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

March 20

Were Hitler and Stalin ever photographed together?

See topic. Thanks. The Masked Booby (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No. They never met officially. There are whacked out theories that they may have secretly walked past each other at one point or another, but it would be a huge stretch of reality to assume someone was standing around with a camera waiting to see if they might walk down the hall at the same time. -- kainaw™ 01:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hitler and Stalin never met face to face (and so would not have been photographed together). All contact between Russia and Germany was handled by their respective foreign ministers.... or by their armies.

That said, there are photographic images that depict them together... all obvious fakes. Blueboar (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There must be photographers in the 7th Circle of Hell. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Why Libya?

Do any of our Wikipedia articles discuss what exactly motivated the US, Britain, and France to attack Libya? Many governments around the world currently sanction human rights violations like those committed in Libya (countries that come to mind include Sudan, Bahrain, and Yemen), so is it safe to assume that economic or political motivations prompted this attack? If so, what are they? Edge3 (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I think that the US, UK, and France were just the best equipped and best prepared nations to take military action. BurtAlert (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the questioner is asking why attack Libya and not Sudan, Bahrain, or Yemen, which have documented human rights violations. Wikipedia's best evidence are the infoboxes at the top right of the articles. Sudan and Yemen are both republics and Bahrain is a Kingdom whereas Libya was an autocracy (now it is "disputed," according to the infobox). Schyler (one language) 03:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Autocracy" is not incompatible with republics or monarchies. North Korea is an autocratic republic, for example. It's a bit hard to determine how to classify Libya because some people would consider a head of state that is at least ostensibly elected to be a requirement. However, it's not really clear who the official head of state in Libya is under Gadhafi's regime. Gadhafi himself has never been elected to anything. As far as the original question goes, the situation in Libya right now is more serious than the situations in Bahrain and Yemen, with thousands of lives at stake. And Gadhafi's regime has long been detested by both the West and by other Arab countries, making it easier to get international support for military intervention. ASudan is a little different story from Libya because it is an ethnic conflict rather than a widespread uprising against the regime. There is a United Nations/African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Your cynicism is healthy, OP, but it gets much more complicated. And, it's like asking, "Since the right thing doesn't happen all the time, does that mean the right thing can never happen...?" ;) WikiDao ☯ 03:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A similar but related question is - Why now, and not ten years ago? HiLo48 (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ten years ago the Libyan people weren't desperately requesting it. It would have been a "foreign invasion" then -- and there are only so many "Iraqs" and "Afghanistans" that the world (or even just the US alone) can deal with at one time... WikiDao ☯ 03:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The right autocrats (ones friendly to the west) are already in charge in Yemen and Bahrain, at least. There's no need to replace them. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In diplomacy you have to play the cards you're dealt.You can't ask for a more playable hand or a better partner.--Wetman (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You can, however, refuse to play in most situations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The pivotal moment that led to the attacks was when the Arab League voted for it: [1]. As for their motivations, I asked the same question a couple days ago: [2]. StuRat (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12792637 92.28.241.202 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a political dimension to this. Libya is a technically socialist state that has been implicated in terrorist attacks (e.g. the Lockerbie plane bombing), and has been overtly hostile to the western states since the fall of the old kingdom. Bahrain, Yemen, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and etc. are either kingdoms or puppet republics that have had a much more pro-west attitude (mostly because they know which side of their bread is buttered). We in the west tolerate autocrats much better than we tolerate socialists, and have historically groomed these tinpot dictatorships to try to maintain a certain stability in the region so that oil production is not affected.

Blame it on cold war politics, which generally held that it was better to have a controllable devil wrapped in liberal camouflage in places like this, than to actually construct a liberal society and risk that the people might choose socialist or religious fundamentalist governments. --Ludwigs2 14:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Britain is a socialist state too. 92.28.241.202 (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Read socialism. No, it's not, unless the means of production are publicly controlled. I also doubt that Libya is a "socialist" state in any meaningful name. However, socialism has become a catch phrase for "states unfriendly to the US and not completely laissez-faire", I guess. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the "means of production" are publically controlled, particularly when you consider that Britain is a service economy rather than a metal-basher. For example our "socialised medicine", and that a large proportion of people work for the government.92.28.241.202 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Countries can't be re-identified as "socialist" (or any other term) just on the basis of woolly generalisations like this. There are indeed parts of the UK (e.g. Liverpool) where a surprising percentage of the population are either employed by the government or primarily dependent on state hand-outs. However, that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of the economy (as a whole) is not government controlled. For it to be a socialist country, it would have to be the opposite way round. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasnt so long ago that one of the two main parties used to sing the "Red Flag" at party conferences. 92.28.250.93 (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, in recognition of the hopes of some of their party members that the party would somehow transform a non-socialist country into a socialist one. And did it happen? Well obviously not, at least obviously to anyone not living in fantasy reds-under-the-bed land. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Qadaffi has managed to build an impressive list of enemies in his 40-plus years in power, both in the east and the west, and it looks like it's payback time, i.e. he's presented an "opportunity" to his enemies, to take some action. People seem to have forgotten that Qadaffi's name was once mentioned in the same tone of voice that later came to be used for Saddam Hussein. Some idea of Libya's image in the eye of the American public at one time can be seen in the 1985 film Back to the Future, where they mention "Libyan terrorists". Not just "terrorists", not just "Arab terrorists", but specifically Libyan terrorists. Than Saddam came along and stole Qadaffi's thunder, so to speak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Qadaffi has accomplished to re-build his image from terrorist to acceptable partner, just to lose all respect from the West when it came down to fight the rebels. Strangely, in his present list of enemies, Arabs are well-represented. That helps the West, since no one is going to accuse them of being Islamophobic. Quest09 (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the presence of oil in Libya might anything to do with outside countries' interest in its governance. Operation Iraqi Freedom was purportedly called Operation Iraqi Liberation until someone realized the acronym didn't convey the message they wanted. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Libya, since the oil supply was fairly regular under Qadaffi, it's reasonable to expect that it would be again, if everyone just let him massacre his enemies and regain control. A protracted civil war or new form of government, on the other hand, could both threaten the oil supply. So, the theory that the "Western interference is to gain control of the oil" doesn't make much sense. StuRat (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

World War 3

I often hear people mention how bad the world will be when World War 3 comes along... But in reality, we're already in it; the war of terrorism. It's world-wide, and causing a lot of damage. Wouldn't you agree that this is in fact World War 3?Accdude92 (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone apply that particular term to current events: the term usually applied is the War on Terrorism, and that's even debatable (many of the current series of conflicts are only tangentially related to terrorism). WWIII was usually applied, up until the breakup of the Soviet Union, to a potentially hot phase of the Cold War, which would have indeed been bad. Acroterion (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

No, and to continue to call it a war does the world no good at all. It will be as successful as the war on drugs. HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. We're already into World War 7 (I think - I've lost count). Seriously, though, do you think that terrorism is a new phenomenon? Look here for why you are wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Not new, exactly, just a large issue now... More so than it appeared in the past.Accdude92 (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Even that depends on where you are. In Northern Ireland (and probably Spain, and no doubt other places too), it is less of an issue than it used to be. In any case, 'terrorism' is such a vague concept that it tells you little about anything. As for terrorism causing 'a lot of damage', as the OP suggests, I think this is overstating things - look at what happened to Coventry, Hamburg, or Hiroshima, and at the death-camps and other mechanised mass-murder, and ask yourself if things are that bad? No, they aren't - though it suits some politicians (and arms manufactures etc) to suggest it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that the 1970s must have seemed, to people at the time, to have been a hotbed of terrorism, more than the 2000s, due to its seemingly endless series of airline hijackings, the Munich massacre, the Symbionese Liberation Army in America, and the peak of violence in Northern Ireland (see The Troubles) ... but this page shows that indeed terrorism in Israel and in Iraq in the past 15 years, as well as the 9/11 attacks, has really dwarfed the 1970s incidents (according to what the page says is the RAND definition). But 4,500 deaths in a year doesn't compare to the staggering casualty figures of either World War. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You're not the first to think that the War on Terror is a world war. See Norman Podhoretz, for example, who wrote World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism (the Cold War is his WW3). Almost everyone agrees now that the War on Terror was misnamed, even George W Bush. But to have called the war by a more accurate name, like the War against Extreme Militant Islamism, would have been even more controversial, so the euphemistic name was used. Whether this conflict is really a war, or really a world war, or really like the Cold War is debatable, and this isn't the place for that debate. —Kevin Myers 05:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a question, it's an invitation to debate. 87.114.246.141 (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, world war three was the one against Napoleon, they mean world war 6, and I am sure we will only know it was that once it finishes and we can look back and see just what we have actually achieved. Though, Churchill did say the empires of the future would be empires of the mind, and the opposing sides in this conflict seem to be just such predicted mental empires, with competing views, so maybe. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As far back as 2002 or 2001, Bill O'Reilly (who typically calls it the War on Terror) was saying this was really World War III. The numbering came about because what we now call World War I was called "The Great War" or "The World War" (without a number, obviously) as well as the hopelessly optimistic "The War to End All Wars". Then when a truly world-wide war came along, they tacked a I onto "the" World War, and a II onto the "second" one. It was long assumed that World War III would be a mutually-destructive nuclear war, i.e. what would happen if the cold war went "hot". As Tom Lehrer said in 1965, "If any songs come out of World War III, we'd better start writing them now!" However, history has a way of evolving in different directions than expected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In reality the term World War is more a description about a state of total war between great powers than the scope of such a conflict. There have been only two such conflicts since mechanised warfare was created, and we are not in the third. 130.88.162.13 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If 20 million people die, you can call it a world war. Otherwise it is just various seperate wars or even compared to WWII, skirmishes. --Lgriot (talk) 10:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess it all boils down to agreeing on a definition of World War. Without having put too much thought into it, I am tempted to suggest at least two factors that should be present for a conflict to fall into the "World War" category:

(1) An armed conflict between official nations

(2) One or more nations of subsantial economic and military power on both sides of the conflict

Introducing an element of scale (ie. number of casualties and geographic spread) would also be helpful, but at least the proposed two conditions rule out concepts like wars against terrorism, aids, drugs etc.... --DI (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

first online legal notice in the world

I am looking for info on When and where was the first online legal notice served that was held tenable by the judge

Would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.252.236 (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Quibble: The first online legal notice served that was held tenable (enforceable) by the judge was not necessarily, and I assume was not, the first online legal notice in the world. A giant majority of legal notices are never ruled on by any court, so I expect the first online legal notice was something relatively uncontroversial, like "Copyright (C)1970 by Knuth". By "online", also, you might want to specify whether you are talking about the Web, or on ARPANet, or over dial-up modem BBSs, etc. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am referring to the web —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.252.236 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So not the internet? The internet predated the web by a decade or two. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Records management - Dutch law

Hi. I have a problem in finding answers to following questions regarding Dutch record and archive law: What information must be registered? (according to law and best practice) What kind of quality is demanded from this registration? What retention period applies? (search for laws or special retention lists) Who uses this information? (for instance: controlling and auditing agency’s)

I should consider those questions in respect to companies such as Energy companies, Telecommunications companies,Banks as financial institutions and public authorities. It is quite hard for me as I speak Dutch only a little. I found some English websites on that topic though,

http://www.dnb.nl/en/about-dnb/question-and-answer/questions-about-banks/index.jsp#faq-2 or http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Archives+and+records+management+in+the+Netherlands.-a057640379 however the don't really go into specifics.

If anyone has some knowledge on that subject or can point me in some direction (I'm not a law student) I would appreciate that. M2tek (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

For starters, Dutch wikipedia article Archiefwet (archive law): nl:Archiefwet, I don't have time to translate, but perhaps Google Translate can help. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Martin.

