Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

December 30

Giants Ninepin and Thunder

When I was a very young kid someone told me that thunder came from Jesus bowling in the clouds and hitting a strike ever time he threw. I always assumed he made this up to mess with me, but recently someone told me that they thought they remembered a legend somewhere of thunder coming from giants in the sky playing ninepin. If so, then I find it interesting that this story eventually came down to me, with the giants replaced by Jesus.

Does anybody know of any such legend? If so, where does it come from? Thanks. 67.158.4.158 (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You said pool in your first sentence, but you meant bowling, right ? StuRat (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Err.. yes. Fixed it now. 67.158.4.158 (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly an old Dutch legend about the ghosts of Henry Hudson and his crew creating thunder by playing nine-pin bowling was incorporated by Washington Irving into his story "Rip Van Winkle", so the idea goes back a ways. (Don't even think about asking why they picked on Hudson.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

When I was a kid the story was "angels bowling". Adam Bishop (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This was referenced in The Simpsons just recently, a show or two ago. A strike every time? Man, that'd be some boring bowling partner. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

According to my grandparents (relayed humorously by my father), it was God having his coal delivered, a domestic-supply reference that would probably baffle most of the current generation. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Now why would God need coals? The guy bellow I can understand, I mean gotta take care of those fires, they wont keep themselves burning, but I'd imagine God didn't have to take care of heating suplies in heaven... Or does it get chilly in heaven in the winter? TomorrowTime (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidently. Marnanel (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, my mother always said it was the Almighty rolling his barrels across the floor of his celestial beer cellar. Seems reasonable enough to me. Marnanel (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

...and my Dad assured me it was God pushing his wheelbarrow down his garden path. I guess we'll never know for sure.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say I'll ask him when I get there, but it'd only be thrown out for breaking WP:OR. Marnanel (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Gosh! They're even writing Wikipedia in Heaven and the other place. Explains a lot about Lucifer, the Original Troll. And this user. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I love how three fourths of the guy's user talk is "dude, change your user name or else!" Absolutely love it :) TomorrowTime (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's especially funny that he hasn't edited in five years, but is still getting the comments. User:Jesus, on the other hand, was indefinitely blocked for his name, despite the fact that it's a not-uncommon name. Buddy431 (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

American descendants of English royalty and nobility

How many Americans are descended from English royalty and the old Anglo-Norman nobility? Which of the US colonies was a scion of the nobility most likely to have settled? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your first query is an example of the sort of anthropo-mathematical question still being researched (by Joseph T. Chang of Yale University among others - see this) in connection with topics such as Coalescent theory and Most recent common ancestor, but probably "the large majority of those with any British descent" is not too wide of the mark. (Yes, I know, frantic hedging.)

According to Richard Dawkins in Chapter 0 [sic] of The Ancestor's Tale an initial theoretical model (see Spherical cow), known to be an unrefined first approximation but nonetheless a starting point, suggests that 80% of the population of Britain in 1000AD would be ancestors of everyone in Britain today, if Britain's population had always been isolated. (Dawkins looks in more detail at the numbers for Tasmania, whose population was entirely isolated for about 15,000 13,000 years up to 1800AD.) Adjusting for immigrations over the intervening millennium, the numbers and date-span of Britain->New World emigrations, the proportions of Anglo-Norman nobles and 'English royals' (do you mean pre-Norman Anglo-Saxons?) in the population, and doubtless many other relevent factors, I will gladly leave to others. To provide some perspective, Dawkins also explains that the most recent common (not 'sole', of course) ancestor of everyone in the World today probably lived only about 30,000 years ago (see the above-linked Most recent common ancestor for more details, though that article seems to ignore minor isolated populations such as the Tasmanians; see also Identical ancestors point).

Your second query I cannot address except to say that my gut feeling is that there would be no particular preponderance, and I await enlightenment from others along with you. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I met someone on an unrelated online forum who referred to the upcoming royal wedding as "my cousin's marriage", and then added that her nearest common ancestor with the groom was born in the early 1600s. I don't think she was being intentionally facetious. Marnanel (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't answer directly, but if you have an Ancestry subscription, you can access The Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal and the Tudor Roll of the Blood Royal, either of which should give you leads as to possible answers to your question. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Jeanne -- Many remote descendants of nobility or royalty can be found in the U.S., but very few people who settled in the British North American colonies were actually aristocrats of any kind at the time that they crossed the Atlantic. In the mid-19th century, some people in the southern U.S. liked to claim that the "cavaliers" who settled Virginia were of higher social standing (and better represented old chivalrous ideals) than the "puritans" or "roundheads" who settled New England, but I don't know how well that would hold up in the study of 17th-century history... AnonMoos (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe quite a few younger sons as well as illegitimate offspring of the English gentry settled in Maryland and Virginia. I have a few direct ancestors who were from landed English families and were given land grants in Virginia by Charles II in gratitude for various services rendered not sure if pimping was one of them. I have read in newspaper articles that in most US presidential elections the candidate with the most noble ancestry normally wins, except in the case of Abraham Lincoln.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

According to this book, which many people accept as truth, it is rare that anyone with any ancestor from Europe is not descendent from Charlemagne. -- kainaw™ 13:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"Ancestral Roots of Certain American Colonists Who Came to America Before 1700" by Frederick Lewis Weis might be useful, although I have an instinctual urge to remove it from Wikipedia articles when it is listed as a reference... Adam Bishop (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Whence the instinct? It's certainly a more reliable book than the Redlich/Langston/Buck/Beard Charlemagne books (mentioned by Kainaw), if only because it doesn't rely on self-reported pedigrees and has been frequently revised and corrected... - Nunh-huh 21:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

According to a genealogical book which some have claimed to be a hoax (it was written by Gustav Anjou), I and my paternal line are descended from Harold II of England. And Bryan Fairfax, 8th Lord Fairfax of Cameron was a Virginian. Corvus cornix_talk 23:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

poems' unknown authors

I'm trying to figure out who wrote the poem, "The Ship That Sails." I'm also trying to find out who wrote these patriotic poems below;

"I AM THANKFUL TO BE AN AMERICAN"

I am thankful to be an American,

To live in the greatest land of all.

In a nation blessed, it's the very best,

I can stand with my head up tall.

I am thankful to be an American,

To be born in a land that's free.

I am thankful to God for allowing me to be,

An American.

"I LOVE YOU SO"

America, America.

How can I tell you, How I feel?

You have given me many treasures,

I love you so.

America, America.

Land of hope and liberty,

Freedom Rings from every mountain,

From sea to sea.

If more information is out there, please let me know. Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, that second song sure pops up a lot on the Internet, but none of the pages I opened have an author. This one comes closest by saying "unknown". Well, as hackneyed as it is, it could have been written by anyone old enough to hold a pen, really. Heck, it wouldn't even have to be a person - I remember way-back-when I was still growing up in Yugoslavia and I had a piece of software for my shiny new apex of computing hardware, the glorious Commodore 64 - it spoofed Yugoslav politico speeches by browsing through a database of random jingoisms and arranging them in sensible sentence patterns and what you'd get was a lot of noise that seemed to make sense but was really just empty bantering. This song reminds me a bit of what that software would throw out... TomorrowTime (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - if the "American" was replaced by any of a whole range of other country names, I would have said it sounded like it was churned out by a machine at the central propaganda department.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It reminds me of that bit from Pinafore, except without the irony. Or is it? It's always hard to tell.

He himself hath said it

And it's greatly to his credit

That he is an Englishman

He iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis an EngLISHman --W. S. Gilbert

--Trovatore (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Is "The Ship that Sails" the verse that begins "I'd rather be the ship that sails/ and rides the billows wild and free; / Than to be the ship that always fails/ to leave its port and go to sea"? The earliest citation I can find (from 1969) is credited to "Anonymous", so I suspect it may not be easy or even possible to find the author. (That "to" in the third line really grates, and there's one in the third line of every damn stanza.) Marnanel (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. I just found, "The Set of the Sails," another nautical-related poem by Ella Wheeler Wilcox. When was that one written?24.90.204.234 (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's proper English, ain't it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Price of infinite goods

How does a seller of infinite goods (that means, software, audio-books) put a price tag on its product? Theoretically, the offer is infinite and could meet any demand of it. Quest09 (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't most software say that it's "licensed, not sold"? Also, as a practical matter, it will become obsolete well short of infinity, more like a decade or less. As for the actual price, presumably it's market-driven: they find the price that will optimize their revenue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You've defined "infinite goods" as "software, audio-books", but I'm afraid I'm none the wiser. In what sense are these goods "infinite", and what is this infinite offer to which you refer? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs: licenses are still infinite (for all practical purposes).

Jack: Well, you can serve as many clients as you want. If you were selling something with a physical dimension (like cake or beer) you have n units and try to sell them to the higher bidders. But, in the case of software you could sell infinite licenses if you had to, there is no upper limit. You could sell to the higher bidders, to the middle tier and to the lower tier of the market. You could sell license to anyone how would pay you $0.01 or more. Quest09 (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There is usually a different license agreement/price for multiple-user or server-level-user licenses than for individuals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugs: I meant you can produce as much licenses as you want. There is no physical limit to it. Quest09 (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, the price is market-driven, i.e. they charge whatever they can get away with to optimize their revenue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OR, but when I have sold e-books, this is indeed how I've done it. It's all relative to the prices everyone else is charging. If you price it too low, you'll make less, but more importantly nobody will take you seriously (perception of value is an odd thing). If you price it too high, nobody buys. It's quite a juggling act. Marnanel (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The market mechanism will work here too, as in the case of other products or services. Even if licenses are not limited, I wouldn't say they are infinite, since the seller of them has an absolute monopole over them. He can start offering n license at the x price, if things don't work out he offer them at a lower price. Your source of confusion is that licenses are indeed not really infinite, they are limited by the producer, who makes the price go up or down as he pleases. That makes it impossible to get a license for $0.01. You end up paying what they can charge you. Mr.K. (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'm sure Microsoft would love to charge a million dollars for every Windows 7 license. But no one would buy it, and users would flock to Linux or something (which illustrates the importance of competition in a free market). However, if they charge 99 cents for it... very few, if any, would buy it, out of suspicion. Hence they try to "optimize" their revenue by finding out "what the market will bear". I don't know how else to explain it to the OP, beyond Econ 101. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Calculating the right price (=where the producer earns more) follows the logic above, but might be trickier to calculate, going beyond the Econ 101 knowledge of Bugs. But this optimized price exists, depends on both demand and psychological factors). Mr.K. (talk)

You can start by estimating how many you realistically expect to sell, not how many it's technically possible to sell. That should give you an idea of your cost (to develop the software or write the book) divided by how many you've sold. Add to that all your transaction costs, and the cut the various dealers will take (Amazon doesn't sell books for free!) and you've got your cost per unit.

This cost per unit will change a lot depending on your estimates of how many you'll sell (Which will be tied to what you're proposing to charge, etc.), but that's not as different as you might think to physical goods. Physical goods still have set-up and design costs that must be spread over every item you sell, and physical goods will cost different amounts to manufacture depending on whether you need a hundred of them(Expensive western hand labor) or a hundred million (Highly mechanized factory in china).

