for investors to make capital investments and to fund entrepreneurial activity." --Sean 15:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Biography Request

Hi, Wikipedia,

My professor and I have hunted all over for this bio on Robert Loring Allen was apparently educated at Harvard in the 40s, probably putting him in his '80s now if he is still with us. Quite a mystery about why we cannot find him. I did the searches as well, and only called on you when I knew my skills were quite inadequate for the task.

Also, can you ask the library to find a short bio of Robert Loring Allen. He was the biographer of Joseph Schumpeter. His 1991 book on Schumpeter, "Opening Doors" (Transaction Publishers) is the classic in the field but I can find nothing about Allen any place. See what you can find out. Thx. D

Richard N. Foster, Ph.D.
Senior Faculty Fellow
Yale School of Management
Assistant: Camille Costelli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.33.95 (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, they wanted a sort bio, here it is:Robert L. Allen --Aspro (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That (Robert Lee Allen) is obviously not the same person. Robert Loring Allen is mentioned on a WP-banned site, from which we at least know he was Professor Emeritus of international economics and economic history at the University of Missouri, and is now deceased. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What is that WP-banned site? (Is this what it feels like to be a North Korean?) 84.153.184.12 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It will probably come up if you search for <"Robert Loring Allen" Missouri> Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it a spam-blacklisted site, or something...? (Does it sound like a warrior-woman, or a river, maybe? Strange). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPB. Anyway, the same (minimal) information is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed email artifacts per WP:REFACTOR. Astronaut (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The dude might also be found if the questioner were to walk over to her own college library and look in The Who's Who in Collegiate Faculty™. Even if he's now deceased, the library may own an older edition of this standard reference work that would list him and his bio. Textorus (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Philanthropy

Why do actors, singers and other public figures practice Philanthropy? Do they truly want to help the causes they support, or are they just doing it for public relations? No she can't read my poker face (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Since each actor, singer etc is an individual, you will find a spectrum, where some give because of true support, and others give simply for a tax write-off and to look good. Googlemeister (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Philanthropy article would be the place to start. It has links to other articles, external sites and books to read. It is a big subject. The Greeks had a word for it - the same one we have - and the Roman great and good operated on the principle of noblesse oblige. Modern philanthropists have come up with arguments as to why it is a duty to be philanthropic, which don't tend to be so hard-nosed as the Romans were: Andrew Carnegie's The Gospel of Wealth for example, the idea of venture philanthropy or philanthrocapitalism for another. Start with the philanthropy article and you can make your own mind up. But ultimately April Lavigne is the only one who can know for sure why she's giving her money away. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OP, are you sure it has to be either one or the other? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that many charitable donations are tax deductible as well. If I had a lot of money to spare, I might find it more convenient to spend my tax quotient on specific organizations that I thought would actually do much good with it than put it into the general pool of government to be diluted and siphoned off for all sorts of typical bureaucratic nonsense (or wars, or other things I didn't support). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Poker_face -- Geoffrey Miller's book The Mating Mind has some interesting speculations about unconscious motivations for charitable efforts... AnonMoos (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember also that Philanthropy doesn't necessarily have to involve giving money. We Wikipedians donate our time to help the cause of human knowledge. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Or at least the cause of telling people that they're wrong and we're right. ;-) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Irrational attachment to prior investment

After having written on the Computing desk about "the psychological principle in which people become irremediably attached to their previous investments of time and money", I have to ask what this principle is called, and whether we have an article on it. The context was one reason why there has been such an acrimonious divide between Windows and PC users, but the principle was also cited by Brian Reynolds of Zynga on why people keep coming back to play FarmVille every day: Their 700 mouse clicks and 10 minutes of "game" time per day are remembered at some level as an investment, and there's a psychological impetus in lots of people to keep working on their farm every day, in order to validate the previous investment. Note that despite the title of this question, I'm not really asking about money investment, but the investment of time and effort. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It relates to sunk costs. 92.15.4.94 (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

See Psychology of previous investment. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

See Escalation of commitment as well as Lock-in (decision-making). Looie496 (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethics - are they universal or only species-dependant?

Is it ethical for a Barn Owl to kill and eat a Field Mouse? I know that vampires are fiction. But if we were vampires, would it be ethical for us to kill humans for food with a clear conscience? 92.15.4.94 (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Read the article on Ethics and dig through the references. The short version: for the actions of any creature on earth other than humans, ethics are an irrelevancy. To act ethically requires sentience, which (as far as we know) only humans possess. A barn owl killing and eating a field mouse is just a barn owl being hungry and doing what it does. A lion killing and eating a human is a lion just doing what it does. Vampires don't exist so it doesn't much matter, but the question there would be whether or not one is an intelligent and sentient vampire or merely a human-shaped animal who eats blood. → ROUX ₪ 20:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Ethics of eating meat may illuminate, a little, but your two questions differ quite a lot, because your first question is about what rights are possessed by a nonsentient nonhuman mammal, and the second is about the rights of a human. The default moral and legal stance in most places these days is that animals enjoy essentially no rights, except, again in most places, for the right to not be abused outrageously by humans. The quick answer is that, no, vampires would not have the right to simply kill humans for food, because over the past millenia humans have created ethical systems in which humans have a special place: they are not to be slain. (Except in a few rare circumstances like extreme cases of self-defense or capital punishment.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If self-preservation is at stake, then True Blood offers one way out for the Vampires: a "synthetic form of blood called "Tru Blood"'. Roux is correct about the owl, and you sort of answered this yourself in one of the versions of your question, by specifically asking about an "ethically-aware lion" before you removed it [2]. The lack of ethical awareness in owls and lions didn't stop us from the occasional animal trial in the past though. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. If an animal is smart enough to act in a manner which deceives a human to achieve some end of interest to the animal (say, food), is that merely the animal being an animal—or because it involves a human, the human feels lied-to and that the animal has used unethical means to achieve an end? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you, but the animal doesn't get a break just because it doesn't take ethics into consideration. When humans find beings that are outside of human ethics (like lions), what they do is either confine them or shoot them. What we cannot reason with, we treat as wild, and that isn't so hot for the animal. (A tangential article: Great ape personhood, the question of whether great apes should be treated as less "wild" and more "human" than most other animals.) --Mr.98 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethics requires meta-cognition (abstract reasoning - what should a creature do in a given situation). Animals (outside some of the higher mammals like chimps and dolphins) do not show signs of meta-cognition of this sort, and not even all humans are good at it. --Ludwigs2 22:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The answer is very much dependent on the type of ethical system that you're applying - unfortunately, ethics isn't clear cut. For example, teleological ethics, such as utilitarianism, isn't so much concerned about the actions as the outcomes. Thus the death of the field mouse (or the person) isn't the issue so much as the amount of good and "evil" that results from the action. In the case of the owl that may be difficult to calculate. In the case of the vampire, it may be that killing many people to keep one vampire alive would be on the wrong side of the equation, but that would depend on a number of factors.