Law concerning retention duty of telecom data: nl:Wet bewaarplicht telecommunicatiegegevens .93.95.251.162 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Martin again.

How long do companies need to store records for taxes? Site Dutch belastingdienst (tax inspectors):

http://www.belastingdienst.nl/zakelijk/ondernemen_administratie/ondernemen_administratie-02.html

Language Dutch, clicking on "English" in the upper left corner doesn't do much... 93.95.251.162 (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Martin.

Standards for keeping telecom traffic data:

http://tweakers.net/nieuws/71985/ministerie-ontwikkelt-standaard-voor-bewaren-telecomgegevens.html

93.95.251.162 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Martin.

Dutch Data Protection Agency (language:English):

http://www.dutchdpa.nl/

See also: nl:College Bescherming Persoonsgegevens. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Martin.

Peaceful protesters arrested

http://www.washingtonpost.com/anti-war-activists-arrested-near-white-house-as-they-mark-8th-anniversary-of-start-of-iraq-war/2011/03/19/ABtZbzu_story.html

How can the government arrest peaceful demonstrators? Doesn't that violate the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly? --70.244.234.128 (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

See Free speech zone. As with all rights, there seem to be quite a lot of loopholes. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We had this question the last time this happened, and the arrests were for refusing to stop "blocking the sidewalk." This appears to be the issue again this time. Protesters in this kind of case often seek to get arrested for the attention it brings to their cause. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that just because you are protesting something, you do not also get free reign to break reasonable laws, or in other words merely exercising your right (say, freedom of speech) doesn't grant you the right to violate one of my rights (say, freedom of movement) to do so. Police are allowed to disperse large groups of people who are preventing others from, say, walking down the street minding their own business. People who refuse to comply with a reasonable request (like "Hey, you're all clogging the sidewalk and making it hard for others to get to work. Break it up so others can get where they need to go") can be arrested for doing so. --Jayron32 23:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In general, the trick to making this kind of thing First Amendment compatible is that you arrest whomever is doing it, whatever their political positions. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And where do you find pro-war protesters to arrest as a compensation? 212.169.189.144 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You can find protesters for anything these days. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic pedantry, but I can't resist - it's "free rein", not "free reign", being an allusion to horses, not rulers. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Once the dictator no longer reigned over them, they had free rein to do as they pleased, as the blessings of liberty rained down upon them." StuRat (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This is part of the reason in the UK at least, a march is a better idea than a static protest. Under UK law, public rights of way must be used for the purpose of "passing and repassing" - in other words, on a strictly legal basis you must keep moving and not stop and block the right of way for others. Exxolon (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

From the Post report, it sounds like Mwalcoff has it right (though they may have been blocking the driveway rather than the sidewalk). Unfortunately the U.S. media usually makes a point of ignoring protests unless someone gets arrested, creating some motivation for protesters to get arrested for some minimal offense like this. However, the media coverage is often unreliable, and I know that protesters do get arrested on completely bogus charges when someone wants them out of the way. For example, at the 1996 Democratic convention they formally charged several leaders with bizarre crimes like a felony charge of throwing a plastic bottle and an animal rights activist accused of punching a horse. The way it actually worked was that a few hours before the president showed up, the cell phones all went dead and meanwhile the leaders were all rounded up. Eventually everything was dropped, but only after a long legal action that further drained their efforts. Wnt (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As Mwalcoff and Jayron point out, while we have the right to peaceably assemble and protest, that does not mean anytime-anywhere. The protestors are not being arrested for protesting, but for infringing on the rights of others to use public right-of-ways. And certainly getting arrested (usually for disturbing the peace or whatever) is a good attention-getter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

AIMAV

What does AIMAV stand for? It's some sort of linguistic organization. Geschichte (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I found a book review from 1971 that says this is a "merciful acronym" for the Association Internationale pour la Recherche et al Diffusion des Methodes Audio-Visuelle et Structuro-Globales. A later abstract says it is the Association internationale pour le developpement de la communication interculturelle, but that doesn't fit the letters. Looie496 (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

March 21

Two religious questions: "Come As You Are" and David's baby son going to heaven?

1. Where in the bible does it say "Come as you are?" (Regarding the clothes you wear to church.)

2. King David's son died as a baby as a punishment from God to David. I may have heard secondhand about his son going to heaven, but what verse indicates this?

Moreover, what other verses indicate that children before the age of accountability go to Heaven? What verses, if any, indicate that children could still go to hell? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

On your second question, the Old Testament, for the most part, does not mention reward and punishment in the afterlife. There are a few possible allusions to it in some of the later books (especially the Book of Daniel) but those are disputed. So most likely the question is not treated at all. --Trovatore (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

On question 2, after David's son's death, 2 Samuel 12:23 has David saying "But now [that my son] is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." It's up to the reader to decide if David's belief that he would "go to" his dead son means [1] in Heaven, [2] in the Bosom of Abraham, [3] in death, [4] in the ground, [5] in Sheol, [6] in Hell, [7] in the Limbo of the pagans, or [8] any of the really limitless other possibilities. Despite this nebulousness, those who wish to believe that dead babies go to heaven have found comfort in this particular verse. Historically, the beliefs regarding the "destination" of dead unbaptised babies have evolved over time—like most "Biblical" beliefs, verses can be picked out of context and interpreted in myriad ways, so that almost any doctrine can be justified, and has been. - Nunh-huh 03:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting; I didn't know that. That seems to supersede my answer for this specific question. --Trovatore (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer the original questions — (1) The Bible doesn't say this. (2) This question is very much disputed; there's no specific passage that discusses the question in detail. Nyttend (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jewish belief is that pretty much everyone eventually goes to Heaven. Sinners may have a stop in hell first (maximum of 11 months). Children under the age of majority (12/13) are not responsible for their transgressions so would not go to hell. Ariel. (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You are not alone, many people think "come as you are" is in the bible somewhere. Here's a list of passages that are relevant, some moreso than others [3] SemanticMantis (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

From the Christian Faith; Matthew Ch.2 16-18 may help with an answer. Heaven was only opened up after the Resurrection, see Harrowing of hell. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Much as with the initial question, there are no specific Biblical references to the harrowing of hell. Similarly, the passage you list from Matthew has, as best I can tell, nothing to do with anything discussed here -- it's Herod's Massacre of the Innocents, but it says nothing about the post-death fate of those killed. — Lomn 13:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We express a firm belief in the Apostles Creed of Our Lord's desent into hell (Sheol/Hades). I said that the quote from Matt. 2 may help with an answer. I was thinking of Matthews' quote from the psalms regarding the reaction of the Angels to the deaths of the children. (Mat.2 ver. 18).MacOfJesus (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) What "we"? Our article on the harrowing makes it clear that, in addition to the lack of explicit references, there is no firm agreement within Christianity as to whether the harrowing occurred or, if it did, what form it took (note also that expressions of the Apostles' Creed do not universally include the reference). As for the other, asserting that an atopical reference "may help" is trivially true but not useful. — Lomn 21:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As for the rest -- Matthew quotes Jeremiah, not Psalms, and Jeremiah doesn't discuss angels. Perhaps you meant some other reference? — Lomn 21:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the main-line Christian Churches give their assent to the Apostles Creed. I was attempting to answer or give areas of study to the OP to help with a final answer. (I am not seeing myself being diverted into diverse arguments. I was answering from memory.) MacOfJesus (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

About kinsmen relations of Vladimir Sviatoslavich the Great to Haakon Sigurdsson

I need help. Please, send to me link to source of info about kinsmen relations of Vladimir Sviatoslavich the Great to Haakon Sigurdsson. I will high appreciate your answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_I_of_Kiev

Oleg L.Gubarev <E-mail address removed to prevent spamming> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.73.176 (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This may simply be referring to the theory that the rulers of Rus were of Norse origin. See Varangians, Rurik, and Primary Chronicle, which is a detailed, but partly fictional source for this period. It's possible that Vladimir's more recent ancestors had a relationship to Haakon's line through marriage, but I can find no source for that. Lesgles (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

From Oleg L.Gubarev Thanks for your answer. Excuse me, if I am wrong, but is not needed here to give link to the source? Because it is very clear note that Vladimir go to Haakon Sigurdarsson. For such information must be some base.

You are right, and I have therefore added a "citation needed" template. If you do eventually find a source either way, I encourage you to edit the article and remove the template. Lesgles (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Monday the 22nd of 1826

What date in 1826 was a Monday the 2nd?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

According to our article on 1826, the calendar is here. The title of this thread differs from the question you asked. Monday the 22nd was in May. Monday the 2nd was in both January and October. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a nifty site that will display a calendar for any year:[4] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

World War II Air Raid sirens

On YouTube, I have been listening to recordings of both British and German air raid sirens which were used in World War II. My question is why were they different from one another? The British used a dual-tone siren while the Germans employed one with a single tone. I would have thought they'd have been standard.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The British sirens were dual tone for an air-raid warning and single tone for the "all clear". I would imagine that Britain would not have wanted to buy it's sirens from Germany of vice-versa! Alansplodge (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies if this is obvious to everyone else but why would you think that they'd be the same? Were both sirens made by the same company? Dismas|^(talk) 09:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No, but seeing as stop signs, traffic light colours, etc. are all standard use internationally, I had presumed air raid sirens would have sounded the same. I have probably been influenced in my thinking by the fact that the British air raid siren is used as a generic siren in all World War II films, irrespective of nation. I recall having seen a film about the war based in Italy, and the British siren was used.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Instead of using traffic signs, you should perhaps instead compare them to the situation regarding sirens on emergency vehicles, which can also vary a lot from country to country. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I know that having lived in four different countries. The US emergency vehicle sirens appear to be much faster and frenetic-sounding than those in Europe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Long ago I was taking a physics class with a professor who had been a kid in Germany when the allies were bombing and the air raid sirens were sounding. At some point a police care came whizzing by, blaring its siren, very audible as the windows were open. He said that when he heard an American police car or other emergency vehicle, it gave him chills, as it took him back to that time. It was always my understanding (tell me if I'm wrong) that European emergency vehicle sirens have that two-tone aspect to them purposely to sound different from air raid sirens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. However, UK emergency sirens are different from those used in over in continental Europe. Road signs weren't harmonised until the late 1960s. I remember learning one set for a test at Cubs and then having to learn a whole new set because they'd changed. You can see the old UK signs here. BTW, the old air-raid sirens were kept in the UK until the 1990s in case WWIII broke out. In London, they were also used to signal a major flood, before the Thames Barrier was completed. There was a test once in the 1970s and it was a very erie sound - made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Alansplodge (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The story I heard was that a new set of British road signs were designed in the 1960s by a British artist, and then these were copied by countries all around the world. I think they didnt pay her or the government anything. Edit: see Road_signs_in_the_United_Kingdom#Anderson_Committee - far more than you'd ever want to know about them. 92.15.25.108 (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

