Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:37, 17 December 2010

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

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.

December 12

Font sizes

I've been struggling with a bit of font design, and I think it might be useful to add the following to Point (typography):

The em size (and hence the point size of a font) does not include any leading (the space between the lines).

It seems to be a great discovery I have just made which will clear up a lot of my confusion. Is it actually true? (Maybe I don't mean leading, since leading seems to include the whole body of the type as well as the space between the lines. Not sure what the word is for space-which-isn't-body.) 81.131.4.151 (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leading is extra space added between lines. For example, a 10-point font might be designed (for example) so that the capitals and ascenders (bdfh...) extend 6.2 points above the baseline, while the descenders (jpqy...) extend 3.2 points below the baseline. Then when the baselines are played 10 points apart, the descenders are always clear of the following line by 0.6 points. This amount was chosen by the designer of the font as the closest spacing that, in his/her judgement, would not crowd the lines together. It is space between the lines, but it is not leading, and it does count in the 10-point size of the font. Sometimes, especially when setting wide lines of text, you might choose to space the baselines farther apart, say 12 points. That is leading, in this case 2 points of leading.

You have to imagine the old days of hot metal typesetting (or cold metal before that), when the letter would actually be formed into a piece of metal 10 points high, but would not quite reach to the top or bottom of that piece of metal. To do leading, an actual strip of lead would be inserted between the lines of letters; in this case, a strip 2 points in size.

--Anonymous, 04:47 UTC, December 12, 2010.

Leading says that it is the distance between the baselines, so the leading in that last example (10 points of sort (typesetting), 2 points extra) is 12 points. It doesn't say what the extra strips are called. Photoshop backs this up, where a block of text with point size 12 and leading set to 12 will be "solid". On the other hand, right there in the Leading article is a contradictory example: CSS seems to use leading to mean "space between ascenders and descenders" - the example with no leading does not have all the lines printed on top of one another (as is the case in Photoshop with leading set to zero). So I don't know. 81.131.4.151 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Alatriste

Did the fictional character Captain Diego Alatriste ever exist or was he based on an actual person in 17th century Spanish history? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

¡Buenos días! According to the article on Spanish Wikipedia here, he is a fictional character. There is further discussion (in Spanish) here which seems to come to the same conclusion, though I only have un poco de Spanish. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh what a pity. I saw the film the other night and I was hoping he had truly existed. Thanks, Ghmyrtle.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your fantasies can be just as intense with a fictional character. Really, there's no rule against it, and it wouldn't make you any weirder. Have fun! 82.234.207.120 (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion, but my interest stems from purely historical curiosity, nothing else.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a joke. Please don't remove it. Um, I wasn't expecting a response. I was just trolling you. Uh, mission accomplished? 82.234.207.120 (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever removed this "admission" of trolling (made by me from a previous address): it was a JOKE. A real troll would NOT admit it. So, please don't remove my contributions in the future. If Jeanne feels offended by them, I suppose she could remove it, this being her thread... Otherwise don't edit other editors' contributions please... Thanks! 80.14.250.12 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Captain Alatriste article:

"His name comes from Sealtiel Alatriste, Pérez-Reverte's Mexican publisher and friend, and from the legendary Don Juan Tenorio, who is indeed his grand-uncle"

and our Don Juan Tenorio article says:

"Don Juan Tenorio: Drama religioso-fantástico en dos partes, is a play written in 1844 by José Zorrilla. It is the more romantic of the two principal Spanish-language literary interpretations of the myth of Don Juan."

Which suggests (inconclusively): he is a character based on a character based on a myth, if that makes any sense in-universe (I haven't read the book or seen the movie, are they good?). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read any of the books, but the film is excelent. Viggo Mortensen is convincing in the role. The historical personages were portrayed realistically unlike the mess Hollywood made with The Tudors and Braveheart.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Polanski's film version (The Ninth Gate, 1999) of Pérez-Reverte's The Club Dumas (1993) was better than the book. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alatriste didn't exist. Perez-Reverte explains how his friend believes in Alatriste as a real man. From a Patente de Corso text in El Semanal magazine in Spanish:

[...]Mi amigo no es muy de leer libros, pero el capitán le suena bastante. Hasta el punto de que, descubro sorprendido, cree en la existencia del veterano soldado de los tercios. «Qué bueno –termina diciendo– que te inspires en personajes reales, como hiciste con la Reina del Sur.» Me lo quedo mirando, para comprobar si habla en broma. Pero no. Lo dice en serio aunque es mejicano, como digo, y oyó decir más de una vez que Teresa Mendoza es personaje de ficción. Entonces comprendo que el tiempo y el extraño azar de la literatura, incluso para los no lectores –o especialmente entre ellos–, han hecho su trabajo. Y sonrío feliz, de medio lado, enseñando el colmillo como un lobo satisfecho.[...]
— Arturo Perez-Reverte, Las fronteras (difusas) de la ficción [1][2]

Regards. emijrp (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas gifts

What is the most popular type of Christmas gifts? Adult lady to gentleman? Gentleman to lady?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's touching that you asked for the most popular types of Christmas gifts just to avoid being cliche, knowing that by yourself you would probably have picked one of them! Everyone should be as original and creative... 80.14.250.12 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have lived in four different countries, and I'd have to say the most popular (and cliched) gift from a gentleman to a lady is probably perfume or jewelry; women tend to give their men cologne or shirts/sweaters.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which century were beds used?

In which century did the European (in particular western) nobility switch from sleeping on straw pallets to beds?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're defining as a "bed" here. Do you mean when did mattresses become used, as opposed to raw straw? They are very old indeed, dating back in Europe to at least the Romans. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew the Romans, Egyptians and Greeks used them, but I was talking about the four-postered, curtained beds with mattresses that were used in the late medieval period. In fact, one of the French nobles taken as a prisoner by the English after the Battle of Agincourt paid part of his ransom with his bed!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on four poster beds is not very informative in this respect, but it does say that a number of extant beds date from the 16th Century. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They pre-date the 16th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Usborne Time Traveller Book of Knights and Castles (seriously) has the lord and lady sleeping in a four poster. This is set in 1240. I seem to remember there is a manuscript illumination of similar events, not sure when that dates to. It must be in Wikimedia somewhere... 81.131.0.97 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons category Beds in art has many examples of medieval depictions of beds. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder to what extent the usage of 4-poster beds increased as the Little Ice Age progressed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded an image of a bed used in 1187 in France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at the very same picture. Nice accurate date and location. However there is Commons:File:Saxon_State_Bed.jpg, which links to a history of furniture (available on Gutenberg) which talks about Saxon beds. 81.131.0.97 (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely drawing but no date is given, not even the century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A drawing in the Harleian MSS. in the British Museum is shewn on page 25, illustrating a Saxon mansion in the ninth or tenth century." (Blah blah blah, still apparently talking about the same MSS) "Other woodcuts represent Anglo-Saxon bedsteads, which were little better than raised wooden boxes, with sacks of straw placed therein ..." 81.131.0.97 (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gorillas do it. (Why do gorillas build new nests every night?.206.130.174.43 (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Christian population isn't growing in India?

Apostle Thomas went to India and preached the gospel there. 19th century missionaries went to India and established Indian churches. After many centuries of evangelism, why the Indian Christian population still remain small? Indian Christians make up 2.3% of India population. I know that many Northeast Indians have accepted Christianity, but not the Indo-Aryan Indians who are the majority. Is it difficult to convert brown people? 17:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.73.51 (talk)

"...is it difficult to convert brown people"? Yes, if you use ridiculous stereotypes. And in answer to the general question, why do you think the people of India would wish to convert to Christianity? They have well-established religions of their own. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better question is why Christianity was more successful in Europe, the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa than it was in Asia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, because they didn't use violence to convert people in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.191.230 (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Goa Inquisition. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an answer to "Why would they want to convert": I've known some Christian Indians, and the reason they converted was because of the lack of a caste system in Christianity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that rather depends. In some Christian churches, most notably the Catholic Church, women are virtually second-class citizens. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You get Catholic guilt instead. Bargain! 81.131.0.97 (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just telling you what they told me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, you might want to have a look at Caste system among Indian Christians... --BishkekRocks (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And anyway, the Indians had themselves come up with a casteless religion - Buddhism. But as it turns out, in the long run an atheistic philosophy of peace and forebearance is no match in the popular imagination for old fashioned fire-and-brimstones with lots of colourful gods. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this File:Distribution of Christians in Indian states.svg map, most Chistian Indians are in the south and the east. (Check Christianity in India article.) Also, aren't Indo-Aryan Indians lighter in color?206.130.174.43 (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate of Isabelle of Hainault

There are two different dates of birth (and places of birth) for Isabelle of Hainaut, Queen consort of Philip II of France and mother of Louis VIII. Some give her birthdate and birthplace as 5 April 1170 and Valenciennes, while others say she was born in Lille on 23 April 1170. Would anyone happen to know the correct DOB and corresponding birthplace? Thank you in advance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this likely to be a Julian/Gregorian calendar thing? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not with an 18 day discrepancy in the 1100s, more likely these are dates conjectured from her father's movements or the usual time for confinement of the mother in that era. In other words pretty close to being entirely made up, I would be dubious of any accurate date from that era especially women, but then even the DOB of the previous king Louis VII of France is not stated with any accuracy. meltBanana 21:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, so perhaps the discrepancy arises from the chronicles that are the sources for this stuff? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and other sources. For example, while I don't know specifically about the French kings, there are some published itineraries of English kings, like Henry II. (In fact you can read Eyton's The court, itinerary, and household of Henry II on Google Books.) By examining chronicles, charters, and whatever other dated documents are available, it is sometimes possible to determine exactly where the king was on any given day (or approximately, if there is a gap in the dates). If his wife is known to be pregnant on a certain date, and a child is mentioned on some other date, then all that can usually be said with certainty is that the kid was born between those two dates. If a specific birth date is recorded in a chronicle, the chronicler himself may have been there to witness it. Otherwise, where would he get such information? There was no birth registry, and a medieval person, even a royal one, may not have even known his/her own birth date. They could have been born in "spring", and if the day was a feast day or some other important day, it may have been remembered later, but probably not. Death dates were more important, and they are more often recorded (just like Easter is a more important holiday than Christmas). Adam Bishop (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pipe Rolls records royal - and a few noble - children's DOBs, so did many chroniclers. Also when an heir came of age his or her DOB would need to have been known. Elizabeth I's birth has been recorded almost down to the exact hour.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's true, but Elizabeth is almost as far away from Isabella as we are from Elizabeth. Things were a lot more organized then. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest sunset

Is there any name for the day of the earliest sunset? Such as there is for beltane for example. According to www.timeanddate.com the earliest sunset in the northern hemisphere is tonight, or perhaps tommorrow, at 15.51 in London. Being an aethiest, and being a late riser, today is the turning point of the year for me. Thanks 92.28.249.229 (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midsummer would be the (neo)pagan term for the Summer solstice, when the day is longest in the Northern Hemisphere (whereas Beltane "is considered a cross-quarter day, marking the midpoint in the Sun's progress between the spring equinox and summer solstice.").

Winter solstice, the shortest day in the Northern hemisphere, occurs on December 21 this year. You may also be interested in our article on Day length. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what you seem to be talking about is timeanddate.com, which does show the earliest sunset ("3:51 PM") to be occurring around now (+/- a few days). But notice that length of day does reach a minimum at 7h 49m 43s around Dec. 21/22, which is the winter solstice. Solar noon is shown to vary there, too. Interesting question. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like the OP, I have celebrated this day of earliest sunset for the last fifty years, and also the day of latest sunrise in early January. The effect seems to be seldom recognised by others, and it is just a consequence of the drifting of noon from its clock time. See Equation of time for details. The dates change slowly over the centuries, so they will probably never become an established festival. Dbfirs 22:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pagan name for the Winter Solstice is Yule. Corvus cornix_talk 22:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the question is about celebrating the earliest sunset. I'm already well aware of the shortest day etc which is not the same thing. 92.15.5.93 (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that (depending on how you measure it) that "time" will depend on your longitude, time zone, and your time measurement criteria. It's a lot more straightforward to state which is the shortest day.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that - I would imagine that the earliest sunset is on the same day for everyone in the northern hemisphere. 92.29.117.8 (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There appearer to be a confusion of terms here. Even though water clocks were surprisingly accurate, the time difference we're talking about would hardly register on them and would not register at all on the minds of the pagans. What they would have noticed: is the 'least' westward point that the sun set, before heading west again. Although henges seem to be a phenomenon of the British Isles it is quite possible that early man used stakes as sight line to the horizon to act as date markers right into Christen time (just as some chapels were built to point to the rising of the sun on their saints day). What's more, this method could still drive a calendar which is more accurate that the one we use today. So the answer is no; as the earliest sunset is just an artefact made more discernible by our regular clocks set to display mean solar time. Even if you were born before the development of clocks, it would still be a turning point for you as this is more to do with the characteristics of your own particular body clock. Your clocks are probably synchronised more strongly by the onset of darkness. If festivals were based on individual body clocks it would be very confusing for all concerned--Aspro (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'm simply asking if the day of the earliest sunset has a name. Nothing to do with water clocks or 'circadian rythmns' etc. 92.28.245.105 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem. Your "simple" question is based on a misunderstanding: there is no "earliest sunset" every year. Sunset depends on many factors. For instance, sunset at my current location is much earlier than 100 miles away from me, simply because I live in a very mountainous region, while 100 miles away is relatively flat. The sun sets earlier here because the mountains form a higher horizon than in the flatter regions.

Your longitude also has a major impact on sunset. I've lived in Anchorage, Alaska, where the sun sometimes is only up for a few hours each day, making the sunset as early as 3 pm local time. Much further north, the sun never even rises for a portion of the winter.

If what you're looking for is a specific day of the year that the sun sets earliest in general, that would be the same as the day with the shortest available sunlight in general (ie. Winter solstice). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "your latitude also has a major impact on sunset" (latitude being the North-South measurement). The truth is, both latitude and longitude determine the time of local sunrise and sunset. With respect to latitude, due to the tilt of the earth along its axis, time of sunrise and sunset varies as you go north and south. With respect to longitude, time of sunset and sunrise depends upon how far east or west you are in a particular time zone. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is not the absolute local time, but the comparative time ie the date of the earliest sunset out of all the sunsets of the year at any particular location. So time zone is irrelevant. (And its unlikely you'd get any quirk caused by changing daylight saving times). Only an unsual local mountainous topography would make any difference - eg where you have a deep valley that the sun sets through on one particular day. I was considering places where there is a sunset every day. Anyway, we seem to have established that there is no name or festival of any sort for the earliest sunset, so end of question. 92.28.245.105 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer but I just wanted to say that I understand your question. I don't know why everyone else seems to be making it more complicated that it is 82.44.55.25 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Time and Date shows that the date of the earliest sunset changes based on your location. In Minneapolis, for example, the earliest sunset is somewhere between December 8 and December 11. In Miami, it's somewhere between November 26 and December 3.

The reason why is explained here: (http://www.sciquill.com/analemma/page2.html). It relates to both the tilt of the earth's axis and the earth's ellipical orbit. 128.111.130.159 (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot imagine longitude having an effect, only latitude. It appears from 128s comments that the day of the earliest suunset is earlier in the year the further south you go. Yet the shortest days is apparantly exactly the same day all over the northern hemisphere. 2.97.210.25 (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There might be minor variations in sunset because of local irregularities (hills), but the effect in general has no connection with latitude or longitude, it is caused by irregularities in the orbit of the earth round the sun. The last person (Dolphin) to ask a question about earliest sunset summarised as follows:

"Regardless of the hemisphere, the earliest events (earliest sunrise and earliest sunset) occur earlier than the solstice. (Earliest sunrise occurs earlier than the summer solstice; and earliest sunset occurs earlier than the winter solstice.)

"Regardless of the hemisphere, the latest events occur later than the solstice. (Latest sunrise occurs later than the winter solstice; and latest sunset occurs later than the summer solstice.)".

It has been this way round for nearly eight hundred years, but it is gradually changing over the centuries so there is no fixed date, and, as mentioned above, it was noticed only when we abandoned local time for railway timetables (1847 in England and 1883 in the USA & Canada). Until then, the effect did not exist, so the earliest sunset would be recorded on the date of the solstice. Dbfirs 17:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, people still had clocks and watches even before 'railway time' and would be able to notice the change in time with the seasons. The question was not asking what happened 800 years ago. 92.28.242.98 (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you misunderstand the question. The discrepancy between the dates of earliest sunset and latest sunrise is not real. It is caused entirely by our abandonment of local time. When clocks were synchronised to local noon (until the mid-1800s), earliest sunset and latest sunrise both occurred at the solstice, not separated by a month as they are with standard time. Dbfirs 08:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its my own question, so I do understand it. Clock-time is real, and people did not keep adjusting their clocks/pocketwatches every day. I'm not interested in what happened in the past in any case. Where I am in the north the time of sunset or at least darkness varies from later than 10pm in mid-summer to almost 3.30pm in mid-winter. You may believe what you write, but I think its unlikely to be true. 92.15.4.135 (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed noticing that it was your question (you have a varying IP address), but what I wrote still stands, except that you are correct, of course, that people didn't keep adjusting their clocks to local noon every day (though perhaps once a week?), so the very observant ones would probably notice the difference in dates of earliest sunset and latest sunrise once accurate clocks and watches were invented (earlier than Railway Time, perhaps 350 years ago, but it was only from 1834 that the Nautical Almanac for marine chronometers used mean solar time). Obviously, people have noticed the equinoxes and solstices for many thousands of years, in fact even animals and plants are sensitive to changing hours of daylight, but that was not what you asked about. Before accurate watches, people would believe that local noon was 12 o'clock, so the earliest sunset would be at the solstice in terms of hours and minutes "after noon". Our modern lives are so geared to "standard time" that it is easy to forget how people perceived time when special days such as Yule and Beltane were named. (I mentioned the 800 years because the earliest sunset was at the solstice, even by atomic clock time, 800 years ago, and it will be again in a few more centuries.) To answer your question: the day of earliest sunset does not have a name because it was discovered relatively recently, and it varies over the centuries. As I mentioned above, I have been celebrating the day for the past 50 years, and I always feel I have more energy once this date has passed. Can you think of a good name for the date? Dbfirs 20:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valdemar III of Denmark