To further Ludwigs2's comments, one thing that might help is Tom Regan's distinction between moral agents and moral patients. According to Regan, animals and people may both have inherent moral value based on being subjects-of-a-life, but this doesn't mean they each have the same responsibilities to act morally. The owl is not a moral agent, so there is no expectation that the owl will spare the field mouse. I have no idea where vampires sit, but if you assume that vampires are capable of ethical reasoning then I guess they are moral agents, while if you take the Buffy approach (disregarding Angel) you might want to argue that they are merely moral patients. - Bilby (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to add that, ultimately, ethics are merely snapshots reflective of their society. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad bird! BAD bird!! You better stop eating that mouse or you'll go to Hell! Hey, why aren't you listening to me?! Looie496 (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethics aren't even universal across human cultures, or even individuals within one culture let alone species. Googlemeister (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Kurt Vonnegut addressed a similar question in Cat's Cradle. His answer: "Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand." --M@rēino 15:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It is the exploration of the question as it applies to vampires which plays a significant part in the longevity and allure of the vampire myth. It is in essence Faustian, the promise of immortality and power in exchange for your morality / soul. Vespine (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Mosque near 9/11 grounds

Wouldn't that be breaking the amendment of Freedom of religion in the United States not to allow them to build it? 98.21.135.69 (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, it's a cultural center and not a mosque. So it is not breaking the amendment. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but anyone who is opposed to it apparently thinks it's literally a mosque and that it will literally be on "ground zero", so it is still an issue of freedom of religion. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Despite the US's First Amendment, one very limited way that various local governments can lean on religious groups is zoning. The city might say "Sorry, a mosque doesn't fit into our urban master plan, so your permit is denied." However, I found this 2008 link from "Christianity Today" informative; it points to a federal law that apparently requires that "religious assemblies and institutions" must be treated by zoning laws and regulations the same as "non-religious assemblies and institutions" under zoning laws. So if a theater or community center would be allowed under the zoning laws, the city or county isn't allowed to deny a permit to a church. Or mosque. Looks like it's controversial, though; this NY Times link mentions several dozen challenges involving the law as of 2002. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This whole issue will abruptly disappear after the elections (except for a few fanatics) so it doesn't pay to get too invested in it. --Ludwigs2 00:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The odds are that if they were going to deny the permit, they'd have to deny an entire class of other (secular) institutions to be there as well, otherwise they'd face a pretty strong chance of a lawsuit. It certainly goes against the spirit of the First Amendment to vehemently argue that Muslims can't congregate in that particular space (and raises other troublesome practical questions — would it be OK if they were 500 ft away? 1000 ft? A mile? How close is too close?). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As a New Yorker who lost a college classmate on 9/11, there are several things that need to be set straight:

• The center, which as I understand it will include both a mosque and interdenominational places of worship, is 2 blocks away from the northern end of the World Trade Center site. There is a strip club that is only one block further over, nearly as close to Ground Zero as the center/mosque. No one is complaining about naked breasts being wobbled about by strippers dancing on the graves of those murdered, although the center/mosque is described as Islamic extremists gleefully dancing on the graves of their victims. Two or three blocks away in the canyons of downtown Manhattan is like a mile away in middle America, and is far enough away that visitors get lost. In fact, I'm regularly asked for directions by people who are completely lost who are no more than a block or two away from their destination.
• There are numerous places of religious worship downtown right in the middle of all the rest of the commercial properties. The center/mosque is no different.
• Behaving as if Islam globally has been hijacked by extremists is the same as contending Catholicism and Protestantism were hijacked by Irish terrorists at the height of the conflict there—or do I need to remind people of the annual parade celebrating the victory (slaughter) by one set of "Christians" over another set of "Christians." (And see my final point on excuses.)
• If it were not for Islam, which historically has been a religion of enlightenment, all the ancient works which we now associate with Western civilization would have been lost forever. It is up to those of us who are NOT of Islamic faith to reach out to support mainstream (note I am not saying "moderate" as if it were some minority) Islam. To NOT do so is to fuel the small number of extremists.

Let's not pretend that every religion, every society, doesn't have its extremists looking for excuses to pour lighter fluid on the fire, shouting "YOU made me do it!!" I appreciate the pain of those who lost family and friends, there is no New Yorker I know that is more than one or two degrees of separation away from someone who died that day—or, who, by the grace of their God (or dumb luck for the atheists) happened to not be there that fateful day for some innocuous reason. But to allow anti-Islamic rhetoric to win is to only lessen ourselves. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

All good responses; unfortunately, I don't think Sarah Palin is listening.

Anyway, OP asks if it would violate Freedom of religion in the United States if the Park51 Islamic community center were not allowed to be built because Islam might get practiced there (and it is close to ground zero). Answer: yes, it would be a violation of religious freedom. So, it could not be legally prohibited in the U.S. on that basis. And as the Park51 article points out, "Most Americans and residents of New York State do, however, believe the Park51 developers have a legal right to proceed with the project." WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The part about "Ancient Islam conveyed lots of vital ancient works to the west, therefore we should support modern Islam" isn't a good response. Ancient Islam isn't modern Islam, religion had a completely different relevance in the ancient world, and it's not clear that religion even helped back then, just because it happened to be the case that their enlightened society of the time had a religion (whoopee-doo). You might as well say we should revive Roman religions because the Romans were quite scholarly. 213.122.59.149 (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

They also didn't save all the works of western civilization; some Greek scientific texts were copied by them, but Greek science wasn't all that great and sometimes an adherence to ancient Greek medicine (for example) was actually a hindrance to progress. A lot of Greek texts were preserved by the Byzantines, who never lost them. Anything that was in Latin was usually preserved by the medieval west (including some early translations of Plato and Aristotle). It is true that some things came to the Latin west through Arabic translations, but not everything. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The transmission of Arabic works (some original, some translations from Greek) to Western European culture was fairly significant, but it was kind of a time-limited episode (12th-century etc.) -- by the 15th-century, Western European scholars had an overwhelming desire to dispense with such middlemen and go back directly to the original Greek sources, and they were deeply interested in whole areas which had never been translated into Arabic at all (such as ancient Greek belles lettres and history. AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't forget the destruction of the library in Alexandria, as the result of which (my understanding is) there are ancient works preserved only in Arabic translation. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there? The Library was destroyed in the fourth century, long before the Arab conquests. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There once existed a real ground zero mosque, a space for muslims to pray on the seventeenth floor of the south tower of the WTC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

We're getting sidetracked. The original question was if a mosque would violate the First amendment's Establishment clause. The answer is contained in our article on that topic, but the general response is that the establishment clause only applies to government action. The government isn't trying to put in any kind of religious center, private parties are. Shadowjams (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the question was if not allowing it would violate the First Amendment. DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This issue was touched upon when the governor offered considering a property swap for state land elsewhere downtown further away. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I misread the question (a little confusing). Nevertheless, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment article has the answer. It's a question of equal access, etc. Shadowjams (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is just exactly how some veterans of the great war would say "don't trust the Japs" until their dying day. It's sad really, those people should get help, but how do you give therapy to maybe a hundred million people?. Sorry i know this isn't supposed to be a discussion. Vespine (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

We underestimate the mass-herding mentality; what is required are political and community leaders who take the moral and correct course, not pandering to xenophobia, however tragic or understandable its origins. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

September 14

Buying yourself out of the British Army

Our article Billy Bragg says:

After a few months, he bought his way out of the army for £175 and returned home, having finished his training, but not joining his regiment.

How does (or did) that work? A little Googling didn't help a lot; I found this British Army page that mentions "PVR Premature Voluntary Release", but there are no details, and we've no Premature Voluntary Release Wikipedia article. Our British Army page doesn't mention it. Can anyone point me to details? Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The first Google esult for 'premature voluntary release' [3] (also in Bing but not quite so high up) has some details on this possibility in the modern day army context as well as other possibilities for release. The second result has a few details for the air force [4] and also on other possibilities of how one may be released from service at different stages. Nil Einne (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

did this guy get fired?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWjSOVDyUJ4&feature=related