See Siren (noisemaker). I thought the sound from the traditional British air-raid siren was due to compressed air blowing through a series of holes in a rapidly rotating disk - hence the lower tone as it rotated up to speed. 92.15.25.108 (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Which links to Civil defense siren, a rather informative article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The British siren is scary enough, but when I heard the German air raid siren, I was so terrified, I wanted to run out of the room. It's like an announcement of unavoidable death. Go listen to it. I expecte they were designed to alarm people just as the Stuka dive bombers had sirens to heighten the terror of the population under attack.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The answer appears to be that British sirens had two rings of holes in the Siren disk or disc, while German ones only had one. 92.15.25.108 (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"seeing as stop signs, traffic light colours, etc. are all standard use internationally" That is not completely true even now, and certainly wasn't between the UK and the rest of Europe until relatively recently (1960s). See Road signs in the United Kingdom, though sadly that article has no illustrations of the old-style signs. Some (not very good) examples here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. A pity the images cannot be uploaded to the article. I am also curious as to which air raid siren was used in Italy during WWII. As I said before, war films tend to use the British for effect due to its recognisability.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Do we have sound files for both British and German Second World War sirens? (Both for raid and all-clear would be ideal). DuncanHill (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Old German WWII Air Raid Siren YouTube Here's the German siren.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"The video you have requested is not available." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Try again. I fixed the link. Here's the British siren. British siren with All-Clear plus vintage footage of the Blitz--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Scary stuff. But it got everyone's attention. The British siren sounds similar to the typical sirens used in the US, which are tested once a month on a specified day, and are also used for emergencies, the most typical being tornado warnings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

They are both scary. The British one, although eerie, seems to tell people to hurry while there's still time; whereas the German one is more dreadful, as if it's saying: "Too late. Your time is up. Death is now overhead".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The German one is definitely scarier, but maybe that's because I'm used to the American sirens, which are similar to the British. However, the German item says, "here you can see/hear only the low-tone unit with big 3 ports". Does that mean there's a piece missing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding police cars, here's a youtube of a German car,[5] which sounds similar to the typical (or stereotypical) police car sirens used across the European continent and the UK. Here's an interesting sequence from New York City.[6] American police have a variety of types of sirens, which tend to get plenty of attention. Here's a nifty video that shows the control mechanism for those different types of sirens.[7] We're assuming the guy making the video had permission. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge of politics outside the US

Americans (of course excluding experts) are more knowledgeable about British politics. Compared to this, they have little knowledge/interest on the internal politics of other European countries like France, Germany etc., even through these countries are major global powers and their economies are ahead of UK economy. Is there any sociocultural explanation for this? Does language have something to do with it or other reasons? --Reference Desker (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the amount of Americans who post on these reference desks who seem to think the UK is a socialist state, I would say your first sentence bears little resemblance to reality. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And, given the number of Americans who insist on changing UK spelling to American spelling in article about British subjects, they don't know much about the language either. HiLo48 (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's be nice to each other now. My guess is that it's because of the Special Relationship. It works ther other way too; I know a lot more about US politics than I do about French. Also, I wouldn't have been able to tell you who the Prime Minister of Japan was until last week. Alansplodge (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

American politics is of interest everywhere in the world, simply because American politicians have the (real or potential) ability to wield enormous political, economic and military power anywhere in the world. That's why some American politicians generate almost audible sighs of relief around the world when they are elected, and others are viewed as, simply, terrifying. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If you (awkwardly) recast the original assertion as "Of the politics of non-US countries, Americans are most knowledgeable about British politics," then there may actually be a grain of truth to that. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say the fact that the US was once a British colony may have something to do with it. Just a shot in the dark, mind, but worth thinking about.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And, related to that, the fact that a high proportion of Americans (higher than for any other country I'd guess - I haven't checked) have ancestry from, and often current relatives in, the UK, so that they may be more interested in what happens there. The language issue is probably most important - the language used in the UK doesn't (usually) need to be translated for US viewers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Most Americans don't know that Britain has a three party system, or anything about British politics. Most Americans don't even know who the speaker of the house is, or who has the majority in Congress.AerobicFox (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Britain" doesn't actually have a three-party system. It may be broadly true that England does - though there are many smaller parties who win significant numbers of votes there - but the nationalist parties are at least equally important players in Scotland and Wales, and Northern Ireland (which may or may not count as being part of "Britain" depending on whether you're defining it as the island, or as the UK) has a (largely) entirely different set of political parties. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) "Most Americans don't know ... anything about British politics." Have to disagree. UK Conservative Party comes second to the Republican Party that interests US conservatives, not Germany's CDU, French UMP, even though both CDU and EMP are conservative parties. Similarly, American liberals identify themselves with the Liberal Democrats. France and Germany have their own conservative and liberal parties, but most Americans don't even know those names. And I think Margaret Thatcher is probably the only foreign figure who still influences American conservatism. --Reference Desker (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably because they are all pretty similar. 129.120.195.14 (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, like Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionist Party.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(addressed @ User:Reference Desker) If you'd like to do some more general research on this topic, one keyword often used in media theory is "cultural proximity" (no article on Wikipedia, though it is listed among "conditions for news" in our article on news values). It's a loosely defined term, but often refers to people's (and the media's) preference for products close to their own values, culture, language, history, ... ---Sluzzelin talk 17:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

To add some of my own anecdotal examples: I frequently listen to WBUR or other NPR radio stations online. While it is night in the US, they often feature British programs. So I'm getting British news while listening to an American station. I live in Zurich, and sometimes know more about certain local politicians in Germany than about local politicians in French-speaking Switzerland, because I read, watch, and listen to German media far more often than to French. Yet I'm still far more familiar with French and Italian politics than I am with Swedish, Spanish, or Greek politics, because I virtually never read media outlets in their languages. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of Americans have no knowledge of politics outside the United States, and many have little knowledge of politics inside the United States. Most can name the U.S. president, but surveys have found that a majority cannot name the people who represent their state or district in Congress or key members of the president's cabinet. Of the few Americans (5% ?) who can even name a foreign head of government, probably the best-known heads of government would be the leaders of Canada and the UK. That is partly because people on the northern border can receive Canadian media in their own language, and because a substantial part of the 5% who know anything either listen to the BBC on the radio or subscribe to The Economist, both of which are produced in the UK. Marco polo (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We can blame this appalling ignorance on the piss-poor US educational system. Jesus wept!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see some real data on this, rather than guessing. My general experience is that Americans know more about "enemy nations" governments than "friendly" ones —I would suspect more to know who are the leaders of Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea much sooner than they would know the leaders of Canada, the UK, and France. But this is just more guessing on my part, mixed with anecdata. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

IndexUniverse

Has anyone heard of indexuniverse.com, the source for info on ETFs and indexes? I don't see an entry on them and their publications ETFR (Exchange Traded Fund Report) and Journal of Indexes and the data on the ETF industry they provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycsanfran (talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Joint security area at NK/SK border

Hi all. I have a question about the meeting room at the JSA at the Korean border. The room is cut in half by the border (so half in South Korea and the other in North). Apparently it's possible to visit one of these rooms from the South side. How that is coordinated with the North? Is there some agreement where the South can bring in visitors on one day and the North on the other? In a similar way, this photo [8] shows a South Korean soldier on the North Korean side of the room. Does anyone know what the arrangement between the North and the South is regarding this? Thanks. - Akamad (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the article Joint Security Area? --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've read that article, but it doesn't seem to answer my question. It says that "both sides may allow tourists to go inside the MAC Conference Room", but there is nothing about what the arrangements are regarding this. In other words, how do they avoid having North Korean tourists and South Korean tourists entering the room at the same time? Or worse yet, how do they avoid DPRK soldiers and ROK soldiers entering the same room at the same time. They must have some rules regarding this, but I haven't been able to find any reference to them. - Akamad (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that they do (might) enter at the same time, but are not permitted to talk. Presumably they would be escorted out if they (or the other side) did talk. I think it was in the context of that being one of the ways for each side to see the other (i.e. the closest that interaction gets). Ariel. (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Attacking Libya without congress approval

How can the US - and possibly also its partners - attack Libya without congress approval? 212.169.185.194 (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a United Nations resolution to attack Libya, not solely the USA's.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Constitution only requires Congressional approval when war is formally declared (Declaration of war by the United States). There are limits as to how long a conflict can go on, though, before Congress is consulted (War Powers Resolution). Technically Congress could probably de-fund the activity if they wanted to (power of the purse), though, additionally technically, the President could probably find ways to divert funds to it again (e.g. Iran–Contra affair, black budget). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

first point, other nations do not need the approval of the US congress to do anything.

other than that, the president is empowered to engaged in military actions of certain kinds without consulting congress. This is designed to allow rapid response to situations impacting on national interests, and includes acting on resolutions passed in the UN - no one wants something potentially damaging to the national interests to continue unimpeded while the members of congress debate and debate and debate over what to do. Only congress can explicitly declare war, of course, but that power has been weakening since the 1950s, when presidents started indulging in full-scale military 'police actions', using their power to engage immediate threats to commit to extended military involvement without declarations of war. --Ludwigs2 18:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the OP meant congressional approval from their respective congresses, which could be granted or not, be necessary or not. Quest09 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's the question, then as far as the UK is concerned, what happened is that the government in power took the military action that it believed was necessary (having extensively trailed that decision over the last week or two thus allowing opportunity for Parliamentary comment) and then that action was discussed by Parliament at the earliest sensible opportunity, which I believe was today. This in theory gave Parliament the opportunity to condemn the government's action if they chose to do so. The exact mechanisms by which the discussion in question was put in place are down to the inner workings of Parliament (I think the government co-operated in making sure it happened), but there are many such mechanisms for different circumstances; for example Robin Cook used his resignation statement (billed in Parliamentary terms as a "personal statement") to make his acclaimed speech condemning the Iraq war (YouTube version). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There is still no requirement on the British government to obtain the support of Parliament for military action; a White Paper issued early in Gordon Brown's premiership indicated that such a procedure would be made compulsory (see paras 25-30 here) but it is difficult to see how in the United Kingdom constitution it could really be made binding. Nevertheless, it remains the case that there is a political necessity on the Government to obtain Parliamentary approval. The debate yesterday was on a motion explicitly supporting "the use of UK armed forces and military assets in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1973" and was agreed with an overwhelming majority of 557 to 13. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@Jeanne: The UN does not have the authority to do that, since they do not represent the American people.

Officially, it is not a war declaration, nor a war. The US is just enforcing a UN resolution. Quest09 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I realise that the UN cannot force a nation to go to war, but I wanted to point out that it isn't an American-led enterprise as in Bush's Iraq War. Five nations so far have abstained from joining the coalition against Ghaddaffi.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The UN cannot whether force nor authorize the US to go to war. "Bush's Iraq War" is ambiguous. Quest09 (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "abstained from joining" is maybe potentially misleading. The five (Brazil and Russia and India and China and somewhere, if memory serves) merely abstained on the UN resolution. That of course also implies those five won't be providing military forces or logistical support as part of the coalition. However, I would guess it's entirely possible for a country to vote in favour of the UN resolution and not provide military forces or logistical support. Thus, supporting the resolution isn't necessarily the same thing as "joining the coalition" in my view, although it might be the same thing as "backing the coalition". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You are completely right on this. 10 nations voted 'yeah, bomb them all', but 10 nations are not bombing Libya. Quest09 (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The President of the United States is commander in chief of the U.S. military forces and can order them into action without consulting Congress, though the War Powers Resolution requires him to obtain Congressional approval for military action within 60 days. Similarly, in 1986, President Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya without Congressional authorization. Marco polo (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Senator Barack Obama, December 20, 2007. —Kevin Myers 13:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the Obama administration decided that the Libya situation does in fact represent a threat to the U.S. (Or are you suggesting that the Obama administration is turning into Bush's third term?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Obama thinks Libya represents an "actual or imminent threat", or perhaps he has changed his mind about the powers of the presidency, or perhaps he doesn't remember what he wrote, or perhaps he is deliberately violating the Constitution. The second option seems most likely. But some other liberals have not changed their minds about the power of the presidency. Dennis Kucinich has even mentioned impeachment. —Kevin Myers 14:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It puts liberals in the position of defending Qadaffi, which is an interesting situation. Kucinich, of course, is pretty extreme in his views, even for a liberal. But if such a notion gained traction, it would put the GOP in an interesting situation also - because if they were to support impeachment, they would be hard pressed to justify their support of the Bush actions, and those of future Presidents, especially Republican Presidents. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