Does Danish history recognize this man as King Valdemar III? I've seen many other sites call Valdemar the Young, the son and co-king of Valdemar II of Denmark, Valdemar III instead.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Danish Wikipedia article on him calls him Valdemar 3.. Corvus cornix_talk 22:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but how reliable can Wikipedia be.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This photo has him listed as "Waldemarus Tertis". Corvus cornix_talk 23:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of results from Google Books[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The photo provided by Corvus cornix lists Valdemar II of Denmark's son as Valdemar III. The text above it is about the person Wikipedia calls Valdemar III of Denmark but the image is related to another person, the son of Valdemar II who lived a century earlier. Surtsicna (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the Danish Wikipedia article is wrong, since it uses that image. Corvus cornix_talk 17:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Danish Wikipedia article does not use that image. It sources its information about the birth and death dates of the person in that article from the text above, not the image itself. It is the site gravsted.dk that has made an error and paired a the image with a wrong text. The Danish first edition of the Biographical Dictionary from the late 1800s just calls him Valdemar . The Royal Lineage list on the official homepage of the Danish Monarchy does not mention him, I guess they prefer a slightly glossy version of history. The list on the homepage of the Joint Council of Danish History (an association of Danish local history associations, museums and what not) calls him Valdemar 3.. The Danish history page kept by Aarhus University calls him Valdemar 3. Eriksen. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somali dance niiko

What is this dance in somalia called Niiko? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.111 (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have an article on it (yet), but it can be seen on youtube here[4][5] and apparently more authentically from East Africa here[6]. Thanks for asking; someone may be along soon with more information! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 13

The Big Bang Theory

Hi all. Pausing the video in the starting of The Big Bang Theory I have discovered this image. What is the story behind it? I guess the photo is in public domain. Thanks. emijrp (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this (fairly interesting) website, the picture is apparently of a routine amputation during the American Civil War. The soldier in the picture, oddly, is looking at the camera; the operations were also usually performed while the soldier was conscious because medical science had not progressed to the point while anesthesia was in common use. Xenon54 (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, by the 1860s chloroform and ether were quite common on the battlefield and were used in the majority of surgeries and amputations. Some soldiers requested not to use them, out of fear that the anesthesia would kill them (and a lingering "moral" argument that one should "face" surgery directly), but that was comparatively rare. This photo was clearly staged in one way or another — remember that photos at that time were not quick affairs, but required everyone to pose for a few minutes, and in any case, this is not exactly a "natural" pose for anyone involved. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely they were aware that you could use heavy doses of whiskey or other forms of ethanol as an anesthetic... Googlemeister (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The doses required would have too many complications (vomiting, uncontrollable behavior, alchohol poisoning, etc.). Just giving someone a little bit would only make them tipsy, and possibly less compliant when the physician starts cutting. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course booze was used in this fashion for quite a long time. But true anesthesia — which did exist by the late 19th century — was really quite a step up. It's one of the truly horrifying aspects of medical history that there really wasn't any until the 1840s or so. For a while surgeons resisted it because they had built up a "moral" culture around the idea of surgical pain (you still see some of that today, I might add, in some of the "natural birth" advocates), but thank goodness that didn't last for too long. Surgery is one of those cases where unambiguously the modern condition is better than the pre-modern one, in my opinion! --Mr.98 (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if that image [7] is in the public domain, if so we should maybe get it. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be PD considering its age. Why not ask over at the Ref desk on copyright just to be sure. I agree it would be good to use in a relevant article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely PD in the United States if it is truly from the Civil War period. PD-because-of-age can be complicated, but there is really no doubt that anything before 1890 is in the PD in the United States. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a staged photo as this is simply not how amputation was done. First a tourniquet was applied. Then an assistant pulled back on the flesh. Then the surgeon used scalpels to cut the flesh so that enough remained to cover the stump after surgery! Then cut through the muscles, ligaments, etc. Then a linen "retractor" to protect the flesh, all before employing the saw.[8] The old sawbones weren't all hacks. Rmhermen (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getty Images has it here with the title "Vintage image of Civil War Reenactment". --Sean 22:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anesthesia was known by the American Civil War, but not always available or used in frontline improvised hospitals. Amputations were often done as a lifesaving operation, without anesthesia, and in therefore with maximum swiftness, while assistants held down the agonized patient. Alcohol is not an anesthetic. Edison (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just chime in with my usual reminder that a lot of what is said above assumes a context of Western medicine as practised in Europe and European colonies. Anaesthetics were known to and used in Chinese medicine for at least the last 1500 years. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with research project and annonymity....

Hello, I am doing a project in my college level antrhropology course. The topic of this research is interaction between domestic (American) students and international students. Since the interviews i do with students obviously will have different points of view, related to their nationality, should i create a Chinese fakename to keep a Chinese student anonymous? I want their identity safe but i wonder if it is important to say that they are Chinese. It seems odd to call said person "Jason".

Additionally: if i SHOULD create a Chinese "cover name", how would i go about this and make it sound reasonable? I imagine that since I am American it is difficult for me to understand Chinese naming conventions, and I don't want to tell my readers that I interviewed Jay Chou .....

Thanks for your response in advance! 137.81.118.126 (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you anonymize your students by, for example, using Latin letters for the non-American students and Greek letters for the American students or maybe letters and numbers? It would be truly anonymizing, and it would allow you to use two distinct systems to keep the groups seperate. --Jayron32 02:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this somewhat alluding to the idea that a "fake name" is not truly anonymizing? To my knowledge it is done in quite a few legitimate, world-known anthropological writings.... 137.81.118.126 (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't allude to anything. I was just throwing some ideas around. You'll find I never allude. I state. --Jayron32 03:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you haven't interviewed Jay Chou, I can see the rationale behind giving fake names, but I think you'd have to make it clear in your writeup that you were using pseudonyms, and on that basis, you could just call them 'student A', 'student B' etc, as already suggested. I'd think that otherwise you might be seen to be applying stereotypes, and you risk accidentally using a name of a real student. Perhaps you should ask the college teaching staff about this though? ...and try not to misspell anthropology if you are studying it ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope its pretty clear that that "spelling" is more a typo than anything else, but 2 points for actually seeing it, i didnt :P

Anyway, I am considering discussing this with the professor, but seeing as it is Sunday night, i thought id get a head start on the situation. Your mention of avoiding stereotypical names is well noted, because even if i do this with american names, there are many which are so stereotypical that we automatically choose. Tim, Sam, Sally, John, Jim, Ben, Sarah, etc..... Having student A,B,C, and Student α, β, γ seems to make sense. If i take this method, i have two questions.

1) Should i refer to them as Student D, Student β, etc, or simply D or β in place of the name?

2) Should I discuss the issue of pseudo names within my paper itself?

137.81.118.126 (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Either system seems fine 2) Probably not, since you are using letters rather than names like "Billy" or "Chang" its is plainly obvious you didn't happen to find some bizare part of the world where everyone has a letter as a name. However, the advice to contact your professor seems best. These kind of questions can be answered quickly by him, and as he is likely working in the field right now, he may have ideas about established practices. --Jayron32 04:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start with 'student D', and maybe just use 'D' later, where you needed to refer to him/her again: "Student D is a female Science student from mainland china, in her early twenties. When I asked D about how she got on with other students, she replied..." (assuming this is the style of interview you are using - you probably get the idea). And yes, you should discuss why you haven't used real names in the paper: anthropological research often involves such issues, and showing an understanding of them will look good. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely what i was getting at, the discussion of the issue, not just the mention of its implimentation. Thanks alot everyone, your reflection on this is very helpful.

137.81.118.126 (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

..... I'm thinking about being frank and open about the situation and actually mentioning the Jay Chou thing, just as a proof of how easy stereotyping can become.....

137.81.118.126 (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, yes. Except you then run the risk of overdoing the 'anthropologist' stereotype, who stumbles blindly into his/her fieldwork without a clue what is going on, and after a heroic struggle involving strange beasts, mysterious diseases, and frequent misunderstandings, emerges clutching ~~the Golden Fleece~~ an exemplary exposition of the complexities of human cultural experience. (see Clifford Geertz for the archetype). Try not to overdo the reflexivity... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely valid point.... Im just trying to relate this to the anthropological texts we've read as well. So i want to show my knowledge of the situation, but if i over extend it it can look bad, almost like i'm explaining something to a small child.... i vaguely get the golden fleece thing though, haha.... ill try to illustrate my points concisely then without listing the actual stereotypes in question etc etc

137.81.118.126 (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's always difficult to know where to pitch your writing at. You don't really want to write for your professor, as he/she probably (hopefully?) knows more about the subject than you, so you think you don't need to explain anything. But as you say, you aren't writing for a small child either. I was told that the best person to bear in mind is 'an educated outsider': maybe in your case a fellow student who's studying Ancient Greece rather than anthropology (and knows about the golden fleece ;) ). Explain why you're identifying people the way you are, but remember this isn't the topic of your paper, so you don't want to get side-tracked. Mostly though, with a topic like this, you need to let the people you are studying speak for themselves, so if they seem concerned about anonymity, it will show through anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What i really love about this project is it really does make us think like anthropologists, after reading a few books and some criticisms of their authors. So far i have 1.5 pages, 3 paragraphs for my paper (double spaced) The first para explains what i am looking at, with second para talking about viewpoints causing complexities, and third para explaining the anonymity issue. I am now at the "meat" part of the paper and i think it is intended to be a 5 to 8 page paper...... I think i covered the details surrounding the issues "enough" but not too much.... or at least i hope ^_^; Thanks again!

137.81.118.126 (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds about right. Good luck with the paper... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I consider this topic now closed. Thanks again to all who have given input, you make this place great! :)

137.81.118.126 (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3D in China?

Hey, I noticed the 3D TVs have started appearing here in the 'States, but you still need to wear those awful goggles to make out the 3D, and the company claims it's "working on" a way to ditch the goggles. However, I was in China about 3 years ago and in a certain airport (Beijing or Hong Kong, I think) I saw a display screen showing various advisories (don't leave luggage unattended, be ready to get searched, check in at the appropriate time, etc.). One of these involved a cascade a falling coins (why, I do not remember). I vividly remember that the cascade was in pretty good 3D, my mother even remarked on it; we were not wearing the glasses, obviously. What was this? How was it done, and why does it not exist here? Thanks. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a personal suggestion.... this seems to be a technology based question. Maybe youll get a faster response if you post it in Computers and IT?

137.81.118.126 (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Displays with lenticular lenses can be Autostereoscopic. They're suitable for were you can be reasonably sure the subject will be standing within its narrow viewing angle. The idea has been around for a long time and been demostraited a number of times.--Aspro (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Lenticular screens" is a very old technology which can provide 3d without glasses. but moving slightly closer or farther nullifies or reverses the 3d effect. Russians showed such movies in demonstrations in the 1940's. I would rate them at several time the headache and neckstrain potential of 3d with glasses to isolate the images to the correct eyes. Edison (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donaghcloney, County Down

Would anyone know exactly how far the Northern Ireland village of Donaghcloney, County Down is from the town of Lurgan? I did a Google and some say it's 2 miles away, while others give it a distance of 4 or 5 miles. I need the info for an article I'm currently working on. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps driving directions says it is 5 miles. 212.123.243.220 (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bing Maps[9] says 5.5 miles and that it should take 13 minutes to drive or 1 hr 46 mins to walk. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody. Now I'll add it to the relevant article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that some sources give the distance from the nearest points in those two places, while others go from the center of each town. I suppose you could also measure from the most distant points in each location, but I don't know if anyone would actually do that. StuRat (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow my link to Bing Maps above, you'll see a little flag on the main junction in the centre of Lurgan. Donaghcloney is a bit too small to have much else except a centre! Alansplodge (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also contained this guy here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hand in the coat

I have noticed a common detail at many portraits of XIX century people: in many of them, the subject of the portrait placed his hand inside his coat while posing for the artist. Is there some reason for this? MBelgrano (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This distillation of an academic article about the subject seems to imply that it was just a visual custom at the time, quite old, and associated with being "manly boldness tempered with modesty." I see it as somewhat like smiling wildly is in modern photography — something everyone is encouraged to do just because everyone does it, and whose contrived nature becomes clear when you juxtapose it against other time periods when it was not the custom. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in modern pop culture, it is by far most often associated with Napoleon. There's a Wikimedia Commons category commons:Category:Hand-in-waistcoat with a lot of pics... AnonMoos (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it gives the subject something to do with their hand rather than just have it hanging limply by their side. Dismas|^(talk) 16:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why would that be the only other option? His other hand is hooked into his belt. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the only option. It was one of many, which is why you won't see it in every male portrait from the 18th and early 19th centuries. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I mean. Dismas seemed to be suggesting that if it wasn't tucked into his jacket, he'd have no other choice than to have it hanging limply, which we agree is not the case. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I thought you were posing the question to the ref desk in general, instead of to Dismas in particular. Sorry about that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest that it was the only thing that they could do with their hand. I just meant that it was something to do with it. Dismas|^(talk) 04:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not much more contrived than the modern Grip & Grin photograph. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. People shake hands and smile all the time, whether they're posing for a photograph or not. Presumably, 18th & 19th century soldiers didn't commonly stand at attention while gazing in the distance with one hand in their partially unbuttoned jacket. Well, maybe Napoleon did. —Kevin Myers 02:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget the Al Bundy "hand down pants" pose: [10]. StuRat (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Reserve Banks private or public

Are the twelve Federal Reserve Banks private or public entities?Smallman12q (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public, and chartered by Congress, but with considerable independence.

"The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

"As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

"The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5

-- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the faq link. What does it mean that they are self-financed?Smallman12q (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. They make revenue on interest on the loans they make to other banks. But they can also literally make money out of whole cloth. In older times this was called "firing up the presses" or Debasement (which is different, but has the same effect). The modern term is Quantitative easing. The Fed controls the money supply, which is basically the main job of central banks all over the world. Thay are very different from a commercial bank. --Jayron32 20:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could they accurately be described as an unregulated monopoly with immense power over the US economy? Edison (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's somewhat regulated now by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely regulated by Congress and the Federal Reserve Act. They are private in the sense that they pay private sector salaries though, which allows them to attract considerable talent at all levels, not just the top. Shadowjams (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does paying a competitive salary make them "private" in any way? Many government departments around the world benchmark their remuneration against equivalent private sector salaries to attract and retain the best (or at least, as good) talent. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a simple question. There is a sense in which it is public and a sense in which it is private. In all of the significant ways it is private. Imagine a corporation (like Walmart, for instance). Now imagine that the Chairman of Walmart is appointed by the United States President. The truth is that the appointment of a chairman or members of the board is not really enough to say that it is a "public" entity. They still act in the interest of its member banks, rather than the public interest. Greg Bard (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lifestyle forum for living better?

Flame me if you want, but if I buy a $500 coffee machine that runs like a champ for the next seven years, and the control version of me just keeps buying instant like a chump, I both save money and have a higher quality of life. Is there a forum devoted to all the things this is true for? (shoes that don't deteriorate, etc etc etc). Thanks. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there are thousands, but Lifehacker springs immediately to mind, although it's not strictly a forum. Skomorokh 15:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain there is Which?, which publishes many reports comparing the merits of groups of consumers goods, and moneysavingexpert.com Apparantly Consumer Reports is the American equivalent of Which? 92.28.245.105 (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that Consumer Reports has compared coffee-makers to each other, but not to instant coffee. They tend to start with the assumption that you already know you want a given type of product, so they only do comparisons within that category. StuRat (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Stephenson blurb

The "Biographical Info" section on this page about the speculative fiction author Neal Stephenson reads as follows:

Neal Town Stephenson issues from a clan of rootless, itinerant hard-science and engineering professors. Born on Halloween 1959 in Fort Meade, Maryland – home of the National Security Agency – he grew up in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, and Ames, Iowa, before attending college in Boston.
He began his higher education as a physics major, then switched to geography when it appeared that this would enable him to scam more free time on his university’s mainframe computer. When he graduated and discovered, to his perplexity, that there were no jobs for inexperienced physicist-geographers, he began to look into alternative pursuits such as working on cars, agricultural labour and writing novels.
His first novel, The Big U, was published in 1984 and vanished without trace. Zodiac: The Eco-thriller is his second novel. On first coming out in 1988 it quickly developed a cult following among water-pollution-control engineers and was enjoyed, though rarely bought, by many radical environmentalists. The highly successful Snow Crash was written between 1988 and 1991, as the author listened to a great deal of loud, relentless, depressing music. …
Neal Stephenson now resides in a comfortable home in the western hemisphere where he spends his time – when not sidetracked by his computer, rollerblading or parenting – attempting to make a living out of writing novels and the occasional magazine article.

This material is credited as an "[e]xcerpt of the biographical blurb from a book jacket". Does anyone know which one? If you could include an ISBN and page number in your response that would be ideal, as I intend to cite it in an article. Any help appreciated, Skomorokh 15:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Crash. Here is the page courtesy of Google Books. Note that the text you quoted isn't complete. It's a little mangled. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of dances in India

Why assam floc k dances are not included in " list of dances in india" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.12.34 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many questions of the form "Why is xxx not included in Wikipedia?" may be completely answered by "Because nobody has yet had the interest or time to put it in". Many other questions of that form may be answered by "Because there are no reliable sources for this information, so it may not be included in Wikipedia".

If you have reliable sources for Assam folk dances (which is what I am guessing you meant), please write about them in Wikipedia! --ColinFine (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Party affiliation statistics for career federal civil servants in US.