cops do what ever they want and NEVER get FIRED....they always get some bs re-assignment and keep the same exact pay....now the guy doesnt even have to go on the streets anymore and he's still getting paid... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj650 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Pogan, the police officer in question, resigned from the force. He received a conditional discharge from the court. See [5]. He may have got off lightly but he didn't get off. He lost his job and a conditional discharge is still a criminal conviction. Exxolon (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an odd incident, though. I wonder what ticked Pogan off? You can clearly see that he picked out that cyclist a good bit down the road - he let a few other cyclists go past to get to that particular guy. --Ludwigs2 20:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Conflicts involving Critical Mass#2008 bicycle rally and [6] has what appears to be the cop's defense. Note that he was cleared of assault, the charge he was convicted of was of falsying a criminal complaint in arresting the cyclist. Nil Einne (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that police never get fired is not true. It is true that they often do get what look like fairly reduced penalties, however. (And when this guy "resigns" on his own account, you can be sure that was determined by the guys at the top.) In general, policing the police is a difficult task. But there have been a number of cases like the one you've indicated where the prevalence of easy digital video (e.g. on cell phones) had made it much easier for hold police accountable for their actions. I seem to recall the New York Times having a big article on this awhile back; the general consensus is that this has been leading to some major shifts in police behavior, since it no longer is a "your word against mine" sort of situation. The difficulty with the videos, and what is probably in part responsible for the relatively light sentences, is that they fail to convey in most cases the broader context of the police activity. You see one minute of footage out of a much longer event, edited down to the explosively violent parts. It's not too hard for a good defense lawyer to say, "well, unfortunately you're not seeing the part where the victim brandished a weapon" and so forth. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Another technological factor is that police cars in many jurisdictions are now equipped with video cameras (that's how we got to see how one of the 9/11 hijackers was stopped on a routine traffic matter a few days or weeks before their attacks). In theory this should serve several different purposes: documenting police conduct or misconduct, documenting a subject's conduct or miconduct, adding to the evidence for a good or bad stop or arrest (e.g. for drunk driving), and deterring misconduct. But the field of vision, usually out from a police car's windshield, can be limited, as can be the duration of taping relative to the whole time taken up by an incident. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. It's also of note that police have been observed taping rallies/protests and other such things as well in greater numbers in the last few years, presumably so that if there are accusations of police misconduct, they will have their own video evidence to introduce. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a very charitable interpretation. --Sean 15:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

From half-listening to a network news broadcast last week, I understand that a misconduct/excessive force case against several Dallas (Texas) police officers includes the allegation that some cameras (presumably mounted on patrol cars) were intentionally diverted away from some of the disputed action. Not all of those accused, apparently, have escaped departmental or legal sanctions. Others may have much better and more-specific information. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

An anecdote that demonstrates the assertion that "police never get fired" is absolutely false...

Our chief of police was driving down one of our country roads in his personal car, obeying the 45mph speed limit. A lady came up behind him and got mad that he was going too slow. She did something she had done many times in the past: She called 911 and said she was following a drunk driver. The chief heard the report on his radio, realized that it was him and the woman behind him was making the call. So, he stopped, got out of his car, and went back to talk to the lady. She immediately started screaming that a huge black man was trying to attack her. The chief knocked on her window and asked her to roll it down so he could talk to her because, from his point of view, she was breaking the law by making false reports on 911. She screamed more and claimed that he was trying to kill her. Other police arrived and the woman reported that the big black man was attempting to murder and rape her (even though her door was never opened). This whole thing hit the local newspapers, reporting only the woman's psychotic side of the story. In three days, the chief of police was forced to retire. The woman, of course, received absolutely no punishment and made another call to 911 the following week reporting a "drunk driver" in front of her. -- kainaw™ 13:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

He didn't flash his badge at the woman's car door? He couldn't call/radio in his situation to the officers also responding to 911 before they arrived? If not: bad judgment, he should have resigned. If so: he had a case, if he resigned it was probably because he was ready to retire anyway or something. Should I have smalled all this as a side-discussion? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

September 15

What other countries elect their president via an electoral college?

Some time ago, I asked what other countries aside from the US have an electoral college. I got some good responses, but not the answers that I would have liked, especially about electoral college elected presidents in other countries. For some time now, I have been wondering what other countries aside from the United States elect their president via an electoral college or a similar committee. I am not sure if the US is the only country that does so, although I know Hong Kong's leader is elected by a committee, although I was thinking of independent countries that elect their president via an electoral college. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

According to our article Indirect election, there are several countries in which the president is elected indirectly, most commonly by the parliament: Germany, Italy, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, India, and Israel. Of these Germany has a special body to elect the federal president, but that body is composed mostly of members of parliament. And in none of these countries is the president the head of government. Here in Finland the president used to be elected by an electoral college, whose members were elected by the people and could in principle vote for whomever they wanted, but that system was abolished a few decades back. The president back then had considerable power over day-to-day politics, too.--Rallette (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind, however, that in at least some of the countries you mention the president is little more than a figurehead and doesn't have quite the power that the president of the USA does. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Good answers, but are there any countries apart from the US where the indirectly-elected President is also the head of government?

In the United States, the President is not the "head of government." He is 1/3 of a three-part government in which Congress has evolved to have far more power than the President, but both are held in check by the Supreme Court. -- kainaw™ 13:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree. "Head of government" does not mean "sole source of authority and power"; rather, we define it as "the chief officer of the executive branch of a government". More specifically, though, it is used where the head of state is a separate office. In a presidential system, however, the two positions are combined in the office of the president (or whatever the applicable name is). The US President clearly fits this description. — Lomn 14:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess that an article Government (disambiguation) (unfortunately, the link is red at the moment) would make the things even clearer: in "head of government" the "government" is not the system of political institutions, but "Cabinet of Ministers", "Council of Ministers" or something equivalent (in case of United States - United States Cabinet). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

vatican See. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Pope? If so cardinals are appointed by the previous pope not elected by anyone. Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Previouse Popes. It is entirely possible for a Cardinal to outlive multiple popes. Just a very minor nitpick. Other elective heads of state elected indirectly to consider, at least historically, include the Holy Roman Emperor (elected by seven princes known as Prince-Electors and the King of Poland who was elected by a convention of noblemen. The High King of Ireland was also elected from amongst his peers as well, as may have been the Bretwaldas of pre-conquest Britain. --71.200.75.37 (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong, sometimes called King of Malaysia, is elected for a fixed term. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's part of what I was getting at. Is the OP primarily interested in a system where the head of state is elected by a group who are themselves elected? Or any system where the head of state is elected? If it's the later, elective monarchy may be of interest. In such a system, people doing the electing may be hereditary as in Malaysia. (Not necessarily direct of course, the Yamtuan Besar is himself elected.) Or selected by one of the previous heads, as in the Vatican. And in the Vatican case the candidates for both can theoretically be any good Catholic male compared to Malaysia where the candidates are the people doing the electing.

BTW, reading that article it mentions the interesting example of Andorra where one of the co-princes is the King of France, except since there's no King of France that position no falls onto the President of France who is of course elected by the French people. Of course a similar thing may happen in a number of other territories except in those cases the head of state isn't considered a monarch.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Argentina had an ellectoral college up to the 1994 amendment of the National Constitution MBelgrano (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Adoption by persons of same sex

Someone said to me that an adoption is a process whereby a child is given the right parents.

So, in a state where persons of same sex are allowed by law to enter into a marriage (or otherwise called, for instance, civil partnership, ect):

1. Are persons of same sex who have engaged into a marriage also allowed to adopt any child? What are such states now? I am not certain if in Germany such persons are so allowed.
2. Should persons of same sex who have engaged into a marriage be also allowed to adopt any child?

182.52.98.183 (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on LGBT adoption which breaks it down by country and also by states of the US and of Australia. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

1. That depends on the location.
2. Of course they should. Any random male/female heterosexual pair of people can create a child. Why on earth should a homosexual pair be prevented from adopting and raising a child? All scientific studies on the subject indicate that children of homosexual parents fare no different--and in many axes of measurement actually fare better--than children of homosexual parents. There are untold numbers of children worldwide who are alone and need love and support and role models. Only religious fundamentalists campaign against homosexual couples being allowed to adopt these children and raise them into thoughtful human beings. I'll stop here before I start ranting. → ROUX ₪ 09:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly please don't rant, but please provde at least a few citations. If indeed "all scientific studies on the subject indicate" so, you should have no problem with that. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

From the article I linked to:

"One study has addressed the question directly, evaluating the outcomes of adoptees less than 3-years old who had been placed in one of 56 lesbian and gay households since infancy. Despite the small sample and the fact that the children have yet to become aware of their adoption status or the dynamics of gender development, the study found no significant associations between parental sexual orientation and child adjustment, making the results consistent with notions that two parents of the same gender can be capable parents and that parental sexual orientation is not related to parenting skill or child adjustment. The findings point to the positive capabilities of lesbian and gay couples as adoptive parents."