I'm not saying it's easy for them to find the right price, but it's not as crazy as you might think compared to, say, the price of an iPod. APL (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

See also Obsolescence. You may have an infinite supply of copies of what you're selling, but you do not have infinite demand. Who would want to buy a copy of Windows 3.0 any more? Also: market saturation. You basically have an infinite supply of air, but no one is selling it because everyone's already got it. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The technical phrase for what the OP is calling "infinite goods" are "goods exhibiting zero marginal cost" -- that is, the cost of producing one more unit of the good is zero. Market price is determined jointly by the marginal cost of production *and* the demand. So, WikiDao is quite right, if demand is finite at a price of zero the fact that the goods exhibit zero marginal cost does not imply that the market price will fall to zero. Wikiant (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You've left out the fact that Microsoft (and many others) also actively participate in market segmentation. That's why there are fifty flavors of Windows to choose from every time around. The goal is to say, "how much are you willing to pay for my product?" and adding a few bells and whistles to the expensive ones. It's not a "single" price for Windows 7; there are lots of different prices for Windows 7, with more or less arbitrary differences in the product between them. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You are describing price discrimination, which is a separate phenomenon from zero marginal cost. For example, you see market segmentation in car pricing where marginal cost is not zero. Having said that, it tends to be the case that firms that produce zero marginal cost products also engage in market segmentation, but that is due to a third factor -- lack of competition. Zero marginal cost firms tend to be monopolistic. Monopolistic firms, because of reduced competition, find it possible to engage in price discrimination. Wikiant (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

See also natural monopoly. Jørgen (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

interesting geography/GK question

Which (endangered??) animal is not eaten by the locals since they consider it as emblem or guardian. Still populations of the animal have declined here in the last 15 years due to farmland expansion, illegal logging, poaching and mining.

would appreciate any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaand it's another of the World Atlas inane geography quiz questions... [1] TomorrowTime (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If you know the answer, please don't post it here. Go to the worldatlas.com website and post the answer there. Then please donate the prize money to Wikipedia. Marco polo (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Elephant, Rhino? 92.24.183.19 (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"Elephino!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Turns out the answer was chimpanzee. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess they don't know about bushmeat. Googlemeister (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

AIDS may have jumped from apes to humans via the ingestion of infected chimp meat. Corvus cornix_talk 23:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

economy versus society

what is society? what is economy? Are they two things? Are they two ways of talking about one thing?193.135.2.129 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

They aren't the same thing. Society refers to the sum total of interactions among humans. Economy refers to the interactions among humans that involve buying and selling things. Society is a superset that includes (among other things) economy, polity, and religion. Wikiant (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

These terms are used somewhat differently in different academic disciplines, but in general you can say that a society is a group of people who share a common political structure, an economy is the collective set of economic interactions of a defined group of people (and a culture is a group of people who share a common set of traditions, understandings, languages, etc). The are often overlapping terms - a society can me mono- or multi-cultural, and usually has its own economy, but is often part of a larger global or regional economy or culture. The best way to think about this is to note that each term focuses on a different aspect of normal human social behavior, and every group of people can be looked at through the lens of each term .--Ludwigs2 18:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In broad terms, economics can be thought of as the study of value, whatever that means. While traditionally, this means money, it doesn't have to, and some economists (like Freakonomics co-author Steven Levitt) study non-monetary value. Basically, what economists do is to study how value affects behavior; that is how people will behave when making decisions based on value of "things", even if "things" are abstract concepts. --Jayron32 18:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think one could argue that it is really pretty impossible to talk about economy without some notion of society, and vice versa. They are thoroughly entangled. I am not sure they can be considered one and the same, though. But they do have aspects which are very, very intermeshed. Both are also very broad definitions that encompass extremely fundamental aspects of human interaction. I don't think one could argue that they could be considered independent in any way, or that one could talk about something which was wholly social without having an economic component, or vice versa. A simple example: we might think that I could go spend some time with a friend, without exchanging any currency or anything like that, and it would be something that might fall purely in the social realm. But as even our metaphors allude to, time itself is a resource with value, and the choice to spend it one place versus another gives it a deeply economic aspect. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In 1987 British PM Margaret Thatcher, who paid an awful lot of attention to the economy, declared "There is no such thing as society". Make of that what you will. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

... well what she actually said in that interview was ...

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand "I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or "I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people, and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"

She later added "My meaning, clear at the time but subsequently distorted beyond recognition, was that society was not an abstraction, separate from the men and women who composed it, but a living structure of individuals, families, neighbours and voluntary associations." Dbfirs 09:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

cap tossing at graduation

I'm looking for information on the tossing of the mortarboard during or after graduation ceremonies. I read the mortarboard and academic dress articles, and the graduation article mentions it once, in the caption of a photo.

thanks, WhiteDragon (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed a similar phenomenon at military academies, where graduates toss their hats into the air. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm, never happened at my graduation. This page said it was happening there in 1912. Marnanel (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As a foreigner (i.e. not American) it's always looked to me like one of those silly American customs. I'm suggesting that it's maybe exclusively American. It's not an Australian custom. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be correct, because it happens at my high school's graduation...not every student participates, but around 50% do...our school also provides confetti-shooting things for each student to shoot at the conclusion of the ceremony, at the same time as the caps are thrown. --Ks1stm (talk) ^{[alternative account of Ks0stm]} 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A little speculation as I don't have access to the drill handbook, but it may be derived from the tradition doffing ones hat whilst cheering, from the period when gentlemen wore hats as a matter of course. In the military environment that has become a formalised drill movement when the uniform cap is removed in advance and then raised in the right hand.

As mentioned above it's something that happens at Passing Out parades for officers of all three services, although given that ones uniform cap is worth about £200 (c $350-400) then it pays to keep hold of it or not throw it too vigorously.

I've not seen it happen in the UK at university graduation.

ALR (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember being told a story about a gathering of Cub Scouts in London in the 1950s (well before my time), where the organizers thought it would be a great idea to finish the event with three cheers and everyone to throw their caps in the air. Right on cue, 2,000 small boys threw their green snd gold caps skyward which looked impressive but it took an hour to unite the right cap with the right child. Alansplodge (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, though, that Cub Scouts generally own their own caps, whereas academic dress these days unfortunately tends to be hired once-off for the occasion as though it was a clown costume. There's no particular problem if you throw a cap that isn't yours in the air and return with one that was previously worn by someone else, as long as the gown hire company get all their caps back by nightfall. Marnanel (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Throwing headgear in the air as a public display of enthusiasm was not uncommon in Britain during the first few decades of the 20th century (when most men usually wore hats or caps in public). It can be seen in old newsreels of crowds cheering Royal processions, goals and final whistles at football matches, and the like. (See also the opening sequence of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, not to mention that of Rhoda.) I believe that one usually attempted to throw one's hat/cap in a frisbee-like manner so that one could catch it again, but I too, have wondered how often headgear was thus lost or damaged. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Which English queen consort had the noblest pedigree?

I am curious as to which English queen consort had the most royal blood?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Define "Most royal blood". Several queen consorts were daughters of monarchs, notably Catherine of Aragon, who was a daughter of TWO ruling monarchs (Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile). --Jayron32 19:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There was also Isabella of France, whose parents were both monarchs. I was thinking of consorts who were the daughters of monarchs rather than dukes, counts, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

After looking over List of English consorts, it seems that the daughter of a Holy Roman Emperor Judith of Flanders might have fit that role. Her article mentions that the custom of how the wife of the king was addressed changed with her because she was a "high ranking princess," the daughter of an emperor among kings. 24.38.31.81 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Tangentially, what kind of transformation did the blood of Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte undergo between 20 and 22 August 1810? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What does Bernadotte have to do with English queen consorts? BTW, he was not the only non-noble monarch. Look at the 19th century Serbian rulers for example.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was using him merely as an example to question (though not explicitly to deny) the validity of the concept "royal blood" and what it means to have more or less of it. Incidentally, I now see that the article section Royal descent#United States partially addresses one of your other recent questions. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

House names

Resolved

All the schools I've ever encountered which use the house system have named the houses after objects, famous people, or in the case of primary schools, easily-recognisable concepts such as colours (so that the younger kids can easily remember that Blue house's house colour is blue, rather than having to remember some more abstract mapping). Most of this is also mentioned in our article. However, I'm currently reading the first of the Psmith books, a school story, to my daughter, and I noticed that the two houses primarily mentioned are named after their current housemasters: Outwood's and Downing's. Was this ever a common practice? Marnanel (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

According to our article on Eton, "Each House has a formal name, mainly used for post and people outside the Eton community. It is generally known by the boys by the initials or surname of the House Master, the teacher who lives in the house and manages the pupils in it." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I should add that these houses, and presumably those in the Psmith stories, are actual houses, usually within the precincts of the school, where the pupils live in term-time, rather than the system of 'put pupils into some arbitrarily-named divisions called "houses" so that we can run sports competitions between them' that applied at my (grammar) school (ours were British imperial heroes). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed so— and thank you for finding that. (Ours were kingdoms of the Heptarchy, but I believe they have been changed since.) The article House system notes its origin in, and its abstraction from, physical houses, but doesn't mention any habit of naming or nicknaming houses after their housemasters: perhaps we should add this? Marnanel (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Charterhouse School names its houses (which are separate houses) after former masters who were the first housemasters (with '-ites' added to the name). Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

E F Benson's novel David Blaize, which our artcle says was published in 1916, certainly exhibits the system you are asking about. --ColinFine (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

English universities: teaching in cosy private rooms

I've seen a number of movies set in English universities of days gone by, where a typical scene is of a group of maybe half a dozen students gathered in what looks like the teacher/professor's private room. There'll be books on shelves, and a small fire going. They might be having tea and cakes, while they're discussing some philosophical/language/history issue. It looks terribly cosy and intimate. I've often wondered whether these scenes accurately reflect how teaching actually occurred in those places, or whether it's just a Hollywood/Pinewood invention. I mean, for only 6 people to be taking that particular subject, out of the thousands at the university at any one time, seems a little odd. Were these the teacher's "special students", the cream of the crop so to speak, or were they the entire class? Was there really a ratio of one teacher to every 6-odd students? Or was this just one of a number of tutorial groups into which the entire class was split? In other movies they'll show an entire lecture hall full of students, with one teacher in charge, which is much more like my experience at university. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oxbridge prides itself on the tutorial system. In the past, it wasn't half a dozen students, but one student and one tutor. The student would read their essay aloud and the tutor would comment on it. There were also lectures, treated as less important. But even at Oxbridge it has slipped, and tutorials are more likely to be for two or more students. In other UK universities, students have classes of different sizes depending on the subject, with a definite trend towards ever larger classes. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It happens sometimes at the better universities, if not necessarily in quite such comfort. Oxford and Cambridge get much higher funding per student, so can do the sort of thing that Itsmejudith describes. In some other universities, in some subjects, tutorials with maybe 10 students in attendance, together with a lecturer are common enough (or were 10 years or so ago), though it is more likely to be a cramped office than a posh study, and if you want tea and cakes, you'd best bring your own. I'm sure this will vary greatly with the subject though, and is probably getting rarer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith has hit the nail on the head. To expand a little: supervisions (at Cambridge, called tutorials at Oxford) are part of the reason for the survival of the collegiate system at Oxbridge. All the students are (generally) members of the same college as the fellow who is teaching. (The exception is that the combination of small colleges and small subjects can make this impossible, but it's generally true.) This means that you're taught within a very small community (even the largest college only has a thousand-odd undergrads) and that your supervisor/tutor has an incentive to teach you well, because your exam results affect his college's academic standing and therefore to some extent his own. Supervisions/tutorials are mandatory; exams are mandatory; lectures, which are organised by the university and not the colleges, are optional. I have studied both at Cambridge and at a more modern establishment, and I can confirm that nothing like this goes on at the latter. Marnanel (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Durham has tutorials very similar to the ones described here, except they are organised by departments, not colleges (colleges in Durham handle residential, social, pastoral stuff, not academic stuff). Their usefulness depends on the tutor. --Tango (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that even in gigantic American universities — like UC Berkeley, for example — there are often tutorials or seminars that are a couple of students and a professor. It's not incompatible with the "giant lecture hall" model. When I was an undergraduate, I had classes as small as three students, and classes as large as 500, all in the same department. (They were, of course, at different ends of the curriculum. The big ones were the "feeder" classes that everyone had to take; the small ones were "honors" classes or on more specific topics.) There were never any tea and cakes or fireplaces, however. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In my own experience at Cambridge, tutorials (we usually called them "supervisions") had between two and six students. I would like to see a reference for itsmejudith's claim that they were originally one student at a time: I can certainly see advantages in having a small group rather than just one, and I have always supposed that that was the norm. --ColinFine (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I will vouch for Mr. 98's observation that this sort of thing happens in the advanced courses at the more prestigious U.S. universities. I experienced it at UC Berkeley and Brown. There were even cookies (biscuits for non-Americans) on occasion, but people brought their own (non-alcoholic) drinks. Typically, though these classes were in austere classrooms. Though at Brown, some departments occupy former private houses and have seminar rooms that are comfortably furnished. Marco polo (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So, they weren't making it up after all. Thanks to everyone for their responses. And Happy New Year to one and all. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, and there are a number of literary references to cosy tutorials. Seminars were also originally supposed to be quite small groups - when they came into the UK plate glass university in the 1960s they were regarded as an American innovation. I was asked for a reference for one-to-one tutorials: here is an academic discussion of the changing pattern (at Oxford). Itsmejudith (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

December 31

Weddings on a Sunday

I've just finished reading Around the World in 80 Days and it mentions not being able to get married on a Sunday. And now that I think of it, I can't remember ever attending a Christian wedding on a Sunday. So, was/is this some sort of custom? Am I suffering from confirmation bias? Is it because priests/ministers/reverends/vicars are too busy with regular services on Sundays that they just don't perform weddings on Sundays? Dismas|^(talk) 09:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very good with searching the archives, but we had this same question here a couple of months ago. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In 1872, when the story is set, there were a lot of things that were not permitted on a Sunday. In any case, all the churches (in olden days people got married in churches) would have been fully occupied with other services.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This site gives information for Church of England weddings in the UK, noting that Sunday weddings are not ruled out but are rare, apparently because ministers - even now - usually have several other services to perform on that day. However, this article points out the number of weddings that took place on 10/10/10, which was a Sunday. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Anglicans were once much more puritanical about what could be done on sundays than now. My father remembers (in the 1920s) not being allowed to play with toys on a Sunday, unless they had a religious significance - a toy Noah's Ark was permitted for example. My guess is that a wedding celebration would not be considered suitable for the Lord's Day - I'll see if I can find a reference. Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that the wedding itself was probably OK, being a religious event itself. The reception, however, is another story. Dancing, singing, and drinking are not exactly favorite activities among religious conservatives. And presumably there will also be people working that day, such as caterers, and that's also forbidden. StuRat (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, no. Fogg gets engaged and immediately sends Passepartout to see the minister and arrange a marriage for "tomorrow, Monday". When Passepartout returns, he informs Fogg that the marriage is impossible tomorrow because tomorrow is Sunday. We're not talking about a wedding planned far in advance, that would include a fancy reception; just the opposite. --Anonymous, 09:13 UTC, January 1, 2011.