[9] --Reference Desker (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And [10] --Reference Desker (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Cite a source, please, bugs, for anything you just wrote. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the points made in Reference Desker's second link are along similar lines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not a source for your claims. I have problems with your use of "liberals" in the first sentence, and "pretty extreme" in your second sentence. Cite sources, please. This is a reference desk, not your personal soapbox. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Confine your personal attacks to the talk page, please. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the Obama admin would focus on the word "unilaterally" in that sentence. The odds are he briefed somebody in Congress about it before it occurred (e.g. one of the select committees that deals with things like this). Whether "unilaterally" means "requires a vote" is unclear. The Constitution sure ain't clear on it, and the War Powers Act gives a lot of leeway. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's highly misleading to suggest opposing the resolution and its enforcement or arguing President Obama's actions violate the US Constitute means you support Qadaffi. Incidentally, the right wing Accuracy in Media [11] is also strongly opposed to Obama's actions [12] as they were to Clinton's actions on Kosovo Nil Einne (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It is politics. If this attack on Libya was ordered by Bush, liberals would have opposed it. Since it is ordered by Obama, conservatives are opposing it. Similarly if Iraq War was initiated by a Democrat president, Republicans would have opposed the war. --Reference Desker (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's usually more complicated than that. Some Republicans/conservatives called for intervention in Libya before Obama acted; see this editorial from the National Review. They have and will criticize Obama's handling of the conflict, without opposing the confict itself. This is predictable. When a Democrat uses the military to advance US interests overseas, he will usually get some Republican support, and lose some support from the left in his own party. It works the other way too; there were Democractic supporters of the decision to go to war in Afghanistan, including Obama. —Kevin Myers 13:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul Trevor

I was wondering why there was no article or information about the street photographer, Paul Trevor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.221.61 (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because no one wrote it yes? At the first glance, he could pass the notability threshold. Quest09 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Moses

Hey guys, my lil sis needs help with her R.E. homework and I'm in the rather embarrassing position of not knowing the answer! It has a few questions about Moses, most of which we've worked out together, but we're unsure of the last two. It asks "how did his Hebrew background prepare him for his future role?" and "how did his Egyptian background help him...?" Now my knowledge of the Moses story is not that extensive, but as I see it the fact that he was brought up by Egyptians would make him more likely to be able to speak to the Pharaohs, since i imagine that the Hebrews, treated as second class citizens, would not be able to have access to them. His Hebrew background would make his people trust him more and believe in what he was saying, since he was one of them. But these two points fleshed out would only take up about 4 sentences, when she would probably need a couple o' paragraphs (she's only 11). Any help much appreciated! Postrock1 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I think you're right, but what point in his life are we talking about? Is it, for example, when he is being brought up in Pharaoh's household? Or when he is leading the Children of Israel across the Red Sea? Anyway, try and relate his dual nationality to the later events in his life (it is unlikely, for example, that God would have given the Ten Commandments to an Egyptian non-Hebrew) and you should get more flesh on the bones you already have. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing, we're not 100% sure since she missed a few days off school. The previous question was asking about his excuses and indecision in following God's word, which I think is referring to when he went to the pharaohs to tell them to free the isrealites, but at first he's too scared too? I think. haha I actually have no idea about this, I would fail on Are You Smarter Than A 10 Year Old Postrock1 (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Has she got any friends in that same class? Ask to borrow their notes, or for them to help summarize what the topic is. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The question can be answered here - but can it be answered to the satisfaction of the class's particular religious interpretations? For example, I might say that Moses could hardly have presented himself as a Hebrew prophet without the appropriate background. Or I might argue that if he hadn't had intimate familiarity with the plans and construction of the Ismailia Canal, he couldn't have led a horde of Israelites down it with the Egyptian Army on their heels, arranging for his comrades to close up the locks and dry up the flow of that branch of the Nile long enough for them to cross it, opening them back up afterwards and swamping the Egyptian chariots. But I might get a big fat F for that one. ;) Wnt (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"... his training as a member of Pharoh's household had doubtless given him dignity, confidence, poise, and had accentuated his ability to organize and command..." Truly Moses had a diverse background, but like an athlete or musician with natural ability, these qualities must be cultivated. That is a big part of the reason that Moses had to undergo another 40 years of training: "the qualities of patience, meekness, humility, long-suffering, mildness of temper, self-control, and learning to wait on Jehovah needed to be developed in him to a higher degree, in order for him to be the fitting one to lead God's people." (Insight on the Scriptures, v. 2, pg. 435). Hope this helps! Schyler (one language) 00:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions like that are really designed to make a student think, not to have definite answers. Doing the thinking for her basically defeats the purpose of the exercise. Looie496 (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Read Exodus chapter 2 in a decent translation. Rashi's commentary is helpful, too. If you'd like to score well, don't overlook Moses' sojourn with Jethro in Midian, which helped form his character and is neither necessarily "Hebrew", nor "Egyptian". The fact that he's initally mistaken for an Egyptian is also interesting. --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you're having trouble remembering the story in detail, but don't have a copy to refer to. Did you know there are many online Bibles available, including in fairly easy-to-read English? For example... 212.183.128.13 (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest read the relevent texts to her, explaining in simlpe English as you go along and the answers should appear naturally. Moses was au fait with the house of Pharaoh, and there were not many men around of his age as Pharaoh had ordered their deaths at birth. MacOfJesus (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Also, Moses had run away from Pharaoh over the death of an Egyptian. God ordered him to go to Pharaoh. MacOfJesus (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Fringe benefits: US Health care

Hello. Me again!

I've learned that US employers provide improved health insurance as a fringe benefit that is not taxed. This apparently goes for 20% of US employers - or something like that. Now, Donald Barr claims that when you get (after discussing with your employer) an insurance that is better than the last - covers more stuff etc - the HMO's costs go up. That's what's problematic to the feds about the fringe benefit insurances. How does this happen? The only way I see prices going up is by the employee showing up at the doctor's office/hospital, and receiving MORE care for an injury of one type, than he would with the SAME injury on a lesser insurance. Ie, that the physician would feel it prudent to take more tests, each and every one with less actual reward for the bucks spent. Since this sounds like a very difficult thing to measure, I thought I'd ask if it was the case.

Thank you in advance. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The argument is not that these plans drive up costs for the HMOs; it's that they drive up the cost of healthcare in general by shielding consumers of healthcare from any of the costs that might reduce demand. Remember that in the US system, the government does not impose any limits on healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, and so on, who are free to charge what the market will bear. If consumers of healthcare are shielded from price constraints, then there is potentially no limit to healthcare costs. See this article for more information on this topic. Marco polo (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I wish to clarify: When I ask what the concrete consequences are that up the prices of healthcare, I propose that it is the inclusion of more tests, or slightly more costly treatment, by the physician - OR, by simply seeing the doctor more often. Your link seems to echo this, "... the most expensive plans — which some argue encourage overuse of medical care...". What you are saying, I think, is that one must view the problem as one based on supply and demand. Now, here's where I lose you: Are you saying that if presented with an insurance plan detached from the employer (thus based on your own desires for this plan), then that plan would necessarily involve cheaper treatment? I do not see the connection between increasing the profit for a HMO by buying unnecessarily expensive insurances and an increase in federal expenses, without receiving a more expensive treatment/drugs for the same illness. That, and seeing the doctor more often - but also then receiving more treatments. What I hear from a lot of people is that the prices for drugs skyrocket because the feds are by and large conned into covering them (the demand you speak of). What this entails to me is that there must be one treatment that works OK and is cheaper, and another treatment that works OK and is more expensive. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. I think one of the distinctions of the most generous plans is that employees who receive them do not contribute to their cost and do not face any fee when they go to seek treatment. So people with those plans will not think twice about continuing to attend physical therapy sessions every week for six months at $300 per session even though they received 95% of the benefit of the sessions during their first month of attendance. Or, people with those plans may wish to have a $2,000 MRI scan every time they experience the least back pain. By contrast, my own US employer requires me to pay 15% of the cost of the insurance, which gives me an incentive to choose a plan with some restrictions and limits, since it is less expensive to me personally. All plans offered by my employer also require the employee to pay a set fee, or "co-pay" for every visit to a healthcare provider. So, for example, when I received physical therapy, I had to pay $30 for each session. This covered only a fraction of the session's cost. However, once I felt that the benefit of attending an additional session wasn't worth another $30, I canceled the sessions. If I had a plan without fees or limits, I might have kept going, since the physical therapy was pleasant in and of itself. Finally, you mention one treatment that is okay and cheaper and another that is okay and more expensive. This is precisely the case, in many cases, with brand-name versus generic drugs. My plan requires me to pay a much higher fee for a brand-name drug if a generic version of the same drug is available, so I will almost always choose the cheaper generic. People with insurance policies that don't penalize them for choosing the more expensive version are more likely to do so. Marco polo (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Marco! You've been very good help to me. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

March 22

What happened to this house?

House in severe disrepair

Unfortunately, the historic house in this picture is in severe disrepair, despite its designation as a historic site by the US federal government. While I can understand what's caused most of its problems, I'm puzzled by the darkness around the chimney: what could have caused it? Fire was my first thought, but I can't imagine fire coming out of the brickwork just below the chimney without being severe enough to scorch the walls around the windows and doors. I also considered that it might have been burned but that the other damage was repaired; however, given the state in which the house sits, I doubt that anything has been repaired anywhere near recently. Finally, please note that I'm somewhat colorblind, so I might be unable to see something that would be obvious to most people. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing that is obvious is that the chimney is a later addition to the building; the brickwork of the chimney is distinctly pink, while the rest of the house is orange brick. My guess is that the staining is from an older, long gone chimney that the current one replaced. Probably, the first chimney stained the wall, was removed, and the newer unstained chimney put on in its place. --Jayron32 04:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. The staining on the wall below the chimney looks to me like damp penetration. Perhaps the original chimney had been so badly damaged it was replaced? There is a crack in the brickwork to the right of the chimney, but that looks more like settlement damage than anything related to the chimney. Actually, brick buildings have a surprising tolerance for settlement etc, if they stay reasonably watertight - I'm living in a 100+ year-old house with multiple cracks, and the roof held on solely by gravity, from what I can tell (and some dubious brickwork at the back of the house where it isn't so noticeable), but I don't think it is going to fall down any time soon - I'd be more worried about internal floors etc in the building shown. If the floors and/or roof trusses are rotten, that is likely to bring the building down more quickly than problems with brickwork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Andy, is it possible that we're sharing the same house and haven't noticed? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's quite possible to have a fire inside a chimney -- soot can build up and eventually ignite, sending flames all the way up the shaft. If it lasts long enough, the bricks can get pretty hot. Looie496 (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about a fire - I recall seeing old British houses with similar markings near the chimney. 92.15.6.157 (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In my 1960s childhood in London, chimney fires were a common occurence. The fire brigade would put them out with a stirrup pump attached to a lomg tube (in sections I believe) which they would poke up the chimnety. Alansplodge (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Back in the 1980s, my chimney in Dublin would often catch fire due to my bad habit of burning coal and peat together. Rather than risk the Fire Brigade flooding my house, I'd put it out myself by stuffing wet newspapers up the chimney.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Why would a fire mark the chimney so far down from where the smoke comes from? It may be due to the volatile components of the smoke condensing on the comparatively cool inner surface of the chimmney and leaching through the brickwork. In other words, its tar. If it was damp or mildew from rainwater running down the side of the chimney, as speculated above, then wouldn't the lower part of the wall of the most exposed part of the house be like that?