The study in question is Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families; Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter? (Rachel H. Farr, Stephen L. Forssell, Charlotte J. Patterson). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether or not they should be allowed to adopt a child should not have been asked here, because it calls for opinion; and if asked, should not have been answered. This is a reference desk, where our own personal opinions on such subjects are irrelevant. The best we can do is provide links to people whose views are published in reputable sources. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this is a fine article about the whole issue [7]. Flamarande (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That article is about a specific proposition in a specific jurisdiction regarding gay marriage. It neither produces evidence, nor discusses gay adoption. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The question asks whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt any child. As with any adoption, the couple's desire to adopt a given child needs to align with that child's needs and desires. There are certainly going to be children who do well after being adopted by a same-sex couple, better than when raised in a children's home, just as there are children who will do fine raised in single-parent households. However, some children are going to need the stability and attention of a stable couple (so a single-parent is not enough), and some are going to find life hard enough without dealing with secondhand homophobia, and some older children may be uncomfortable with a gay couple due to their upbringing before this point (so a gay couple will be unsuitable). Nobody has a right to adopt, and certainly nobody has the right to adopt any child they like. Should gay couples be able to adopt some children? As referenced above, the evidence is that this has good outcomes, and many areas allow it. Be wary, however, of making the comparison to heterosexual couples conceiving children: most jurisdictions have stricter criteria for adopting and fostering than conceiving! After all, this is a second chance for a child that is often already hurt. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll reiterate one of Mr. 86's key point: adoption (whether by a single parent, a heterosexual couple, or a homosexual couple) cannot be seen as equivalent to conception. There are good and bad reasons to conceive, and there are good and bad reasons to adopt, but the overlap isn't necessarily that great. I know a good deal of heterosexual couples who have conceived who probably "shouldn't" have, whatever that means. If it were up to me, the government would lace the water supply with contraceptives and charge big bucks for an antidote Buddy431 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Gene Wolfe short story?

It's the one where the main character is born without a head; his face is in his belly; his parents kindly make a marionette head to make up for the lack. Can anyone tell me the title, and if they can point me to the text itself, all the better. Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's "The Headless Man". The only book publication I know of is in the Wolfe collection Endangered Species (1989); it originally appeared in the magazine Universe in 1972. Where I live, at least, the story is visible in its entirety at Google Books. Deor (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Indian Partnership Act

1. Whether a partner have right to file a case against another partner? 2. If yes, on which ground he can file a case against other partner? 3. In which court he should filed that case?

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION AS PER INDIAN LAW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashant.law (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. For legal advice it is best to consult a lawyer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Heres the text: [8]. I think that yes, a lawyer is probably a good idea in a case like this. Buddy431 (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

US senators

Do US senators automatically get a US security clearance when they are elected? I presume that they need clearance since the senate has oversight on CIA and such. What if they would normally be ineligible for a security clearance? Googlemeister (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Automatically? No. Even the President has to go through background checks before being given clearance. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

. This is a reference desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder. Our article Security clearance states unequivocally that the President of the U.S. has access to any and all information of the U.S. government, period. I'd be surprised if it was even theoretically possible to deny the President access to some item of classified U.S. government material. After all, the classification system itself is established by an executive order of the President.--Rallette (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not all members of Congress have the same level of clearance. Members of the Intelligence committees (Senate Intelligence Committee/House Intelligence Committee) have access to classified information that other congressmen don't. You need special clearance to serve on these committees. —D. Monack ^talk 21:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Followup

Have there been any notable cases of Senators/Congressmen being denied clearance in a way that conflicted with their duties? --Sean 15:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. For example, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) was denied access to classified documents related to the "continuity of government" in the case of a catastrophic terrorist attack.[9] —D. Monack ^talk 21:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A snippet view does not show the text which comes up in Google Book Search, but per [10] "The American political arena," by Joseph Fiszman, 1962, p 473 "Congressman Condon had been denied security clearance by the government to atomic bomb test sites." A website indicates this was Congressman Robert Condon. A witness before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee had stated that Condon had attended a Progressive Part meeting also attended by Communists. The Atomic Energy Commission barred Condon from the test site based on secret evidence, although all members of Congress had been invited. The US House rules specify that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence [11] determines which members can attend a closed hearing, and a member who is found by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to have breached security by unauthorized disclosure of information can be removed from committee membership [12]. I did not find a document relating whether and how a Representative or Senator gets a security clearance. Someone who was senile, a drug addict, or a suspected adherent to some enemy of the US might be kept off committees which get access to intelligence or other confidential documents. The socialist party of Eugene Debs managed to elect a US Representative, Victor Berger who served 1911-1913 and 1922-1929. He was convicted of violating the Espionage Act by speaking against US involvement in World War 1, but the conviction was overturned. Congress refused to seat him when he was elected in 1918 and in a special election in 1919, but seated him when he was elected in 1924 and 1926. It would be interesting to see which committees the House seated him on, and if he had access to secret documents. The FBI has long done investigations of US congressmen, such as the 1934 investigation of Senator Huey Long [13] and the 1941 and 1942 FBI investigations of Senator Burton Wheeler and Representative Hamilton Fish at the request of Roosevelt for making isolationist speeches, to see if foreign money was financing the activities. [14]. Roosevelt wrote "There is absolutely no valid reason why any suspected subversive activities on their part should not be investigated by the Dept. of Justice or any other duly constituted agency." Edison (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What's tricky about clearances is that the FBI doesn't grant them. Some of them (like Q-Clearance) require a mandatory FBI investigation. But the FBI then just passes that information on to the agency that does grant clearance (e.g. the Department of Energy, in the case of Q), and they make the determination. I believe that agencies that have mandatory investigations (like DOE) also have the power to grant "emergency clearances" without investigations. I'm fairly sure, though, that they don't get to determine who is on Congressional subcommittees (like the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy), so they probably don't get to deny clearances in those situations. The odds are that they let Congress make that kind of decision in-house, and it's not unlikely that the Congressmen who make that decision don't ask the FBI regarding people they are suspicious about. But this is mostly conjecture on my part. It's certainly the case that agencies can deny classified information to individual Congressmen. It's not entirely clear whether they can deny information wholesale to Congress. A relevant case here is EPA v. Mink (1973). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see this videographic evidence. schyler (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume (hope) you know what that onion in the lower right corner of the screen means, right? --Mr.98 (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bronze-Age Spanish clothing?

Hello, and I'm looking for several good examples of Bronze-Age Spanish clothing? Specifically sometime around 1300 B.C., if that helps. --66.189.24.40 (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't have any article on this. The vagaries of preservation mean that survival of textiles and similar is unusual, so Bog bodies, principally Iron Age and from northern Europe, might give some ideas. If you look at the article on Ötzi the Iceman, who lived and died around 2000 years before the period you're interested in, something like Ötzi's gear might have been common enough Bronze Age winter-wear for the Pyrenees. There are no Iberian Golden hats mentioned, but again an idea although hardly everyday wear, so too horned helmets. There are endless images of Middle Eastern Bronze Age clothing such as this Elamite one, from roughly a thousand years before the period you are interested in. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There are also several bronze age graves from Northern Europe where the clothes have been found almost intact (for example the Egtved Girl). Considering that it was much warmer in Northern Europe at the time, perhaps there could be some similarity in style. But this is conjecture only, as I know next to nothing about the Spanish bronze age. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Some place to start one's research would be at the article Pre-Roman peoples of the Iberian Peninsula. While not all of these lived strictly in the 13th or 14th centuries BC, some did. It may give you some clues on peoples to research outside of Wikipedia once you have a short list of cultures. --Jayron32 02:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Other leads may be found at Prehistoric Iberia and Atlantic Bronze Age. --Jayron32 02:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha! nice one J. On the Prehistoric Iberia page the models are standing there in their birthday suits. which I guess pretty much answers the question. Richard Avery (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh, that picture is supposed to show people that are from a period several hundred thousand years older than the bronze age. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's all well and good, but is there anyone who could give me a good illustrative example of what they wore DURING the Bronze Age? I don't think knowing what great-great-great-great-great-great Grandpa Emanuel DIDN'T wear is going to help me much... --66.189.24.40 (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't appear to have any pictures here at Wikipedia. But the links I provided above will give you some starting points to research the names of different groups of people who may have lived in Bronze-Age Iberia, and from there you can take those lists of cultures and start your research outside of Wikipedia, such as at other websites, or at books in libraries. --Jayron32 04:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