Well, I was married on a Sunday. We had chosen the Saturday, but the Russian Orthodox priest told us that day was unavailable due to some religious feast. That church is very conservative and quite inflexible in some of its attitudes, compared to some other Christian denominations, but there was no problem at all in being married on a Sunday. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If the church was conservative and inflexible, I take it you married a woman that day, then, and not a man ? StuRat (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not aware of any Christian churches that solemnise same-sex marriages even in countries that permit it, which doesn't include Australia. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this has just been legalised in the UK, and Quakers and Unitarians now carry out such ceremonies, as does Liberal Judaism, which recently became the first religious organisation in the world to publish a special liturgy for same-sex commitment ceremonies. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 10:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good news story to start my year off on the right foot. Lovely. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it's great news, though I am pleasantly astonished that it was the House of Lords which initiated the idea. Clearly they're not a bunch of elderly white heterosexual British upper-class males as one would expect :) ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 10:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm tickled (pink) that the person who instigated the change to permit British Christian churches (and other religious venues) to marry gay people is a Muslim. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be Waheed Alli, whose article I've worked on. (London's other gay Muslim Labour politician, Pav Akhtar, may have contributed.) Some of the impetus for the marriage equality bill came from Newington Green Unitarian Church, which also happened to have radicalised Famous Dead Bisexual Mary Wollstonecraft all those years ago. Whether Unitarians and Quakers still count as Christians I leave to others to debate. The Metropolitan Community Church and the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement might be able to say more on whether any unambiguously Christian churches conduct same-sex marriages. It looks like the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto does, for example. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In the US, the United Church of Christ's synod supports gay marriage, though not all its congregations. Unitarian Universalists have supported it for decades, but haven't called themselves "Christian" for some time. The US Episcopalian church is at least on the edge re ssm. PhGustaf (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that marriage cannot be restricted to a man and a woman. Gay marriage is legal throughout Canada, so religious establishments that wish to can solemnise marriages. It's not a question of supporting the idea, but of using the right. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ned Flanders: "The Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman."

Homer Simpson: "If you love your Bible so much, why don't you marry it ? Seriously, if you give me $20, I'd be glad to perform the ceremony." StuRat (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Buying a set of pencils for artists

If you buy a set of pencils for artist, composed of whatever number of color pencils, it is highly probable that you run out of a specific color (you could be using green more often than pink). What are you supposed to do after that? Can you buy single matching pencils or do they really expect that you buy the whole set again? Are manufacturers forced to provide single pencils, in the same way that manufacturers are forced to deliver spare parts? Quest09 (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

High-end pencils are typically available in singles, and a decent art store (commercial link given as example) will stock them thusly. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you've discovered the real reason for the end of Picasso's Blue Period. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, fortunately, he discovered some left over pink pencils. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Types of conservatism

What's the difference between conservative, nationalist, fascist, and reactionary? --75.28.52.27 (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in conservative, nationalist, fascist, and reactionary. Unfortunately, the differences are subtle and complex, and labels are simplifications of this complex political ideology. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, the term conservative really does not refer to an ideology at all, per se. Rather, it's an uneasy alliance of ideologies that don't naturally belong together, but that have had some common enemies for the past fifty or sixty years. In particular libertarian conservatives and social conservatives really don't like each other at all. --Trovatore (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The same thing applies to the word liberal, doesn't it? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The popular myth since the mid 1900s, both in the US as well as in most of Europe, is that "conservativism" is the pragmatic and undogmatic opposite of utopian liberal ideologies and has been so since 1789, while the truth is it is actually a very elaborate ideology with some very definite political objectives (as per the conservatism article). --Saddhiyama (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) That wasn't what I was saying at all. There are lots of ideological conservatives. But conservatism is not an ideology, or at least not a single ideology. It's a coalition among very different ideologies. How long that coalition can hold together is an open question. My hope is "not very long", because I'm aligned with the libertarian side of the conservative movement, and see much more in common with the libertarian left than with the social right. --Trovatore (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is going to work. The American poor and lower middle class could hardly be convinced to vote for the preservation of economic inequality (as decreed by the omniscient and omnipotent Free Market) without the help of God and tradition. Free Market worship is a cult suited for the elite (economic and intellectual), it just doesn't work for the rest of society; if you have to sell such a deity to the others, it has to have a beard.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There are such parties that are politically relevant in some countries, for example the Free Democrats in Germany. Granted, that's in a proportional system; it would be harder here. But in any case all I'm saying is I'd be more comfortable in a party with Bill Maher than in one with Pat Buchanan. Whether that sort of coalition could have electoral success is a question to be answered by experiment. --Trovatore (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Want to be confused? Come to Australia. Our major conservative party is called the Liberal Party. Does that help? HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing strange about that. Among the major Australian parties, they are indeed the most liberal, at least in the classical sense of the word. In a liberal country, it is conservative to be liberal. --Trovatore (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

To simplify a little: "Reactionary" is basically the opposite of "progressive". What is seen as 'reactionary' and what is seen as 'progressive' depends entirely of the context. 'Reactionary' is almost always used as a pejorative. 'Fascist', in a strict sense, refers to a follower of the Fascist movement as modelled by Mussolini. Nationalism and corporativism are key concepts of fascism. However, today 'fascist' is generally used as a pejorative, generally directed what is perceived as repressive and authoritarian. --Soman (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It general,

Conservatism seeks to preserve the status quo

Nationalism creates the concept of national identity. Nationalism comes in two broad forms- liberal nationalism and fascism.

Fascism is an extreme form of nationalism which views the nation as an organic entity and the citizens as part of that organic entity (just as the body cells constitute the human body, fascists believe individual citizens collectively compose the organic entity called nation). Thus fascists equate "national interest" with individual rights. In fascist political system, the individual is complete subordinate to the state. --LibertarianWarrior (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

LibertarianWarrior: that's close, but a bit skewed. let's lay out the definitions in historical relation, to see some of the odd ideological bedfellows in this termonology:

• Liberal (16th-18th century - often called Classical Liberalism): promotes individual property rights, generally to secure the wealth of individuals from seizure by nobles/aristocrats whose coffers were running dry. this asserted a number of inviolable individual personal rights, and rested in an early form of scientific rationalism. Liberalism developed along two different paths: social liberalism (progressivism) that focused on the expansion and maintenance of individual rights, and free market capitalism that focused on economic progress through individual competition.
• Conservatism (17th-18th century): basically a traditionalist movement that opposed rapid change. early conservatives were environmentalist and elitist, wanting to preserve nature against the ravages of unbridled technology and preserve the social order against the too rapid and too wide dissemination of individual rights. This developed along several lines: environmentalism merged into social liberalism (basically by casting the environment as public good to which all individuals had an equal right); free-market capitalism developed both into industrial/corporate capitalism and (believe it or not) into Marxism; social conservatism re-grounded itself in religion and/or in racial/ethnic/national heritage, the first leading to a slew of morality movements, and the second leading to a number of right-wing political positions
  • Side point, for interest: Marxism proper was rapidly absorbed into social liberalism - it's hard to find an academic paper on social justice that does not in some way trace its roots back to Marx - but Marxist derivatives like Socialism were largely absorbed by conservative nationalist movements. Both Stalin and Hitler were leaders of socialist parties, and both went after Communists and Marxists with extreme prejudice.
• Reactionaries and revolutionaries are the extremes of these ideologies, wanting to (respectively) preserve or destroy the status quo, by violent means if necessary.
• Nationalism (20th century): a form of conservatism that is based in national heritage (or if you like Aldous Huxley can be extended to any form of group identification) which promotes the collective group interests of a purportedly insular and identifiable group. it's explicitly exclusionist, usually elitist, and often reactionary. Nationalism often uses the language of social liberalism - empowering and defending the common man, and the like - it just restricts the application of those principles to members of the group.
• Fascism (20th century) is a particularly strong form of nationalism - call it industrial scientific nationalism. unlike garden-variety nationalists, who are pure conservatives (merely wanting to rehabilitate the values of their group), fascists use technological means both to root out problematic elements within the group and to expand their influence and ideology outside the group. Thus, where nationalists are content to identify a problem group rhetorically and call for them to be removed (e.g. the modern US anti-immigrant kerfluffles, or the somewhat dated and racist calls to send African Americans back to Africa), fascists historically applied science to the problem (trying to identify members of the problem group genealogically or genetically and deal with them with industrial efficiency), used mass media to sell their ideology proactively (propaganda and other forms of social manipulation), and then reached out beyond the borders of the group militarily to destroy the "problem" once and for all. --Ludwigs2 16:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, you said "social liberalism (progressivism) that focused on the expansion and maintenance of individual rights". Social liberalism or welfare liberalism is a concept in which state interventionism plays a crucial role (in the form of taxation) and this goes against the concept of sovereignty of the individual. So how does social liberalism focus on expansion of individual rights??? In fact social liberalism is close to social democracy. And free market capitalism do not simply argue for "economic progress through individual competition", they argue something else. Anyway, I don't think this is the right place for this broader discussion. --LibertarianWarrior (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

LibertarianWarrior: in all forms of liberalism (except those that rest on philosophical anarchy), the purpose of the state is to intervene to protect the rights of the individual. Different strains of liberalism present different ideals about how this should be done, depending on what presumptions they make about the state of the world, but the basic idea is universal. even on your end of the spectrum (assuming that the 'Libertarian' part of your name is meaningful), the state exists in a limited form to adjudicate between conflicting interests of different individuals, or possibly to provide communal public goods - such as sewer systems and roadways - that would be difficult to maintain by individuals. Wherever you have the existence of this kind of collective action, you necessarily have some form of taxation or revenue collection - roadways don't get built for free. Most Libertarians I've talked to are not averse to taxation of some sort, so long as there is complete transparency of expenditures and thorough control of the process by the citizenry. They want to be able to get together and say: "We need a road - how much will it cost, how will we divide the cost amongst ourselves, who will we hire to build it...", etc.

Of course, Libertarianism starts with a strict assumption of middle-class (and usually cultural) homogeneity - it's an Adam Smith vision of the world. Libertarianism has no effective mechanisms for coping with impoverished classes, for restricting the actions of exceedingly wealthy individuals or corporate entities, or for coping with disasters. What could Libertarians do about something like the Bhopal disaster (where an exceedingly wealthy corporation accidentally released a toxic chemical that killed thousands of impoverished foreigners and poisoned their land and water for generations)? Would they have a town meeting about it? Liberal ideologies that are concerned about those kinds of problems (social liberalism, welfare liberalism, progressivism, and etc) usually call for stronger government oversight and proactive policies and structures aimed at preventing and alleviating such things. They also usually call for deep public transparency, though they usually accept that these structures will generally act without supervision in the interests of timeliness - e.g. we want FEMA to jump immediately into a natural disaster, and not wait for the public to give it a mandate to do so. The more extensive and independent these kinds of intervention structures become, the more expensive they become, and so budget-centered taxation becomes more of a necessity; we want to give FEMA a regular budget, because we don't want to wait until a disaster strikes before providing FEMA with money. The problem with budget taxation is (again) a transparency problem - the more abstract and opaque the budgeting process becomes, the easier it is for waste and corruption to sneak into the system.