Are any statistics available that relate to the party affiliation of US federal employees? I am really only interested in career employees, not political appointees. If that is not available, I would be interested in party affiliation of public sector employees in general. ike9898 (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely. Only statistics would be of subset of complaints against unauthorized political activity of Federal civil servants covered by the Hatch Act of 1939 that are also covered by the Freedom of Information Act -- see the enforcing Office of Special Counsel's Policy Statement on Disclosure of Information from OSC Files -- Paulscrawl (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus in a manger

Where in the bible does it talk about Jesus, the baby child, being in a manger?--LordGorval (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that in Luke? Googlemeister (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See http://www.multilingualbible.com/luke/2-7.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I see it. According to the Wycliff version it says:
And sche bare hir first borun sone, and wlappide hym in clothis, and leide hym in a cratche, for ther was no place to hym in no chaumbir.
I realize this is old English, however I am still interested in the modern words for "wlappide" and "cratche". Apparently "cratche" is manger. Is that correct?--LordGorval (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding wlappide, here is a quote from this etymology site: LAP (3), to wrap, involve, fold. (E.) Doubtless frequently confused with the word above, but originally quite distinct from it. M.E. lappen, to wrap, fold, Will. of Palerne, 1712; 'lapped in cloutes' = wrapped up in rags, P. Plowman's Crede, ed. Skeat, l. 438. β. This word has lost an initial w; an older form was wlappen; thus in Wyclif, Matt. xxvii. 59, the Lat. inuoluit is translated in the later version by 'lappide it,' but in the earlier one by 'wlappide it.' γ. Lastly, the M.E. wlappen is a later form of wrappen, to wrap, by the frequent change of r to l; so that lap is a mere corruption or later form of wrap. See Wrap. Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EO doesn't agree that "lap" and "wrap" have the same origins,[11][12] but they are certainly used in in an "overlapping" way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And "cratche" is probably a transliteration of "crèche", which nowadays is used specifically to mean "nativity scene" or "manger scene", and which means "crib", "manger" or "stall".[13] The word crèche derives from the Germanic word from which we also get "crib". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard crèche used for a nativity scene. In British English a crèche is a place to leave small children while they are not needed by their parents. DuncanHill (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have; and the usage you're suggesting would be more like a basket, i.e. for leaving the child on the doorstep of an orphanage with a note asking them to take care of junior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the thing you leave babies on church doorsteps in is called a basket (orange boxes are also traditional, but hard to get hold of nowadays). A crèche in British English, is called day care on Wikipedia (day care centres in Britain are places to put old people while you don't need them). DuncanHill (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's that expression again about not needing them. It sounds like a process of abandonment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Bugs, you know my way with words by now! I'm English:- irony, sarcasm, and black humour are all to be expected. DuncanHill (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm just confused about whether you're abandoning junior/senior for a few hours, or forever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While they are not needed = temporary. When they are not needed = permanent. A crèche (which I feel is still foreign enough to be italicised) is what we also call a nursery - you drop the baby off while you go to work; a day care centre is a place where old people go in the day time. DuncanHill (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I dig. Just don't drop it off too hard. And in reference to abandonment, for a moment there I had a flashback to an old cartoon panel that postulated the origin of Baby Oil. Eek. OK, I've only ever heard "creche" used in reference to the nativity scene, and not very often at that. In effect, the nursery that we call day care and you call a creche is symbolically a crib, which is also used in American English by an adult in reference to his own apartment, or flat as you would say. Meanwhile, "the house" is where I live, and "the home" is where my parents live while/when I don't need them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here[14] and here{http://www.sussex.ac.uk/childcare/1-2-2.html] Bugs. Alansplodge (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, where I grew up, crib is a light meal between breakfast and mid-day! DuncanHill (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Since this[15] is a Corn Crib, something like it that holds something else could be a Corn-ish Crib. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do grow sweetcorn in Cornwall, to feed it to the cows. They used to grow corn to make wheaten bread :) DuncanHill (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have Wheaten Bread, we have Wheaton Illinois. :) So, just how is the term "corn" used in the UK nowadays? And what does it have to do, if anything, with Cornwall? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's just trying to confuse - and succeeding! Corn in the UK is any food grain; wheat barley etc. Corn (US) is "sweetcorn" if humans are eating it - a fairly recent innovation - and "maize" if livestock are. The "corn" in Cornwall comes from the name of the ancient Cornovii (Cornish) tribe. See Cornwall#Etymology. Alansplodge (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to confuse - just playing with words! The root corn, as in Cornovii and Cornubia (an old name for Cornwall) means a horn, and probably is a reference to the Cornish peninsula (which looks a bit like a horn). See Philip Payton's Cornwall: A History, Chapter 4. DuncanHill (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And although "cratche" suggests "cradle", that word has a different origin.[16] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my Jewish friends in college thought that the term "Dog in a manger" was anti-semitic, because they had only heard the term "manger" in relation to the birth of Jesus. I explained that the phrase referred to a "spoiler," in the sense that the dog could not eat the hay, and his presence was preventing the hungry cattle from eating the hay. One then questioned whether the animals were gathered around Christ at the Nativity not because they were worshipping Him, but because they wanted to eat the hay He was lying on. I had no ready answer. Edison (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's EO's info about "manger".[17] Basically a manger was a food container for the livestock. Given your colleagues' misunderstanding of what a manger is, how much stock would you put in their further analysis of the situation? In fact, there's nothing in the Bible about any animals being near Jesus, beyond the mention of shepherds tending their flocks. Manger scenes typically combine various elements with a considerable degree of artistic license, including the fact that the number of wise men is not known (the gifts were three), and that the wise men came not to a stable as the shepherds did, but to a house. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And to summarize: Matthew talks about the wise men, Luke talks about the sheep men, and Mark and John jump straight to Jesus' adulthood, skipping all the boring stuff about the Virgin Birth, carpentry lessons, and sparking with Mary Magdalene. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Manger" was and is the common and typical term for a box hay, corn or other dry feed is placed in for horses or other animals to consume. Here are refs where it is discussed simply as an agricultural fixture:from 1805, from 1899, from 2000. Mainstream Christianity has had nativity scenes since Francis of Assisi in December 24, 1223, which included hay and "ox and ass," presumably along with Joseph and Mary, sheep and shepherds gathered around a statue Jesus in the manger. There is no reason to assume the stable and its manger at the inn were there just for travelers to use for birthing purposes. They would have been there for the shelter and feeding of animals. It is not any great leap or synthesis to posit animals in a facility operated for the keeping of animals. The "cave stable" was discussed early on by Justin Martyr(103-165) and other early church fathers, besides the mentions in the canonical books of the Bible.Edison (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, wait. "The stable"? Nobody mentioned a stable yet. Stables are part of the window-dressing caused by seeing the story through European eyes, just as when the Heliand tells the story it has the angels appearing to the more familiar stable-hands instead of shepherds. Marnanel (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, can someone also tell me what chaumbir means as a modern definition?--LordGorval (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Punishment for sexual traitors in 1944-45 after WWII ?

I have seen and read so much about a certain phenomena in the closing days of World War two; in the nations occupied by Germany, local women who hade sexual relationships with German soldiers where treated very badly by their own country-men when the war ended; they were beaten, had their hair cut and where terrorised in many different ways. They where considered to be traitors for no other reason than for having had sex with German soldiers. I am not here to discuss that matter in particular, but it made me wonder about a question I haven't been able to answer. In the occupied nations, there where also female personel from Germany, where there not? In that case, there would also have been sexual relationship between German women and local men? My question is: was local men, who hade sex with German women, harassed and treated badly and judged to be traitors, in the same way as local women who had sex with German men were? I have not been able to find anything about this issue. Thank you. --85.226.41.42 (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to sound like I am doubting whether that happened or not (sexual relations between German women and local men), have you found any evidence that it did indeed happen? That would be your starting point. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm unable at present to cite any references, I can confirm the OP's initial premise that there was some such victimisation of women who had (voluntarily) slept with occupying German soldiers; I recall (from reading relevant books and/or articles some time during the last four decades) seeing photographs of such women with shaven heads tied to, for example, French lampposts.

As far as the OP's speculative question goes, my estimation would be that:

a) there would have been relatively few women among the German occupying forces because the general ethos of the time was not to send women into combat zones, which occupied countries potentially were);

b) any such occupying forces women would be far less likely to sleep with the local men than the converse because they had plenty of their own compatriots to sleep with, and because that's not how the power relationships work - the "collaborating" local women were likely usually motivated by what they could get (money, food, immediate protection from rape by other occupiers, etc) from the liaisons; and

c) local men who did succeed in sleeping with occupying women woud have probably been regarded with some respect, as having "got one over" on the enemy. Like it or not, attitudes about sexual activities by men and women are not even-handed now and were far less so sixty years ago. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Histories of various countries' military occupations would be the place to search first. Double standard most likely applies: it certainly did in the case of US-occupied Germany. See discussion of US GIs in Germany and policies towards their German women lovers: from Ike's widely ignored no-fraternization order of 44 (fraternization is a good search term to use for KageTora's suggestion, BTW) to full acceptance with the War Brides Act of Dec 45. World War II Occupation of Germany: American Fathered Children -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many young men in the occupied territories were either prisoners-of-war or had been deported under forced labour schemes. "They're either too young or too old"! Alansplodge (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Dutch (nl) wikipedia bijltjesdag for image: nl:bijltjesdag. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

Local women who had relations with German soldiers were badly treated in Norway. 3000 Norwegian women married German occupants during the war. Many of these lost their citizenship and were expelled because they were regarded as Germans after the war. They have an article in both the Norwegian and German wikipedia, no:Tyskertøs, de:Tyskertøs. No instances of female occupants marrying Norwegian men during the war come to mind. --NorwegianBlue^talk 21:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French Military in First and Second World Wars

When people refer to the French military being somewhat lacking in battle, I believe they are referring to their conduct in the First and Second World Wars, but what events are specifically intimated? What retreats, losses etc are being referenced? Thanks. 92.11.32.186 (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their shocking defeat in the Battle of France in the Second World War and maybe the French Army Mutinies (1917) for the First? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The event most people cite as the nadir of French military reputation is the Evacuation at Dunkirk. The very fact that France fell so fast in the face of the advancing German military makes people think, because of the recency effect, that the French military has historically been poor. That's far from the truth. For most of the history of Europe, France was the preeminent power militarily and socially and economically. I have read some books (read them in college, since sold, forget the titles) that the downfall of French hegemony was the French Revolution; though it produced Napoleon, it sowed the seeds of its own defeat by causing a major demographic shift. The arguements goes like this: Since the French Revolution destroyed all social order, it also elminated the Catholic church as a major social force. Without the catholic church's proscriptions against birth control, during the 19th century, French population figures did not keep pace with the rest of Europe; basically there was a lower overall population growth in France during the 1800's than in other countries. In the era of the Mega-war, where millions of conscripted soldiers were needed to fight gigantic battles on huge fronts, France loses out simply because of this sort of trend. Take it with a grain of salt; but it is one argument. Just remember that prior to the late-19th and early 20th century mega-wars, if someone claimed that the French were "surrender monkeys" or somehow militarily weak, they'd sound quite uninformed. Nowadays, the reputation for France being weak stems from the fact that France quit NATO because it didn't enjoy being the puppet of the U.S. Now, whenever France doesn't acede to US demands for support in its various wars, propaganda is used to make the French seem less "manly" or something like that. --Jayron32 20:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The correct term is Cheese-eating surrender monkeys. As for "manliness," US history textbooks contained the iconic image from a newsreel of 1940 of a "Frenchman weeping" after the military defeat. Edison (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know the footage you're talking about. It's in a British documentary about WW2 that is currently showing on cable channels in the U.S. right now. Shadowjams (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of something that was said during the 6-day Israeli/Arab war in 1967: "As soon as France heard there was a war, they surrendered." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two main wars that France waged after World War II, the First Indochina War and the Algerian War, also ended in defeats for the French. France's last war with another major power before World War I, the Franco-Prussian War, also was a humiliating defeat. France successfully prevailed over poorly armed African and Asian tribes and minor polities during the late 19th century. However, not since the time of Napoleon have the French been able to prevail on the battlefield against major powers unassisted by Britain or the United States. Jayron's demographic theory is an interesting one. Another explanation might be that the Revolution and the Napoleonic defeats left France with an elite less committed to military dominance than the elites of its main rivals, Britain and Prussia. Marco polo (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to hear that the Napoleanic wars so decimated the population that "the average Frenchman was a foot shorter than before". It might be that they just got tired of warfare. Unfortunately, they were stuck where they were and couldn't move the entire nation to, for example, the Caribbean region. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not disagreeing with anything above, but basically it was only in World War II that the French put up a poor fight. The most important reason, in Winston Churchill's view, is that the French suffered worse losses than anybody else in World War I -- the proportion of French men in the relevant age cohorts killed was considerably higher than even for Germany. A second cause was the pathetic political system of the Third Republic, which in the years prior to World War II cycled through changes of government at a rate of about one per year, making decisive leadership impossible. Looie496 (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that in 1914, the French Army spoiled the German Schlieffen Plan almost unassisted. The small British Expeditionary Force may - or may not - have prevented the flank of the French line being turned, but the First Battle of the Marne stalled the German advance until 1918. "Our hats we doff / To General Joffre" was a British popular song of the day. Alansplodge (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even before World War I, there was the debacle of the Franco-Prussian War. Corvus cornix_talk 23:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main fault of the French in WW2 was "old-thinking". That is, they were still thinking in terms of massive forts anchoring a static front, which was largely how WW1 was fought. However, due to the new mobility of armies as a result of airplanes, tanks, and supply vehicles, the forts of the Maginot Line could be largely bypassed, rather than attacked directly, as the French had expected. If they had instead put their efforts into creating their own highly mobile forces, and then used them (with Britain) in an attack on Germany, when Hitler defied the Versailles and Locarno treaties by re-militarizing the Rhineland (in March, 1936), the French would have had a quick victory. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

92.11.32.186 -- I don't think that WW1 plays a large role in the stereotype. Rather, it's that France suffered two large scale ignominious fairly sudden military collapses affecting its core national territory in the last 150 years -- the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, and WW2 in 1940 -- even though it was not obviously overwhelmingly inferior to its opponent (in broad strategic terms) in either case. AnonMoos (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of the above. The WW2 experience is the most salient, but it neglects not only a fierce and vengeful French resistance, but also that future leaders of France (Degaulle, was central, for example) were critical in many of the resistance efforts. Churchill seems to have been supremely disappointed that French leadership gave in as quickly as it did, but that says nothing about the French people of the time. Shadowjams (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing generally forgotten on WWII (on top of the poor leadership of the French) is that after the Anschluss and the taking of the Czech lands + Memel, the German total industrial capacity was 3 times as large as the French total industrial capacity. It was already twice as large as the French I.C. before the Anschluss...

And my main point is that you have won the war in advance if you have 3 times as many tanks (which depends on your capacity to produce them). The real question is why didn't France move towards an industrical economy, rather than an mostly agrarian economy , in the 19th and the first half of the 20th century like Britain and Germany did? If they had, they would have been able to build a force capable of resisting the German panzers. With only 1/3 of the number of German tanks, they were very quickly flanked. --Lgriot (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans did not have more tanks than the allied forces during the invasion of France in 1940. The allied had more tanks and more artillery (the Battle of France article says 2439 German tanks, and most of those fairly light, and 7378 artillery guns vs 3254 allied tanks, with a considerable number of them being heavy tanks, and 14000 artillery guns), but the Germans had concentrated its tanks in panzer divisions, while they were spread out as support in infantry divisions on the allied side. And thus they lost their mobility and ability to counter the German spearhead attacks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the French armour WAS concentrated in armoured divisions; Divisions Légère Mécanique, each containing a brigade of the excellent SOMUA S35 medium tanks and Divisions Cuirassée de Réserve with heavier infantry tanks. Two DLR's held their own against the panzers of the XVI Army Corps (Germany) at the Battle of Hannut and the Battle of Gembloux (1940) although with heavy losses. After the close-run defeat of the 3e DCM at the Battle of Sedan (1940) the French high command decided to dissipate its armour as you describe, because of Stuka attacks on large formations. The British had a single brigade of 84 infantry tanks in place at the start of the offensive; they gave Rommel a bloody nose at the Battle of Arras (1940) - he reported being attacked by 6 divisions. The 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom) had just arrived in the SW of France in bits and pieces, most of it never came back. Alansplodge (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 14

1960 U-2 Incident

The 1960 U-2 Incident article is confusing. First it says a SAM shot down the plane. Then it says an intercepting fighter's slipstream caused the crash. It also says the US never believed the pilot's account, but doesn't say what the pilot's account was! Can someone please explain to me what FGP said happened, and what is accepted to have happened? The Masked Booby (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Khrushchev is a reliable (secondary) source. He seems to cast doubt on Mentyukov's account. The precise truth in this matter is perhaps difficult to know for sure, and any one version is probably just a little off from that truth in various ways. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairly clear after reading the article that because of the conflicting reports without verification, we'll probably never know the actual truth. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless the article could handle the discrepancies better than it does. I've added a new fragment which, at least, provides insight into the supposed NSA report. There are further inconsistencies in the Francis Gary Powers, notably whether 3 or 14 SAM missiles were hoisted, and whether or not the unfortunate Sergey Safronov bailed or died in his plane on impact. The FGP article teases with the NSA story but does not provide any useful information beyond FGP being under suspicion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Term for fifty-US-states-and-DC-and-nothing-more?

Since I first found it, I've always thought that "List of United States National Historic Landmarks in United States commonwealths and territories, associated states, and foreign states" was an awkward name, so I'd like to propose a name change. My ideal would be "List of...outside ____", with the blank being a phrase that conveys exactly the fifty states and the District of Columbia. Although I'm an American, I can't think of a term with this meaning: "fifty states" excludes DC, "United States" might include the Virgin Islands or Guam, and no other phrases come to mind. Any ideas? Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could say "the United States proper," but a lot of people won't know what you mean by that -- which may be the result of any attempt to abbreviate. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Metropolitan USA? (Inspired by Metropolitan France). DuncanHill (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard this usage before, and I suspect that a lot of Americans, upon seeing such a title, would think that the list included a lot of rural landmarks. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that sounds like it should have the opposite meaning, because of the use of the word with cities. ("Metropolitan New York City", or similar expressions, means an area including New York proper, Yonkers, Jersey City, Newark, White Plains, etc. etc. etc.) I like "United States proper", with explanatory text somewhere. A Google search on the phrase turns up some examples of it being used with what seems to be the intended meaning, although there are many false hits too, suggesting that it isn't a very common expression. --Anon, 13:48 UTC, December 14, 2010.

~~Contiguous USA?~~ --superioridad ^(discusión) 06:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, that is clearly incorrect. Disregard. --superioridad ^(discusión) 06:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Real America' was a phrase often used in the 2008 election campaign, which also excludes NYC, several other places in New England, LA and San Francisco. --Soman (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply List of U.S. National Historic Landmarks outside the United States? When I hear "the United States", I think New York, LA, Chicago, Punxsatawney, Anchorage, Waikiki, Washington, Hollywood .... I do not think Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, or Wake Island. Or Morocco. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming

Is global warming caused by solar flares from the sun?184.77.224.230 (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only 20 minutes ago this same IP user used the Science reference page to ask "Isn't crude oil a layer around the earths core. Crude oil,a part of the earths design? Isn't coal, old plant source deposits absorbed by crude?" I strongly suspect troll. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway - the answer is no - see[18] and[19] and[20]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or if you interpret the question in a way it probably wasn't meant, the answer is yes. Sunspots heat the earth up. At least, the article rather cagily says they "increase the sun's solar constant or brightness" and "were rarely observed during the Maunder Minimum". 213.122.35.203 (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, solar flares are caused by oil deposits on the Sun. It's obvious when you think about it. Fzzt! Gzuckier (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's RationalWiki's take on it.
Global warming and Global warming conspiracy theory.206.130.174.43 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extradition (cont.)

I am continuing from my last question.

So South American countries do extradite people. They do extradite people in their own countries who are not their own citizens. They do have extradition treaties with other countries. Is that right?

If South American countries do extradite people, then how come I have heard that the reason why many Nazis who were wanted for trial after the end of World War II fled to South America and stored their money in South American banks was because its countries did not extradite people?