After basically cross-referencing the articles of Mils Espaine with that of the Tower of Hercules and also that of A Coruña, I've come to the conclusion that what the Irish called the Milesians were likely the Artabrians, telling from what was said in the Milesians article, which called the tribe from Brigantia the 'Brigantes', which may only be a name given to the tribe due to convenience, probably from knowing just the location they were from. The article on A Coruña makes it seem possible that the Tower of Hercules was built by the Artabrians, which would, as suggested by the article on the Milesians, match up with the stories. also, due to this being largely an Iberian area for the most part, the Artabrians may have been influenced to some degree by the culture surrounding them. so it's very possible that they wore clothing similar to that of the Iberians, rather than what is traditionally viewed as Celtic garb. Also, the reason I ran up and threw this up here is because on the 11th I was the one looking for what the Milesians probably would have worn. so that sort of explains the specific interest in what was worn around this time period in Spain. --66.189.24.40 (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Melting down swords in Japan...?

Okay, I'm getting some definite confused memories here - I'm hoping someone can clear this up. A good few years ago I watched a documentary about the long, difficult, complex process of making the best-quality swords for samurai. During this, it was mentioned that, at one point, someone (probably a government?) asked the people for household steel, to melt down and use for their own purposes (probably a war effort?). The unskilled people melted down their expensive, high-quality swords, resulting in brittle, rubbish steel, essentially ruining the whole process that had made their swords so efficient in the first place.

Does anyone have a clue what I'm talking about? Can anyone point me to an article? I'm mostly interested in the event itself, not the documentary. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

China had a program something like that in the 50s or 60s, where their peasants were encouraged to make their own steel in backyard forges but I doubt it was swords they were melting. Googlemeister (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup. See Great Leap Forward#Backyard furnaces --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for reference, I shall add in the link to the article about Sword hunts in Japan. The common people were not allowed to own swords, and from the Meiji Restoration onwards nor were the samurai class. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been able to find several web pages that say that after WWII the Americans confiscated a lot of swords and melted many of them, but I haven't been able to find any confirmation from books or scholarly articles. Looie496 (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(OR) I was told by a head priest at a temple in Nagoya that during WW2, bronze bells from temples were melted down and used for munitions, and temples would receive a smaller bronze bell in return (I didn't ask when they received them, though - during or after the war). This was to explain the very small bell they had at the temple. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions. I'd guess I mixed up sword hunts with the backyard furnaces. Maybe there was a Far Eastern night on the History channel, or something. Cheers! Vimescarrot (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Backyards? Furnaces? Far East? Aye, it were probably about Newcastle or something :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Inobtrusive classical music

I'm trying to do my homework and listen to classical music, but I notice that my writing has a noticeable decrease in quality when listening to certain pieces, probably because they are "engaging" and distract me. What are some pieces that do not do this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't be listening to music while you do your homework; do one or the other. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 22:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Background music is fantastic, because it keeps your mind busy enough processing stuff that you don't get bored or distracted- in my case anyway. But yes, music that's too engaging will be of detriment. sonia♫ 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You might try ambient music which is intentionally created to be enjoyed as background while engaged in other tasks. Much of it rewards attentive listening as well but like any music genre it's not to everyone's liking. —D. Monack ^talk 23:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

[ec] Given the purported Mozart effect, listening to music while writing may not be a bad thing. But "inobtrusive" is too subjective for anyone to help you. Elevator music, however, is by definition inobtrusive. I would look for pieces with little dynamic range -- volume swells are what I find most obtrusive in classical recordings. How about one of those popular CD's with "best of" classical music with background nature sounds? (Hey, you asked.) Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

According to an article in the New York Times earlier this month, research says that much of what we have been told about how to study is wrong, including the advice to study in a quiet, nondistracting environment. Looie496 (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have several CD's with classical music selections titled "Music for Meditation"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I listen to classical music all the time while I'm on the computer at home (not at work, unfortunately). Mostly, I put the radio on and then I never have to do anything except listen passively to whatever others have programmed for my listening pleasure today, while I work my fingers to the bone. If I really don't like a piece, I can always go and put a CD on (or an LP, more likely). Most of the music I listen to is instrumental, which is lucky for me because vocal music tends to interfere with my concentration on whatever I'm writing about, whereas instrumental doesn't ever do that. Sometimes operas are scheduled, but most operas are sung in languages other than English, and if my brain cannot latch on to the words it gives up trying, and treats it as if it were wordless sounds. But when the music stops and the hourly news comes on, that's when I have to down tools or turn the volume way down, because I just can't type about X when someone is talking in my ear about Y (or even about X, for that matter). It's just beyond me to just "tune out" the babble; that is the most obtrusive sound of all. Even spoken introductions to pieces of music, interesting as they might be, giving fascinating bits of historical background etc, can sometimes go on for too long and I end up shouting at the radio, "Shut up and get on with it". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean unobtrusive. 92.29.119.246 (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a fan of lots of Bach's music for this kind of thing. Much of it is very engaging if you listen, but it doesn't demand that you listen. Pfly (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A friend of mine did most of her work for her degree while listening to noise (music), mainly Nurse with Wound, precisely because its lack of structure or any clear message makes it unobtrusive and it doesn't grab and control the attention. 81.131.10.172 (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

September 16

Julian dates v Gregorian dates

I'm planning to wear red on the date of the October Revolution in Russia (not so much as a political statement as a historical-knowledge statement). The date is often given as October 25, but this was under the old Julian Calendar. Under the modern calendar, it would be sometime in November, but most people know the date as October 25 and don't realise it is a different calendar, and so would'nt get it. Should I wear red on the traditional date (10/25) or the November date? Is there any precedent in other holidays? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where those "most people" live who know the date of the October Revolution, but they're not anywhere near me in Maryland. Why not spread the word and wear red on both the Julian and Gregorian dates? One for the Old Bolsheviks, ones for the revisionists. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Even though the Commies always called it the "October Revolution", they actually very sensibly celebrated it on 7 November, because the anniversary falls on that day in the Gregorian Calendar, which they adopted a few months after the Revolution. To celebrate it on 25 October would be retrograde and kind of pointless. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, see also Thermidorian Reaction for another famous event which is known to us by a calendar no one uses anymore. --Jayron32 02:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

C. Iulius Caesar was murdered on the ides of March (15th) in the Julian calendar.
Sleigh (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

18 Brumaire. History repeats itself: first as tragedy, then as farce. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Big Julie's death is still remembered on 15 March, and rightly so. The Gregorian Calendar did not have retrospective effect prior to its introduction date of 15 October 1582 AD. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Gregorian date of the Great October Socialist Revolution was the Seventh of November, 1917, and that's when old Leninists and Communists in the former constituent republics of the USSR (and beyond them) will celebrate (and have celebrated) it. My memory is confirmed by the articles on the Russian Revolution in Wikipedia and in Le Petit Larousse Illustré 2004, and by my little-read 3-volume Selected Works of Lenin (Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1967), volume 2, page 451, where the proclamation To the Citizens of Russia! from the Revolutionary Military Committee of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies† is dated 10 a.m., October 25, 1917, and whose source (the evening newspaper published by the Petrograd Soviet) is annotated by the editors as October 25 (November 7), 1917.