The chimney bricks may be exactly the same as the other bricks, except they are much more weathered due to their exposed position, including being exposed on both sides of the brick. You can see some visible efflorescence on the chimney, and in addition the surface may have spalled off due to freezing while damp. There is likely to be mold or moss growing due to the unevenness of the surface, which needs repointing. You can see some partial repointing has been done. All of the preceeding things result in colour changes. 92.15.23.133 (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the chimney looks like it was rebuilt with different colored brick. It is very likely that the old chimney crumbled and there was water damage to the brickwork below it. What is obviously a big problem is the collapse at the left. The windows are broken, and the old copper roof might have leaked near the peak, allowing in rain, leading to collapse of rafters (causing roof collapse and allowing in more rain), leading to rot and collapse of floor joists and studwalls. The collapse of floor joists often brings down outer brick walls due to the joist end acting as a lever on the brickwork above it. Joist ends were sometimes tapered and set in pockets in the brick to allow them to collapse while sparing the wall. If cost were no object, it could probably be rebuilt. The White House, for instance, was gutted and rebuilt in 1949-1951, while preserving only the roof and outer walls. The walls in general look to need tuckpointing if the collapsed section were rebuilt. Once rain starts entering an old building due to bad windows or roof, ruin is only a few years away. Edison (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of an elaborate wedding

Why is the forthcoming marriage of William Windsor and his girlfriend being staged in such an elaborate manner? Wouldnt a quiet wedding at the Windsor chapel or registry office be better; and it could still be covered on tv? I am asking from a sociological point of view. Thanks 92.15.6.157 (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised you think it's elaborate! Certainly compared to his father's first wedding it's not. From personal experience, the first wedding tends to be the most elaborate (I refer to mine as my "meringue moment" because of the white lacy dress I wore), whereas subsequent weddings tend to be less elaborate. As this is the first wedding for either party, it's more elaborate than, say, his father's second wedding. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it's what we Brits call a royal wedding, which is a great opportunity for a PR exercise.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All royal weddings (Charles and Camilla notwithstanding) tend to be extravagant; the public would be disappointed if they were simple affairs, without pomp and ceremony.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For some of the UK public that's probably true - others just wish everyone would shut up about it. Although much of the pre-publicity is completely over the top and vomit-inducing, I'm still hopeful that attitudes have changed to the extent that there won't be quite as much obsequiousness and time wasted on this one as there was for his dad's first wedding, or for his granny's various "jubilees". Harrumph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How many anti-British monarchy posts do we get each week? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.114.190 (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not enough. It's still there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And I can't imagine opinionated bores venting their spleen on the Wikipedia Reference Desk are likely to change the status quo anytime soon. But thanks for sharing. 87.114.246.141 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Annoying thing is when it comes to these anti monarch posts it's nearly always the same OP who starts it Nil Einne (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The aame could be asked of any wedding, not just a royal one... 207.81.30.213 (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The more pomp and circumstance, the more souvenir videos they can sell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I was about to post the same thing: pomp and circumstance. Also, decadence. A decadent society loves a decadent spectacle. Vranak (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What is its purpose from a sociological point of view please, compared with a normal wedding? 92.15.23.133 (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you know it's sociologically different from a normal wedding? Weddings are often big extravaganzas. Just more so with a royal wedding. A wedding gala of any kind is supposed to be a celebration of a significant life event. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it is sociologically different all right. We don't get a day off work to celebrate most weddings. Is this question for your sociology homework? If so, you should mention the mass media, and popular culture, in particular celebrity culture. Why didn't Jordan and Peter Andre, or the Beckhams, have quiet weddings? But it seems that you are taking a functionalist viewpoint, assuming that the wedding must have one purpose. You might get further with an interpretivist perspective. Does the wedding have the same meaning for all social groups? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. I don't have the answer, but note that elaborate weddings seem to be far more important to women than to men. Perhaps it's a way of establishing a woman's social standing (while a man's comes primarily from his job) ? It might be interesting to compare with working women, to see if they choose less elaborate weddings. StuRat (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

People seem to go back to more conservative gender roles in their wedding plans, compared to the roles they adopt in everyday life. Just basic things like a woman who wears jeans to work will wear a long dress for her wedding. There's something about a rite of passage that makes us want "all the trimmings". And of course it is a family occasion, so the couple want to be sure that the ceremony meets the expectations of both sets of parents. Within traditional values, women are supposed to care about their weddings. If they don't care, then the easy solution is not to bother with a wedding. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bread and circuses HiLo48 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

True, except we give them the bread. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this would be easier to understand in a more traditional society. When you read news about people caught up in bombings or riots in the Middle East it sounds like they're always on the way to a wedding somewhere. I suppose it was the same way elsewhere at some time. It seems to be the way for a family to be known, for people to form a sort of tribal identity, maybe even something akin to a potlatch economy. I may be far off the mark, but still, look at a palace. A royal can't sleep in 87 beds, no matter how fancy they are. Their whole business involves surrounding themselves with a circle of associates. Wnt (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Pomp vs. pompousness

The above is proof, if proof were ever needed, that many people absolutely love pomp. They can't get enough of it. They'll travel half way around the world to see some. But individuals who are pompous are at the extreme other end of the desirability scale. Why? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Pomp and pompousness are two entirely different things. Pomp is a kind of public performance in which some are the principal performers, the majority both take minor roles and/or enjoy the spectacle as an audience, and everybody understands that they are all taking part in a kind of game. Pompousness/pomposity/pompous behaviour is merely the display of out-of-place and unwarranted arrogance. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase the question. If pomp is generally considered a positive thing in its place, why was it used as the core of a word denoting a decidely negative quality? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To summarise extensive entries in the OED: "pomp" has nearly always been used both with reference to grand public spectacle and with implications of approval; "pompous" and other such derivatives have been used both in approving and in disapproving senses, going back to Chaucer, but the approving usages, now less common, generally also relate to public display, while the disapproving ones, now more common, more often relate to behaviour by an individual. Why this should be so is presumably down to the vagaries of language development, which emerge from mass usage rather than from being logically thought out. Behaviour performed en masse may have different overtones to the same behaviour performed by a single individual: a battalion of stormtroopers goose-stepping might in 1938 seemed grand and imposing, and now also sinister; John Cleese doing the same on his own just looks funny. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks, 90. (I guess the word I probably should have used was "pomposity", but no mind.) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it, like similar spectacles, is mainly a PR stunt. We are being lead to think: "Wow, these must be really important people, so let's keep paying them lots of money". 92.15.14.45 (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, the UK doesn't have a 4th July or Bastille Day; we have Coronations, Jubilees and Royal Weddings. Those who wish can go "Up West" and cheer with the masses, or you can have a street party with your neighbours or patronise your local boozer which will have the flags out too. The vocal minority get to winge about the expense of it all. Everybody's happy. Alansplodge (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe one day the scales will fall from your eyes. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, "Here's a Health unto Her Majesty". What's yours? Alansplodge (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Foreign deaths in Japan earthquake/tsunami

The deaths of vacationers was a large story in the Indonesian earthquake/tsunami and deaths of foreigners made up 1% of the all deaths. So far I have heard of a single death in Japan of a foreigner (1% of 1%). Have there been more but the reporting buried in the other issues - or is this region of Japan too far off the tourist trail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Deaths of foreigners have been reported, usually of those who have been working in Japan. Here in the UK there has been 2 British deaths reported, both ex-pat workers. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

One US citizen death was reported on the news last night. Corvus cornix_talk 17:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Australian government has declared that all Australians who they were aware of being in the danger area have been accounted for. HiLo48 (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I found a report of two Filipino deaths[13] but can't find a story on any UK ones. Rmhermen (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

My bad. I tried to find the BBC report I remembered seeing last weekend, but couldn't find it, only a reference to the number of UK casualties being unknown. Either the story's been pulled, or I misinterpreted a report. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Go back to ... (China, Africa, Whatever)?

What kind of people hear that most? People who look foreigner or those who speak with a foreign accent? Quest09 (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Go back to Africa": certainly, you only hear that if you are black. "Go back to China": all that look oriental, including Korean and Japanese could hear that. No, also not accent related. In Germany, also not accent related, I also heard the "go live in Turkey if you don't like it here" applied to an Arab. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The "if you don't like it here" part is interesting. There is plain old xenophobia, where people just don't like foreigners, which seems rather irrational, then's there's the objection to foreigners who then want to change the new land to be the same as where they came from. This is certain to cause resentment from natives, for quite rational reasons, and does bring up the question: "Why did you leave your homeland, if you prefer everything the way it was there ?". StuRat (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, that's a change for better. A Canadian living in the US could claim their health system is better, and that the US should catch up. An American living in Cuba could demand a right to free speech. (although it might not be very wise). Quest09 (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

But doesn't it seem rather stupid of an American to move to Cuba and then complain about lack of free speech ? Why not just stay where he had it ? StuRat (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This quickly got off topic, but there are good and bad things about every place, and people like to think the grass is always greener, so the above behavior isn't unheard of — Lee Harvey Oswald defected to the Soviet Union, which made front page news in some places, since he was an ex-Marine; but then moved back, unfortunately, when he decided he didn't like it there. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In Charleston, SC, there is a rather popular "Go back to Ohio" organization. The local minor league baseball team has even had "Go back to Ohio" nights. Mostly, you just see bumper stickers and an occasional ad in a local free paper. -- kainaw™ 19:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In Australia there is a low level debate about changing our flag. There is a class of people known as Bogans, who tend to drive overly large four wheel drive vehicles with lots of stickers, including one showing the current flag, and saying "If you don't love it, leave." On a more international level, I have to ask, has "Yankee go home" faded from popularity? HiLo48 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I recently had a debate with a UK-based editor about British imperalism. His position was that if I had any objections, I should leave Australia. But I would not be welcome in his country. I'm still wondering where exactly it is I should be migrating to. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Not surprisingly, some of my Aboriginal friends are among those who would like to see a new flag. I'm really not sure where in the world they are expected to go if they leave. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You would be welcome here, Jack. Drop me an email if you're coming, and I will buy you a cup of tea. But I take your point and HiLo's. No-one ever said that xenophobia had to be logical. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Judith, I'll hold you to that cuppa. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

LA as a place with beautiful buildings

I hardly thought as LA as a place with beautiful buildings. However, some (Hollywood) films challenged this assumption - (500) days of Summer and In Search of a Midnight Kiss, namely. How prevalent is worth-seeing architecture in LA? Quest09 (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The interior of the Bradbury Building is used frequently in movies. The Griffith Park Observatory is often used. There are actually quite a few unusual buildings in the LA area. Corvus cornix_talk 17:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

For buildings older than 50 years, National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles County, California and National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles, California have a good selection. There's a good amount of Googie architecture in LA too, but it's fair to say that much of the LA area is an architectural wasteland. A big exception is Pasadena (National Register of Historic Places listings in Pasadena, California, with the Bungalow Heaven and the Gamble House. The hills contain a lot of California Modern architecture, a topic that WP apparently lacks. There's also some novelty architecture. Acroterion (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Venice, California has some interesting architecture, as well as canals!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Oldest historic human

Who is the oldest person who we know really existed, for which we have a historic record ? I mean to exclude both unknown human bones we've dug up and "historical people" who may well be simply legends. StuRat (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Walter Breuning is currently the world's oldest, at 114 or so, and Jeanne Calment was the oldest verified, at 122. In the "see also" there are lists of the oldest verified. Obviously, Biblical tales about guys like Methuselah can't be independently verified. One legend is that Methuselah was the reason Midas got out of the medical field. They had lifetime guarantees on their hip replacements, and he came back for his free replacement so often that they went bust. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I see a clarification is needed:

I mean the dead person born the most years ago, like Moses or Abraham, or whoever we are certain really existed. I don't care how about the age they lived to be. StuRat (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We've had questions like this before, I'm sure there was one recently...all I can find is a question about the earliest recorded event, but there must be others... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Here's a thread from 2008 answering this. In it, Sluzzelin in turn invoked a 2006 thread. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Almost precisely the 3 year anniversary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)King Tut and his fam lived around 1300 BC, in their condo made of stone-a. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, if you'd read any of the previous threads, or even had a small amount of knowledge about ancient history, you would see how blatantly wrong your answer is. In ancient Egypt, kings are known are known by their name (or rather, inscription/heraldry) back to 3000 BCE (i.e. Hor-Aha) or so, about 1500 years before the start of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt, during which Tutankhamen reigned. Sumarrien kings as early as Enmebaragesi have been verified to actuctually have existed, more than 1000 years before Tutankhamen. Please supply references for your assertians, as you are less likely to give such absurdly wrong answers. Buddy431 (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you channeling Comet Tuttle today??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If you restricted yourself to answering questions you actually know something about, you wouldn't get snapped at like this. 87.114.246.141 (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Buggs' answer was intended to be taken seriously. It was pretty clearly an SNL reference.