So really, liberal systems (as theory, anyway) all rely on a balancing act: how much of their own wealth and property do individuals want to allocate to collective projects, and how much control over these collective projects (and those allocated funds) do individuals exercise? Libertarians take a very (no pun intended) conservative approach, allocating very little and demanding extensive control; other forms of liberalism are willing to allocate more and allow the people running those collective projects more autonomy. I personally lean more towards the latter approach for pragmatic reasons (libertarianism is too idealistic for my tastes), but I recognize the problems that occur when those collective structures get the bit in their teeth and people lose control over them (which is where the US has been heading for a few decades now...). --Ludwigs2 18:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a view that a lot of political groupings are negatively motivated, being based on a dislike (sometimes a hatred) of what someone else is or does. One could argue that Conservatives just don't like change. Nationalists don't like foreigners. Fascists don't like anyone. And Reactionaries just want to find someone else to blame, and then fight them because of it. (Don't worry about my possible biases being on display here. I could do the same for other groupings. I'm pretty cynical about all people who feel such simplistic labels are much help. I've just restricted myself to those groupings in the original question for now.) HiLo48 (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Benedetto Croce once argued (talking strictly about conservatives and liberals) that politics is motivated by aesthetics: conservatives find the world they live in pleasing and don't want it to change, while liberals find an ideal world pleasing and want the real world to change to be more like it. Unfortunately, cynicism is the death of democracy - you have to assume that most people are trying to do the right thing, even if they have a twisted idea of what 'right' means, otherwise there is no possibility of communication and change. so, chin up, eyes forward, love your fellow man, and all that! Or to mix and mangle aphorisms, if you're trying to catch flies, use honey, not vinegar; if you're trying to catch bears, use honey and a club. --Ludwigs2 20:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Funny, most libertarians I've talked to (which is several, since I am one) advocate private roads. That's not a terribly impractical or idealistic concept, since so many of them exist already and it's kind of the default. (I'm amused to read in that article that two thirds of roads in Sweden are privately managed.) You might have picked a poor example with roads; the really tricky problem is funding the police. Also you seem to have arrived at the idea that the absence of government equals anarchy and therefore all libertarians must be minarchists, but that's not the case; you're probably just struggling to imagine how chaos can be avoided without force. The general idea is to substitute goodwill. The old chestnut, which worked better in the days of the iron curtain, is to point out the conceptual struggle a communist typically has with the idea of a free market - without central management forcing people to do right, how can the correct goods possibly be manufactured? It's mind-boggling! I'll dismount this massive soapbox now though. :) 213.122.67.112 (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

As you will... It may be that Libertarians talk differently to other Libertarians than they do to others, or it may be that the Libertarians I meet are usually academics and have a different perspective on the ideology. None of which really gainsays my point. a few things:

• I didn't say that things like private roads were impossible, I said they were difficult to manage. I have a hard time imagining a private individual sponsoring something like Boston's Big Dig. Not just because of the expense, mind you, but I can't imagine why a private individual would do such a thing. as a private effort, it would either be a magnanimous gesture of unbelievable proportions or a profit-making enterprise that would be eminently unlikely ever to show a profit.
• If libertarianism were going to work anywhere, it would work in Sweden. Sweden is (if I recall correctly) culturally and racially homogenous, largely middle class (with very little entrenched poverty), and highly socially liberal (strong emphasis on fair and equal treatment for all citizens). note however that Sweden actually has phenomenally high tax rates.
  • For comparison, consider cities in the US south east during Jim Crow. It would not be uncommon to start in the heart of a bustling modern city like Memphis or Atlanta and find yourself in hard-packed dirt roads and squalid conditions when you crossed over into African-American sections. Privatization would entrench differential treatment of that sort (unless you also assume that all citizens are broad-thinking, moral, and highly egalitarian)
• I understand philosophical anarchy perfectly well (including the Libertarian variety). I understand that the ideology wants to replace political/governmental bonds with social bonds, encouraging a sort of 'family-feeling' among citizens so that they interact with each other in pleasant, pro-social ways. I like the ideal, but I believe it is an incredibly naive set of assumptions, even under the best circumstances possible. I only need to point to a recent occurrence I read about to make my point: a woman who (on Christmas eve) picked up the family Christmas tree and attacked her parents with it. go family-feeling!
• Please don't present the US-standard high-school level, anti-communist strawman argument as though it's what Marxists (or etc.) actually think. In fact, If one reads Marx carefully, it's evident that Marx is not actually anti-capitalist; he's against class-driven capitalism. hopefully you understand the distinction.

I don't want to get into an argument about Libertarianism (or Marxism) here. I'm not actually anti-Libertarian, and I respect the fact that Libertarians are generally more politically thoughtful than the rest of the US population. If you'd like to continue this, lets do it on my talk page so we don't hijack this thread any more than we already have. --Ludwigs2 15:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Types of Marxism?

Ludwigs, not sure I do understand the distinction between anti-capitalism and anti class-driven capitalism. Marx wanted to see the advent of "the society of associated producers". That wouldn't be capitalist? Might be libertarian in some sense.... Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that what follows is my own OR. Marx obviously read both Smith and Locke (not just because any scholar of his day would have, but because you can see traces of Both in Marx' work). Marx' early work is largely a critique of a particular (then dominant) form of capitalism, rather than a refutation of capitalism outright. if I can put his argument in a nutshell, it runs something like this:

1. Goods have an intrinsic value based in the amount of labor required to make them (labor-value)
2. Changes in production form (including technology and different forms of social organization), can have an impact on labor-value.
3. Capitalism has evolved to a form (industrial capitalism) where a small portion of the population (the capitalist class) controls highly efficient production means.
   • Highly efficient production means are expensive, and require the investment of large amount of capital - free wealth that is spent in expectation of future gains
4. This capital is accumulated and recouped by the collection of surplus labor-value: basically, where a laborer could previously invest X amount of effort to produce a single good using his own tools, he can now produce Q goods of the same type with the same amount of effort using the capitalist-owned production system. the laborer then gets paid some value greater than the value of one good and less than the value of Q goods, the surplus goes to the capitalist, and everyone is (for the moment) happy.
5. Problems arise because the capitalists see themselves as a social class, and see the laborers as a resource
   • capitalists constantly try to improve their standing in their class
   • therefore they constantly try to increase their portion of the surplus labor value
   • therefore (among other cost-cutting efforts) they constantly reduce the potion of the surplus labor-value that goes to laborers
6. Eventually, laborers collectively receive less than they would have would have under the previous less efficient means of production, to the point where they are required to work full time just to make a subsistence living.
7. When it gets worse than that, you'll have bloodshed - few people starve to death gracefully.

Marx' critique was really in the nature of "Let's not let it get to that point, shall we?" He really wanted to find some balance between Smith's free-market capitalism (the original "society of associated producers") and the obvious productive power of corporate entities (Smith, incidentally, railed against corporations as destructive forces as well - I always found that interesting). Marx' idea - vaguely, because he never developed it fully - was to somehow remove the class distinction between the capitalists and the laborers, so that social forces would guarantee that the surplus labor-value of high-efficiency production was never exploited the way it would be in truly degenerate forms of capitalism.

The problems that Marxism has suffered all stem from that fact that most of his followers forgot all about the capital/labor-value/efficiency aspect of the theory and focused purely on the social class issue - it boiled down in most people's minds to various means of ridding the world of an oppressive super-class. Even Marx fell into that trap for a while - if you read the 18th brumaire you'll see that it's mostly a description of the socio-political manipulations that the old French ruling class used to transform itself into the new French ruling class and subvert the democratic intent of the populace. So, a warning about the inevitability of revolution in a degenerate system got twisted into a call for immediate revolution against the current system, and everything went to hell in a handbasket.

I'm actually surprised that Libertarians don't use Marx more frequently - Marx could be used to give a brilliant analysis of (for instance) the mortgage crisis and subsequent events in the US that would highlight some of the problems with big government and its relationship with big business. but... their loss. --Ludwigs2 18:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this interpretation can be reached by "reading Marx carefully". Rather, one can arrive at it by carefully ignoring almost everything Marx actually wrote and then applying one's gift of telepathy + time travel in order to establish what Marx was really thinking despite writing, in some cases, the exact opposite.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There are many 'types of Marxism'. Ludwig's version, however, isn't one of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read Marx and get back to me on that. That was (for the most part) straight from Capital, with (as I pointed out at the start) a bit of inductive reasoning and opining near the end. Capital is freely available online, along with many of Marx' other writings; I'll find a link to good translations for you if you'd like me to.

I don't mind running a mini-seminar in Marxist theory if it comes to that - it's not really my specialty, but I can do it justice. But don't argue with me from the perspectives found in threadbare punditry. If you think something I said is wrong please counter it analytically, with proper referents and clear arguments, so we can have a decent discussion. anything less than that, don't bother - it will just annoy me and embarrass you.

I swear, no one ever learns on Wikipedia... --Ludwigs2 03:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I started the sub-thread in order to learn more, and indeed I have learnt something, even if others haven't. I liked the idea that the "society of associated producers" can be found in Smith. I'll go back to Smith to look at that, because I agree with Ludwigs' implication that Smith is often read wrongly. Specifically, he is not read in the context of the contemporary debate on the reform of English (not Scottish) social welfare (Poor Law). Itsmejudith (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wealth of Nations is an over-detailed tome, and you should really skim it rather then try to slog your way through the full text (unless you like that kind of thing, of course). I find Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments much more useful - it's more philosophical, and you get a better sense of where he was coming from intellectually. just my 2¢. --Ludwigs2 13:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I read the Oxford World Classics abridged edition of WoN, which has material from all the volumes, and a great introduction by Kathryn Sutherland. I do want to read the whole thing though, or at least dip into some lesser known bits. I also read ToMS, useful to read it alongside Locke. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

immigration

Wikipedia gave me approximate answers to the question of how many legal immigrants the U.S. has yearly, but I would like to know what the average length of time is for a person who applies for legal immigrant status to be granted it. What are the conditions to be granted immigrant status? I know there is a lottery for a green card (friends from Holland have tried for 3 years) so is it purely luck or can you "wait in line" and eventually get to immigrate? I believe quotas by region of the world have been eliminated. Is that still true? Thank you.75.15.87.165 (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at any US government websites on the subject? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The question about the average length is maybe impossible to answer, since many people might try it one year and again in 5 years and others, might try it once and get it.

The conditions are very diverse, so you'll have to check the US gov. web-page. There are several routes: to marry, to invest, to study, to work (for a company that sponsors you), to take part on a working holiday program.

Some countries are excluded from the lottery, so it is not only luck. If you don't have a high-school diploma, you are also excluded. Equally excluded are all those which do not have the means for immigrating and covering their own expenses. Quest09 (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The "length of time" depends very much on under what conditions the alien applies for (or, more often, is sponsored for) lawful permanent residence, and in some cases also on his nationality. Various categories of migrants are outlined in the article Permanent residence (United States), complete with the typical "visa backlog" times. The data are based on the US State Department regularly publishes Visa Bulletin, which states the current priority dates for various categories of employment-based and family-based migrants. The current bulletin's numbers are summarized here. As you can see, there is no visa backlog per se for, e.g. the immediate relatives (spouses and minor children) of US citizen, or the 1st ("extraordinary ability") employment-based category. Meanwhile, say, for the 3rd (general skilled) EB category, it is people whose applications were approved in 2002-2005 who may be receiving their immigrant visas or green cards today; for, for example. Philippine citizens who applied in the 4th family-based category (brothers and sisters of US citizens), the current "priority date" is stated as 1-01-88, meaning that applicants whose application was approved in 1988 are now eligible to receive their visas. This is because there are, presumably, lots more Filipinos with siblings in the US than the quota set for that category.

Of course, the visa waiting times (backlog) set in the Visa Bulletin is only part of the story. For the EB categories, typically, it would make little sense for an employer to spend time and money sponsoring a person for permanent residence unless he is already working for them (on a non-immigrant visa). So a somewhat typical timeline preceding permanent residence may be like this:

1. A foreigner spends a few years in the US on a student visa (e.g. F visa), gets a bachelor's or master's degree, and gets hired by a US company upon graduation.
2. S/he works for a US employer under the "practical training" provisions of the student visa (something like 12 or 18 months after graduation).
3. That time gives the employer an opportunity to sponsor the employee for a long-term employment permit, such as H-1(b) status. That is still a "non-immigrant visa", meaning that it only authorizes limited stay (normally, up to 6 years in total). but it has a "dual intent" provision (i.e., the fact that the person is being sponsored for PR at the same time is not an impediment for him having the H non-immigrant status). An alternative situation is the L-1 visa, available to people who initially worked for a multinational company's foreign office and then were transferred to the US.
4. Based on the need to retain the foreign worker permanently, and the eligibility under various legal criteria (such as the ability to "prove" that they "cannot" find a suitable US worker for the job), the employer may sponsor the alien for permanent residence. This is a major commitment (total costs usually way over US $10K), and involved a number of fairly lengthy legal steps. The process may perhaps be accomplished as fast as in a year or two, but in practice takes significantly longer; this is why the law has special provisions for e.g. extending the H status beyond the normal 6 year maximum for persons whose PR application is in progress, but a visa number is not available yet.

-- Vmenkov (talk)

January 1

Bahá'í religious choice

A Bahá'í woman once told me that every Bahá'í reaching the age of 15 is called upon to choose a religion to follow thereafter, and the Bahá'í religion requires the parents to respect the choice.