But I'm not sure if there's a good answer to your more general question. George Washington was born before the British Empire adopted the Gregorian Calendar, but Washington's Birthday used to mark the Gregorian date of his birth (February 22nd, 1732 New Style), not the different Julian date observed at the time he was born (February 11th, 1731, Old Style, when the New Year began on March 1st). On the other hand, Guy Fawkes Night, celebrating the thwarting of the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, falls on 5 November in modern (Gregorian) calendars, but November 5th (O.S.) was also the contemporary Julian date of the event, as shown by the contemporary letter from Sir Edward Hoby extracted at Gunpowder Plot#Flight. (A traditional rhyme begins, "Remember, remember, the Fifth of November, Gunpowder, Treason and Plot! ..." — although my father and brother remembered standing in line to watch the House of Commons with someone who remarked, "Guy Fawkes, now there's someone who went to Parliament with the right idea!").

† Whose rather clumsy translation begins: "The Provisional Government has been deposed. State power has passed into the hands of the organ of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies—the Revolutionary Military Committee, which heads the Petrograd proletariat and the garrison." ¶ By the way, I'm a non-Leninist democratic socialist/social democrat, so my sympathies are more with the Mensheviks than the Bolsheviks. In the year this collection was published, fifty years after the October Revolution, I heard none other than the Provisional Government's prime minister, Alexander Kerensky, then at Stanford's Hoover Institution, talk at Berkeley to mark, if not exactly celebrate, the anniversary. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember having a similar discussion about "Friday the 13th" a while back. I think what I ended up saying there was: no calendar system is "wrong," but all calendar systems are "arbitrary." I recommend celebrating the October Revolution on the same day that most Russians do, since it was a Russian event so they get to decide when to celebrate it. As to what to "call" that day, that's really entirely up to you (eg., this year I personally prefer to call it "Sweetmorn, The Aftermath 19, Year of Our Lady of Discord 3176"). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I was going to mention that, but I couldn't remember where we were discussing it. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What do Los Angeles folk eat for breakfast?

Do they eat whole wheat bread? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Los Angeles is a multi-ethnic city. The "folk" do not share a common breakfast preference. Some will eat whole wheat bread. Others will not. -- kainaw™ 12:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Los Angeles is also huge. I'm sure you can find people there eating everything under the sun there. Whole wheat toast wouldn't be out of the question, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Valois in South America

por favor quisiera saber como llega "Valois" a suramerica, concretamente a Colombia, quienes llegan al nuevo continente utilizando este apellido, si la unica heredera de la DINASTIA VALOIS no tuvo descendientes? gracias! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.26.158.158 (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Below is the Google translation of the above question Rojomoke (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

please let me know as it comes "Valois" in South America, specifically Colombia, who come to the new continent using this name, if the only heir of the Valois dynasty had no descendants? thanks! -

Transferred from Science. Ariel. (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The human translation is "Please, I would like to know how the surname "Valois" arrives(ed) in South America, specifically Colombia, who reaches(ed) the continent using this surname if the only descendant of the VALOIS DYNASTY had no descendants? Thank you" Richard Avery (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The surname "Valois" is common in French Canada and bears no relationship with the former royal family. It is much rarer in France (this site says there only a little over 1500 persons with the name there). Various genealogy sites claim the name derives from the village of Valois, located north of Paris. It likely came to Colombia through an immigrant from France or French Canada with this name. --Xuxl (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Some points of clarification and ideas:

• The "house" name of European royalty is not equivalent to surname. Many European monarchs did not have a formal surname; such issues being important for the common people, not monarchs.
• Kings of the House of Valois, if they had surnames and had followed standard Western Europe surname practice, would have taken the surname Capet, being direct, male-line descendants of Hugh Capet, as were all French kings. This is evident as, King Louis XVI of France was refered to as "Citizen Louis Capet" when he was executed.
• Using the name Valois does not mean that the user is necessarily descended from the French royal line. There was a County of Valois, and others may use the name from there, or there could be other unrelated families who used the name.
• There were illegitimate descendants of the family who outlived the legitimate branches. See Jeanne of Valois-Saint-Rémy for one example.

Just some ideas. --71.200.75.37 (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could translate the answers back for 190.26.158.158? Machine translation renders this. (Anyone who does a real human translation can delete this post of mine.) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

El " del apellido; Valois" es común en Canadá francés y no lleva ninguna relación con la familia real anterior. Es mucho más rara en Francia (este sitio dice allí solamente un poco sobre 1500 personas con el nombre allí). Los varios sitios de la genealogía demandan el nombre derivan de la aldea de Valois, norte localizado de París. Vino probablemente a Colombia a través de un inmigrante de Francia o de Canadá francés con este nombre. --Xuxl (charla) 16: 14,16 de septiembre de 2010 (UTC)

Algunos puntos de la clarificación y de las ideas: * El " house" el nombre de los derechos europeos no es equivalente al apellido. Muchos monarcas europeos no tenían un apellido formal; tales ediciones que son importantes para el pueblo, no monarcas. * Los reyes de la casa de Valois, si tuvieran apellidos y hubieran seguido práctica estándar del apellido de Europa occidental, habrían tomado el apellido Capet, siendo directos, varón-línea descendientes de Hugh Capet, al igual que todos los reyes franceses. Esto es evidente como, refirieron a rey Louis XVI de Francia como " Ciudadano Louis Capet" cuando lo ejecutaron. * Usando el Valois conocido no significa que descienden al usuario necesariamente de la línea real francesa. Había un condado de Valois, y otros pueden utilizar el nombre de allí, o podría haber otras familias sin relación que utilizaron el nombre. * Había descendientes ilegítimos de la familia que sobrevivió a las ramas legítimas. Vea Jeanne del Valois-Santo-Rémy para un ejemplo. Apenas algunas ideas. --16:51 de 71.200.75.37 (charla), 16 de septiembre de 2010 (UTC)

Dating in America

How do you approach a girl in America ? I mean what is the ideal way to ask a girl out in a respectable manner... Jon Ascton  (talk)

You can check telenovelas or soap operas, and find lots of sucessful ways to start a relation without actually asking for a date. Or perhaps not so sucessful, but that it will be fun and kept you busy, there's no doubt... MBelgrano (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

While I doubt there's any one answer that can be generalized as the "ideal" for all of the US, variations on "Would you like to <do something> with me?" is a perfectly acceptable way to ask a girl out in a respectable manner. Fun fact: the first such question I addressed to my wife was "Why don't you come watch Monday Night Football with us?" — Lomn 14:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see why you kept her. Googlemeister (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Jon, for you I would recommend starting with There's Something About Mary -- good luck! ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all please be ready to seed her with her child if she would like one now. It is extremely rude to go on a date with a woman, and when she says "Jon, I would like you to seed me with child tonight", not to do so. Please be prepared to support the child with between one fifth and one third of your net pay. Do not date a woman if you are planning on being unemployed or without a source of income, this is extremely rude. Above all, take it easy, relax, be yourself, and have fun! 84.153.224.118 (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The first rule is to ignore advice random idiots people post on internet message boards, as chuckleheads will post stupid advice "for the lulz". (vide supra; also infra, if I'd hazard a guess.) Movies and television, especially Romcoms, are also renowned for presenting a horribly distorted and unachievable view of romance. Sorry I don't have any advice, but even if I did, I would probably urge you to ignore it as ignorant prattle. -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I second your final sentiment: to your supra and infra, you should add intra. 84.153.224.118 (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