Why don't South American countries extradite their own citizens abroad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.63.234 (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This OAS site doesn't exactly answer your question, but it verifies the premise:[21] My guess is that South American countries plain and simple don't want other countries doing stuff to their citizens. Note, however, that the citizen can be tried in Argentina (for example) for a crime committed elsewhere, if the other country agrees. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It indicates for the USA that US citizens are also not necessarily automatically sent to another country, except as provided by treaty arrangement. I note that for both Argentina and the US, and I would guess for others, that they are more than willing to send a foreigner back to their home nation. I expect the reason they don't want to extradite citizens to other countries is due to concerns that they might not get a fair trial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most South American countries do extradite people (see the article "List of United States extradition treaties", for example). The reason that many Nazis fled there following World War II was that several Latin American regimes were rather Nazi-friendly at the time. See http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2491/whats-the-true-story-on-south-american-nazis for more info. Gabbe (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be forgetting that several of these regimes were not only Nazi-friendly; there were no extradition treaties between the USA (or Israel, UK, etc) and most of Latin America at the time (after 1945). Check the dates of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, etc: these treaties were signed much later. Flamarande (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Extension" of unemployment benefit as part of "Bush tax cuts" extension deal

In the US House of Representatives deal on extending tax cuts last week, part of the deal was an "extension of unemployment benefits". I haven't been able to figure out from the news articles what this means. Were newly unemployed American citizens previously entitled to x months of support and they'll now get x+13? Or is it that the payment of unemployment benefits at all required renewed approval? Or something else? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The former. Under current law, an unemployed person can receive unemployment benefits for a period of up to 26 weeks. The extension increases that period (though to what, I don't know). Wikiant (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In between the former and the latter. Unemployment benefits had already been extended to 99 weeks, in light of the fact that there are very few jobs to be had. If this extension weren't passed, it would drop back suddenly to 26, leaving everyone after their 26th week without benefits. Paul (Stansifer) 16:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More and more US workers are offered only part-time employment. Is there a US government or other credible source online stating whether such workers eligible for unemployment when laid off, and how much unemployment compensation they could receive? Edison (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployment insurance in the U.S. is one of those deals which is funded by the federal government but administerred on the state level. I am pretty sure, however, that all that matters is that a) you don't have a job and b) you can prove you are actively looking for a job. One's state unemployment office is where the money is dispersed, and where such proof of seeking employment is presented. Most of this is now done electronicly, so I believe that many states allow you to file "proof" of job seeking online, and payments are often made via EFT or direct deposit into the beneficiaries bank account. At least, that's how it worked for my dad. For people who don't have internet access, I think you can still go stand in line and present information in person somewhere. --Jayron32 16:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not enough just to be out of work and looking for work to receive unemployment benefits in the United States. Unemployment benefits are not available to part-time, temporary, or self-employed workers who are out of work. Essentially, if people in those categories don't have savings, they have to rely on family members or face homelessness. Also, to qualify, a person has to have lost work by layoff rather than firing. If your employer claims that you were let go for some reason (other than a decision to cut the workforce), then you cannot receive unemployment benefits and facing savings exhaustion, dependency, and/or homelessness. Marco polo (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Unemployment insurance in the U.S. is one of those deals which is funded by the federal government but administerred on the state level." is not quite correct. Employers pay into the unemployment insurance pot. If you are self-employed, you pay both employee taxes and employer taxes (including unemployment insurance, the employer contribution to social security, etc.). I expect the bill is to fund the shortfall between the 26 and 99 weeks. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Marco polo, there are specific circumstances under which the self-employed are eligible for unemployment benefits. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article that seems to have the most info on this is 99ers, so named because the main debate has been over whether, to extend benefits past the 99th week for people living in high-unemployment states (people in low-unemployment states cap out around 50 weeks, but it varies). Also, unemployment benefits cap at roughly one-third of the former salary and are subject to taxes, which as far as I know is much less generous than the going rate in most of Europe. --M @r ē ino 21:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why so little proselytizing in airports?

I've made repeated visits to the JFK Airport in NYC recently, and I've not seen one street preacher there. Is it because richer people are less likely to convert than the average Joe on the subway? 66.108.223.179 (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Transport to airports and parking at airports is often somewhat costly. Travelling to airports on a daily basis would would mean some economic impact. 2) i think that security is another issue. Quite sure that airports like JFK has some sort of policy on unregistered vendors inside the airport facilities and airport security could possibly escort such a person out of the building. --Soman (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)I imagine it is because the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey discourages sole traders such as street preachers. JFK is unlikely to be a public space but rather a facility controlled by its owners, a so-called 'Semi-public' space in which stricter rules apply. Are street preachers a feature at any airport? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus: many of the people on the airport don't live in the US, so there's no reason to invite them to your church.Quest09 (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The contrast is between subways and airports. In a subway, you can "preach" to people who are standing/sitting in one place while they wait for the subway. In an airport, you cannot get to those people who are waiting on an airplane without a ticket because you have to pass through security to get to the waiting area. So, you'd be "preaching" to people who are quickly moving past you. If your goal is, as expected, to turn a monetary profit in handouts from people, you make a lot more off people who will pay you to go away while you wait instead of trying to make people stop as they rush through the airport. -- kainaw ™ 14:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't LAX famous for this some years ago? Googlemeister (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago major airports in various parts of the US were infested with various cultists wearing robes and asking for money, while offering religious insights. I haven's seen such in recent years. Edison (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it an infestation. It was just hard to miss the hairy fishnuts. -- kainaw ™ 15:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At LAX in early 2009, I saw a fair number of people soliciting donations for 'charitable' causes just outside the international terminal. Not quite street preaching, but similar in my mind. I was impressed by the particular crew I saw, they were well-dressed, wearing name tags, and got people to stop by offering to give assistance at navigating LAX. They seemed to be making good money. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1980 comedy movie Airplane! (known in some paces as Flying High) began with a huge emphasis on just such activity. As someone who didn't get to US airports until some years later I can't vouch for its accuracy, but I suggest that they were parodying something that really went on in US aorports in those days. HiLo48 (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or something that went on at LAX, as mentioned above -- the one airport most familiar to people in Hollywood. --Anon, 19:45 UTC, December 14, 2010.

As for the OP's question about rich people: It's probably true that homeless paupers don't fly, but plenty of struggling middle class people do, and they certainly are not "rich" by anyone's definition. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is because this (youtube clip from the movie Airplane!) is how Americans have been brought up to deal with airport-proselytizers of any variety that they may encounter. ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a reference? This NY Times article refers to a 2010 court ruling that finally allowed the city to bar people from soliciting donations at LAX. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always just attacked them, per the movie, but I'm glad to know that will no longer be necessary at LAX. ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from experience, it is nice to get into a friendly conversation with a person sitting next to you. Surprisingly, more often than not, it is they bring up the subject of politics or religion. It is a t this point I can share with that person what I believe about reality. schyler (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. FWIW, in the UK (I don't know about other places) it's not at all uncommon for airports to have full-time ministers. Heathrow has three. They're there to talk and help people, and I'm sure they'll explain the gospel if anyone asks, but that doesn't mean you see them walking up to people and asking whether they're saved. (Air travel is stressful enough without unwanted theological debate.) Marnanel (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The courts have ruled that airports can ban groups from soliciting donations in airports. See [22]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In many different airports in the US, I have seen solicitations being performed by people in all-white, most of them African-Americans. The males wear clothing similar to Catholic priests, the females wear long skirts and white hats reminiscent of old-time nurses. I have no idea what group they are collecting money for, as I have never stopped to investigate. Corvus cornix_talk 23:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those activities definitely went on in the old days, though whether it qualified as an "infestation" might be a matter of opinion and which airport. What I don't recall is whether they went beyond the security gates. Nowadays no one except authorized personnel and boarding-pass holders can go past security, and folks just entering the airport are probably most concerned with getting through security rather than being accosted by "Hare Krishnas" and the like, so they probably got tired of being ignored and/or told to take a hike (in varying degrees of intensity). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baby pictures of Jesus Christ

Is Jesus Christ the only famous person whose birthday (or supposed birthday) is celebrated by the sharing and viewing of his or her baby pictures (or supposed baby pictures)? (The expression his or her agrees in grammatical gender with the word whose, which refers to its antecedent person.)
—Wavelength (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Christmas wasn't really intended as a celebration of Christ's birthday per se, it is a celebration of the events and story surrounding his birth. Its a subtle difference, but I'm not sure there was ever serious belief among theologians that his actual birthdate was Christmas or that it was even possible to know his exact birthdate. Rather, Christmas is a feast/celebration of the birth story of Christ. --Jayron32 16:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the birth of Christ was a miracle, utterly separate from what He ended up doing with his human life. The Apotheosis of George Washington not withstanding, I can't think of any secular leaders whose very birth is considered a miracle. I wouldn't rule out other religions, though -- in particular, I'd want an expert on Hinduism to weigh in before we say that "baby pictures of Jesus" is a unique feature. --M@rēino 17:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- EDIT: Aha! I was thinking of Krishna Janmashtami. Hindu experts, is it fair to say that this is a birthday celebration featuring Baby Krishna? It looks like Krish-Mas to me, but I'm out of my element. --M @r ē ino 17:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this fits in here, but since you mention secular leaders: we don't have too much detailed info in the article, but from what I hear there's quite some myth being weaved around Kim Il Sung's birth. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite pictures, but Vesākha is sometimes celebrated by cleaning a baby Buddha statue in a basin by pouring water over it. See here, for illustration.. See also Buddha's_Birthday#Japan_2, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The birth of Jesus is held to be miraculous? His conception, I'll grant you. (Although the De Occursu Domini of Gregory of Nyssa, quoted approvingly by Aquinas, contains the rather startling passage "For He alone, whose conception was ineffable, and whose birth was incomprehensible, opened the virginal womb which had been closed to sexual union, in such a way that after birth the seal of chastity remained inviolate." So I suppose there are those who consider his birth miraculous, too...) Marnanel (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary was imperfect and maculate (http://www.multilingualbible.com/romans/5-12.htm), and after the birth of Jesus she presented a sin offering on her own behalf (http://www.multilingualbible.com/luke/2-22.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/luke/2-23.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/luke/2-24.htm), in obedience to the Mosaic Law (http://www.multilingualbible.com/leviticus/12-1.htm to verse 8).

—Wavelength (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you replying to me, or to Aquinas? Either is fairly pointless, since I don't believe that Mary was sinless, and Aquinas was well aware of your points and included rebuttals to them in the Summa. Marnanel (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to you. What did he say in rebuttal in the Summa Theologica?

—Wavelength (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Pictures; Leo Steinberg wrote a whole brilliant book on the sexuality of Christ as shown/demonstrated in Renissance pictures of him as an infant.--Radh (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen pictures of baby Moses in the Nile. Incidentally, his birth, too, is regarded in many sources as being marked by various (fairly minor IMHO!) miracles. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know, I was wrong. Sorry. This is the relevant chapter of the Summa, and he doesn't address your point as I thought he did. That should teach me to check sources before I open my mouth. Marnanel (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength and others -- what exactly was Mary's sin that she required a sin offering? It seems as though you are ascribing some transgression to her that is specific, when Judaism maintains that post-partum females brought sin and elevation offerings as a standard (Leviticus 12:6). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the official position of the Roman church that she was free both from particular transgressions and also from original sin. Before anyone starts arguing the point with me, I must point out that I am not a member of that communion and do not subscribe to that particular belief. FWIW, I don't find the argument very convincing that she brought a sin offering, therefore she was a sinner. You might as well make the same argument about the baptism of Our Lord. Marnanel (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DRosenbach, Mary had the general sin known as inherited sin. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/1_kings/8-46.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/psalms/51-5.htm)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "original sin", which is like starting life with a strike against you already. Hence the story (non-biblical, I think) that Mary herself had her original sin "taken away" by God (aka the Heavenly Official Scorer), so that Jesus would also be born without original sin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible says that baptism does not wash away sins. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/1_peter/3-21.htm)

—Wavelength (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for new authors: What do I read next?

I read a lot of novels; my favorite genre is adventure / action. I have exhausted my favorite authors, Clive Cussler and Michael Crichton, as well as more recent favorites James Rollins and Anthony Horowitz. I am currently searching for other authors who write in a similar style. Which other authors have extensive character development over a series of novels? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Clancy writes some good action stuff, though it is more of a political/military style of action then a single individual (and his girlfriend) saving the world, finding the Holy Grail or what have you. Googlemeister (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try one of the Aubrey–Maturin series.--Wetman (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Clancy bogs down in the gee-whiz tech he likes to describe, and the Aubrey-Maturin series go into too much loving details of the inner workings of British warships. Corvus cornix_talk 23:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to branch into Sci-Fi, two post-2000 authors I have enjoyed reading are John Scalzi and Julie E. Czerneda. Czerneda, especially in her "Trade Pact Universe" series does an excellent job of character development of the key characters. Her works are very character driven. --Jayron32 20:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Fleming perhaps - although I read one or two when I was about 13, I expect I would find them too lightweight now. 92.29.123.139 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While some individual Wikipedians, at least, those who might frequent the Wikipedia Humanities Desk from time to time, may be one source of recommendations for books similar to ones by authors whom you like, alternative queries will likely increase both the precision and recall of such recommendations.

The professional query phrase, well known by librarians, booksellers, and publishers, online and offline alike, is: "what do I read next?" Since 1991, Gale has published "What Do I Read Next?: A Reader's Guide to Current Genre Fiction" and most public and academic libraries of any size have a hard copy, well thumbed by reference librarians, and many public libraries have online access to similar resources, such as FictionConnect. A phone call away for personalized, professional help with no commercial interest, provided by a human voice. Highly recommended. (As is the Aubrey–Maturin series, let me add!)

Algorithmic authorial recommendation engines, incrementally improved by the economic interests of online booksellers, social media Web sites, and search engines include, for a start:

Amazon.com -- provides generic recommendations ("Customers Also Bought Items By") on individual titles and "personalized recommendations" with either only your recent search history or your expressed book likes and dislikes (upon optional, free, registration)

Library Thing allows one to enter up to 200 books for free ($10/year; $25/lifetime for unlimited) and so find similar bookshelves of other readers. Uncanny; "eerily good" matches due, no doubt, to extra selection effort taken by bibliophile catalogers, unlike Amazon's catch-as-catch-can browsing/buying history

Google Sets suggests additional members of any three- to five-item set you might list, e.g. Clive Cussler, Michael Critton, James Rollins, Anthony Horowitz. Not quite there yet for books, but worth keeping an eye on in light of recent commercialization of Google Books. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you like Clive Cussler, may I suggest Brad Thor and Raymond Khoury? Corvus cornix_talk 23:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

governance of france

Where did the French government meet in the late 16th century, particularly that of the city of Paris? The estates general, the governor of Paris, the people responsible for the day to day running of the city, and anyone else. Especially when either there was no king, or none were in the city for a long time. Was there a particular building set aside for such things?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the late 1500's the Estates General weren't held in one location; they were called more like the Reichstags in the HRE; they were called in various cities around the realm. Estates-General_of_France#The_revival_of_the_States-General_1560-1614 lists Estates-General held in such cities as Orleans, Blois, and sometimes Paris. Most cities had a large civic hall of some sort in which to meet; I am sure each Estates used whatever building was most convenient in the city where it met. During the 1500's French Wars of Religion, things were pretty anarchical on a national level; however France seemed to be able to operate because most of its administrative structure was highly decentralized. Each of the various duchies and counties dealt with their own business, with their own courts and the like. Whatever was going on in Paris had minor influence on local administration. The reforms which centralized France's administration, and removed local control over it, really didn't get started until people like Cardinal Richelieu and Cardinal Mazarin reorganized the French state. The actual administration of the City of Paris during the 1500's was the responsibility of the office of the provost of Paris, a rough equivalent of "Mayor" in the modern parlance, and had jurisdiction over the Paris gendemerie and over local civil courts.--Jayron32 18:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other important things to read are Généralité, which were basically taxation districts of France, and Ancien_Régime_in_France#Administration which covers in general terms how France was administerred. There were national-level administrative offices, but these, like Generalites, had limited application and were largely insigificant compared to local custom and privilege. --Jayron32 18:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Day-to-day governance of Paris emanated from the Hôtel de Ville.--Wetman (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmonaut Dmitry Kondratyev

Is there any picture anywhere on the Internet where that guy can be seen smiling? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken here's one [23]. 129.234.53.175 (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's his article: Dmitri_Kondratyev. The two photos there do make him appear to be a rather dour individual, and a Google search returns similar expressions. The source of 129's picture, [24], has many pictures of the man, with only one appearing to show a smile. Buddy431 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me, he doesn't look "dour", he looks businesslike. Take a look at tintypes from the 1800s. Those are seriously dour. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing with sources from multiple languages

When writing a piece (not WP) with sources from multiple languages to an expected bilingual audience, it is appropriate to leave direct quotations in their original language, no matter the language of the piece. My question is are these quotes that differ in language from that of the work left inline, or broken out as separate paragraphs, or if both, when is the difference made? Some links to guides would be appreciated. Thanks, Grsz 11 19:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In academical texts I have seen both used. I guess it depends on the length of the quotation. If it is one or two sentences (or less) then it seems to be left inline, but the use of separate paragraphs for quotes seems to increase with the length of the quotation, although I have also seen examples of very long quotes placed inline. This is just from my own reading experience, unfortunately I don't know of any guide. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's always good to use footnotes to give either the original text or a translation, depending on your expectations of your audience.--Wetman (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The MLA has a specific rule in section 3.7.8[25]. The MLA is a good source to follow. Gx872op (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the MLA? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Gx872op is referring to the stylebook of the Modern Language Association. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch arrest of WikiLeaks supporters

I read in the news that Dutch police recently arrested two teens for supporting WikiLeaks. Doesn't this violate the Dutch constitution and the ECHR's guarantees of freedom of speech? --70.134.49.69 (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were they arrested for voicing their opinion, or were they arrested for suspicion of participating in a DDoS attack? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) It sounds like their "support" ~~was illegal~~ is being made example of (independent of its being "support for Wikileaks"?): "Following the arrest in the Netherlands of two teenagers involved in last week's distributed denial of service attacks against MasterCard, lawyers tell young hackers to be aware of the law." – Deutche Welle WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't say or imply that their behaviour was illegal - we do have a BLP policy! It's OK to say they were arrested on suspicion of something, but absolutely not OK to say that they were acting illegally. DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I did give a source which makes pointed reference to the "illegality" of their alleged actions, though. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it should be noted that the line between "freedom of speech" and "unprotected helping of hostile nations" is blurry in most countries. Nowhere is the freedom of speech absolute, much less on security issues. Different countries have different histories that let them draw that line in different places, for better or worse. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the concept of "unprotected helping of hostile nations" is a peculiarly American concept. The Netherlands is not at war with whatever imagined enemy of the US suc a concept refers to.