APL (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was just starting to fish for information on the oldest, and King Tut was the first old guy that came to mind. There was discussion on the ref desk talk page the other day, that editors shouldn't take drive-by shots at other editors in front of the OP's, but rather should take such matters to the ref desk talk page, for example. I'm guessing Buddy, and for sure the IP-with-4-total-edits, didn't get that memo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting King Tut as the oldest known person is a gross error, and needed to be responded to here, so that people don't actually think that you have something worthwhile to say about this topic and believe your answer. I have posted my concerns on your talk page (because it's your issue, not the reference desk's), and you've made it disappear. If you don't want to discuss this there, where would you like to discuss it? I don't think the reference desk talk page is the best place (more drama than I like), but if you'd prefer, we could hash it out there. My talk page would also be acceptable, if you'd like to drop me a note. This answering with answers-pulled-out-of-your-butt business needs to stop. Buddy431 (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've had quite enough of your personal attacks tonight. I expect it from certain others, but I had thought you were above that sort of thing. Until now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, you really haven't answered the OP's question. Since you're the freakin' expert, what is the oldest confirmed named person whose body or mummy has actually been located? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't care when I thought it was more of your trademarked deadpan humor, but I have to agree that just presenting some random name you thought of off the top of your head, without indicating that's what you're doing is very misleading.

It's clear that you didn't even glance at the article to confirm your guess. (The infobox clearly indicates predecessors.) APL (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that you enjoy making personal attacks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a feeling there was an even more recent discussion on this, and here it is: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2010_June_13#First_Notable_Person. It seems Sumerian kings are good candidates. Jørgen (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Alulim is recorded as ruling somewhere around 275,000BC, though chances are that date is entirely wrong, and even if he ruled only in 4700BC or whenever, there is no direct evidence he certainly existed. Archaeologists have tentatively identified certain graves in Egypt with the earliest known kings there, c3200BC, based on ancient inscriptions amongst the things buried with them. From there on, there is just no one point where it becomes clear that one person was exactly who they think he was, whilst the previous was possibly not. Then again, there is a theoretical possibility the entire universe was created at some impossible to determine point in the recent past, in such a way that it only seemed to have been around much longer. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The earliest ruler on the Sumerian king list whose name is attested directly from archaeology isEnmebaragesi.--Wetman (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Who is the earliest named human whose body has actually been found? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That could be tricky, because we don't necessarily know that an occupied tomb contains the body of the person named on the tomb. In the cases of saints, for example, there was a medieval industry at producing fake body parts and selling them to churches. Similar pressures could have led to providing fake bodies (real bodies, but not belonging to the person in question) for other historic characters, both real and fictional. StuRat (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Our articles on Djedkare Isesi and Neferefre say (with sources) that their remains have been found. The oldest article in Category:Ancient Egyptian mummies is Qar (doctor). The article on Sanakht, who is older than any of these, says human remains were found in a tomb bearing his name. Hut 8.5 16:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Supply of lawyers deliberately restricted

Lawyers are very expensive, but only a minority of people who hope to have careers as lawyers succeed. Particularly regarding barristers in the UK.

Is there any evidence that the supply of lawyers has been deliberately restricted by the profession so that their fees are kept high? The normal economic rules of supply and demand do not appear to be working. Thanks 92.15.23.133 (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes definitely. I can't speak directly to the situation in the U.K., but in the U.S. there's tremendous barriers to entry that keep the profession smaller than it otherwise would be. Prohibitions against unlicensed practice of law, law school cost and requirement, bar exams, bar fees, and conflict of interest ethical rules all work to increase the demand/reduce supply of legal services. I'm not saying those things aren't necessary to some degree, but they do increase prices.

Are you sure about this? I was amazed at the pages and pages of lawyers listed in the yellow pages of a major US city (maybe 60 or more pages!). Far more than I would expect in a similarly sized European city (perhaps 10-15 pages). Incidentally, I noticed the same thing with the doctors listings as well. Astronaut (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're interested, the ethical rules about conflicts of interest as barriers to entry are the subject of some scholarly debate.

On the flip side, it's expensive to be a lawyer (also for those things). Law school, malpractice insurance, time spent dealing with non-billable matters, long hours, lack of flexibility particularly for those in litigation practices... it's not a free lunch for anybody unfortunately. Shadowjams (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

US lawyers I have discussed this with say there is a vast oversupply of lawyers rather than a "deliberate shortage" of lawyers. Law firms have no work to support the flood of applicants, and a new lawyer is likely to starve if he just opens an office as a sole practitioner, even if his prices are way under those of established firms. The new sole practitioner can't keep cutting his rates without limit, since he typically has a huge student loan debt to pay each month, as well as fixed very high cost for malpractice insurance. In large law firms, new associates slave away for several years to achieve ridiculously high totals for hours billed, in hopes of being one of the few who make partner and can then profit from the labor of new associates, while most get turned out and have to scrabble for continued employment or start their own firms or partnerships. Being in-house counsel for a business, or corporate council for a government unit, or a prosecutor or public defender are other career routes. One thing that helps the new lawyer in a storefront office is that the old need for shelves full of all sorts of lawbooks is greatly decreased by the ability to do legal research online from a PC (even though the subscription costs are high for the databases). Law schools keep cranking out fresh crops of lawyers, with many graduates unable to find employment practicing law. Here are refs on the US oversupply of lawyers:[14], [15], [16]. As for the UK, here is a news item discussing the oversupply there, where graduates are likely to have to work as paralegals: [17]. All in all. new graduates in the US or the UK will have a hard time paying off the loans most took out to pay for their legal schooling. A very fortunate few got scholarships to pay for law school, or had rich parents who just wrote checks. Edison (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking Account

Is there any reason why a person can not get a checking account (i.e. bad credit)?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In the US, bad credit is the most common reason for banks denying someone a checking account; they think that a past history of poor money decisions makes it more likely the applicant will overdraw their account. A US bank or credit union would also turn down an application in which the person didn't have a government-issued photo ID or Social Security Number. (Here's a short article about the requirements to open an account at most places.) The services of credit unions, which are nonprofits, are cheaper than banks', and their requirements are possibly looser. PS: The applicant needs to be 18 years old or more in the US. Some banks have special "student" checking accounts for people aged 16 and up, but these accounts all need an adult co-signer who promises to be financially responsible in cases of overdrafts. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To add some detail to what Comet said... a primary reporter for depository institution is Chex Systems, which works much like the credit bureaus but with depository accounts. And yes, they do deny people accounts, although that's a bank-by-bank decision. Shadowjams (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, there are current accounts for children that don't allow you to become overdrawn (they simply won't let you withdraw more than you have), and often come with a debit card. You generally need a parent or guardian to cosign, but there's no question of them becoming responsible for your overdraft, because you can't get one. Is there no equivalent in the US? 212.183.128.73 (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but they don't come with checks. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

OT: In Australia, fewer and fewer people have cheque (= checking) accounts because the numbers of businesses that accept cheques for payment have dwindled to the point that they're very much the exception rather than the rule now. It's so much easier to swipe a card; and even if that overdraws a credit account, that's a matter between you and your bank, not you and the vendor. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Same here in USA. The only thing I ever use my checkbook for is a particular monthly bill that has to be paid the old-fashioned way. Many people don't bother. APL (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Isn't a Checking Account what is known in the UK as a Current Account (typically the account into which your wages or benefits are paid and from which ATM withdrawals and Direct Debits are taken)? It probably doesn't matter whether you actually use a cheque/check book. --Frumpo (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Added missing "close small" code after Frumpo's sig to prevent effect on following posts. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

german-monaechy related

what happened to Luise of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel 13 other brothers & sisters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Routson (talk • contribs) 23:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Both articles on her parents Antoinette and Ferdinand Albert list her (twelve) siblings, six of which have their own article: Charles I, Elisabeth Christine, Louis Ernest, Ferdinand, Sophie Antoinette, and Juliana Maria. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

March 23

political violence in middle east vs. geopolitics of oil

How does political violence in Middle East relate to the geopolitics of oil? Is there website where I can read how political violence in Middle East is related to the geopolitics of oil? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.103 (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Resource curse may be relevant. Ariel. (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a heavily biased and propagandistic article (by the left-wing Center for Research on Globalization) related to political violence and oil, but still worth looking at to know what different people think about the geopolitics of oil. Frankly speaking, most of the claims that political violence and oil are interrelated are inaccurate and pseudoscientific views. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You may well be right, Reference Desker, but since equally you may not be, such a sweeping claim could use some corroboration. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230 195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

factors of Chechnya conflict

What are the central factors of the conflict of Chechnya? What are the causes of it? Is there a website where I can read about it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.103 (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can read Chechen War, Chechnya, and so on, or if you'd like a more poetic account, s:The Captive in the Caucasus, etc. Wnt (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

More specifically Origins of the war in Chechnya, Historical basis of the Second Chechen War and Prelude to the Second Chechen War. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

And this. --Reference Desker (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Resentment by many Muslim Caucasus nationalities towards Russian rule goes back to the 19th-century Czarist wars (see Imam Shamil etc.). In the post-Soviet period, the Chechens really have not always been wise in the measures they have chosen to express or further their autonomist or independentist grievances or aspirations -- in the early 1990's, they seemed to take no care as to whether they were provoking a national government which (though less powerful than formerly) still had far more military might than they did, and was under a leadership that was determined to halt the decline and stave off any further territorial fragmentation; while by the end of the 1990s, they were fully embracing the international Wahhabi and/or Taliban and/or al-Qaeda jihad, and launched the aggressive Invasion of Dagestan for the purpose of bringing it under Islamic extremist rule... AnonMoos (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Profitability of early whaling? (Nantucket, sailing era)