I don't find this mentioned in the article titled Bahá'í Faith. Where can I find an account of it? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you unable to find anything about it in Google or perhaps on a Baha'i website? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I googled

Bahá'í "15 years old"

I found various items on other topics related to that religion. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I found this bit on Yahoo Answers. It was written by an adherent, who was asked why they chose the faith. Their answer, in part, was "My father and some of his family members became Baha'is in the 50's and 60's, so I was essentially born into it (in 1973). However, as with all Baha'is I had to specifically choose to remain a Baha'i once I reached maturity..." which seems to speak to what you're asking about. I'll see if I can dig up some more, but a quick tip: it doesn't seem to be related to 15 particularly, but rather to maturity. Matt Deres (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC) ps - Ah, maybe I was wrong. This site specifically mentions 15 as the age of choice. Sorry I can't seem to find something more authoritative. Perhaps Bugs, with his superior Google and Baha'i website searching skills, can find something for us. Matt Deres (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Not really authoritative sources, though. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks similar to the Christian practice of Confirmation in the West, which takes place at the age of reason (actually pre-adolescence, I don't know why some people call that age of reason). Quest09 (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

....No, I don't think it's comparable. A baptized Christian reaching the "age of reason" who decides to become Buddhist, Muslim, polytheist, or whatever, would probably be considered guilty of apostasy. I don't think there's an rigid rule in (most versions of) Christianity requiring the parents to respect such a decision in the same way. The Catholic church explicitly says that the mark of Christian baptism is indelible. (Although they do recognize such a thing as defection from the church.) Michael Hardy (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What actually caused me to think of this again is that I came across the German concept of "Religionsmündigkeit" — the age at which a person in Germany acquires full legal freedom of religion, so that their parents can no longer require them to attend the church of the parents' choice, etc. 14 years, I think. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The questioner is basically correct. The exact position is that, at the age of 15, children of Baha'i parents are required to reaffirm their faith, upon which they may continue to attend Baha'i gatherings. From birth until age 15 they are automatically registered as Baha'i children, and are free to go to all Baha'i functions. After that time, if they don't reaffirm, they will not be able to attend those few gatherings that are for Baha'is only, such as those concerned with administration. The age requirement does not concern all forms of membership or participation, and has nothing to do with voting in Baha'i elections, which begins at age 21. See here for more, and on the same page, the sections from 512 to 522, for a fairly complete overview. You can post any further questions on my talk page. It's been emotional (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, "it's". Michael Hardy (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

1810

Does anybody know the date or time of the year King Kaumualii of Kauai ceded his kingdom to Kamehameha the Great in the year 1810. I think it should be known since the start of the kingdom of Hawaii can be dated to May or the Spring of 1795.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote from "Shoals of Time" by Gavan Daws: "Early in 1810 his ship carried Kaumualii and his retinue to Honolulu...and after several days of celebration the diplomatic issue was broached and settled." Not very precise...--Wrongfilter (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Here it says: "At last, in 1810,..., Kaumualii consented to go to Honolulu... Kamehameha came out with a fleet of canoes to meet him at Honolulu Harbor. The time was late March or early April." --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

However, here: "Intermediary in the agreement was the American sea captain, Jonathan Windship, who in the summer of 1810 brought King Kaumualii and his court to Oahu where the compact was made and the little kingdom formally ceded...". --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Female immigrants to the US

From which country did most female immigrants to the US arrive from the 17th to the 20th centuries? My educated guess would be Ireland seeing as many unmarried Irish females came to the US on their own, especially in the 19th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

An interesting question. Mitochondrial DNA studies might tell you a little, but I'd think you'd probably do better looking at ships passenger lists etc. I'm not sure about the Irish case, as the women might have been matched by an equal (or even greater) number of unmarried Irish men. Certainly the general trend for most migrations if for the early arrivals to have a greater preponderance of males. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually what made me ask is the fact that many celebrities who are considered Italian-American, such as Liza Minelli, John Travolta, and Robert De Niro actually have maternal Irish DNA. I hate to sound weasly but I recall having once read that at some period in the 19th century, Irish female emigrants surpassed males.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think England has to be a contender. From our article: "An estimated 3.5 million English emigrated to the USA after 1776." My knowledge of English history (mostly gleaned from reading around, e.g. The Last of England (painting)) leads me to believe that by this point a large number of the emigrants were women (and children). Ireland may have sent a higher proportion of its population, but England was more populous to start with. In 1855, apparently 2% of England packed its bags and left (350 000 out of 18m). Statistics for Wales are bundled with England, for historic reasons; Scotland is separate, and sent a lot of emigrants (Highland Clearances); again, my instinct would say that a lot of these were women, but I have no hard data to back that up. Obviously, not all of them went to the USA, but a substantial wave did. -- If by 20th century you mean up until 1999, then perhaps Mexico might be in the running? BrainyBabe (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

voting

The current representative system was developed at a time when people required representation for a number of reasons such as expertise, the need of a congress to permit relatively immediate decisions, etc. Today we have the Internet so is there a system that would allow everyone to represent themselves by default and to be represented by only the person they deferred to per issue? --Inning (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been experimented with on shows like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, which should give a sense of how well direct democracy would work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that most people don't have the time to inform themselves properly before voting on complex issues. Lets say there's a vote coming up on a trade treaty with Romania, or on funding research into a certain type of cancer, or on immigration quotas. Most people spend most of their time working and feeding themselves and their family. They may have opinions on these issues, but how informed are these opinions? How well do they know the potential consequences of voting "yea" or "nay" on a piece of legislation? Wouldn't it be better if there were someone whose full-time job it was to do this sort of thing? --Jayron32 16:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

...er ah that why I said, "...represent themselves by default and to be represented by only the person they deferred to per issue..." --Inning (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that people believe themselves to be well enough informed rather than actually being well enough informed about these issues. People are likely to make malinformed decisions rather than to give their vote by proxy, as you suggest, to an expert or representative. Someone may believe they know the optimum tarrif levels for quail eggs imported from Romania. But that they don't, but would still have an opinion on the issue, is the problem. --Jayron32 18:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree about the part where people "believe" rather than "actually" being well enough informed about public issue to vote wisely. Just take a look at the Vaccine controversy - the hard science is clear, yet the controversy remains. A default self-representation + deferral voting system will probably result in disaster. Royor (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely - and the vaccine crap is just the tip of it. Just think about how many bullshit factoids you've ever been sent by well-meaning friends who think they're well-informed because they know the truth about - hell, forget the big stuff like conspiracy theories and Obama birthers - how many of us "learned" that October 2010 was so strange for having three Fridays, three Saturdays, and three Sundays in it? I got that forwarded to me from a couple of people. If they consider themselves informed about how the calender they use every day works, I shudder to think how well they'll handle something more complicated. Matt Deres (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that particular "oddity" had been doing the email rounds (but it doesn't surprise me). My local paper published it breathlessly for the "enlightenment" of the populace - so I wrote and explained to them just how commonplace and ordinary it is. The editor at least had the grace to publish my rejoinder. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it is so rare, that it will happen again in July. Googlemeister (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Tyranny of the majority. schyler (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not practical for large groups to govern. That's why organizations' conventions, or for that matter legislatures themselves, appoint committees to look at issues in-depth and only vote on matters that have already been crafted and vetted in committee. Full legislatures in the U.S. do vote on hundreds of bills each session, but at least they can say that because legislating is their full-time job during the session, they have time and expertise to study each bill before it comes up for a vote. (In reality, that's not the case, and legislators will often vote on bills without reading them.) Most people, on the other hand, are too busy to look at dozens of highly technical pieces of legislation every day. So the logical thing to do is appoint others (legislators) to do that for us, then vote them out of office if they don't do what we want. Now there are some times when the issue is simple enough, or important enough, for people to be able to vote on the matter themselves. This is why some jurisdictions have referendums. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that representatives protect us from that, at best they substitute tyranny of the ruling class (if that ruling class happens to differ from the majority). StuRat (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"Ruling class" is a fairly vague and problematic construct. Who is the ruling class in the United States? I'm not sure there is one "ruling class" unless you take refuge in either shadowy conspiracies or gross generalizations. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

WASPs. Yes, occasionally someone outside the group gets in (like the current President), but a good 90% of the members of both houses of Congress, Supreme Court Judges, and Presidents and VPs have been WASPs, historically, even though this group may even be a minority, by numbers, these days, especially if you exclude women. StuRat (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Um... less than 55% of the 111th Congress was Protestant. Less than half of the members of Congress are WASPs. The Cabinet has its typical assortment of minority members. As far as I can tell, everyone on the Supreme Court is either Catholic, Jewish or minority. There may be a ruling class in America, but to identify it with WASPs nowadays doesn't make any sense. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are zero WASPs on the Supreme Court now; the president and the three people following him in the line of succession aren't WASPs either. Maybe the WASPs did this on purpose to distract us from their shenanigans, but more likely is that the idea of WASPs as the "ruling class" is a bit outdated. Although some would say that the Supreme Court is more "diverse" than ever, in one respect the opposite is true: every single justice is a product of Harvard or Yale, as are our last four presidents. To form a modern definition of the US "ruling class", start there. —Kevin Myers 06:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I did say "historically". Yes, the WASP ruling class is losing it's clout in the US, but not everywhere else in the world. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I still don't see a "ruling class." I see coalitions that form and reform. I see a lot of groups with more or less power depending how the issue is. I don't see anything that can be generalized into a simple ruling majority of any sort. The US is, and has been for decades, a far more complicated political environment than that. I would file "WASPs are the ruling class" as a gross generalization. (It's a gross-generalization of WASPs as well, which as a "class" contains a lot of different groups with different politics, incomes, cultures.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the Democratic Party is becoming more inclusive, but the Republican Party remains rather WASPish. During the 2008 Presidential election, the Democrats had the major minorities represented, with a black (Obama) in the lead, a woman (Hillary Clinton) in 2nd place, and also a Hispanic (Bill Richardson) in the pack. The Republicans, on the other hand, had all white men. Yes, Republicans do occasionally pull in a minority member, but it seems largely to be a token gesture, such as choosing Sarah Palin as the VP candidate. StuRat (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea that the OP is describing would basically meaning governing the USA in the same way that Wikipedia is governed. Need I say more? Looie496 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Is it your contention that the US gov is better-run than Wikipedia, or worse-run ? StuRat (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be, hmm..., interesting to see the concensus-building process for any kind of major legislation in a government run Wikipedia-style. Actually I don't think any legislation could be changed by that method unless perhaps at the local level.Sjö (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

See Consensus decision-making Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Crime cost effectiveness study

I'm wondering if anyone has done any crime cost effectiveness studies. Using some kind of algorithm that quantifies potential gain vs chance of detection vs chance of conviction vs potential penalty and used it to work out the most cost effective criminal activity.

For example a bank robbery has a high initial potential gain in direct cash, however the chances of being caught and convicted are probably fairly high too and the jail time is heavy. Shoplifting might only net a small amount each time but the chances of being caught are lower and the penalty is likely to be a fine.

Anyone know any studies along these lines? Exxolon (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but I bet that white-collar or corporate crime would have the highest cost-benefit ratio... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe copyright infringement related crimes have an even better ratio, since the cost is quite low.Quest09 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Law and economics is probably a good place to start. --GreatManTheory (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that criminals do this type of analysis, particularly in organized crime. They often try to keep "just under the radar", meaning that they try not to draw police attention, or even worse, the attention of the FBI or equivalent. So, even if this means their take is less, it worth it to avoid the increased risk that high-profile crimes bring, especially if they are in it for the long run. StuRat (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear War

Resolved

-- It was the USS Liberty incident — Fly by Night (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I remember hearing about the US president giving an order to use nuclear weapons, but then withdrew the order. I think it was in the 1960's or 1970's. If I recall, an American plane was shot down. It might have been during the Arab-Israeli war, and it could have been the Egyptians that shot down the plane. I'm not sure. Can anyone enlighten me? — Fly by Night (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cuban Missile Crisis? ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No -- it involved an Arab nation, maybe Egypt. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A U-2 spy plane, piloted by Francis Gary Powers, was shot down by the Soviet Union, but this didn't cause the same high alert status as the Cuban Missile Crisis. StuRat (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No -- it involved an Arab nation, maybe Egypt. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You may also misremembering this with the increase of DEFCON 4 to 3 during the Yom Kippur War#Soviet threat of intervention. Flamarande (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it involved a bomber, or something, being dispatched and called back following a downed US aircraft. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

World War III has a nice, short list of a few of the "greatest threats" moments. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides the close calls in that article, wasn't there an instance of a US general not responding per policies when someone ran a "test tape" simulating a Russian ICBM attack, and the general doubted the radar indications were real because of other factors, similar to what the Soviet general did? Edison (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There was also Ronald Reagan's famous "We begin bombing in five minutes" radio announcement in 1984: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes," which caused "the Soviet Far East Army [to be] placed on alert after word of the statement got out, and [...] the alert was not withdrawn until 30 minutes later." WikiDao ☯ 03:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it'd be in the WW3 article. It was a nuclear attack against a non-nuclear state. So it would have been more genocide than thermonuclear war. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In 1945 the US was prepared to continue attacking Japan with nuclear weapons, but President Truman called a halt the day after the second attack. (Cite: Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, page 743 in my copy, a few pages from the end of chapter 19.) --Anonymous, 07:17 UTC, January 2, 2011.