To find a date is the second step... You must have in mind a lady you care to court. A way to do this is go to a meeting/place that you find intriguing/exciting. For example, go to a local advocacy group of some sort (Habitat for Humanity, etc.) and get involved. This does demand de-isolation, a difficult detail to do, yes. It also, however, ensures a lasting cooperative relationship with one who has similar ideals. Church-groups meet regularly to discuss Bible-based topics, a place to meet a respectable woman. In contrast, you could always go for the Rule of Ugly-Early. schyler (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Habitat for Humanity is certainly a respectable place to meet a girl in the US, but I've met quite a few there who were serving an alternative sentence. Something to be wary of there, Jon. BTW, are you planning a visit to the US yourself sometime soon, or is your question more just theoretical? Have you looked at the Dating article? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Movies and television, especially Romcoms, are also renowned for presenting a horribly distorted and unachievable view of romance" Oh, no! Does that mean that opening her window and getting inside her house during the night to ask what does she feel for me, is not romantic? Well, that explains why did she call the police instead of kissing me, as in the telenovela. Well, what about kidnapping her before her wedding? Don't tell me that doesn't work, it's a classic! MBelgrano (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that there are an increasing number of "Online dating services" for the explicit purpose of finding a date. This doesn't work so well if you have a specific girl in mind who you want to ask out, but if you're just looking for a girl it may be an option as a socially acceptable way to get into a romantic relationship. Depending on your age and interests, such services may be more or less popular among your demographic (the stereotype is that they're more popular with middle aged people). Here's a site that appears to try to collect and organize statistics about online dating (I don't vouch for its reliability, but it at least appears that they know what they're talking about). Buddy431 (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a time when foreign students in the US would simply walk up to any American girl and ask "Do you have a boyfriend?" in the tone one might ask "Is this seat taken?" It was not always well received. Dating services were mentioned. There are more ways to meet someone than going to a bar and picking someone up, but that might be a quick way to get to coupling. The venue will sort the type of person, to some extent. A religious Jewish girl joined a Jewish traditional folk dance club at college, not because she had the faintest interest in the activity, but to meet a certain sort of man, and it worked out for her. If you go to church, you can meet girls. Sing in the choir? Join a religious study group? Rent a community garden plot and you will have lots of opportunities to talk to neighboring gardeners. Take an adult ed class in anything and there will be chances for discussion, or "study groups." Play a sport or join a health club. Have any friends? Let them fix you up with a date. Edison (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

How tall was Éamon de Valera?

Former Irish revolutionary and president Éamon de Valera's was famously called "The Long Fellow" because of his unusual tallness but I have never seen the height defined. The nickname "The Long Fellow" is still in common use; one of his biographies is even called The Long Fellow; so, how tall was he, and can you provide a trustworthy reference, preferably online? I've looked around with no success. --O'Dea (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This Sunday Times article from 1962 gives his height as six foot three. Karenjc 18:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Voting in Dáil Éireann - or not

The article on Recognition of same-sex unions in Ireland says, in the lead, that the Civil Partnership Act 2010 "was passed without a vote by the Dáil on 1 July 2010 and was passed by the Seanad on 8 July 2010 by a vote of 48-4." And this is confirmed by the cited sources. But neither the article nor the sources explain how you can pass a bill without a vote.

The article on the Dáil has a section on voting procedure, but that doesn't seem to address this particular circumstance. Can anyone enlighten me on this parliamentary point? Textorus (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

From some searching I managed to find [15] Nil Einne (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the link. Sort of like voting-by-abstention, sounds like. Never heard of that before, wonder if that is peculiar to the Irish Parliament. Textorus (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Dáil largely adopts British Parliamentary procedure which means that when a question comes to be decided, the Speaker asks those in favour to shout 'Yes' (in Irish, "Tá"), and then asks those against to shout 'No' ("Nil"). If everyone shouted 'Yes' and no-one shouted 'No' then there's no need to go counting and the Speaker just declares the result. Other Parliaments on the British model do it that way too. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, I understand what you're saying, Sam, but then that's a voice vote, no? (The same thing is sometimes done in the U.S. Congress, too.) Which doesn't seem to be what was described about the passage of this bill. Textorus (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Normal usage in the UK is to regard only divisions - where MPs walk through the lobby, get their names ticked off and are formally counted - as votes. I suspect Ireland is the same. The vast majority of questions which have to be decided are done just on "collecting the voices". Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In the US Congress, there are certain votes where the President of the particular House in question will call a vote, "All in favor say 'aye', all against, 'nay'", then they'll gavel and say, "the ayes have it", wihtout ever taking a vote nor even considering how many nays there might have been. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct, Everard, but that's still a voice vote, not "no vote," as the Irish press described the passage of the bill I mentioned above. Unless that's just the peculiar custom of the Irish media to report it that way if there's no actual division or electronic vote taken. Textorus (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Voting on the voices is pretty much the default way motions are passed or rejected in the Australian Parliament. There's only a division (ie. where the names of those voting for or against the motion are recorded) if a member or senator asks for one. That makes sense if the numbers are fairly even; more often, it's blindingly obvious that the vote has gone the way it's gone (because most motions are decided on party lines and those numbers are known exactly), but the losing side wants it to be recorded for posterity that they opposed it and wants all their individual names mentioned in the record of proceedings. Or, where a member wants to vote against their own party's position, they'll call for a division so that they can "cross the floor". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hannah Boone Pennington

Bold textI searched for Bucks County Pennsylvania and got to the page. But I dont see anything on the History part that Hannah Boone Pennington was born there. She is the brother to Daniel Boone. She was born in Bucks Co. PA. and buried at Old Mulkey Meeting House Church cemetary in Tompkinsville Ky. This is a fact! and I live here in Tompkinsville Ky. and seen her grave many many times. It reads on her gravestone Born in Bucks Co., Pa. If you need anymore information on this you can contact (contact info removed) She is the park manager. I think it should be mentioned on that page for Bucks County that Hannah Boone Pennington was born there.

Not sure what this is in reference to, but it's a bad idea post phone numbers here. I have removed the contact info you provided. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have made this into a new section for you, as it is unrelated to the previous question. Also, all I can say is that if you feel that that person is notable enough to be mentioned on the page you refer to, then you should post your request on that page's Discussion page (see the tab on the top left of that page), and not here. This page is for general questions related to the Humanities, and not for requests for additions to articles. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Unknown play

During a conversation with my father about a production of Death of a Salesman that I'm going to see, he got off on a bit of a tangent about a play, later made into a movie, both called Marty. I think he's confused though. He says it was written by Chekov but I can't find anything by that name by Chekov or Miller. Anyone know what he might actually be thinking of? He mentioned the idea that, like DoaS, the characters are all living lies. Anyway, any ideas? Dismas|^(talk) 23:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Your dad meant to say Marty was written by Paddy Chayefsky. DoaS was by Arthur Miller. Both are great plays. Textorus (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I read that article but going by the plot here, I wasn't certain that is what he was referring to. I know DoaS was by Miller and is great. I saw it once in high school and saw the film with Dustin Hoffman. Now I get to see it with Christopher Lloyd playing Willy Loman. Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 00:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, enjoy. Textorus (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

September 17

US$ to £—help me get the most out of it

I have about 200 US dollars that I need to convert to GB pounds. I can afford to wait for a little while, and needless to say I'd like the exchange rates to be favourable when I do exchange. I realise in the current economic climate that "favourable" isn't necessarily "good", but I'd like to try anyway. My questions are: where do I start? What am I looking for? Where should I keep a track on the currencies moving? I have vague ideas on how to maximise, but no specifics, no idea how to go about watching the market, and I'm not even sure I've got the right "vague ideas". I've searched for some help, but a lot of it is about currency trading as an investment or hobby or career, and hasn't really helped me. Differentially (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Update: I can afford to wait for a little while before I exchange, and out of interest, and as a little game, and to learn, I'd like advice on where to start looking at the market, tracking the exchange rate, maybe reading up on the USD → GBP likelihoods. I am not looking to get rich quick, predict anything, or outsmart the market. Thanks. Differentially (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and neither is the Reference Desk. Exchange rates between currencies fluctuate every day, and lots of people with Harvard MBA's and highly paid jobs on Wall Street can't predict from one day or month or year to the next what the market will do, so you can't either. Besides, $200 is such a small sum, and those are two stable currencies, so in the course of any given week probably you're talking about essentially a few cents' difference, most of the time, or if you're really unlucky, a couple bucks at most. Why does this concern you so much? It's the cost of a cup of coffee. Trade your dollars for pounds at the nearest bank or airport, and enjoy your life. You aren't going to get rich or go broke with that little piece of change.