I think I understand what you are alluding to when you talk about "different histories" - I believe I saw that concept of an American paranoia due to its history of invading other countries well illustrated in an animated sequence in a film by your renowned filmmaker, Michael Moore. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that "sounds like" is as good a legal shield as "allegedly". —Tamfang (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 15

Luger pistol

How many rounds can a Luger pistol fire before having to be re-loaded? I need this info for an article. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article you've linked to says 8 rounds in the 'feed system' section of the infobox. Dalliance (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source which says a man was shot nine times in the back with a Luger. How would this have come about if only 8 rounds could be fired without reloading? Possibly, the gunman emptied the pistol into the victim, re-loaded, then fired the ninth round into him.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8 rounds in the magazine and 1 in the chamber? This source says "it is not safe to carry an extra one 'up the spout' with a Luger" but not that it is not possible. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could the Luger pistol have used instead a 32-round drum box magazine for the shooting in question?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A 32 round magazine for a semi-auto pistol seems a little excessive. I wonder why the firearm designer thought they needed that much ammo all at once? Googlemeister (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think such a magazine would have made Scorpio and Callahan's dyscalculia all that more believable if the script had read: I know what you’re thinking: “Did he fire 32 shots, or only 31?” Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I’ve kinda lost track myself. But being this is a 9mm Luger, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well do ya, punk?--Aspro (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I took a pistol-handling course some years ago, one point emphasized was: at any pause in a firefight, swap magazines so that the most-full one is in your gun. Because, in all the excitement, you will lose count. Of course Callahan had a revolver. —Tamfang (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once five or six rounds have gone in, Jeanne, I think the firer would probably (usually) have time to stop and reload without the victim escaping. Or perhaps there were two (or more) assailants? --Dweller (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were likely at least five, maybe eight gunmen. I am referring to the Miami Showband killings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the poor dirty? It's not because it's expensive...

I know for a fact that it's not because it's more expensive not to be filthy, since if you have someone with the EXACT same income, let's say a college student whose family isn't sending them any money for whatever reason, nor do they have any valuable possessions, this person will not be dirty like a homeless person who would attend the same institution with the same income. So, what is it? Is it because the "rich poor" kid had a family who instilled not to be filthy into them, whereas the homeless person just doesn't give a shit? Or, is it capability? Or, is it optimism, because the homeless person doesn't have the same prospects for the future as the "richer" poor person with the exact same income and (assume) possessions?

Also, the rich poor take much better care of their stuff, I noticed. If you give a poor poor person an iPhone and a rich poor person an iPhone, even if they have the exact same environment, the exact same income, the exact same possessions, and the exact same routines, the rich poor person's iPhone will look almost new a year later, whereas the poor poor person's will look as if they've been homeless with it for a year. Please explain this difference, thanks.

Note: right now I'm sitting in an absolutely filthy netcafe in a very poor part of Paris. I guarantee you if this same netcafe were in a rich suburb of an American city for whatever reason, it would be sparkling clean even if it had the EXACT same people coming into it, and the EXACT same income and access to labor. Why is this??? Thanks. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought about how difficult it would be for a homeless person to (a) get a bath or shower, (b) buy spare clothes, (c) store them when not needed, and (d) regularly launder them, if they have no money? What would your priority be if you were homeless with no income? Would it be to spend money on food or buying new shirts?

It is a false assumption that a given homeless person would have the same level of income as a given college student. A college student "whose family is sending them no money" obviously has an income in order to maintain themselves while studying. If they didn't have a sufficient income, they would either be dropping out to seek employment, moving back home, or indeed becoming homeless.

And if, by some strange conjunction of circumstances, a person was homeless but had enough income (for example in the form of welfare payments) to satisfy their needs of a higher priority, there is no reason why they would not be "clean". Judging by the clues in your message, you appear to be a reasonably well-travelled American. If your travels ever take you to Japan, you may well discover the "tribe" of (formerly) white collar homeless people who, despite sleeping around subway stations, nevertheless dress neatly in shirt and suit, and polish their leather shoes. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A college student can technically be receiving no money, and still be clean and fed, provided that someone is paying for room and board. It may be easy for the student to forget about that, but the money's coming from somewhere (and it's probably significantly more money than they'd have to spend to rent an apartment and buy groceries on their own).

Sometimes the social services do exist for the homeless to get showers and new clothes. There are groups in Boston that do this, because it can help people get jobs and get on their feet again. But I remember reading news from back where I lived in Florida about a social service organization that was fighting the zoning board in order to expand its operations with shower facilities. And even in Boston, which is pretty good, as far as these things go, there's still not enough to go around, so the organizations focus on the cases that they can help the most. Paul (Stansifer) 15:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the concept you are trying to express with 'rich poor' and 'poor poor' is social class. I also think you do not understand the costs involved in keeping things neat, clean and tidy, both in terms of time and resources. A cafe in a rich suburb will spend more on cleaning because they have a higher income (can afford it), and the (rich) customers in the area can afford higher standards, making it necessary to be cleaner if you want to stay in business. This cafe in a richer suburb will charge more for a cup of coffee than a cafe in a poorer area, and/or will be selling more high-markup pastries. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Maslow's hierarchy of needs for a decent explanation. Taking a bath is a higher order need than being fed. Psychologically, people's lower-order needs must be met before they are prepared to deal with higher order needs. --Jayron32 14:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People with mental disorders, drug addictions etc... are over-represented in homeless groups, and their hygiene priorities might not be following the standard culturally accepted levels. Googlemeister (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be making also a sampling mistake here. You certainly meet enough clean poor people along the day, you just don't notice them, because they don't look like your stereotypical dirty poor. 80.58.205.105 (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sampling bias goes in both directions. How do you know that unshaven dude in tattered clothes isn't an eccentric dot-com millionaire? I think your direction is a lot more common, though, since most wealthy people have to dress nicely in order to keep getting wealthier. Paul (Stansifer) 15:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I question the assumption at the root of this question. Certainly homeless people tend to be dirty, for the obvious reason that they lack access to baths or showers. However, poor people who are not homeless, in my experience, are no dirtier than anyone else. Moreover, I have certainly met quite affluent people who did not prioritize personal hygiene. Marco polo (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also question the assumption. As best as I can tell, 86.161.208.185 is located in France. I'll just lay out my own "original research" on the subject: (1) In the USA, maybe with an exception for children, cleanliness is universal across classes. I know some guys who do manual labor, and even they are pretty clean. (2) I didn't notice anything different when I was in France, but I wasn't on the lookout. (3) Ironically, in the USA, one of our jokes about the French is that rich French people have foul body odor. --M @r ē ino 18:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hygiene is not only in the obvious. "Clean" is not clean enough for the space in which surgery takes place for instance. (Unfortunately the word "disinfection" is spelled incorrectly in this JPEG.) Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand being in a perpetual state of disinfection would most likely not be very healthy. A lot of the microbes on the skin are there for a reason.

Also a combination Marco Polos and IP 86.161.208.185s answers seems to me to be the correct. The OP is comparing apples and oranges in their question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conscientiousness is the key. Caring less about things in general, including hygiene. 2.97.210.25 (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?? Doesn't that mean caring more? (Or is this some weird retro-function of the weird US phrase "I could care less", which actually means "I could not care less"?) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have preceded the above with "The degree of...". 92.28.247.44 (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't make it more true in this case anyway. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Which doesn't make it more true in this case anyway." What is the basis or evidence for making that remark please? You contradict a lot of solid empirical research without any explaination or stated reason. 92.28.247.44 (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OP, would you like to post a photo of this filthy Parisian internet cafe so that we can have a look at it? The dirt may be a ploy by the owner to suggest that her/his prices are so low that they cannot afford to clean the place. 92.24.176.82 (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm poor, and yes, I don't always shower--not as bad as before. Partially it's clutter. Part of it is why bother? Part of it is that it's just a bad habit. Which is strange, because once I'm in the shower, I like it. It feels good to be clean. Also, Europeans don't have as much a reputation for cleanliness as Americans (I'm not European). This article (Hygiene) might help.206.130.174.43 (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gender socialisation.

what is the role of the family

masculinity and feminity are socially produced.assess the role of the family in these two identities.

masculinity and feminity are social and culturally produced roles.structuralists in general maintain that gender roles are taught while biologists argue that masculinity and feminity come naturally by to an individual.41.190.32.115 (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)kundai chaka Reformated. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology of the family is an obvious place to start. Searching for terms associated with your question can yield results! Warofdreams talk 16:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting documentary. Read about it here too. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend Engels for some interesting reading on this topic (links to fulltext in 'External links' section). --superioridad ^(discusión) 21:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University by GRE or other standardized test

Is there a reliable list of universities ordered by their undergraduates' results on standardized tests? Quest09 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

probably not on wikipedia but outside sources like us news collate such data for american universities (and i believe a select few foreign ones, namely canada)(Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC));[reply]

Well, the problem is that I find several similar lists, mainly of entry requirement/university. That makes it difficult to find this concrete list. Quest09 (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if these statistics are collected in the first place. You don't have to declare an affiliation with a particular institution when registering for the GRE, so it's not clear if such a list can even be reliably constructed. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt read GRE, though you asked undergrad. but while im not familar with the GRE, the LSAT data is certainly collated. Schools are ranked in 3-4 tiers (been awhile now so i dont remember) with columns indicating a the LSAT range generally accepted (although of couse standardises scored are not the be all and end all of admissions). Did i atleast partly answer your question?Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be a different scenario. I want to know how the undergraduates of each university perform after completing their studies, not how they were admitted. For me it is clear that more prestigious universities will attract higher grades/scores.Quest09 (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, in that case i dont think they collate that data. Once theyre in, theyre in. With various factors such as grade inflation (and ive talked to lots of people about it, particularly yale graduate students) once yours in it is very hard to get kicked out because it would make the school look bad for a bad decision. You have to almost consciously to something veritably dumb to fail.Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does grade inflation/being in/being kicked out have to do with that? I am asking for a table with GRE grades and university/college attended (before getting the GRE grade). Quest09 (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im telling why they dont haev a reason to collate it.Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Universities don't have to collect and publish anything. GRE is an independent test, administered by ETS. They could be collecting and publishing such information. However, that could make some universities look bad.Quest09 (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THINGS WORKED IN A MEDIEVAL BARONY

In medieval europe, a baron would obviously rule his own barony, and farmers and peasants would work on his land in trade for his protection and such.

1) Would a baron let his subjects (can I use this word here? or did only kings have subjects?) keep much of what they produced, whether it be food, things of metal, leather, stone, wood etc. in addition to pay them wages? Or would he more likely take everything they produced for himself, gaining more for himself through trade and such, leaving his subjects to fend for themselves with the little wages they got?

2) A baron could not protect his own barony on his own, so he needed men-at-arms. Unless I'm mistaken men-at-arms were almost always professional soldiers but not necessarily of noble origins, so where did they live? Did they live in the walled mansion or near the mansion of the baron himself, or did they simply live anywhere across the barony, much like the other peasants?

3) Let's say this barony was very close to the nearest city, would many of the workers who worked on his land still live on his land or would they be more likely to live in the city?

4) 1000 acres. A patch of land of this size, how useful could it be for a medieval baron? It depends a lot of course on the structure and fertility etc. of the land, but lets say it's a fairly fertile land and thus good for agriculture. Then could 1000 acres be big enough to grow several types of grain, as well as vegetables and to raise livestock? Or would this land simply be TOO small? I figure that livestock also would need a lot of space for grazing, which means meadows and/or pasture. Perhaps space would not necessarily be an issue at all, and perhaps there would also be room for other things, such as mining or a quarry? or perhaps I have to increase the land-size to 2000 acres to make all this work? As i said, I understand that the structure of the land is very important, but I'm wondering if all of this would be possible or likely on 1000 acres in medieval europe, or perhaps 2000 if the former is to small. I know 1000 acres wasn't all that big, but could this lord make great profit and live well on this land?

Although I usually consider myself reasonably intelligent, I'm far from great with numbers and I have been finding it hard to grasp the whole acre and land-size thing when reading about it. But if I have finally gotten it right then 4000,000 (four million) square metres ROUGHLY equals 1000 acres. That means that a land of 2000 x 2000 metres or 2 km x 2 km is 1000 acres, ROUGHLY, not too far away anyway.

Krikkert7 (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The primary unit of the manorial system was the manor. The Lord of the Manor was the primary owner of a manor, but he was likely not a baron. The actual baron likely controlled a territory of hundreds of manors, either directly or via mesne lords granted administration of parts of the baron's realm via subinfeudation. The barons had little contact with, and little control over, the management of individual manors. The system that tied workers to the land was Serfdom. One of the rights of a serf was the right to work a portion of the land for their own sustenance. This may have meant (and I am making this number up, just to get an idea) that one acre in ten that a serf was expected to work was considered his, so he would get the produce of that one acre, and the other nine would be granted to the Lord of the Manor. The Lord of the Manor was not the tenant-in-chief, so he had to pay a large amount of grain up the heirarchy until it reached the baron; the baron himself would use the produce to feed his men-at-arms OR to sell and pay the King for his service (see bastard feudalism). The actual Lord of the Manor may have paid one or two guards to watch over his land, but this came out of his personal cut. Back to serfs: Serfs lived on the land itself; even if they lived close to a city (there weren't more than like 2-3 cities in England at the time. After London and York, most were miniscule) there wasn't much for them to do, nearly all of the work in a city was carefully controlled by guilds, such that people couldn't just show up and find a job. --Jayron32 17:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were far more than "2-3 cities in England". See the list of cities in the United Kingdom for ones created during this era, or existing since "time immemorial". Of course, they were far smaller than cities today (St David's excepted), but much more important than their population might suggest. List of towns and cities in England by historical population gives an idea of historical populations. York wasn't even the second-largest city in England for much of the Medieval period. Warofdreams talk 16:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)

1. Would be usually yes for peasants, but not so much for serfs. This could of course vary from barony to barony. Since barons had a lot of leeway in the amount of fees and taxes they could levy, they would recoup varying amounts.

2. I really don't know the answer to that, but I would guess that they would mostly be in the vicinity of the baron himself.

3. Serfs would probably have been forced to live on his land. Peasants had much more in the way of choice on where to live, and could have moved to the city if they wanted.

4. 1000 acres of fertile land would probably have been enough to support a village (two if they were not too big), but probably not an entire barony, even a poor one. Googlemeister (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] To answer your questions in order:

1. See Serfdom and Feudalism. Jayron is right to distinguish between lesser lords and barons, who were lords who typically (though not always) controlled several lesser lords. A lord's subjects could include both free yeomen and serfs. Yeomen were generally free to buy and sell the products of their labor as they pleased, though they owed an annual tribute or rent to their lord. Serfs, on the other hand, had to deliver a substantial percentage (20% or more) of their produce to their lords and generally also had to perform obligatory labor on the lord's own lands, from which the lord kept all income. Serfs spent most of their time working on the land and generally did not have time to produce goods for sale (during the medieval period). How the proceeds from any craft production were divided could vary from manor to manor, as could the terms of yeomen's and serf's obligations.

2. Barons did not necessarily have men at arms, particularly small landholders. They were themselves supposed to be militarily able, as were their sons and so on. The more powerful barons would have a cohort of knights and might be able to draft peasants for military service in an emergency.

3. City dwellers were typically exempt from obligations to local barons, except for the payment of taxes if the baron controlled the city. Peasants and other farm workers typically lived in villages set apart from cities.

4. One thousand acres is not a great deal of land, and hardly enough to support a powerful baron. This would be enough to support a minor lord rather modestly. You are right that 1000 acres is about 4 square kilometers. A typical estate would include both cropland and forest (for timber, fuel, and other uses), and 1000 acres could support a modest village of peasants and a minor lord's manor.

Marco polo (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that it is very difficult to make general claims about a period of time that spanned 1000 years over a very varied continent. But as a rule of thumb, 90% of the population had to work as farmers to feed medieval society. Even assuming everybody else ate 10 times better than the average peasant, that would leave nearly half the food amongst the farmers. I have a dim collection that overall taxation for serfs was about 40% (10% for the church, 30% for the feudal hierarchy), but don't remotely recall the specifics of time and place. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey tnx ! All of your answers I found extremely helpful, and your answers all came so quickly too - maybe because the middle ages is so interesting to many of us..? And you not only answer but you explain why and how, as well as giving me some useful links I sure will read. Thanks alot. I'm very grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikkert7 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't caught this the first time, but in question 4, livestock was not a major part of the agricultural economy in England (it was a part of it, but not as significant as, say, grains) until the enclosure movement which all but ended the manorial system as a viable economic system. --Jayron32 20:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manorial subjects had access to Common land for their livestock and often had other rights too. This[26] page which suggests that manorial tax (in England) was in the form of labour to the tune of 3 days a week. Tax to the church was called the Tithe and was indeed 10% of produce. Alansplodge (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to echo Stephan Schulz and remind everyone that over many centuries and in a place as big as Europe, there is no general answer. And one barony did not always work the same way as the neighbouring barony, even in a very small area in one specific time period. And what is a baron, anyway? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not exactly what you asked about, but I've been doing a bit of reading on the Swiss villages. The Swiss did have Barons, and other nobles, but evolved into a Federal Structure with some local nobles and a wide variation in local freedoms. They had vogts which translates to count. From the WP page on Vogt, "A Landvogt ruled a Landvogtei, either representing a sovereign canton, or acting on behalf of the Confederacy, or a subset thereof, administering a condominium (Gemeine Herrschaft) shared between several cantons. In the case of condominiums, the cantons took turns in appointing a Landvogt for a period of two years."

In exceptional cases, the population of the Landvogtei was allowed to elect their own Landvogt. This concerned Oberhasli in particular, which was nominally a subject territory of Bern, but enjoyed a special status as a military ally.

For the local administration, almost every village had a Bürgergemeinde that owned common land and some property in the village. The Bürgergemeinde chose who and how often they could use the common land and also may have had local power to fine residents for minor infractions. So, the Bürgergemeinde provided a local government, but only had authority over common property.

At the next level, many villages had a wide variety of local landlords. These were generally local nobles, churches, monasteries and even powerful merchants from the cities. It is not unusual to find that in a village with less than 100 people, the houses, farms and fields were owned by several different landlords. The landlord, just a today, was owed a certain rent at a certain time (I'm not sure how much). The village could sometimes buy itself out from under the landlord. In which case, the village became it's own landlord.

The village would also have a lord or city-state that had the low justice and maybe the high justice right. Low justice dealt with things that would be misdemeanors, and high justice dealt with major or capital crimes. The village could have 2 different courts with 2 different lords and 2 different sets of laws depending on the type of crime. For example, in Aargau, the Swiss drove the Austrians out in a war. But Austrian overlords retained the low justice rights, while Swiss Confederation bailiffs held the high justice right, even though they were often at war. Each court, of course, got to collect the fees that they levied against the convicted.

Each village was also part of a parish, and paid taxes to the parish. Sometimes the parish collected both church taxes and separate tithes. The local parish might also collect taxes, but have a higher church or monastery for which the collected tithes and then sent the tithes up the chain to the higher spiritual authority.