I would call for a halt if I was out of ammunition as well. It looks bad to threaten to do something outside your current power if you get called on it. Googlemeister (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't the reason he did it, nor was that as big a problem as is made out to be. They had another bomb scheduled for the end of August and were making preparations on Tinian to prepare for it. There was actually all sorts of discussion about whether they should drop it whenever it was ready, or group them in twos-or-threes again. Truman said, essentially, "don't drop another without me telling you to, first," as opposed to his general "drop 'em when you've got 'em" order. It wasn't related to their availability. He didn't make the "halt" command publicly, in any case, so there was no (changed) chance of losing face either way. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I remember hearing something on a history TV program. There was footage of a silver US jet fighter landing on an aircraft carrier. I'm pretty sure that the Egyptians shot down a US plane and the US president sent a bomber or something to attack the Egyptians, but called it back. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The general answer you're getting is that there are no reliable sources indicating that this ever happened. Nuclear release, even if no actual attack happens, is a very big deal (one of the biggest!) and if this were a reliably documented event then it wouldn't be hard to find something about it. It was likely speculation on the part of the TV program. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the original poster has mangled the memory a bit. The US would have had no need to use nuclear weapons against the Egyptians, for one thing. If there are Egyptians involved, I suspect the program was about Israel's nuclear arsenal during the Six-Day War or, more probably, the Yom Kippur War. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've found it! It was the attack of the USS Liberty. We have an article on the attack: USS Liberty incident. The article says that "President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson, launched nuclear-armed planes targeted against Cairo from a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. The planes were recalled only just in time..." The Americans thought that the Egyptians had made the attack when, in fact, it was an Israeli fighter and torpedo boats. However, the article goes on to say that a "source for the aircraft being nuclear-armed, James Ennes, later stated that he was probably wrong in his original book..." — Fly by Night (talk)

OK. I severely doubt they were nuclear-armed. It's no trivial thing to start a nuclear war, especially when you're trying to avoid starting one (which is why the Liberty was there in the first place). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, me too. In fact it seems they were brought back because they were able to carry nuclear weapons. I just wanted to know what was behind that piece of history program I heard and now I know. It's nice to know that I haven't misunderstood and muddled any memories as multiple posters said I had. Thanks for all your help. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Former Governor of California

1) Why is Arnold Schwarzenegger stepping down as governor of California? Is it simply that he was outvoted in an election, or some other reason?

2) From this side of the pond, it seems rather odd that actors/celebrities are thought fit to run a state or even the country. I understand that California was in a financial crisis when he took office. Did he actually manage to solve the finance problem?

3) In general did he make a good job of running California, or was it just effective public relations without much substance? Thanks 92.29.119.95 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(2) I've often heard that sort of criticism of actors/entertainers going into politics, but who might be better qualified? Is a lawyer, a corporate executive, a farmer, a civil servant, a scientist, a salesman or a sportsman necessarily any better equipped? I say no, in general. By "this side of the pond", I assume you mean the UK. Look at Glenda Jackson. Then look at the House of Lords, which remains entirely unelected despite recent reforms; its members can include actors (Olivier), composers (Britten), sportspeople (Coe) and others from every possible field of endeavour. Virtually none of them (except defeated members of the House of Commons who are kicked upstairs as compensation) have ever studied the ways of government, yet they all have the right to influence the law of the land. How "odd" is that? At least the Schwarzeneggers of the world put themselves up for election and get tested against the only criterion that ever really matters - the ballot box. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger is not "stepping down"; he's termed out. Whether he did a good job depends on whom you asked. In my opinion he did OK; I certainly preferred him to either Gray Davis or Pete Wilson. --Trovatore (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

See also List of actor-politicians. The Kaczyński twins, former President and former Prime Minister of Poland, are listed there, though they were only actors in their childhood. When Peter Sodann ran for President (not an office that runs the country), the German media did indeed compare him to Reagan and Schwarzenegger, but they didn't take him seriously. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Sluzzen) I think that Schwarzenegger is generally respected as a governor. He retained generally high poll ratings for most of his two terms, though his approval rating took a nasty slump in early 2010 [2]. He certainly was dealt a pretty awful hand, and California is regarded as being fairly ungovernable anyway (California is notoriously politically divided, and the Initiative and Referendum process makes it easy to pass laws that help certain segments of the population in the short term, but are economically unsustainable in the medium to long term. See List of California ballot propositions). California Proposition 13 (1978), for example, severely restricts how much property taxes local governments can collect to raise revenues. Schwarzenegger leaves California still in a pretty dire economic situation. He has passed some environmental legislation, which many in the environmentally conscious California approve of. He has seriously tried to address the economic issues, but in many cases been stymied by political gridlock. I would not characterize his election as a public relations stunt. I think that in general, Schwarzenegger did act in good faith, and with California's best interests in mind. I will be interested to see what he does with the rest of his life. 174.20.220.94 (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Heres an interesting, brief end of term assessment of Schwarzenegger's time as governor. 174.20.220.94 (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember that Arnold was not elected in a normal election, but rather simultaneous with the recall of Gray Davis. It was a very abbreviated campaign with 135 candidates. So there was a tremendous advantage to already having a lot of name recognition, and who had more name recognition than Arnold? Also keep in mind that elections in America are usually about individuals more than parties as in a parliamentary system. Many people take pride in voting for the person rather than the party. In that environment, name recognition is a huge advantage. A wishy-washy independent voter may be far more likely to pull the tab for the ex-quarterback whose name they recognize than some lawyer who they've never heard of. And of course, someone like Arnold is going to have a lot of money and a lot of rich friends, which is important for running for office in America. That said, while there are quite a few examples of celebrities-turned-politicians in America, most major elected officials in the U.S. got their start as lawyers or business people, and most celebrities don't run for office. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the entertainers as politicians question: There are two dentists in the House of Representatives. By your measuring stick, are dentists any more qualified than entertainers? There are some very smart people in entertainment. Dismas|^(talk) 03:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Mick Jagger would be very unsuited to being a member of parliament. 92.24.185.225 (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Jagger studied at the London School of Economics and had planned to become a politician. Why would he be insuited to political life? He's obviously very intelligent, is qualified in economics and knows how the political system works; he's got loads of charisma in addition to a knighthood. What other qualities is he lacking?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Experience in administration, management, social work, and law. Millions of people are graduates, we are two a penny. You don't want much charisma in politicians - they ought ideally to be selfless public servants who are assessed on their record of work done rather than as superficial manipulators or charmers. 92.15.22.77 (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Schwarzeneggar's ratings are in the 20% range. I don't think he is "is generally respected". Corvus cornix_talk 05:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as Jagger had studied at the LSE, with a view to becoming a politician, I presume he learned about administration, management, the law and civil service. He has been described as highly intelligent and an astute businessman, so I hardly think it would be too difficult for him to assume the role of an MP.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think he is. Liberal voters have generally been surprised that he wasn't as bad as they'd feared he might be. And although Bush sabotaged Davis (and California) by refusing to intervene in the electricity con so that they could get a Republican elected, then promptly intervened as soon as Aanold was in office, Schwarzenegger never played Republican party games, and often spoke out against them. I think he's generally seen as having the country's best interests at heart even by those who think most Republicans do not. — kwami (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

And for most of his time in office, as I already pointed out, his approval rating was quite high, at some points very high (at least by California standards). There are a lot of people who don't agree with what he did, but I think that most people think that he really was trying to help California out. California sucks to govern, and I certainly wouldn't want the job. Buddy431 (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is about right. California itself was probably going to be a muddle either way, but Arnold showed himself to be more thoughtful and more independent than his detractors had suspected he would be when he was elected. (I was one of said detractors.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Mercury News article linked to above says that when he started there was a $10.2 billion deficit, but now there is a $25.4 billion deficit. So on that, he failed. The cancellation of the increase in car tax (losing $4billion a year) seems like expensive crowd-pleasing ("bread and circuses"), so I'm inclined to think that although he was able to get the voters to see things including himself in a positive light due to his acting experience, when assessed by the figures alone he did a poor job. 92.24.185.225 (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're ignoring the little matter of the worldwide economic collapse in the mean time. Personal income tax revenues tanked. Presumably, so did property tax and sales tax. That wasn't under the Governator's control.

The best thing he did was get himself hated by the horrible union of the prison guards. I want to clarify that I'm not criticizing individual prison guards themselves; it's a terrible job that, unfortunately, someone has to do. But their union has been just appalling, daring to oppose measures that keep people out of prison in a state with an unbelievably high incarceration rate, apparently on the grounds that they would mean less work for their members. To me that's utterly inexcusable. --Trovatore (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

But politics is more than cherry-picking figures, of course. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Au contrere; politics is all about cherry-picking figures. It's real life / reality which is about more than that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

He managed to get himself hated by the nurses' union, the teachers' unions and the state employees. He got himself hated by the right, by the left who supported the unions (and voted down his long series of ridiculous propositions). I still see nobody who supports him. Corvus cornix_talk 21:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Being hated by the prison guards' union is a really big plus. --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2

Unusual given names of movie characters

Yesterday I watched a re-run of Parrish, a 1961 Troy Donahue/Claudette Colbert/Karl Malden movie, which I’d heard of but never seen. I’m not at all sure I’m any better off for having done so. But anyway, my question is about names of movie characters.

Dean Jagger played a man named Sala Post (Sala pronounced like a non-rhotic Sailor). The only Sala I’d ever heard of is a surname (pronounced Sah-luh). I checked and found there are three Wiki-notable people with the first name Sala, but one’s a woman, one wasn’t even born till 1976 (the film was based on a 1958 novel), and the other was hardly well-enough known to have influenced the novelist. So, we have a character with a particularly unusual given name (nothing wrong with that per se).

Now, unusual given names are things that people in real life notice and often comment on or ask questions about. There would be a point in having a character with such a name if the name itself played some role in the plot, or at least there was some acknowledgement in the movie of its oddness. But if it’s treated as if it were a perfectly normal name like Bill or Harry or Mary or Jane, then what actually is the point of going to the trouble of giving the character such a name to begin with? The title character Parrish Maclean is another case in point. Maybe in this particular case the novel went into the name issue but that explanation got lost in the translation to the screen. Nevertheless, I’ve often noticed this tendency, particularly in American movies, of characters with given names that virtually nobody has ever heard of but everyone treats them as perfectly normal and never asks how they're spelt. I could probably produce quite a long list if I had the energy.

I can see some sense in making a character stand out from the crowd by giving them an unusual attribute – but to then treat it as if it was not remotely unusual is sort of giving out a confused message.

So, what am I missing here? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not that uncommon for people to have uncommon names. "Parrish" sounds like one of those last names used as first names, like with the real-life people McGeorge Bundy, Jefferson Davis, Anderson Cooper, Jackson Browne, Turner Gill, Brooks Robinson, etc. Perhaps if you had 300 pages to discuss someone, it would make sense to explain the origin of the name, but in a 90 minute film it might be a distraction. Come to think of it, did they ever explain the origin of the title character's name in any of the 247 episodes of Murphy Brown? And The Simpsons has never given an in-universe explanation, as far as I know, for Homer and Bartholomew Simpson's unusual first names. (Fans know Homer was Matt Groening's father's name and "Bart" is an anagram of "brat."). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that Homer and Bart are uncommon names but not unusual ones, which is a bit different from the original question. They're familiar enough names so as not to require any explanation. Not so with "Sala Post", of course. Google tells me that "Sala Post" was the name of a real person in Connecticut history, where the film and novel was set, and where the author was from. Maybe the author was familiar with the name and picked it for historical reasons, or just liked the oddness of it. Maybe the novel explains the name. That said, I think movies characters are sometimes unusually named just to be offbeat and memorable. Examples abound, as Jack says. One of my favorite movies, Bottle Rocket, springs to mind. A main character is named Dignan, perhaps a first name, which is unusual. Another character is called "Future Man", with no explanation given -- or needed. Just go with it. —Kevin Myers 05:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hermione Granger stood out, but she was in a book first. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Context is pretty significant. Hermione is uncommon in middle class Britain, but it's a name I have heard a number of times in an upper class context. Equally I'd consider many given names in the US slightly unusual, given my own experiences.