I'm working my way through Moby Dick and have begun to wonder about the profitability of early whaling. According to Melville, ships hunting sperm whales were often gone for 2 to 3 years at a stretch, sometimes even four. Assuming a successful voyage with a full cargo of oil and spermaceti, what kind of profit would a ship like that make back in those times? Was this a lucrative business for all involved? for just the ship financiers? The Masked Booby (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In the days before kerosene, whale oil was the only lighting oil acceptable in a great number of upper-class and middle-class households; whalebone was the greatly preferred "boning" for women's corsets, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Whale oil stood between beeswax candles (for the rich) and beef tallow candles (for the poor) in the early 19th century, and the advent of kerosene or "coal oil" in the mid 19th century. Whale oil was highly desired. Considerations were the cost per unit of illumination, and the amount of soot produced. In the later 19th century, gaslight superseded various oil lights, and in turn was superseded by electric light. Edison (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Isolating on one particular ship, it would certainly not seem very efficient. But is it reasonable to assume that overall there were whaling ships frequently heading to sea while other whaling ships were coming back into port with their cargo? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a whole chapter about profit in this book about American whaling 1816-1906. It's a bit too much for me to make sense of just skimming (and surprisingly complicated—trying to determine true profits in a meaningful way). There's a sort of conclusion on page 457. Apparently profits were "persistently high" from 1817 to the late 1830s, after which "the market moved toward equilibrium" and "a more fundamental downward adjustment...in the late 1850s", then an uptick during the Civil War, followed by a "contraction" of the industry, but "profit rates held up". And finally, "Overall, profit rates seem to have been somewhat higher than returns in other comparable industries..." Of course all of this is about profits for the investors, not the crews. There's another chapter called "Labor" about crew wages. Again, it's complicated. Try starting around page 175 if you want to see how complicated. The book compares wages of various crew positions between whaling and the merchant marine. Apparently whaling officers earned on average "roughly twice as much as those on merchantmen", and captains about three times as much. Wages for ordinary seamen seem to have been lower in whaling than in the merchant service—about a third or a quarter less on average. Then again, the comparison might not be fair. Whaling crews were much more "ethnically diverse", with people of many nationalities, especially Polynesians. Many of these people would not have been able to get work in the US merchant marine. There would be differences in the reason why one would join a whaling crew in the first place, and different expectations and desired outcomes of a voyage. The chapter goes on to explore these kind of issues in great detail. ...Anyway, this book is dense with information on this topic. Very dense! Seems very well researched though. Pfly (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Two Years Before the Mast concerns a ship trading hides rather than sperm oil, but is also of interest. The conditions on board ship, as with those of the tea clippers, were very bad. 92.15.14.45 (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WP has a great number of articles on whaling: history of whaling and whaling in the United States are particularly extensive; reference is made to economics and large profits, but no figure. Whale oil and baleen ("whalebone") were important commodities. Gwinva (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Privileges and Immunities Clause and Public Education

The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution states that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The Texas state government, along with many other U.S. states, operates a public post-secondary education system, in Texas' case the University of Texas System. Admission to University of Texas schools for United States citizens who are not residents of Texas is very difficult; I believe I have read elsewhere that only 10% of students at UT Austin are not Texas residents, and that is a deliberate decision on the part of Texas' legislature.

To me, post-secondary education is a "privilege" given to a citizen of the state of Texas, provided that the citizen can meet the normal entry requirements. Why is it that public universities can discriminate by state of residence in accepting students? NW (Talk) 06:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There's two closely related P-I clauses: The Privileges and immunities clause and the Privileges or Immunities Clause. If you find the text deviating from the Supreme Court's historic interpretation of it, welcome to Constitutional jurisprudence. I took a brief look at our P&I article and it references the Slaughter House Cases... and while I haven't looked into it beyond that brief glance, I worry that it may be confusing the 14th amendment clause and the article 4 one you're talking about.

Specific to your question, there are two cases you should look at: Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper and Vlandis v. Kline (1973) 412 U.S. 441 (neither of which we apparently have articles for. P&I has a very narrow scope for 2 primary reasons: it only applies to a narrow subset of "fundamental" citizenship rights... and it is also restricted to "citizens", which is a much narrower subset than individuals, and much narrower still than persons. Shadowjams (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at those two cases, thanks. NW (Talk) 17:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I realize that my answer's pretty bad... I don't think Kline ever addresses Article 4 directly. However I know there's a line of cases on this. I just don't have the resources to find it at the moment. Perhaps someone else can point you to the case I'm thinking of but can't find. Shadowjams (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Privileges and Immunities Clause notwithstanding, I think the reason for this is driven by basic finance rather than trying to extend a "privilege" to Texas residents. Most (if not all?) state universities in the US are funded in large part by taxes paid by the residents of that state. Residents therefore typically pay one rate of tuition, while non-residents pay a higher rate to account for the fact that the non-residents have not contributed via taxes. In this situation, you're going to naturally find a higher percentage of in-state residents, since it is cheaper for them to attend their own state's university than it would be to attend a public university in another state (or to attend a private university). Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that where article 4 would come in, would be if a state university barred other states' citizens altogether. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

@OSS: And that makes total sense to me. I was just wondering how that could be constitutionally justified.

@BB: Actually, some schools do that, the University of Massachusetts School of Medicine for example. NW (Talk) 17:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

See [18] for an intro to the topic. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

help me to get information/contacts for my research based on old woollen trade of Kullu(H.P.)INDIA,especially in British period

Respected sir/mam
i am presently working as a asstt. prof.in government college Banjar distt. Kullu and doing work on the origin of Kullu Handloom shawls and old time woollen trade of Himachal Pradesh with other provincial states especialy during British period.In this topic i find many new findings like how the world famous Kullu shawls came in to being,its connection with Kinnauri Handloom,wich was connected with British trade and interest,opening of new trade roots etc.

Sir,here i want to mention this is the first work ever made on handloom of Kullu shawls and i have compeleted my M.Phil from H P Uiversity Shimla (INDIA).Now i want to do some more hard work but i have no knowledge how to contact any university in England for grant and authentic (contemprary) information/evidence for my reseach.

kindly suggest me. I shall be highly thankful to you for your this act of kindness.

Your's Faithfuly
J.C.Chauhan
e mail add (removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.239.0.2 (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Question reformatted for readability, and email removed for privacy AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As you probably know, the records of the East India Company and the India Office (India's government under British rule) are housed at the British Library. Obtaining funding for a period of research in the UK will be difficult, but probably not impossible. Competition for funding is likely to be stiff. My recommendation (and some years ago, I obtained funding from a foreign foundation for doctoral research in another country) would be to establish a relationship with a low- level or mid-level academic in the United Kingdom, such as a reader, senior lecturer, or lecturer. (Academics of higher ranks will be too busy and/or important to be likely to take an interest in an unknown foreign student). You should contact several British historians working on 19th-century Indian history, and preferably economic history, so that they share intellectual interests with you. A good way to find such people would be to find British authors of recent publications on your area of history. Your university librarian should be able to help you with this. Once you have a "sponsor", that person can help you identify funding opportunities. One possible source of funding might be the Arts and Humanities Research Council. See, for example, this article. However, you will increase your chances of success by connecting with an insider. Marco polo (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That's useful advice, and I think you should definitely email the office of the UK Research Councils in India. You can find the address from their website. Explain that you have a project idea in economic history, relating to global links in textile production, and that the research will be much more effective if it is carried out from the Indian and the British directions, using archives in both countries. Ask them if they can help with partner search. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to the above, you may wish to contact universities in areas with historic links to Indian textiles: Paisley (shawls), Dundee (jute), Bradford and Manchester come to mind. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

British peerage

May I know what is the correct title for Charles Edward Stuart, Count Roehenstart?

Burke's Peerage says "...more commonly known as Charles Edward Stuart, Count de Roehenstart"; The Complete Peerage says "Charles Edward Stuart was styled as Count Roehenstart, self-styled" and then, there is a book entitled, "The pedigree of Charles Edward Stuart, Count of Roehenstart".

Please advise on what the correct way to write his name is. Thanks, Bejinhan talks 10:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, he doesn't appear to have had any titles in the peerages of England, Scotland or Great Britain, and there does not seem to be any reliable source for him actually being a count in anything other than his own estimation. As a bastard son of a bastard daughter it's unlikely he would have inherited any titles, and nobody seems to know who is meant to have created him a count. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no such title as "count" in the British peerage. Marnanel (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Was he a musician or entertainer? Maybe his nobility was like that of King Oliver, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Lady Day, and The Duke of Paducah i.e. a title bestowed by his admirers which he was proud to use for promotional purposes. Edison (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Merely clicking on the link that the OP helpfully provided, Edison, would have revealed to you exactly who he was and why he styled himself with a title. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful tip, 90. (Or should I call you 87?). Edison (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You can call me what you like, as long as you don't call me late for dinner :-) . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.155 (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies. I have amended the DYK hook about Charles Edward Stuart. Bejinhan talks 10:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Abused abuser?

Is there a general rule of abused persons turning into abusers? Popular wisdom do points to the direction that sexual abusers were sexually abused. Is there any study about this? And what about other types of abuse, like workplace mobber being a mobbing victim? Wikiweek (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What's a "mobber" ? As for childhood abuse, this is just a special case of people growing up to treat people as they were treated as children. If children are treated well, they tend to to do the same to others later. There are, of course, many exceptions, in both directions. StuRat (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Mobbing is (essentially) another word for bullying. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought a mobber was a bully (like in Danish, see: [19]). Although, in English a mobber seems to be an uncommon word for someone engaged in mobbing. Wikiweek (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In American English, "mobbing" has a very different connotation, apparently, than British English (?), or languages which use it as a loan word. In American English, anything relating to "mob" in any form is associated with crowds and rioting, whereas bullying is a much more one-on-one sort of affair. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There is surely a large body of research on this topic. For starters, see the references for domestic violence here: Domestic_violence#Social_theories. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I went to a lecture about this at the Centre for Child Mental Health in London a few years ago. The lecture was primarily about sexually abused children going on to become sexual abusers. There had only been one significant study, and that only on boys. While boys who had been sexually abused were more likely than the general population to go on to become sexual abusers, the large majority did not go on to commit abuse. Unfortunatley I do not still have the notes I took at the time. DuncanHill (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Might it be a case of skewed or anecdotal perception (I forget the technical term) in the news; where an abuser's past is mentioned only when they were an abuse victim also? And that those who were abused and don't commit crimes, don't get into the news? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and it's very easy for an abuser to try to elicit some sympathy (or a lighter sentence) by claiming to be a victim themself. The study in the lecture had followed a cohort of abused boys through their lives over about twenty years, pulling together social services, medical, and police reports. DuncanHill (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point. If I stop and think about it, I can recall a number of folks who had abusive childhoods, and some of them turned out well and some didn't. Is it the "nature vs. nurture" situation? Is it maybe more a matter of "the stuff you're made of", as to whether you can overcome childhood traumas of one kind or another? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's extremely complex. A person may have had a mainly positive childhood, with one or two incidents of abuse, or at the other end of the scale may have been raised in a profoundly negative environment, where abusive behaviours were normalised - and there's every combination in between. There's also the question of what support the person had once abuse was disclosed, did they have a network of friends and supportive positive adults, or were they ignored, disbelieved, or indeed had they been removed from one abusive setting and placed in another by those supposed to protect them? Was the sexual abuse combined with other forms of abuse and neglect? The environmental side of the question is infinitely complex. Nature and nurture are in an ever-changing, never-ending embrace, each playing off the other. DuncanHill (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've looked at this research, but if I remember right the whole 'cycle of violence' theory is very weak. There's some evidence that violent people are more likely to have suffered abuse as children, but there's no real evidence that people who suffer abuse as children are more likely to be violent as adults. It's also really a misapplication of the original theoretical position, which was that people exposed to violent social environments as children tended to adopt violent ways (e.g. someone who grew up in Gaza or the Sudan or Somalia is much more likely to have a worldview in which acts of violence against others are considered normal and acceptable than someone who grows up in a US suburb). --Ludwigs2 02:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