Each of these groups (landlord, court and parish) could all be located in different villages or towns. All of these conflicting lines of authority meant that you could get some really confusing lines of command. For example in the League of the Ten Jurisdictions, there was a town called Maienfeld that was both a ruling member of the new Canton (State) and also a minor village under the rule of the ruling members of the new Canton. It made decisions as a ruler that affected how it was ruled.Tobyc75 (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What distinguishes two identical objects?

Consider two identical, uniform spheres placed on a table in separate, identical holders. If I were to remove the spheres and switch their positions, so that holder "A" now contains sphere "B" and vice-versa, can it be said that the spheres have "moved" and that the sphere in holder "A" is a different sphere? Does it make any difference whether the replacement of the spheres occurs in the presence of an observer? --68.40.57.1 (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An ill-posed question, flawed in so far as the notion that two balls could be made so as to be identical or indistinguishable is unlikely (if enough measuring equipment is thrown at the problem). Can it be said? Certainly, if we're told that it has happened and we believe the teller. Not with any reliability if we lack the instruments to detect the differences between the two spheres. If in the presence of an observer (if we may interrogate her and get honest replies), the difference is that we can say with certainty that the move happened or did not, even were we to lack the instruments. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for elementary particles, this identity holds, at least in our current models. It does not make sense to speak of "this" and "that" electron, or even hydrogen atom (assuming both are ¹H). They are truly indistinguishable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

68.40.57.1 -- This question actually is very significant in quantum theory, where there's a difference between "bosons" and "fermions"; see article Identical particles. However, it's hard to see how this could meaningfully apply at the macro level with the degree of exactness that would be needed... AnonMoos (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actual problem posed involves large objects comprising billions of atomic components. And it is stated that the two objects are identical. Bus stop (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there's doubt as to whether that's at all realistically possible... AnonMoos (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely a question of perception. Ignoring the quantum problems of identifying identical bosons and stuff like that, there is the question of what it means to be "identical". Literally, for any macroscopic object, there cannot be two objects which are identical down to their atomic structure. There is always some means, given an arbitrarily precise ability to examine the details of two objects, to be able to distinguish between them. This is merely a question of, psychologically, how close do two objects need to be for a person to reasonably judge them to be identical, that is without special equipment, what sorts of differences are likely to go unnoticed or ignored by a typical person when judging "identicalness". --Jayron32 18:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why can there not be two such objects? Granted, it's very improbable. But I don't see why it's impossible. Note that even a probability of exactly zero doesn't necessarily make an event impossible. --Trovatore (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you can't copy the original without changing it (the act of measuring changes the state of the measured item). The No-cloning theorem deals with states that contain superpositions, and the Uncertainty principle prevents complete measurements. Ariel. (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about copying? Jayron's claim was not that there was no reliable way to manufacture the objects; it was that they couldn't exist, which is another matter altogether. --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If no known process can create them, then they cannot exist. Ipso facto. --Jayron32 23:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's complete nonsense. --Trovatore (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, but a switch has happened somewhere from the idea of accurately copying one object onto the other, and nature happening to make two perfectly identical objects without any copying process. 81.131.2.192 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trovatore: Where would you get identical objects from? You claim they exist, but provide no means by which they can exist. --Jayron32 23:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Trovatore here: Just because humankind does not have the capacity to create a certain object, in no way means said object cannot exist. There are all manner of things that science has not yet explained and cannot replicate, but they sure as hell exist, which is why scientists scratch their heads about them in the first place. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That;s not the point. I am not asking for methods of human creation. I am asking for mechanisms of any sort. A state of being which cannot happen, cannot happen. It is not more complicated than that. If there is no means to have, in existence, two identical macroscopic objects, then there is no means to have them in existence. To say "They cannot exist, but they can exist" is a nonsensical tautology. I've never said that two identical objects could not be manufactured by humans. I have always maintained that the problem is that two identical objects cannot exist. --Jayron32 01:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't said yet why you think they can't exist. Ariel introduced the idea that an exact copying process could be impossible, and Trovatore said "who said anything about copying?", and six posts later here we still are. Who said anything about copying? 213.122.43.105 (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They cannot exist because there is no means by which to have two objects, each made of many gajillion atoms, exist in such a way that every single atom and subatomic particle within it is in the same set of conditions, and to maintain identical conditions for a non-trivial amount of time. Even if we could cause two such objects to wink into existance by, like, praying really hard for them, if they exist in different points in space, like say one in my right hand and another in my left, then they are exposed to different sets of conditions which will, pretty much instantly, make them unique from each other. There's no means to have identical objects which exist for any amount of measurable time. --Jayron32 01:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if, just by chance, they come together in an identical way, and then, just by chance, their histories proceed identically? --Trovatore (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, you really need to be more precise with your statements. If no known process can create them, then they cannot exist. Ipso facto: if you didn't actually mean anything remotely like that - and it's now clear you didn't - then better not to have said that in the first place. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why anybody here is making pointless remarks about whether or not two identical spheres could actually be manufactured. That's entirely irrelevant to the question, which is namely: if two objects are indistinguishable except in one parameter (position, above), and that parameter is then exchanged between the two, have the objects been transformed? And does it matter if the exchange is continuous (observed, in the original example) or discrete? --68.40.57.1 (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone asked a question about the comparative biological properties of unicorns and mermaids, would skepticism about the premises of the question also be "pointless"...? AnonMoos (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this is not a question of physics (although it has a manifestation in physics) so much as it is a question of philosophy. And with such questions, it is frequently necessary to look beyond the immediately observable. See e.g. Theory of Forms. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP's second statement. Actually, someone already answered the question, but let me relink it. Describing what happens to your spheres depends on whether they are fermions or bosons, see Identical_particles#Fermions_and_bosons. Fermions obey the pauli exclusion principle while bosons do not. --Jayron32 19:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also that the two spheres are not identical in not being in the same place at the same time, and in general have different histories in spacetime. Depending on your purposes, this might not matter, in which case both configurations of the system look identical to me. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One definition of "identical" is that two objects are identical if they share all of the same properties. In your example, you are talking about two objects that do not share ALL the same properties (i.e. location in space, relationship to the table, relationship to the holders, etcetera.) The observer is irrelevant in this view. Greg Bard (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why they're doing that, it's because the question is difficult and they want it to go away. :) 81.131.2.192 (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to the Ship of Theseus problem, and the issue of whether objects are qualificationally identical (two iPod Touch 16GB units for instance) and numerically identical (actually the same physical item). ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 23:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This reminded me of an amusing comic which I think touches on the different ways in which people will fail to see eye to eye on this problem. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue that comes up in a book I'm currently working on. The argument I make in the book is that for macroscopic objects, an identity is basically a label that people attach to a portion of the world. Our ability to attach these labels in a consistent way depends on certain types of continuity that hold up pretty well for many objects that we deal with, such as people and animals. When continuity breaks down, though, our ability to assign identities breaks down along with it. Looie496 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has gone a bit far afield from the OP's question, though not in an uneducational way. But identical spheres can certainly exist in the realm of mathematics, so maybe keep the discussion there rather than in the physical world. The OP stated that he was going to take these objects and switch them. So the OP knows that they've been switched, hence there will always be at least one "observer" to this hypothetical switching. And if there are other eyewitnesses, or better yet, video recordings, then it could be demonstrated that they've been switched. However, if the two objects were truly identical, as mathematical spheres with identical radii and no form of labeling would be, then there would be no obvious way, beyond witness and video testimony, to "prove" that they had been switched. One of Steven Wright's jokes is coming to mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has extensive articles on [the problem of identity] - whether two things are the same or not. Links to related entries can be found at the very end of the article. From a quick perusal, it is clear that philosophers have no clear answer to the question (do they ever?). Whether the two spheres are identical depends on which identity predicate you are using. However, there are many identity predicates that do distinguish them, and in particular they can be distinguished by their different histories. 84.239.160.59 (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not entirely related, but there is a theory going around in Physics recently that at the end of the universe, when everything has run down, all matter broken apart and all enegy reduced to a widely spread background, there will be no way to measure either size or time, nothing to consider either relative too any more, and so the infinately large universe an infinite time into the future will simultaneously be infinitely small and will have existed both forever and only an instant. 85.210.119.178 (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angels

Once, James Madison said:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither internal nor external checks or controls on government would be necessary.

What did he mean by that statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.63.234 (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need more of the quote to start making sense of it. It goes on:

In framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

I think the meaning then becomes evident ... internal and external checks are unnecessary since the angels govern (and presumably are omniscient and hence hard to fool and impossible to evade). --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's more refering to angels, as agents of God, are incapable of wrongdoing. Thus, according to Madison, if man were incapable of wrongdoing, government would be unnecessary. If angels governed, we could trust them to govern perfectly. However, since men, who are known to commit wrongdoing, are both the governed and the governing, both need to be watched. Its an elaborate statement on Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? --Jayron32 23:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angels incapable of wrongdoing? What about Lucifer? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Judaism there is no such being. Angels have no free will, and can only do what God says. There is Satan, but he is more like a prosecutor - he's not evil, he's just doing the job God assigned him. Ariel. (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the Lucifer story is extrabiblical for Christians too. --Jayron32 23:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Judaism there is no such being— I am missing the relevance of this comment, since I am reasonably sure that Madison was not Jewish. Marnanel (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible mentions disobedient angels. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/genesis/6-4.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/jude/1-6.htm)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All maybe true. But the literal truth of disobedient angels is irrelevent to the discussion. When one says "He's an angel", what does one mean about the subject's behavior? --Jayron32 23:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you can reject Newtonian physics so completely on the science desk (so as to say that the question about the possibility is meaningless, when we have articles on the subject) and then entertain hypotheticals about beings for which there is no evidence beyond mythology here to such an extent that you are willing to generalize over the details of the mythology in question. I'm not complaining, because your answers on both desks are tremendously helpful. But from my point of view you can prove anything with a contradiction, so anything is consistent once a contradiction is accepted. However, I would just like to point out that the government theorists who tried to found their principles on fewer contradictions may have been substantially more consistent. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a completely different sort of question. One is asking about Madison's quote and its context. Given that Madison has left a COPIOUS record regarding his opinions and attitudes vis-a-vis the formation of the U.S. state (see Federalist Papers for one), one needn't run through an exhaustive theological discussion over the nature of angels in various religions to understand what Madison meant. What Madison meant is that people are imperfect beings, and so are their governments, which is why there is needed a series of checks and balances upon the government. Whether or not Angels are perfect, or whether Lucifer was an angel, is completely irrelevent to understanding Madison's quote above. The Newtonian universe question on the science desk is like asking "What if the sun really revolves around the Earth". Making that assumption requires us to ignore a whole shitload of observations we know to be verifiable. It's as good as saying "It's all magic". Completely different sorts of questions --Jayron32 03:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one viewpoint which is relevant to the question.

Who Really Rules the World? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site

—Wavelength (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? That's hardly relevant. You and schyler need to stop sticking this junk on the reference desk. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed sort of relevant, especially given the direction things took above it: the argument seems to be that this world is ruled by a disgruntled Angel = the Devil (along with a host of like-minded angels/devils), and gives Biblical references to support that notion. Madison, it appears, was therefore sloppy in his choice of words – we are ruled by "angels", but they're of the kind that require checks-and-balances! ;) BTW, I thought that JW material was much better written and coherent than what I have previously been handed on the street, which is good, it was interesting, but I agree it shouldn't be handed out here unless it is at least as relevant as it was in this case.) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Madison literally believed in the existence of angels and/or whether angels literally exist, is not really the point. He was metaphorically saying that if people were perfect beings, government would not be needed. They aren't, so it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I point out that Madison's arguments don't actually prove that people have to be perfect beings to do without government? They prove (if you accept his premisses) that if men were angels they could do without, but don't actually demonstrate that being angels is necessary, merely that it might make it easier... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read it that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madison proves (if you accept his arguments) that (a) angels can do without government, and (b) if men have government, they need checks and balances. He doesn't actually prove that men need government, he merely takes it as self-evident. Or if he doesn't, where does he show this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Since men are not angels, government is necessary. Seems pretty clear to me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you need to review our article on denying the antecedent. Compare "If I were a dog, I would like aniseed. Since I am not a dog, I don't like aniseed." In fact, I do like aniseed, but that's all right, because the argument is a fallacy. Marnanel (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding sentences are no less relevant to understanding:

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels ....

Madison takes it as given that the state is necessary; else he (and the intended reader) wouldn't bother debating how to design it. That necessity is the minor premise of the syllogism, not the conclusion. The conclusion is "men, even governors, are not angels" (and a constitution must take that into account). Madison probably knew what's wrong with denying the antecedent even if Bugs doesn't.

The rhetorical question can also be read as saying that the state is a product, rather than a remedy, of men's sinful nature. Anyone who wants to debate that possibility with me is welcome to post a comment on my blog; it would be inappropriate here. —Tamfang (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there evidence that perfect beings do not need to be governed?

—Wavelength (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to take Madison's statement in the context of the hot political theory of his day, that of the social contract, especially as envisioned by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Madison, and his collegues, saw the role of government in shaping the sort of society which was living under it. Witness his contemporary Thomas Jefferson's view of man's perfect state being the agrarian society, and his desire to establish a state to foster it. The two-sided recognition that a) the source of America's problems was the poor governance of Britain and thus b) The source of America's glory would be good governance was a driving factor in establishing the right government during the founding years of the Republic. His statement is meant to be allegorical or aphoristic. Again, it's not whether or not real perfect beings could exist, or whether they really would not need to be governed. The statement would have been understood under the context of the time to mean exactly that. Whether such statements hold up to modern thinking, or scrupulous logic, or anything else is still irrelevent. His audience would have been familiar with social contact thinking, would have understood and accepted the arguement on the role of government as a valid arguement in that millieu, and it was effective for that reason. You cannot subject the statement to such a level of overanalysis and expect it to be understood the way it should be understood. This isn't about arguing with Madison; that's not really what the OPs question was about. This is about explaining what Madison meant, not testing the veracity of his statements, merely explaining them. --Jayron32 19:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the line of thought is like this: If people were perfect, we wouldn't need taxation. Everyone would contribute enough in charity to pay for schools, healthcare, and the like. We wouldn't need a military or police because people would never engage in war or criminal activity. We wouldn't need laws, because everyone would always do the right thing without needing a fear of punishment to do so. We wouldn't need courts, because everyone would respect each other's person and property. And so on. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we have established that if by "angels" Madison meant the good kind, they would govern us well without requiring any restriction by us on their actions in doing so. But since we are not angels-of-the-good-kind and must govern ourselves, it's a good idea for We, the People to have some accountability of ourselves to ourselves built into the framework of our self-government. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The slipperiest part is the "do the right thing" statement. You would first have to get universal agreement on what "the right thing" is in a given circumstance. The catch is that there is no such universal agreement. That's why laws are needed, to define what the consensus of the citizenry presumably is for "the right thing". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's mistaken, but off-topic. —Tamfang (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mistaken, and it is on-topic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bugs is saying something like that you have to have a band if you're going to have a dance, and if so I agree. What is required, or not, for angels to dance remains a mystery, but that's okay, because it is not relevant to the question of how to set up a framework for self-governance that works. What we need as a self-governing society is a government that plays the music that we like to dance to best. That way we can all have as much of a good time as possible without stepping on each other's feet and stumbling into each other all the time. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs: The topic is what did Madison mean by that?, which has a reasonable chance of being resolved here, not is coercive government necessary?, which won't be ~~as I will now proceed to prove~~. But to the narrow point: Disagreement on "the right thing" is a better reason for trying multiple solutions in parallel than for compelling everyone to follow the same one.

WikiDao: More feet are stepped on in the name of choosing the music than in all other human activities combined. —Tamfang (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Define "coercive". Or do you mean simply "compelled to obey the law"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Define "law". Or do you mean simply "that which the biggest bully will compel you to obey"? —Tamfang (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We may assume that we would all like as much Liberty for ourselves as is consistent with not unduly restricting the Liberty of others (I think someone said that; can't find the source right now.) We want of government that it implement that as well as possible, and given that we're all human we'd better write some checks-and-balances into the framework of that government. Everyone must dance, or else must leave (unless you are the entire South, in which case you must dance). Alternatively, if you don't like the music, you can arrange a private room in which to rest. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 16

When did Germaine de Staël begin?

When did salonist Germaine de Staël open her salon? I have not found the exact year. Was it 1786, as she married that year? --85.226.41.42 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bright line between a formal salon and having people over for discussion on a semi-regular basis. At that time in France it wouldn't be unheard of for an unmarried literary woman to entertain acquaintances, but if the criteria is advertising to strangers, your suspicion is probably well-founded. Being married to an ambassador is a difficult job with heavy social responsibilities, many of which can be taken care of more easily by scheduling periodic parties in the living room. It was no later than 1791 when she moved back to Paris from Switzerland per the chronology in the external links, as I'm sure you saw. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obama + the GOP

How can the GOP be certain the bill they passed will continue to advance through the system in the same form they passed it -- can't Obama do a line item veto? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The President is not allowed to do a line item veto. It's all or nothing. And if the House passes similar legislation, a conference committee will be formed to get the bill into a shape that both houses can agree upon. If the House votes it down, it's done. And if the House + Senate pass a bill Obama doesn't like... then it's all or nothing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congress had passed the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 under, and of course with the approval of, Bill Clinton in 1996). That allowed the president to line item veto certain limited text within bills, mostly pork barrel type things (I don't remember all of the qualifications, but one was any part of a bill that "benefited fewer than 100 people"; our article doesn't have them, so I'll have to do some digging). But it got shot down by the Supreme Court in 1998, because they said that giving the president that sort of power would require a constitutional amendment. That's why you get some of this crazy shit with bills being used to pass entirely unrelated items. My favorite example is still that one senator from Nebraska who refused to approve of the healthcare bill until his state got special treatment under it. But back to the question; as of right now, the president can't, and it would take a constitutional amendment to give that power. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason, presumably, has to do with separation of powers. Some (or perhaps many) of the individual states allow some form of line-item veto by their Governors. At the federal level, it would theoretically give the President too much legislative power. I expect the founding fathers did not anticipate these mammoth bills or they might have addressed it. But there's always the Amendment option - which sounds like a good idea until your own state's "pork barrel" funding gets cut. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm from Connecticut, so it's not like we get much help; instead, we get a guy who chairs the Senate Finance Committee and evades his taxes while watching the economy get run into the ground. You should have seen the ad campaigns for the Senate seat in Connecticut this year; it was really quite amusing to see a guy who lied about his military service and a woman who pays pituitary freaks to dress in spandex duke it out. I do have to give credit to the Alaskans; they know how to get their people in position. I daresay that if such an amdendment got to the states by either means, Alaska would not be passing it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat related to the failure to get anything done on a term-limits amendment. The Presidential limit was passed by Republicans in the wake of the FDR 4-termer... and which they discussed repealing once their buddy Ronnie got into office. The problem with term limits is that everyone would be quite happy to have other states have term limits, but "you better not mess with my representatives!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Line item veto is one of those core constitutional questions that came up in a mildly political context, and the opinion that struck it down (Clinton v. City of New York) is a textbook Constitutional law case. Without revealing my personal opinion on the issue, I find some of the opinions in the case surprising coming from their particular sources. That said, there are powerful arguments on both sides... this is a fundamental structural constitutional issue about how laws are passed... little else is so fundamental to how a government operates. As for the OP's broader question... it's just politics. Getting indignant about this sort of thing is 99% of the time either posturing or extreme naivete. I'm not sure which is worse. Shadowjams (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Maid of the Mist exclusive?