ALR (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Mwalcoff's made a good distinction. There are many names that are unusual as given names, but very well known as surnames and so are not uncommon per se. For example, if I were to meet an Anderson Jones or a Smith Johnson or a Cartwright Kennedy, I'd have no doubt how to spell their names. But watching that movie yesterday, every time I heard someone say "Say-lah", I was thinking "Sailor", forgetting that they'd be pronouncing that word rhotically if it were really Sailor. But even if that had dawned on me, I'd still be wondering how to spell this "Say-la" name. It seems to me that's an unreasonable burden to place on a viewer. It's one thing to have a list of the characters and players at the end (this movie didn't do that), but for reasonably intelligent viewers to have to depend on seeing such a list to work out how characters' names were spelt seems a bit much. This movie was made decades before google. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sala is a Biblical name. Americans have always had weird Biblical names, and that was especially true in old-timey sepia tumbleweed days. Perhaps obscure Biblical names are less common in Australia, but the minute I saw the name "Sala", I thought to myself, that's gotta be some leper or shepherd or something. 90% of weird American forenames are from the Old Testament. American history is full of Gomers and Jethros and Zebulons. People must have been used to it, either from familiarity with the Bible or simply from dealing with lots of Biblically named people. LANTZY^TALK 08:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

By definition it's only weird if you are not used to it. I'm sure there are tons of names that sound normal to you and weird to me (or any of the other editors here). Ariel. (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Lantzy -- Such American naming habits were heavily influenced by those of 17th-century English puritans. At least names like "Unless-Jesus-Christ-Had-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barbon" stayed on the other side of the Atlantic... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Dickens gave his characters unusual nasmes - I wonder if that was done to reduce the chances of libel actions. 92.24.185.225 (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

JackofOz -- for many years I had great difficulty parsing the name "St. John Rivers" in Jane Eyre, and wondered whether this was some bizarre British naming practice... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "sinjən" is bizarre. But the British have a national obsession for bizarre pronunciations and rituals and traditions, so that's part of the deal. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Would the movie have been better if it had had Sallah in it instead of Sala? Matt Deres (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really, nothing could have saved it. That's the miracle of TV, though: they can take a movie that died at the box office, and bring it back to life 50 years later. (Or even 6 months later, rebadged misleadingly as "comedy smash".)  :)

I guess they couldn't have called him Shelah (one of the alternative forms of Salah (biblical figure)) - I'd be thinking "What's a bloke named Sheila doing in this movie. Johnny Cash, this is obviously where you got your idea for a A Boy Named Sue from". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

ObPedantry- A Boy Named Sue was written by Shel Silverstein; Cash just recorded it. Matt Deres (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Matt. I was just guessing anyway. (Btw, it's not pedantry to enlighten others. Any truth, no matter how trivial, is more important than any misinformation.) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"A Boy Named Sue" may have been inspired by the real-life Sue K. Hicks, named for his mother who died soon after his birth. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally English-speaking Protestants have given their children first names from the Old Testament and family surnames as first names, to avoid the names of saints.--Wetman (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? In which country and which form of protestantism? DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

17th-century Puritans were not too fond of non-Biblical names associated closely with traditional Catholic saints who were not considered by the Puritans to be precursors to themselves (names such as "Sebastian", "Benedict", "Ursula" etc. etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

19th century pioneers of the American Old West often had biblical names such as Zachariah, Zebidiah, Esther, Rebecca, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Old children's story

Resolved

I once owned a set of books called the Blue Books which were volumes of children's poems, fairy tales, and stories. They were published in the USA in the 1950s. I recall one of my favourites was a story called Little Diamond and the North Wind. Does anyone have any information regarding that lovely tale? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Could it be the same as At the Back of the North Wind? ---Sluzzelin talk 09:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That's it, Sluzzelin! The Blue Book had an abridged version of the story. Thank you. Once again, the ref desk has come through and provided the right answer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm now curious about the blue books. Were they Blue Book (magazine), or are they perhaps not featured at all under blue book disambiguation page? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think they had another name. My mother always referred to them as the blue books due to their blue binding, but after Googling blue books and coming up zero, I believe they had another name. I recall there had been at least 12 volumes, with the first ones dedicated to nursery rhymes. I do remember Andersen's Snow Queen was in volume seven. The illustrations were beautiful.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Eureka! They were called My Book House and were edited by Olive Beaupre Miller. My set was published in the late 1930s, rather than 1950s. Here is the external link: [3].--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk 03:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"American" style wedding

During episode 4 of series 6 of Top Gear, Richard Hammond describes an outdoor wedding as an "American style outdoor wedding". I'm American and I wasn't aware that we had pioneered the concept of the outdoor wedding.  ;-) Seriously though, what was meant by this? What's particularly "American" about this? Dismas|^(talk) 12:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the fact that it's not performed in a church? Dunno, just guessing, but I can say that a Christian wedding that's not performed in a church is a somewhat odd concept for the part of Europe I live in. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

British weddings are almost always held indoors, whether in a church or a registry office. The idea of standing around in some garden wearing a dinner jacket to get married is usually only seen in American films, hence Hammond's remark. 87.112.177.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC).

(ec) The large majority of weddings in Britain are held indoors either in churches or registry offices. Since the passing into law of the Marriage Act 1994, approved premises may also be used (Castles, Football grounds, hotels, country houses etc) but are seen as an extravagant option. Nanonic (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Pedantry alert: the official name is Register office. There are less-extravagant alternative venues than castles etc: I recently attended a fairly low-key ceremony in a Cambridge college. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The official name may be "register office", but "registry office" has been widely used for at least a century, according to the OED:

1911 G. B. Shaw Getting Married 236 Marriages gave place to contracts at a registry office.    1931 J. S. Huxley What dare I Think? vi. 205 The marriage ceremonial among most primitive peoples‥contains a religious motive, just as much as does a Christian wedding ceremony (and just as little as does a wedding in a registry office). 87.112.177.117 (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You went to a wedding which was held at Jesus, but not in the chapel? Marnanel (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The British weather is too unpredictable to arrange weddings outdoors. I don't agree that hotels and country houses are seen as an extravagant option; they are the norm these days for people who don't want to get married in a church or registry office for whatever reason.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"This never would have happened if the wedding had been inside the church with God instead of out here in the cheap showiness of nature!" Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're a regular Top Gear watcher I hope that you have noticed that part of their approach to humour is, in effect, sending up the tendency of the British (and the people of many other countries) to condemn what those strange foreign folks do. They make fun of the French, the Australians, the Japanese, and not surprisingly, Americans. All the while they are really sending up themselves, because the "attacks" are so silly at times. In this approach Americans are usually identified as being over the top in lavishness and the size of their vehicles. Could the line in question from the show be part of this approach? HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of their joking about other countries, like when Jeremy claimed that a German sat-nav system would only give you directions to Poland or James pointing out the large seats in another car, which was designed in America, saying that the seats would have to be big to fit the large butts of overweight Americans. But in the case of the wedding, it was the fact that it was outdoors that was stressed. I'm satisfied with the answers provided above. And I think it's interesting that a government would mandate not only who performed a marriage ceremony but also where they had it take place. Thanks for the responses, all! Dismas|^(talk) 00:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Mechanical copyright

In Britain, mechanical copyright on recorded works exists for a term of 50 years from that work's creation. This means that music recorded in 1960, for example, is currently out of copyright in Britain – and therefore that the earliest recordings of the Beatles will come out of copyright in just a couple of years.

However, the entire Beatles catalogue has recently been remastered. Are these remasters a last throw of the dice by the copyright holders to maximise their revenue before the expiration date, or is it understood that the remasters count as "new recordings" under the law, thereby conveniently extending the mechanical copyright by another few decades? 87.112.177.117 (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know British copyright law. But in the US context, the originals would still be their same old copyright, and the new material (including remastering, studio work, etc.) would be copyrighted as a new recording. That means that if the former did fall into the public domain, it would truly be in the public domain, but the new versions (with whatever new art/decisions/what have you) would not be. To use a concrete example, the Mona Lisa would be in the public domain, but the moustache would not be. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Which raises the question of who the new copyright falls to in such a situation. Does that mean that the copyright on the new remasters would by held by EMI (whose engineers made the necessary decisions when remastering), rather than the Beatles themselves (who only contributed to the original, soon-to-be-public-domain versions)? 87.112.177.117 (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If the original isn't in the public domain when the work is done, then the subsequent masters are a derivative work (the engineers have some copyright credit, but the Beatles' copyright credit precedes them). No problem or surprise there. If the original works are in the public domain, then they're effectively "authorless" for the purpose of copyright law, and the copyright goes to the engineers only, no Beatles required. (Or, put with the analogy above, there is never a need to pay any money to the Di Vinci estate, whomever they are at this point.) At least in basic US copyright law, as far as I understand it. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's another possibility, which is that the engineers' creative input is adjudged insufficient to create a new copyright, and the remastering stays in the public domain. I've never gotten a good handle on just how much you have to transform the work to create a new copyright. --Trovatore (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, though the amount is (in US law) clearly "not very much." The bar is pretty low. If you claim you are doing something creative (rather than making it look identical to what it was before, which was the Bridgeman v. Corel issue), generally the courts have agreed. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it depends. Restoration work on, say, a painting or a photograph does NOT confer a new copyright for the restorer, so one may claim that a straight "remastering" is akin to restoration work. However, a remixing, like say Let It Be... Naked, where the actual songs are different from the original may have a new copyright. --Jayron32 14:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The recording has a separate copyright from that of the song. This is why recordings of classical music have a copyright. Although the piece may be in the public domain, the recording cannot be copied. While the Beatles recording may enter the public domain, the songs will not. Copying the recording will not violate the copyright of the recording, but it will violate the copyright of the song. A good example of this distinction is with the British group The Verve with their hit Bitter Sweet Symphony. While the group had acquired the rights to the recording of the Rolling Stones Song by an orchestra, they had not for the song itself. The Beastie Boys encountered the same problem with their song Pass the Mic. That group was sued for the sampled use of a recorded flute. They had secured licensing for the recording, but not the song; however, the court ruled that the three notes they used constituted de minimis copying. See Newton v. Diamond 349 F. 3d 591 (9th Cir. 2003)[4] In the complex world of licensing and division of copyrights, the expiration of that of the recordings' only eliminates one possible copyright holder. Unauthorized copying of these recordings will still be copyright infringement for at least 70 years after the death of the song writers under the copyright laws of the UK and the US as the songs are registered in both jurisdictions. Gx872op (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

While it is true that the recording and the song have separate copyrights, in the case of the Beatles, when the original recordings and the song were fixed into a tangible medium at approximately the same time in almost all cases, I don't really see why they wouldn't be expected to fall into the public domain at around the same time. It's true that in the US, anyway, sound recordings have a more complicated legal history than textual records, but my skim of the relevant terms is that they are not so dissimilar in most cases. I don't know the UK, though, of course. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

When did January 1 become a bank holiday in England?

When did January 1 become a bank holiday in England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.226.65 (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

1974 [5].--Shantavira|^{feed me} 21:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

House of Reuss

How do the males in this family refer to each other when they have family reunion when they are all named Heinrich? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably they all have personal names or nicknames which they use to distinguish each other. Maybe just numerically. You could ask the sons of George Foreman how they do it. --Jayron32 20:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

January 3

Federal reserve comic books in public domain?

I recently ordered some comic books from the Federal Reserve [6]; are these works in the public domain? I can't find any copyright information on them. Thanks! 69.207.132.170 (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

All works created by US govt employees in the performance of their duties are uncopyrightable -- so if you don't find a copyright notice, it's pretty safe to assume they are in the public domain. Looie496 (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunately much more complicated than that. See copyright status of work by the U.S. government. If the work is done by a contractor, it can be copyrighted, and almost all of this kind of work is done by contractors these days. You cannot assume it is in the public domain simply because copyright information is lacking. In this case, the ones I have seen are credited to the PR departments of the various local Feds, so they should be public domain. But you could always e-mail them and check, which is the prudent thing to do if it really matters. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's actually quite simple because the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a private bank, not a US government entity. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recognized this fact in the case Lewis v. United States 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982).[7] The comic book is mostly likely not in the public domain. Gx872op (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A ha! An important distinction. What a confusing name for a bank. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act" [emphasis mine] --Nricardo (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked (not recently!) works of which the U.S. federal government was considered the author were not subject to copyright. But the federal government can own a copyright is it buys it or receives it as a gift from someone else who is considered the author or other previous copyright owner. In cases of a "work made for hire", the employer may be considered the "author" for purposes of copyright law. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Base and superstructure, Dialectical materialism and historical materialism

Can anyone explain the theory of Base and superstructure, Dialectical materialism and historical materialism in Marxism? I have problem understanding the concepts, particularly Base and superstructure. --LibertarianWarrior (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Historical materialism and dialectical materialism are both terms for variations on Marx's broad concept of historical development - basically that historical developments are determined by the underlying modes of production. Thus primitive tribal groups might sustain themselves by gathering wild fruits and vegetables and hunting, and these forms of production of the necessities of life will dictate multiple aspects of their existence (e.g, hunting might require them to follow seasonal game, which means the group must be mobile: no permanent structures or firm land ownership). major historical changes occur when new, more efficient forms of production are developed - e.g. hunters learn to domesticate cows and sheep and then settle down into more permanent pastoral communities, changing not just how they get meat, but broad aspects of their culture. new occupations are developed, old ones disappear, power shifts from one group of people to another. Dialectical materialism tries to key off of Hegelian dialectics (different social classes with different forms of production becoming thesis and antithesis in the historical system); Historical materialism doesn't, but sticks a bit closer to what Marx actually discussed. Marx never used either term (according to our - somewhat badly written - articles on the topics).

Base and superstructure are terms from structural Marxism, which developed a bit oddly. As I recall, the structural Marxists only had translations of some of Marx' writing when they began theorizing, so there's a bit of a disconnect. at any rate, base refers to the underlying economic relations which are the 'true' relations between classes in a society. Superstructure are the overarching social and political structures that serve to maintain, obscure or defend the relations laid out in the base. so, for instance, structural Marxists would say that the base in a modern society such as the US or UK is a capitalist relation, in which the dominant capitalist class exploits the labor of lower classes for their own profit - that's the 'true' relation in the society. However, the US and UK have liberal democratic political structures, judicial systems that assert broad equality, cultural elements such as religion (promising happiness in the afterlife) or entertainment (promising distraction in this life) - all of which are designed not to promote actual equality, but to obscure and excuse class discrepancies so that people are content with the exploitive system. They would point to things like, say, the American cultural assertion that with hard, conscientious, dedicated work everyone can rise (rags to riches) to a position of wealth and power (which is self-evidently not true, but which is a marvelous incentive to continue working hard). Some of those theories got well out there. Poulantzes (I think) even argued that democratic voting itself was a superstructure mechanism for disenfranchising the populace - it gives an individual the illusion of control over the government while actually reducing his input to a negligible cipher.