If you are a young person, as I suspect, instead of trying to conjure up a magic formula to save a few pennies, you would do much better to read up on sensible long-term investing; putting just a few dollars a month now into a well-chosen IRA or 401(k) plan - or the equivalent wherever you may happen to live - can easily turn into a million dollars by the time you are ready to retire, if not sooner - without having to wonder and worry about it, either: the magic of compound interest. That's the thing to focus your attention on, not trying to outsmart the market. Textorus (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice, but I believe you've misunderstood my post. I am not asking for any predictions on what the market will do. Nothing of the kind. I'm asking out of genuine interest how best to watch it, what makes a better exchange rate over a worse one: if I can learn something about it, and for a month or a couple of months enjoy watching the exchange rate fluctuations and seeing what happens, then it's worth that cup of coffee to me, even if, when I have to change the money, I don't end up getting any better rate than I can get now. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm a young person trying to conjure up a magic formula, or why you think it concerns me so much? I'd just like to see what I need to do to get the most out of it in the next couple of months, even if I don't end up doing so . . . it's not a big deal! I'm not trying to outsmart anything. I already do long-term investing. Thanks anyway, though. I apologise if I my original post was of the wrong tone. Differentially (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you haven't considered the “time is money” factor. How much is your time worth to you. I'm not just talking about the puny amount that your employer might pay for an hour of your work but how much an hour is your own free time worth? The rate differences plus commission for a sum of 200 on any day will probably be way below this. Second: With that small amount you will not be able to negotiate a favourable exchange rate with your bank. I also know people who have found that come the day to convert the commission rate has suddenly gone up. I think it would be better to concentrate on finding who is going to offer the best exchange rate and fee now. Then think about how much interest you will be loosing on the amount sitting where it is now and decide if there might not be better things to apply one's time to. It is a worth while exercise when tens of thousands are involved but it's a form of gambling that most people loose out on (otherwise everyone would be rich currency traders). You'll spend hours on trying to save cents and still may lose. --Aspro (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly for interest, call it a little game. I don't need the money in pounds at the moment, so I thought I would do something slightly more interesting with it for the next couple of months. I'm not quite silly enough to think I was going to get rich on $200. You say it would be hours, and that's the sort of information I was asking for. I was thinking of something like a good website that tracks the exchange rates, maybe with a few editorials and news pieces, perhaps some numbers. Though telling me that it's not worth it is useful information, too. Differentially (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Aspro is right. However, Differentially, if you just want to track the currencies as a hobby (which I guess is a little more exciting than stamp collecting), or to satisfy your curiosity, just google up "exchange rate dollars pounds" and you will find a long list of sites that track all that and will give you lots of cool graphs, charts, etc., all for free. U.S. magazines like BusinessWeek and Forbes, as well as the Wall Street Journal, have articles on all aspects of trading and international exhange, etc. etc., so google their websites. Beyond that, go to your local bookstore and browse through the Business section for books on currency exchange. Also, there are several well-known "financial advisors" who put out their own books, magazines, TV shows, and so forth, that you can easily google up as well. Have fun, mate. Textorus (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - I see there are two inexpensive, mass-market books that ought to answer your questions and give you a good education in this subject: Currency Trading for Dummies and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Foreign Currency Trading. Those series are usually very helpful at making esoteric subjects understandable, so give them a try. Textorus (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Efficient Markets Hypothesis says that you cannot predict the exchange rate, or the stock market for that matter. However a lot of people make money out of promoting the belief that you can. As far as I know Warren Buffet for example makes investments in companies, not in the stock market. You could try simulating trading with imaginary money, but make sure you include the deal costs. The dealing costs alone would drain your money away. 92.15.2.221 (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the efficient markets hypothesis assume that everyone has access to the same information? Because that is not true. Also, EMH should prevent economic bubbles, which are known to occur. Googlemeister (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Plausible age for child to take "living together" (or any euphemism) literrally

I had begun to ask about what age children can understand euphemisms, but - since I'm writing a scene here - it makes more sense to ask if it's plausible for a child of about 10 or 11 to think that. Note that this kid would not have heard anyone use the term living together in a negative way. There was an interesting study reported here that says other language, such as ironic or rhetorical, can be understood very young, but if it's still plausible that an older child could take the phrase literally, I'll use that. (If not, I have another idea.)

My slight sperger's (or whatever causes it) confuses things for me further, as I take things somewhat literally as an adult. So, it's hard to use myself as a gauge, and I don't want to have this character taking that much literally.

Thanks in advance. Oh, and P.S., nice change on how to put links in, I havne't been here since the change, I don't think. It really helps me to do it.Somebody or his brother (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. What does 'living together' mean, if it doesn't mean 'living together'? What's it a euphemism for? 'Cohabitation', as per your link? 'Cohabitation' means 'living together'. Also, to take 'living together' literally, would mean to take it to mean 'living together'. So, really, I don't understand the question here. Are you asking what a plausible age for a child to understand the word 'living together' to have a shady meaning would be? I'm 37 and it hasn't happened to me yet. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your example has me a little confused as well, but I'll at least let you know that my eight-year-old daughter is just starting to begin understanding that sometimes words and expressions mean more than what the word literally means. She would take "living together" to mean two people who happen to share the same house - sexual arrangements between the two would not even enter her head, so she likely wouldn't even attempt to "read anything into" it. But other euphemisms would be readable by her, yes. Matt Deres (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Matt; you answered my question. I think 10 would be plausible for such a misunderstanding. Inf act, I now wonder if *I'm* the one who has been reading too much into the term "living together" as used by some, as perhaps it isn't as common a euphemism for having sex as I think. But, in trying to make sense of the way people use language when they're *not* being literal (including sarcasm, irony, etc., explaining the link) perhaps I have begun trying to read too much into peoples' speech.Somebody or his brother (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The euphemism you want might be sleeping together, which is so frequently a euphemism for having sex that non-sexual uses of it often have to be explained. It is also opaque enough that a child could misunderstand. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Papal Visits to Britain?

I was just wondering something about this. The media are billing this current visit as the second in history, and the first 'state visit' (meaning he was invited personally by the monarch). But England's break from Rome wasn't until 1534, and we even had a Pope ourselves before that, it surely can't be the very first in history. What with it being all over the news it's a hard thing to Google effectively at the moment. Does anyone know when the last Papal visit to Great Britain was, before John Paul II? Dan Hartas (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"State visit" means more than "invited personally by the monarch". According to interviews I've seen with Stephen Fry, a state visit is completely paid for with taxpayer funds. So, it may be the first time that the general public has paid for all air fare, hotels, food, etc... for a visit from the Pope. -- kainaw™ 14:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

'Britain' is generally used to mean The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the earlier United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; it is not generally used to mean Great Britain. So, this is the first state visit of a Pope to Britain, although it may not be the first to Great Britain. (If Stephen Fry said this state visit was completely paid for by the tax-payer, he was wrong: the tax-payer has paid for some, and Catholic parishes have paid for some. The furore a few weeks ago was because the parishes hadn't raised enough to cover all of their obligation, so the government paid the shortfall) 86.164.78.91 (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I very well could have misunderstood him. I've only seen parts of Fry's interviews on the subject. -- kainaw™ 14:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

State visit has nothing at all to do with funding. Read State visit, especially the first sentance, which describes what a state visit is. --Jayron32 14:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Popes never really travelled much; they had legates for that sort of thing, and they had better things to worry about (like remaining pope at all, especially since there were often rival claimants, and often outright war with the Holy Roman Emperor or various other states in Italy). Sometimes the popes went as far as southern France (and of course they actually lived there for awhile in the fourteenth century), but I don't think any went as far away as England, not even Adrian IV, although he was interested in what was going on up there (he gave papal blessing to the invasion of Ireland). Lots of popes were interested in England, but never went there themselves; Gregory the Great sent Augustine of Canterbury to set up the church there, and Innocent III put the whole country under interdict but send Guala Bicchieri to take care of all the details. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)