Is the Maid of the Mist exclusive, or can any boat tour that area? Ariel. (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the answer is that the company or companies that run those tours have licensing agreements, but I'll look into that. Of course, there are practical considerations: How would you get the boat there in the first place? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the same way the existing boats were gotten there. After some googling I found that the Maid of the Mist VII was brought in in 14 sections and assembled on-site. I don't know if different procedures were used for the older boats. --Anonymous, 14:10 UTC, December 16, 2010.

Yes, that's how they got there. The issue is, where would you assemble the new ones and where would you "park" them? If they don't have a license to operate, they might well be confiscated. And considering the danger of navigating near the falls, along with the need for international cooperation, the justification for restrictive licensing is fairly obvious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I googled [maid of the mist licence], and this interesting article came up.[27] It seems that there is indeed an exclusive license, and also there is controversy about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japan - The Emperor's Birthday

1) What do people do on this day? 2) What do kids do? 3) What clothing do people wear? 4) What kind of food does people eat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.126.19.174 (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Start with The Emperor's Birthday and see where it takes you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all people do nothing special. Oda Mari (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. As far as I remember, it's a day like any other, except for the (relatively) few who decide to visit the Imperial palace - it's one of the two days in the year when it's (still in a limited capacity) open to the general public. There they can crowd, hear the Emperor address them, and if they are lucky maybe even get a blurry snapshot of him waving. But that's really it, for the general public at large it's just a day like any other. To me personally it's the day the Embassy here in Slovenia throws a reception to which I am for some reason every year invited, and I can hobnob with the elites of the country for an evening :) TomorrowTime (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What countries keep the exact number of their executions a state secret and why?

I know I have asked this before, but the results were inconclusive, so months later, I ask it again: What countries keep the exact number of their executions a state secret and why? As in "yes we execute, but we can't tell you how many we execute per year"? A good example would be China, who executes up to around 1000 to 4000 people a year, but the actual number is a state secret. In a search I did a long time ago, all I found were China, Iran and Mongolia. Apparently, Belarus, the last European country to still have capital punishment, has not released a number of executions for some time, but I have been wondering for a long time now: How many countries (and which ones) keep the exact number of their executions a secret and (if applicable), why?. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much as has been answered before, the question is inherently unanswerable. "Not correctly reporting the number of executions" (which we cannot determine with any reasonable degree of fidelity) is effectively equivalent to "We're just not going to report anything". The answer lies somewhere between 0 and the number of countries in the world, as even those which have foresworn capital punishment could be conducting it in secret. That's the nature of a secret, after all. — Lomn 14:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No my question was of all the countries that are known to conduct executions keep the number of executions a secret. i'm not talking about secret executions... Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You twice asked "[what|how many] countries keep the exact number of their executions a state secret?" Asking which countries acknowledge keeping an execution count secret is a different question. In principle, this one is answerable, though I'm not sure it holds in practice. For instance, your Belarus example: our article notes that the government has not released official documentation since 2006. Is that a formal acknowledgment that they're keeping it a secret, or is it an implicit claim of zero executions? A quick survey of our article on the use of capital punishment by nation suggests that the People's Republic of China is the only nation that specifically claims its execution statistics to be a state secret. — Lomn 14:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so most probably only China keeps the exact number of executions a secret. The question would now be: why? Is it for national security, or to prevent organizations like Amnesty International from criticizing them? I'm sure there could be other countries who also keep the exact number of their executions a secret, mainly communist ones like North Korea and Vietnam. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at the article Lomn showed me, apparently the only other country that keeps the exact number of their executions a secret is Mongolia, and even then, they carry them out in secret, so it seems China may be the only country in the world that admits executing people but doesn't disclose the exact number. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mongolia has publicly established a moratorium on the death penalty. — Lomn 19:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what he means is "Yes, we perform executions. As to the number and which cases, the official position is: it's a secret"

The guy means, which countries perform executions (we know it, they admit it, and maybe even we know at least 1 of the cases specifically). As to which people, when, and how many in total, that is an official, admitted state secret, i.e. "there's a number, it's more than 1 this year, but we won't tell you how many or which ones".... 82.234.207.120 (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, their admission only implies that there were more than none. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not impossible to add up the number of executions in China each year, it's just bloody difficult for the Western press (and the state-controlled press in China has no inclination to - both because capital punishment is not nearly as controversial in China as it is in the West, and also because the government does not want anyone to go around publishing these numbers). Nowadays executions have to be endorsed by the Supreme People's Court, and all of the Supreme People's Court's decisions are published - just not in the same convenient and accessible format that judgments in, say, the UK, Canada or Australia is. I have no doubt that a major domestic paper, if they could and also wanted to, would be able to find it. It's probably easier to ask for a number from an official rather than employ enough knowledgeable and sufficiently connected people to count up the numbers. It also gets you no results. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another perspective - China realises that executing people is not a good look on the international stage, so tries to lower its visibility by not talking about numbers. What this says about countries that DO execute people and DO want it highlighted on the international stage I shall leave others to discuss. HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was some nice information, but you strayed a little too far from my original question of what other countries aside from China keep the exact number of their executions a secret. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legal question

Wouldn't Assange be more secure in Sweden than in the UK? Sweden is by all means a democracy, with a working legal system, and, although the UK is also one, it is still a junior partner of the US in many cases, and thus, perhaps more prone to cooperation. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UK dont have a reason as yet to punish, so he cant even be put up for trial to be prosecuted over anything. God knows why he doesnt stay celibate when doing such dangerous work, or at the very least stick to wikipeda ;) instead of Giving the police state room for hocus-pocus.(Lihaas (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC));[reply]

Either one probably has a good chance to extradite to the US, so I'm not sure it matters too much. They are both democracies and have "working" legal systems; that isn't really the issue here. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, Assange is much more likely to be charged with a crime in Sweden than he is in the U.S., and it's not even clear whether he can be charged with a crime in the U.S. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just today in the New York Times, there was an article saying that the U.S. was looking into whether they could charge him on conspiracy counts, that he actively solicited and helped Bradley Manning steal the secrets from the government [28]. If this could be proved, it would help a long way in finding him guilty of something in the U.S. If he was only republishing classified documents that he did not solicit or help obtain, the government could pretty much only go after him with the Espionage Act of 1917, a pretty shaky law, legally. Buddy431 (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

theyve talked about treason but numerous external commentators (incl. aus officials), have said thats absurd. he cant have committed treachery to america when he has no loyalty to it in the first place.Lihaas (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Espionage (spying) can be done by anyone. No need to be loyal to anybody. --Lgriot (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that espionage ≠ treason. Googlemeister (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that Sweden's judicial system is based on civil, not common law. Apparently, only this year did they end conscription (Swedish Armed Forces). Seems to me that Swedish neutrality has taken a little beating.206.130.174.43 (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

things to do with the right roommate to increase my quality of living?

Here are two things I could do with a cool roommate to increase my quality of living:
- Subscribe to a daily like the New York Times, splitting the cost
- Cook each other breakfast while the other showers (on alternative days).
What is an exhaustive list of such things you could do with a roommate? (Note: I live in a major, major urban center, and both myself and the roommate/housemate would be working full-time). Finally, what do you reckon my chances are of finding the right/cool roommate? 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could shower together. That's cool and saves energy.80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, that is NOT cool! NOT COOL!! I am looking for real answers, actual things real well-adjusted people would do for each other as roommates, expressly getting together partly to be able to do just this. For example, I think I would not be someone's roommate who wanted, before they have even met me, to find someone to give back rubs to each other with... whether they're a guy or girl, and I'm a guy or girl, looking for that from a roommate (that you're still looking for) is just too much!! I am looking for real answers, please. Thank you. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is cool. Choose a person of the gender(s) that you like. And it can get better. Just see here: [29] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll add an extra condition below, just to rule out shenanigans like this... 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are blurring the line between being roommates and being friends. Then, blurring the line between being friends who live together and being married (as in having joint responsibility for one another). So, all you are asking is, "What are the benefits of getting married?" It won't be hard to search for many lists that do not limit themselves to the legal benefits. -- kainaw ™ 17:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Really, think about an ad for a roommate from someone who ALSO wanted to find someone to split the price of a daily with, and to cook breakfast jointly with, and the difference between an ad looking for a romantic partner or spouse... You don't put up an ad for a "friend"... It just doesn't make sense. Surely you can see that difference. You know, people know the negatives inside and out: you have to do the dishes sometimes (and sometimes the other person). You have to take the trash out sometimes (ditto). You have to clean up the common areas sometimes. etc etc etc. Surely, we are totally missing something if we internalize these chores and negative tasks, without so much as allowing the possibility of increasing the quality of living by the same means. Honestly, do you think that sharing taking down the trash makes you just like a married couple? Seriously, if you don't know what I'm asking about, can't imagine it, or, just can't think about it in social terms, you had better leave this question to someone else... Thanks fro your contribution all the same. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks needed. I like to help. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new condition is, it has to be just as applicable to a roommate of a gender you're not attracted to. (e.g. you're a straight guy, another straight guy, etc.) I think both of my examples are perfect, and I would like more. Thanks. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could film him/her on the shower and upload it to some youtube-like site. THAT would be insanely cool. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that the reference desk is a place where volunteers help to answer factual questions. The question you're asking is more of a brainstorming exercise. I suggest that you find a real person who might be interested in becoming your roommate, and conduct your brainstorming with him or her, to find things to do together that will make you both happier. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, based on the comment you're immediately replying to, it appears the problem is that the reference desk is where everyone lives in their parents basement and films their cousins in the shower when they come over for the holidays! Ugh. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wait a minute, i just realized i'm totally being seriously trolled by 80. You win, 80! Well played, my man, well played. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As always: don't feed the trolls! Quest09 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. I've been on the other side many a time in my erroneous youth, and that man had me livid. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on personal experiences with roommates, the following is my advice:

Roommates are not friends, and are not spouses. Do not have the same expectations of them as you do other relationships. It is a business arrangement, and keep that it mind. That doesn't mean you cannot be cordial, even friendly with a roommate, but don't expect the same sort of relationship you would with a friend. Think of him more along the lines of a coworker. Be freindly when you are around them, maybe even have a beer once in a while, but also don't have any expectation for a relationship outside of the confines of the partnership.
Establish clear boundaries regarding issues such as bills (have a plan in place; either split each bill 50/50, or alternate months, or something), personal space, maintenance of common items, cleaning, guest policy, etc. Be very straightforward with each other, and make and agree on clear expectations on how to handle these things before they become problems.

That's probably my best advice. --Jayron32 18:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say—stay out of each other's way as much as possible. That means physically. But that also means linguistically. Don't ask questions. Don't explore their feelings. Don't inquire of their opinions. Don't share your innermost thoughts with them. Don't even share your outermost thoughts with them. If something doesn't have to be said—don't say it. Silence is golden. Put every physical item back where it belongs. If your roommate doesn't put everything back where it belongs—don't complain about it. Forbearance is an ideal in such a situation. Bear in mind that the situation is beneficial to you—it would be more expensive to live alone. Keep in mind your more distant goals. Be mindful that the present living arrangement is temporarily worthwhile as a furtherance of your goals, and try not to get bogged down in the petty details of whether he leaves your box of favorite breakfast cereal in the bathroom or not. Bus stop (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do strangers really have to share rooms in the US of A to make ends meet? Or is this an Americanism for sharing a flat or apartment? 92.28.247.44 (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Roommate" does mean "flatmate" in the US. (In Canada, I'm not so sure, because of Scott Pilgrim...) Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments above. The chances that you will find someone who happens to want to share a newspaper subscription and/or breakfasts is pretty remote. When I had roommates, I found that it worked best to keep things as separate as possible, right up to separate shelves in the fridge, and a rule that each person cleans his or her dishes as soon as their meal is finished. However, some people are open to sharing meals and food shopping and such. If that sort of thing interests you, you might include a line in your roommate ad like "Looking to share meals, shopping, and household amenities." Of course, then you will have to agree on what foods the two of you are going to buy, cook, and eat, you will have to coordinate your schedules, and you will have to agree on which household amenities you want to share. People are so different in their tastes that you may not find a person with tastes compatible to yours. Your roommate's schedule may also be very different. Even if he or she wanted to cook breakfast while you shower, he or she may need to be out the door by 7:00 to get to work, when you don't have to leave until 9:00. He or she may want oatmeal (porridge) while you want eggs and bacon. Or vice versa. And so on, and so on. So it might be best to just accept that you will share little more than the space. (To user 92.28..., roommate in American English is synonymous with housemate. Is it flatmate in UK English? It is not entirely unheard of to share a room, but usually people have their own bedroom and share the rest of the apartment.) Marco polo (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flatmate if a flat, housemate if a house. (And roommate if literally sharing a room.) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the way you phrase the question, you are looking for mutually beneficial and pleasant ways to interact with potential roommates. You may have luck researching housing cooperatives. Many such organizations will post rules/chore schemes that you may find useful.SemanticMantis (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my Google search for roommate quality living, I found http://offcampus.osu.edu/roommatesearch_safety_tips.asp.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about prohibitions in Sikhism

I was reading the article on prohibitions in Sikhism and I was somewhat confused... I'm not sure if I should be asking this on the talk page, but that seemed more given over to debate on what exactly Sikhism prohibited and I'm more interested in the justificiations. At any rate, two questions are: 1) One of the prohibitions is basically no priestly class, and the article suggests that there is very little formal hierarchy at all. But later on it talks about a certain Sikh being "excommunicated" by "high clergy" -- is there some sort of hierarchy or synod that pronounces on theological questions? Wouldn't that sort be a priestly class? 2) Sikhs are forbidden from eating meat that is ritualistically slaughtered. Easy enough (unless you're in a kosher deli :P). But the article on Jhatka meat states that (at least some) Sikhs only eat meat from animals killed in a specific way -- isn't that ritualistically slaughtered meat too? I understand no prayers/benedictions/anointments/whatever are involved, but if you only kill livestock in one specific way that seems like a ritual to me. I'm not trying to be a smartass, it just seems like sort of a contradiction to me. Thanks for your time. 96.246.68.89 (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply taking "ritual" in one sentence that clearly indicates a religious practice, and then using the word "ritual" in another area where it would mean a repetitious action. Then, you claim the first definition to be the definition of the second term. It is a poor argument of semantics that, when you remove the word "ritual" makes no sense. Sikhs are prohibited from eating meat slaughtered in religious practices. Sikhs can only eat meat slaughtered in a specific manner. There is no contradiction. -- kainaw ™ 20:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These might help. Animal sacrifice in Sikhism (cursory look says only certain sects practce it)and Category:Sikh groups and sects.206.130.174.43 (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic sagas at the time of Christopher Columbus

Would educated people in Spain and Portugal have had access to copies, at the time of Christopher Columbus, of the Icelandic sagas? And hence been aware of the existance of Greenland and perhaps even Vinland. 92.28.247.44 (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say anything about the sagas, but the Catholic Church's reach included Greenland; see, for example, Gardar, Greenland. So somebody in Rome knew about Greenland, but this (as I am sure you know) does not mean it was known in Iberia. But it could have been. The sagas, someone else will come by to discuss, I'm sure. (You might also be interested in the Vinland map.) Jørgen (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly doubt that the sagas themselves were translated into Latin etc. at that time, but it's plausible that certain third-hand nuggets ultimately from the sagas could have been circulating along with information about Greenland, legends of St. Brendan's voyages, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Columbus's connection to Iberia was mainly as a source of funding. He was a Genoese merchant by trade and birth. He would have been more likely to have been inspired by the story had it come to him in Genoa rather than Iberia. --Jayron32 21:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The translation of the Icelandic Sagas into Latin and other languages did not begin in earnest until the 17th and 18th centuries, when Old Norse was "rediscovered" via Iceland and began to be studied by Scandinavian scholars. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The knowledge of lands to the west may have been passed indirectly, rather than directly - for example, through Icelandic mariners' contacts with Ireland, Scotland or Norway, and through them in turn to other countries on the European mainland. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing is this sort of inquiry is all over the historiography of Columbus. But its mainly driven by the desire to show that Columbus really was "searching" for something more than a convenenient trade route to Asia. The real deal is that Columbus likely wasn't searching for anything more than a different route to Asia. Genoa had LONG had control over trade with the Far east, largely through its bases in the Crimea: Kaffa was a major port through which a large portion of "silk road" trade entered Europe. The city was taken over by the Ottomans in 1475. Likewise, Constantinople, Genoa's main route to its Black Sea trading empire, fell to the Ottomans in 1453. So Genoa had been cut off from all of its major trade routes. It needed an alternate way to get to Asia. Hence, Columbus. There's no need to invent a motivation for Columbus to look for a reason to sail the Atlantic; the hopes of a dying trade republic probably were enough. --Jayron32 21:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would happen if the United States Congress all died?