Does that help any? -Ludwigs2 05:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above but would simplify it and expand it as follows: For Marxists, the "base" is the set of economic relations that, for Marxists, define a society. A society's base includes its private property relations, circumstances of work and employment, and the allocation of the surplus value generated by workers. (Surplus value, defined imprecisely, is the value that workers produce that they do not receive as wages. In most modern capitalist societies, this surplus is divided among managers—who receive it as salaries that exceed the real economic value of their own work; shareholders—who receive it as profit, part of which they may decide to reinvest, and part of which they may collect as dividends; and government—which collects a portion of the surplus value in taxes.) On the base created by these economic relations, societies construct superstructures. A superstructure is not limited to political institutions, such as those discussed by Ludwigs2, though it does include such institutions. In fact, the word superstructure for Marxists has a meaning very similar to that of the term culture for anthropologists, minus economic relations. A superstructure is everything that is supported by an economic base, including political institutions (the state) and political discourse (including ideology), gender relations and other cultural norms, religion, and high culture, including literature, music, and the visual arts. Marco polo (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

California law

Is it true that in California you can't appeal from the judgment of a small claims court? Is so, do California lawyers generally know that their state differs from others in that respect? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Half true. According to this link, defendants who lose at the trial level can appeal, but plaintiffs cannot. I wouldn't be able to comment on what California attorneys know about the legal situation in other states. --Trovatore (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

But surely California attorneys know the ins and outs of their own state peculiarities. All states have aspects of their laws which are different than others', and any savvy lawyer knows how to take advantage of them. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Statistics on Egyptian tourism

This is an editor looking for sources usable in an article. If there is a place on WP specifically to request sources, I don't know where to find it. (I did post this on the talk page for WikiProject Egypt, but given the level of activity there I don't hold out much hope.)

I am looking for information about the Egyptian tourist industry—specifically, how many people visit specific tourist sites. I've tried searching on Google and Amazon.com but haven't found what I'm looking for. A. Parrot (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

According to this paper, which lists sources of data on tourism in Egypt in an appendix, the published data on tourism in Egypt do not seem to include numbers of tourists who visit specific sites. Marco polo (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

regarding Rajaraja chlan

Who is the mother of Rajaraja cholan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankarkumar41 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

According to our article Raja Raja Chola I, "Rajaraja was born as the third child of Parantaka Sundara Chola and Vanavan Maha Devi". This information is not cited to any source, however. Karenjc 11:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Buying French Guiana and France's Oversea Islands

Has any country, organization or a person ever wanted to purchase French Guiana and its oversea islands from France? If it had ::happened, what was the purchase offer? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not according to History of French Guiana, such an event would have probably born mention in that article, had it happened. French Guiana, before it was actually French Guiana, changed hands several times between the French, English, Dutch, and Portuguese, but most of these exchanges were the results of conquest and/or treaty. In 1946, the area became an integral part of France itself, akin to the relationship between Hawaii and the United States. --Jayron32 20:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Would France want to sell French Guiana for a big offer today? What would France say? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. Countries don't like to sell their territory these days, whatever the price. The U.S. got a lot of good bargains in the 19th century (Alaska Purchase, Louisiana Purchase, Gadsden Purchase), but I can't think of any such transactions in the 20th. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's flip the question the other way: Why would France want to sell it? What would France gain by selling it? --Jayron32 04:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Logic as basis of system

In 1966 North Vietnam claimed they would win the war because their system was based on logic and logic was superior to God. Does North Korea or any other country now-a-days claim logic to be the bases of their system, including Vietnam and if so do they include their legal system in their claim? --Inning (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you got a ref for that claim? It sounds awfully like something anti-atheist media would simply make up as a strawman argument - rarely do atheists personify Logic as an antipode of God, but theists do that a lot. In fact, when I put the first sentence of your question into google, the only hit I got that claimed this was a site that some of the regulars here will remember, and the ref for the quote on that site says nothing to the effect. In fact, you could claim that a majority (if not all) of the world's governments are based on "logic" rather than God. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Further searches led me to this refdesk question. Again, no confirmation of the statement actually ever being made. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tomorrow/Time for your response. The reason for this question is because I can find no governments which make such a claim that publish their laws in the form of a polychotomous key. Surely if logic were really the basis of any system, especially law, the expectation of obedience would depend on nothing else. --Inning (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I just read the article polychotomous key, and it probably left me more confused about this topic than I was before. Could you please elaborate your last post? --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A polychotomous key is nothing more than a dichotomous key which has node with any number of branches. For instance, a dichotomous key has two branches like and on-off switch whereas a polychotomous key can handle decisions such as yes-no-maybe. --96.252.216.102 (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I read that article and I think (if I understood it) what is meant is a key where you look through options to find a solution. For instance, like the troubleshooting charts some user manuals have - "is the cable plugged in?" "if not, is the TV set turned on?" "if not, are there batteries in your remote control?" etc. That said, I'm likewise confused as to what Inning is saying. That there are no law systems where all possible options are covered? If so, I'm not sure I agree - you can have traffic laws where all options are covered - you can either drive too fast or not. If you drive too fast, you will get fined. Simple as that. The second part of Inning's statement, I have no idea about. Obedience depends on nothing other than logic? What does that mean? I suspect we've had hard to cope with debates with Inning before BTW, here. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for the clarification regarding the polychotomous key, but my main confusion did indeed stem from the rest of Innings post, the similar points which TomorrowTime has already pointed out. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Law is not always cut and dry and leave many variables unconsidered. This is why courts exist to hear variables (conditions) which are not in the law (statutes). In many cases the intent is to keep the statute vague but is such instances the law is at risk of being violated due to lack of specificity. If you want people to obey the law then the best way is to make the law as clear and as specific as possible. This is what publication of the law in the form of a polychotomous key accomplishes. --96.252.216.102 (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The OP has been on here at length before. He/she believes that you should be able to reduce all law to an expert system that doesn't require any interpretation. It's not how the law has ever worked and there's not a lot of reason to suspect that it ever could work this way. There's not even evidence that a cut and dried legal system is what people even want — in the few instances that Congress has tried to make things black-and-white (e.g. mandatory minimum sentencing), there have been strong legal and humanitarian objections to the usurpation of the discretion of the judge and jury. The real world is more complicated than a branching tree of variables. The legal system, and lawmaking system, is generally speaking set up to acknowledge that as it is. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to make a similar comment. Googling "polychotomous key" and "law" mostly only bring up similar sounding posts as the OPs on various websites (including the ref desk archives). Does indeed seem like someone that is very insistent on something that sounds extremely implausible (to put it mildly). However we still need an elaboration about what the OP meant with the last sentence: "Surely if logic were really the basis of any system, especially law, the expectation of obedience would depend on nothing else". I can't really crack the code on that one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried googling those two together and sure enough, another hit is an extension of the link I already gave in the first answer to this post, the one that in many many words basically says: "I can imagine the existence of God, therefore He exists. Nobel prize, please!" This only serves to strengthen my belief that the "Vietnam uses logic instead of God and is therefore superior" quote is a complete fabrication. The only thing that is changed is that now I think it might be the fabrication that is published and maintained by only one person, the author of that article, who I also suspect is our OP here. Also, the example for what a polychotomous key is is a user manual chart for a printer. I feel so smart now :) TomorrowTime (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The North believed they would win because they were prepared to fight longer and harder than the U.S. The view that the Vietnam War was between "North Vietnam" and "South Vietnam" is also a bit sketchy. Throughout the war, there were always Communist forces native to and fighting in the South. The U.S. and ARVN forces probably did more fighting against the Viet Cong than against the NVA. In hindsight, the sum total of the NVA and Viet Cong, coupled with civilian sympathisers to them, may have outnumbered those loyal to South Vietnam even in South Vietnam, which is why they ended up winning the war. For most Vietnamese, the war was about overthrowing an invading force (the U.S.) and their puppet government (the South) than about defending the North against the South or anything like that. --Jayron32 18:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Though the appeal to logic versus religion, if true, is probably more along the lines of Marxist materialism than it is about a specific force assessment. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Does any country now-a-days NOT claim logic to be the bases of their system? I would be quite surprised if the answer is yes. --140.180.26.37 (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've spent ten minutes trying to parse that, since its more than a double negative. I've got it down to "I expect all countries claim logic to be the basis of their systems." 92.29.114.99 (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Logic is not the basis of any law system I can think of. Logic exists within the system to some degree. But the bases are usually more vague things, like social norms, values, shared morality, what have you. Sentencing and so forth falls to judgment of judges and/or juries. The law generally cannot be reduced to simple flowcharts. Whether a given legal term applies in a given situation (e.g. "fraud", "infringement", "premeditated") is generally a good deal of the dispute, and that often relies on pretty subjective factors. Logic plays a role! But it's not the "basis". It is not from whence the legal system is derived. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Only a few nations make explicit reference to God or a divinity in the construction of their laws - largely these would be theocratic nations (Islamic and Hindu states, and I believe Israel would qualify as well because of the close relationship between secular and religious law). most other states use some combination of common law and positive law (both being law based in established precedent with the second adding rationalized rules of evidence). common and positive law are largely deontological, but often contain core elements of religiosity, both ritually (as in swearing people in on a bible) and presumptively (in that they are secular instantiations of core cultural religious principles). A number of socialists states tried to remove religious elements entirely from their cultures - religion was seen as an impediment to the development of the true socialist state - and I think it was fairly common for such states to claim that their system was superior because it was based in scientific rationalism, but none of thse states would have made the explicitly religious statement that scientific rationalism was superior to God, any more than a physicist would claim that the chariot of Helios was affected by gravity; that would just be silly. --Ludwigs2 03:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

UK TV drama, about 25 years ago

Can you help me to identify a tv one-off drama from many years ago? It was a scary story about two young boys interested in football. I think they were wandering the streets of Liverpool, possibly Liverpool FC fans, but with a big interest in Manchester United player George Best. I think they were trying to get into a match between 'Pool and United. They met with a scary guy, possibly a paedophile, but the older boy was just about savvy enough to save them. I would like to see it again, but have no idea what the programme was called or how to get hold of a copy. Thanks for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.96.38 (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

January 4

Where are the true facts about the Ark?

Hi n' thanx for your time. I'm not too computor literate when it comes to searches.. that's why I'm here. I read about 30 years ago that the translation of the "books" of the Bible were mis-translated, more specifically the the description concerning the "Ark of the Covenent". I remember reading it's make up of gold and silver caused electrical surges to strike anyone close by. So what I'm asking you is where I can read the original (in english please) description and measurements Moses was given. Again Thanx for your time. terry Sr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTsr (talk • contribs) 06:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well one record is in Exodus 25 (verses 10 to 13) (repeated at the start of Exodus 37)

"And they shall make an ark of shittim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof. And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about. And thou shalt cast four rings of gold for it, and put them in the four corners thereof; and two rings shall be in the one side of it, and two rings in the other side of it. And thou shalt make staves of shittim wood, and overlay them with gold."

I have never heard the theory about electrical surges, I thought the gold was just for decoration, and expensive carrying-handles. I don't know whether there are other records. Dbfirs 09:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Online articles like this one exist, but they are very highly unlikely to be "true". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There's also this one. Again, caveats about the reliablity of this self-published article apply. I vaguely recall a Fortean Times piece on the subject of the Ark of the Covenant and electricity some years ago, although it doesn't appear in their online archive. Proponents of this theory cite the Baghdad Battery as evidence in support of early electrical experimentation. Karenjc 10:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Not specifically electricity, but some stories of the ark's destructive power are:

• 1 Sam 5, where the ark is captured by Israel's enemies and ends up diseasing every town it goes to until they decide to give it back.
• 1 Sam 6 (the next chapter), where the ark arrives back in Israel's territory and kills 70 people who look into it
• 2 Sam 6, the ark is being carried by oxen who stumble and an Hebrew puts out his hand to prevent the ark from falling, and dies from touching it

The Ark seems to put out a lot of electricity in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, but as far as I know this is not recognized as canon by any mainstream Christian or Jewish group. Staecker (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Num 4, which gives specific instructions on how the ark should be handled and moved. It can only be handled by the Levites (including the sons of Aaron and the Kohathites), who cover it with cloth and leather, and put the poles in place for carrying it. Verse 15: After Aaron and his sons have finished covering the holy furnishings and all the holy articles, and when the camp is ready to move, only then are the Kohathites to come and do the carrying. But they must not touch the holy things or they will die. Staecker (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Fashionable colours of clothing in 12th century England

I am curious as to which colours would have been fashionable for the clothing worn by the royals and Anglo-Norman nobility in 12th century England? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Confused Aspie guy here

Like most Aspies, I have my obsessions, such as computers. Unlike most Aspies, I have a few close, genuine friendships. Only one of my close friends is female. How can I tell whether my feelings for her are romantic, close platonic or close platonic plus Aspie obsession? Can people even be a valid Aspie obsession? --218.186.8.254 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)