What would happen if the entire United States Congress all died at the same time? (For example, as the result of an asteroid strike, or terrorist attack on the Capitol building, while both Senate and House are in session.) 97.125.81.59 (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Congress is not involved in the day-to-day operation of the U.S. state. It is a legislative body, and it only passes laws. It is the executive branch that is involved in the day-to-day administration of the State. See seperation of powers. What that means is that there isn't anything that Congress does that requires a decision right now. It would be a major problem, don't get me wrong, but not of the "create instant anarchy because all government would shut down" sort of problem. Being that it would be a sui generis crisis, it would require a sui generis solution; the Constitution is silent on the matter. I would suspect that a nationwide special election would have to be called to replace all of the members; alternately in the short term the various state governments could appoint replacements until such election occured. --Jayron32 21:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The first thing we'd do is have a huge celebration. After that, every state has their own processes for installing a representative or a senator, and I'd think they'd go through that. Some have special elections for that purpose, while others (such as Delaware) have the governor select someone to serve for the duration of the term. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Article One, Clause 4 of the US Constitution provides for the case of "vacancies in Representation":

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

If all such vacancies occurred at the same time, if that is what you are asking about, the US government would still function. Celebration? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CELEBRATION!!! Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? That should not be permitted. :| WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other point is that if there was an asteroid strike, there would perhaps be more serious issues facing the USA than the finer points of the constitution... ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 21:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a trivial question, however, if it had been a terrorist strike. It's not unreasonable to come up with scenarios where both chambers of congress are relatively full, and a massive, well-coordinated terrorist attack were to strike the Capitol building and kill or incapacitate nearly all of them. It wouldn't have been impossible to imagine two planes hitting the Capitol rather that the World Trade Center; indeed there is some speculation that the plane that went down in Pennsylvania was going to do just that. I'm sure the government has contingencies for such a situation. Quite sure actually. --Jayron32 21:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are procedures in place to ensure that no ordinary terrorist attack could annihilate the entire Congress... But pointn taken, I guess. ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 21:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, in such an scenario there would be some type of martial law until the normal government working can be restored MBelgrano (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. has no provisions for martial law. Also, because of seperation of powers, the role of members of congress is highly limited with regards to the day-to-day operation of the U.S. apparatus of State. Which is not to say that their loss would not be massively disruptive, if for no other reason than the likely collateral damage, but the actual day-to-day operation of the U.S. apparatus of the state is run through the executive departments, the bulk of whose personel is not concentrated in any one place. --Jayron32 21:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A nuke would be bad. [30] WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or not-so-bad, depending on the nuke [31] (But with just 10-kt, that's still a big chunk of the Federal US gov't if you enter "Washington, DC" at that link). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-9/11 Tom Clancy novel Debt of Honor deals with this, when an embittered airline pilot crashes his 747 into the Congress building during the swearing-in of his hero, Jack Ryan, as the new Vice President; almost all of all 3 branches of government are killed, including most of Congress. Naturally, because Jack Ryan is the incorruptible hero, Ryan saves the country in the sequel, Executive Orders. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read that some years after 9/11, and just reading the first sentences gave me chills down my spine. It was eerie reading that and knowing it was written before 9/11 happened. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Continuity of government. After 9/11, this question was looked at with a bit more urgency, but they never got around to doing anything about it. One of the problems is that the Constitution requires members of the House to be elected -- no emergency appointments as you can have in the Senate. That means that if most of the House were to be taken out somehow, we'd have to wait for new special elections for Congress to do anything. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of COG, what if terrorists destroyed the backup facilities as well? --75.28.52.27 (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they'd be pretty good terrorists then, since those backup facilities are usually secret. The secret bunker at The Greenbrier remained secret for some 30 years. --Jayron32 02:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the OED online so expensive?

You can pay thirty dollars per month, or you can pay three hundred for the year, saving yourself a fin per month. Even so, that's about three times what you'd pay for a Netflix subscription, and quite a bit more than the average private citizen is willing to pay for the pleasure of looking up words. Consequently, they sell a handful of subscriptions to large institutions. Now, I'm no businessman, but wouldn't they sell a lot more subscriptions if they established an alternative price structure for individual, non-institutional subscribers? And wouldn't the increased volume of subscriptions compensate for the fact that each subscriber is paying less? (How do you suppose they determined the price in the first place?) LANTZY ^TALK 22:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key here is that you're no businessman. No, they wouldn't make money, which is why they don't do it. As to why, the reason is that the largest institutions have a fairly inelastic demand, whereas the OED could never compete with Mirriam Webster for the folks who have elastic demand, ie are price-sensitive. In other words: they would hardly pick up anyone, but lose all their institutions monopoly rents. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED used to be a print publication that was the size of a large encyclopedia. It was the kind of thing that few people would want in their house, compared to a Webster's. It was a product with a relatively small market, but with the kind of customers (mostly libraries) that would pay a lot of money for it. Even today, few people are going to pay for an online dictionary when they can use dictionary.com for free. So the OED is forced to live with a small market of potential customers, but customers who are willing to pay very high sums for the product. It's possible that they could reduce the price of the product by 90 percent but only increase their customer base fivefold, leaving them with a lot less revenue. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it must be an either/or. Couldn't they charge one fee for institutional accounts and another, smaller fee for private subscribers? Why would adding a new class of customer cause them to lose their existing customers? I'm sure there are a lot of people who, like me, have a casual, hobbyist's interest in the sort of in-depth lexicography that only the OED provides, but who would rather not have to trudge to the library in order to satisfy that curiosity. As it is, I'm mooching off the library's account and contributing not one cent to the OED's coffers. Inconvenient for me, profitless for them. If not an alternative method of subscription, why not an advertisement-spattered "free version" on the Internet? Maybe these are all silly ideas, but the status quo just seems so capricious and weird... LANTZY ^TALK 23:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always gotten that service for free, most recently by physically going in to my local library and getting an ID number that I can use to access the OED through their website (from physically anywhere thereafter). I think most places just require a valid ID and a couple of pieces of "official" mail addressed to you at your current address. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would suit me just fine. Do you mean that your local library simply confides their ID and password to you? So that you are, in effect, logging in as if you were the library? Or do you mean that you go to the website of the library and somehow tap into the OED through that? LANTZY ^TALK 23:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK public libraries tend to buy subscriptions such that their members can log-in to the OED using their library membership number. If you're in the UK, you should be able to get access. If not ... --Tagishsimon (talk)

I'm in the U.S. My local library certainly has some sort of subscription, because the OED is accessible on their computers. But I don't know whether I can sign in remotely using a library card. I guess I'll have to interrogate one of the librarians. Thanks for the suggestions. LANTZY ^TALK 01:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I can sign in remotely with my library card! I hereby retract all my cantankerous cnawvshawling about the status quo. LANTZY ^TALK 01:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, here in Toronto I just had a similar experience. As far as I know, this feature was added with no publicity when they revamped their web site sometime in the last year or so. Used to be, you went into the branch and from their in-branch startup screen you followed a "List of databases" link instead of the "catalogue" link. This still works. But now from their web site's main screen you can use the regular catalog search on "oxford english dictionary", and the results page includes a link to access the OED Online (using your library card number and PIN). Similarly I can now access ProQuested back issues of two Toronto newspapers via the library from home in the same way, which was the other thing in the "List of databases" page that I used to use from time to time.

I discovered this change by simply noting that it would have suited the philosophy they said was behind the web site revamp, and guessing that it might be worth trying; as I said, I saw no publicity about it. --Anonymous, 14:41 UTC, December 17, 2010.

Glad to hear it, it's a very useful resource. It's well worth asking your library if they have similar arrangements for any other online services - OUP, publishers of the OED, have a wide range of reference works available online. Credo Reference may also be available - you can see a list of what my local library service offers here. If your local library doesn't offer these, write to them and to the council (or whatever local authority is responsible) suggesting they consider improving the range offered. DuncanHill (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton must be a bit of a snobbish area then. They don't mention Wikipedia, nor the Sun and Daily Mail ;-)--Aspro (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK access is near universal. From OED: "Nearly all public libraries in England, Scotland, and Wales — and all in Northern Ireland—subscribe to the Oxford English Dictionary online. ... Most libraries also offer ‘remote access’. This means that, if you are a member of your local library, you can access the OED online free anywhere you have internet access." http://www.oed.com/public/access/public-library-access-from-home See list of all UK public library subscribers here: http://www.oup.com/uk/academic/online/library/available/

I have remote access with my US city's public library card: no central database of US or any non-UK library subscribers -- first link says to the rest of the world, "Speak to your librarian to find out whether your library subscribes." (But when I clicked on that link, thanks to the miracles of browser cookies, I was immediately taken to login page, asking for last name and library card number, for direct access to OED via my library) -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amount present in banks

About how much does the money present in all the world's banks vary (i.e., major or mass withdrawals or depoisits)? What about a nation's? Is the amount fairly constant? If so, about how much is present? 23:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.70.160 (talk)

You may be interested in our article on money supply, which discusses the various forms that "money" can take. The US has a concept of a "reserve requirement" at a bank level (technically, at an FDIC-insured bank level, but that's close enough for jazz) which is the ratio of deposits to reserves. At a national level, the money supply will vary depending on the policies of relevant governmental bodies (in the US, the Federal Reserve Board) and the movements of the national and international economy (stock markets and so forth). The money supply of the world is generally growing in absolute terms (see this US chart, but note that other countries in the money supply article are roughly equivalent), but I don't know what relative growth (i.e. against inflation) would look like. — Lomn 23:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Amendment violation?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/16/district.of.columbia.protest.arrests/index.html

Don't the police's actions in that event violate the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech and peaceful assembly? --75.28.52.27 (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The reference desk will not answer (and will usually remove) questions that... seek guidance on legal matters". AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not one of the accused protesters, nor am I in any way affiliated with any of the accused. I'm asking this purely out of curiosity. --75.28.52.27 (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The justice system will decide that question, assuming it even gets that far. There are any number of possible grounds for the arrests, not the least of which is that the "peaceful" part might have been debatable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Often times in situations like this, a great number of people will be arrested, and then most released without charges soon after. It has the effect of breaking up the protest, without the government having to have a real solid legal standing. At the 2008 Republican National Convention, about 800 people were arrested during the convention, with charges successfully brought against a couple dozen of them [32]. On the final day of the protest, about 300 people were arrested, with all of them subsequently released without charges [33]. Granted, that's at the extreme end of things, and there are a couple lawsuits pending against the police. But as a tactic for breaking up protests, arresting lots of people and letting most of them go is a fairly common, and effective tactic. Buddy431 (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the arrests are intended to keep things under control. They might be a bit quick on the trigger, so to speak, but looking at the riots of the 1960s, it's understandable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The riots of the 1960s were not in any way connected to protests. It is a silly connection to make. The war and Civil Rights protests were organized, peaceful, and pre-announced affairs. The race riots were spontaneous reactions to incidents of blatant injustice in the poorest and most marginalized communities in the United States, and did most of the damage to their own communities. The only thing even slightly comparable is the 1968 Democratic National Convention, which went from being a "protest" to being a "riot" when the police started arbitrarily beating people. Do not confuse the source of violence in the latter, and do not confuse the race riots with protest activity. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From news articles, it appears that the protesters were blocking the sidewalk and were ordered to free it up. Governments are allowed to make "time, place or manner" restrictions on demonstrations so long as they are reasonable an apply equally to everyone. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This brochure from the ACLU outlines some of the limitations on the right to protest in the United States. Permits are required for blocking streets; amplified noise requires a permit. In theory permit-granting is politically neutral. In practice, it's sometimes unclear. This is not a new thing at all, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't large scale arrests of people who are clearly not guilty of any crime, in order to break up a demonstration, a case of false arrest ? And, as such, aren't the arresting officers themselves guilty of a crime ? (I'm not commenting on this specific case, just the general principle.) StuRat (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one were falsely arrested and wanted to pursue it, you can sue the police department in question. I doubt they would hold individual officers, but it could lead to restitution. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your definition of "not guilty of a crime". In many jurisdictions, the threshold at which the police can arrest someone is if they have a reasonable suspicion that a person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime. You do not have to be by any means guilty to be arrested.

Furthermore, in many jurisdictions, there are a bunch of offences which (whether or not they were created for the purpose) are used almost solely for temporarily removing people from locations which the police, rightly or wrongly, fear may develop into violent situations that involve "real" crimes.

A common one is "loitering with intent" - the offence is usually something like a person is staying (loitering) in one place with the intent to commit a crime. A police officer who has a reasonable suspicion that someone is doing this could then arrest that person - and if it turns out they were not intending to commit a crime, they would usually be released.

Other examples include what are known in Australia (and possibly elsewhere) as the "trifecta" - offensive language, resisting arrest and assault (without battery -in practice, any menacing behaviour or threats).

Offences akin to, derived from, or relating to riot can also be used to arrest people in a crowd, and especially if the crowd turns aggressive. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 17

Terrorist attack on Washington

What would happen if there was a terrorist attack on Washington (maybe an atomic bomb) which killed everyone in the federal government? --75.28.52.27 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that there are many people "in the federal government" who aren't physically located in Washington. In the context of U.S. civics, "government" is a pretty vague term, usually used to refer to the state in general. You should probably clarify whose annihilation is being postulated. Do you mean only elected officials, or everyone employed by the federal state apparatus? You'd need one hell of a bomb to wipe out every last mailman and park ranger. LANTZY ^TALK 00:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thought exactly. If the question were narrower, i.e. if everyone in the Presidential line of succession were killed, that would be a bit of a dilemma, although there may be laws covering that possibility also. But realistic fears of that very scenario presumably fed the need for Cheney to be at a remote undisclosed location frequently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, come to think of it, it's simpler than that. Let's suppose that something happened to every representative and senator, every federal judge, and the president and his entire cabinet. Assuming no one else was affected, the individual states' governors could make appointments to fill all those house and senate positions. Now you've got a Congress. The next step would be to determine the Speaker of the House and the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate, who are like the third and fourth in line for the presidency, as I recall. Now you've got a President, who could immediately appoint a Vice-President, a cabinet, and then fill the judiciary with appointments. This might take a little time, but in the interim, martial law would presumably kick in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check on the accuracy of the statement that Governors could immediately appoint new Senators and Representatives. You are wrong. Don't many states require special elections, which might involve primary elections, taking many months? How soon could a quorum be present, in the Senate and House? A new Speaker of the House or President Pro Tem of the Senate could become President, whichever got determined first by one of the bodies of Congress. Edison (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martial law? Why? Most of the lower-level government (ie. the part responsible for day-to-day operations) is still intact, and can carry on through sheer inertia. --Carnildo (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a rep dies, there is a special election for their replacement. Until that election, their seat is vacant. When a senator dies, the governor makes a temporary replacement until a special election fills the seat for the remainder of the term. Until that special election, the seat is only vacant until the governor has appointed a temp. Googlemeister (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For further details, see the section just a little ways up the page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that it would certainly be less disruptive than if the same sort of erasure happened to a dictatorship, or a dictatorship clad in democratic costume, as many African governments tend to do. Highly-concentrated power creates a much more intense void than diffuse power does, and the American government is really rather diffuse. The Masked Booby (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent observation. When a dictatorial cult figure dies, you have major chaos. In the U.S., you have a small amount of chaos, but also a built-in set of processes to take care of things. The Presidency is not a kingship, it's merely a job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Theodore Roosevelt put it - "The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants". Exxolon (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course practically speaking it is hard to imagine the US not actually enacting some kind of emergency (dictatorial) police powers in such an event. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contrariwise, it's hard to imagine anything being "enacted" if no legislature existed. Anyway, we aren't supposed to be imagining or speculating on things here. We're supposed to be providing references. As Schuyler did below. --Anonymous, 17:15, December 17, 2010.

Here's a reference to Tommy Franks saying he didn't think our Constitutional system would survive such an attack. --Sean 17:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity of Operations Plan may be of interest. schyler (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "United States presidential line of succession" and "Designated survivor". Gabbe (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the US a federation? I'm sure that each state specific governors should be capable to deal locally with the crisis until they follow whatever procedure is arranged to appoint a new national government. And in the meantime, the confederated provinces may elect some specific province to manage the international relations in the name of all of them. MBelgrano (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. No member of the federation would have any standing to represent the whole Federation. Individual states have no foreign relations, that is all handled on the federal level. That's why there is the "designated survivor" provision; there is never a time when all members of the Line of Succession are in the same place at the same time. There is always somebody who is a legal Successor to the Presidency who is somewhere secure, just so that, in the event of anything like this happening, there is still a clear, legally designated President who has the power to make decisions and represent the country internationally. Any of the smaller tasks the federal government handles are done in a diffuse manner; the working parts of many Cabinet departments are often not even in Washington DC. --Jayron32 15:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denver Federal CenterDenver Federal Center is located in Lakewood, Colorado and is the home to about 6,200 employees for many Federal government of the United States agencies. The Denver Federal Center encompasses an area of about 670 acres (2.7 km2) and has 90 buildings comprising over 4,000,000 square feet (400,000 m2) of office, warehouse, lab and special use space. There are 26 different Federal agencies on-site, making it the largest concentration of Federal agencies outside of Washington, D.C..206.130.174.43 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date for Japanese painting

Are there any distinguishing features on this Japanese painting which point to when it was made? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a Nishiki-e woodblock print. And here's [34] another print by the same artist(with a similar stabby theme), which is dated 1886. 81.131.20.102 (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the artist's name? The one I looked up Akira Higashi and he turned out to be a modern Ski jumper. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's by Tsukioka Yoshitoshi. 81.131.20.102 (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just know noticed you added the name in your original post. I should probably learn how to read. Thank you for the input. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a painting, but a wood block printing. According to this page, it's one of 42 prints in a series called 新撰東錦絵/shinsen higashi nisikie and created in 1885 and 1886. Oda Mari (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I should probably break my compulsive habit of sneaking in more information through edits. Anyway, I think the name of the series is "New Selection of Eastern Brocade Pictures", ("Brocade pictures" being the same as "Nishiki-e") because that's what I googled (新撰東錦絵) to find the other print. 81.131.20.102 (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MY CAPTION:

"Well, isn't this perfect, you never paid any attention to me, and now I can't even hold your interest while you stab me to death". StuRat (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a hoot, StuRat! This is a fascinating image. The guy holding the knife has stereotypically Caucasian features. I wonder if it reflects Japanese feelings during the 1880s toward the treacherous and threatening Western barbarians. Marco polo (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I asked about the woodblock print is because it reminded me of this. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I share my Christmas wish with the whole world?

Greetings, I have a Christmas wish that I want to share with the whole world. The details are on a blog and I do not want to be a "spammer" ... how can I share this wish effectively with the whole world? http://syhfotgtbgywjcir.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/a-christmas-wish-for-the-whole-world/ Setyourhope (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 507: / Line 507: @@
 Isn't the US a federation? I'm sure that each state specific governors should be capable to deal locally with the crisis until they follow whatever procedure is arranged to appoint a new national government. And in the meantime, the confederated provinces may elect some specific province to manage the international relations in the name of all of them. [[User:MBelgrano|MBelgrano]] ([[User talk:MBelgrano|talk]]) 12:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 :Not exactly.  No member of the federation would have any standing to represent the whole Federation.  Individual states have no foreign relations, that is all handled on the federal level.  That's why there is the "designated survivor" provision; there is never a time when all members of the Line of Succession are in the same place at the same time.  There is always somebody who is a legal Successor to the Presidency who is somewhere secure, just so that, in the event of anything like this happening, there is still a clear, legally designated President who has the power to make decisions and represent the country internationally.  Any of the smaller tasks the federal government handles are done in a diffuse manner; the working parts of many Cabinet departments are often not even in Washington DC.  --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 15:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
+::[[Denver Federal Center]]''Denver Federal Center is located in Lakewood, Colorado and is the home to about 6,200 employees for many Federal government of the United States agencies. The Denver Federal Center encompasses an area of about 670 acres (2.7 km2) and has 90 buildings comprising over 4,000,000 square feet (400,000 m2) of office, warehouse, lab and special use space. There are 26 different Federal agencies on-site, making it the largest concentration of Federal agencies outside of Washington, D.C..''[[Special:Contributions/206.130.174.43|206.130.174.43]] ([[User talk:206.130.174.43|talk]]) 20:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 == Date for Japanese painting ==