funding of professional sports facilities

Here in the US, whenever a professional sports team wants a new stadium, they get the city and state to pony up a significant portion of the funds (despite the fact that the team is privately owned). Is the same true in other nations? Googlemeister (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes in the UK - Ricoh Arena, Coventry is one such, but then there's the Emirates Stadium home of Arsenal Football Club which took no public money. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Matt Deres (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In most European countries, the municipality also indirectly contributes large amounts of money by expanding the infrastructure and improving the area, as part of their duty to provide public services. And because they do profit from a successful sporting arena, of course. I don't know whether that's what you meant by "ponying up", but to give you one example, the City of Munich spent €210 million, almost as much as the entire construction costs, on improving the surroundings of the Allianz Arena. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Wembley Stadium is privately owned, but its funding appears to have come from a mixture of private and public funds. That seems to be the trend in American sports. Is Wembley a good example for Europe, or is it a poor example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to quote Wembley as an example of anything other than public ineptitude! --TammyMoet (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently after a fair bit of research, the team itself does not often own their stadium. Googlemeister (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In the US, at least, stadium construction seems to be a common scam. That is, they get the taxpayers to foot the bill and take the risk (of the sports team leaving, for example), while private owners get to keep all the profits (say from charging more for tickets to this shiny new stadium). So, essentially, those private owners just take the taxpayers' money and keep it. How can such a scam work ? Well, the owners often give contributions to the politicians, to get them on their side, and promise the public huge benefits in increased tourism, etc. However, those benefits rarely develop. People just switch from the now abandoned, old, nearby stadium to the new one, without there being much, if any, net increase in the tax base. If all else fails, the private owners can threaten to move the sports team away, if they don't get what they want (yet they rarely sign a legally binding contract to keep them there for long, if they do get their new stadium). So, is this scam also used elsewhere ? StuRat (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Also note that this scam applies to other major construction projects, too. In Detroit, they are trying to convince taxpayers to build a new bridge to Canada, despite a falling population and an existing bridge and tunnel. (The justification appears to be the delays in crossing the border, but these are due to insufficient customs workers and increased security, and a new bridge won't address those.) StuRat (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

A difference between American and Europe is that European sports are kind of set up differently. There are more than 90 pro soccer teams in England alone, so every English city of any size already has one. Franchise relocation is therefore very uncommon. When the soccer team in Wimbledon, London moved 50 miles away to Milton Keynes, it caused a huge uproar not only in London but throughout the country. That said, it seems strange that European sports teams can get any kind of government support at all for stadium projects, as they can't threaten to leave town if they don't get a new building. It's interesting to me that there are so many stadiums in Europe. London has 13 pro soccer teams, each with its own stadium. Plus it has Wembley, the rugby stadium in Twickenham and two major cricket stadiums. The New York area has only one football stadium of any size, two baseball stadiums (not including little minor league parks) and a new soccer stadium out in Jersey. If something happened to the Meadowlands like with the Metrodome last year, the Giants and Jets would have to play in another city or try to cram a football field into Yankee Stadium like they did for a couple of college games last year. When the Giants lost their stadium in the 70s, they had to play two years at the Yale Bowl 66 miles away in Connecticut. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

King's Speech Wave

In the final scene of The King's Speech where the royals are waving, is there a proper name for the type of wave they are doing, if any at all? - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Urban Dictionary calls it a "parade wave",[20] well known for use by the Royals, but used by anyone in a parade (such as a homecoming king or queen, or a grand marshall) who have to wave at the crowd for a long stretch of time. Presumably it's less tiring than the "standard" wave, which involves more of the arm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Haven't seen the scene, but it's probably the "royal wave" [21], [22] Gwinva (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the real King and Queen on VE Day. The Queen does the "royal wave" but the King does an altogether more elaborate affair. Is this how it is done in the film? It may be based on the Royal Navy's "three cheers" when caps are flourished in circles (the Canadians do it too!). Alansplodge (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

wedding cake impression

Resolved

I need help on something. I want to do a handmade stuffed wedding cake. Here are the dimensions; Tier #1 is 10 1/4" diameter, 42" circumference, 4" height. Tier #2 is 7 1/2" diameter, 34" circumference, 4" height. Tier #3 is 5 3/4" diameter, 19" circumference, 4" height. How many yards of fabric should be used?24.90.204.234 (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Fabric? Why would you need fabric? Looie496 (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It being handmade, he must be fabricating it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

OP, what do you mean by; "handmade stuffed wedding cake"? And the fabric? Does "impression" mean it is a prop for a stage? MacOfJesus (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is a prop, then go to a Jumble Sale and buy all the old clauth you can find and cut off what is not needed. If you make it too well you will have trouble with people trying to eat it! MacOfJesus (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't buy that! The "wedding cake" won't be real. Yes, it's an impression. It's bound to be a part of the permanent collection of a museum I'm trying to establish. I'm trying to figure out how many yards of fabric I should purchase. I already gave the dimensions.24.90.204.234 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your diameters and circumferii (sp?) don't seem to match. C = πD can be used, with π approximated as 3.14:

10.25 × 3.14 = 32.185 (not 42)
 7.5  × 3.14 = 23.55  (not 34)
 5.75 × 3.14 = 18.055 (not 19)

So, which is correct, the diameters or the circumferii? StuRat (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We also need to know the construction details. I assume that fabric is needed on the top and sides of each tier, but not on the bottom. Where one tier sits on another, should there be fabric there? Also, do you want to know the actual amount of fabric used in the final product, or the amount you must buy, considering that some will be wasted. We also need to know the width of a bolt of fabric to do that last calculation. StuRat (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Math Desk would have been a better place for this Q. StuRat (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Circumferences? --ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I see how StuRat got there. Radii is the plural of radius, circumferii is the plural of circumferius. 81.131.38.181 (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Now we know that this is meant as a high quality prop, then the thickness of the fabric you have in mind is also a necessary ingredient. You will get better responses on the Mathematical Reference Desk. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Why ? We only need the surface area, not the volume. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Using StuRat's figures, by my rough calculations, you need around 21.25" of 44" cloth assuming you need only the top surface of each tier; you need roughly 28" of 44" cloth if you need top & bottom surfaces. (Assume you need a 0.5" extra border on all cloths to sew together. You can get your three circles of 11.25", 8.5" & 6.75" comfortably out of a 44" bolt using just 11.25" of it. Your sides are rectangles of about 32", 23" & 18" by 5" ... you need two 5" lengths to get this out of a 44" bolt. You have a reasonable amount of left-over cloth. Doubtless there's a configuration of shapes which needs slightly less than I've indicated. but we're looking at trivial amounts of cloth. -Tagishsimon (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I presume that the material/fabric will be used as a laired stuffing/filler for the "cake", not just to cover the outside of each cake? Hence, the volume of the inside of each cake is needed? MacOfJesus (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely easier to stuff with foam, possibly with cardboard top & bottom surfaces to prevent bulging. By my calcs that would be 610 cubic inches of stuffing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggested this earlier, but a high quality, permanent structure is envisaged. So the thickness of the material to be used is needed. Will a different material be used to cover the outside? MacOfJesus (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I just now realized I made some mistakes. The handmade stuffed wedding cake impression will have a dish. Here the correct dimensions; The dish is 13" diameter, 42" circumference, 3" height. Tier #1 is 10 1/4" diameter, 34" diameter, 4" height. Tier #2 is 7 1/2" diameter, 23" circumference, 4" height. Tier 3# is 5 3/4" diameter, 19" circumference, 4" height. I already know I'm going to purchase one yard of a different fabric for the dish. But I'm still trying to figure out how many yards I should purchase for all three tiers.24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, but we still need to know the construction details:

1) Do we only need fabric on the top and outside surfaces of each tier?

2) Do we need fabric on the portion of the top of a tier which is covered by the bottom of the next tier up? StuRat (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, only fabric is needed. I intend to do both the top, bottom, and outside surfaces of each tier.24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Are the tiers all resting on one another, or are they pillered from one another? Is each cake hollow? MacOfJesus (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

All of the tiers are resting on one another. Each cake will be stuffed.24.90.204.234 (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. One more thing; by yards of material, I presume you mean a square yard/s of material, or is the depth by meter? MacOfJesus (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The fabric I plan to purchase is 43" wide.24.90.204.234 (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Cake.GIF

Cake template: Not drawn to scale.

OK, now I have enough info to do some preliminary calcs:

Tier #1 is 10 1/4" diameter, 34" circumference, 4" height.

Tier #2 is 7 1/2" diameter, 23" circumference, 4" height.

Tier 3# is 5 3/4" diameter, 19" circumference, 4" height.

First, laying them out across the width of the bolt from the end, you can cut out both (large) tier 1 circles, both (medium) tier 2 circles, and one (small) tier 3 circle, for a width of 41.25 inches. Placing the other (small) tier 3 circle next to the first will give us a length, so far, of 11.5 inches. That covers the tops and bottoms.

Next we must address the sides. We can cut the (long) tier 1 side next to the largest circle, for a width of 34, stopping short of the second small circle. This gives us a width, so far, of 10.25 + 4 or 14.25 inches.

We can cut the (medium) tier 2 and (short) tier 3 sides, end to end, for a width of 42 inches. This adds 4 inches to 14.25 for a length of 18.25 inches. So, allowing a bit for margins, let's make that 20 inches. You might also want to allow extra for mistakes, though, that's up to you. And, how do you intend to make the seams? If you need overlapping fabric, then we need to account for that. (How much overlap do you need? 1/4 inch on both sides ?) StuRat (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Cake template #2: Not drawn to scale.

Here's an alternate template that allows greater margins (for seam overlap). It should be 22.25 inches long, without the seam allowance, or 24 inches (2 yards), with a fairly tight seam allowance of just under a quarter inch. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to be using overlap fabric.24.90.204.234 (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you plan to do the seams, then? Using a backing fabric? In either case, 2 yards should be enough. StuRat (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to make the cut circles face the diameter strip, turn the cakes right side out, then stuff them.24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, but how do you intend to attach the circles to the side strips? StuRat (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll sew them together.24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but how do you do that without overlapping fabric?

Seam with dual-overlapping fabric: 
  _________     
|\\                  
| \\                  
|
|
                
Seam with single overlapping fabric: 
  _________  
||          
||           
|           
|

They only other way I know of is by using a separate backing fabric. StuRat (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you not need a seam allowance (i.e. additional cloth) to enable the sewing? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll sew the tiers on top of one another. The "wedding cake" will then be sewn to the dish. Then I'll use sequin trim to hide the stitches.24.90.204.234 (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That still doesn't quite answer the question, unless you intend to sew the sides and circles from each tier to the sequin trim, instead of each other. StuRat (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, I don't need overlapping fabric. The sequin trim won't be sewn to the sides or the circles.24.90.204.234 (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So you intend to sew the edge of the circle directly to the edge of the side, with no overlapping fabric? You do realize that this will just lead to the fabric unraveling, don't you? StuRat (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I intend to sew the edge of the circle directly to the edge of the side, with no overlapping fabric. But don't worry, I have my sewing skills strategy to prevent unraveling.24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it a secret? Because I'd love to know how. StuRat (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I taught myself how to do it. When you put the needle in, make certain to go a tiny bit below a point where unraveling could happen. Now, let's get back to the fabric yardage. How many yards of fabric should I purchase?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, 2 yards should do it. StuRat (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much.24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm going to mark this question resolved. You can unmark it, if you have follow-up questions. StuRat (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

March 24

When weight is paramount on airlines, why don't any of them sell tickets by body weight?

By the pound? (After all, every pound appears to matter nowadays.)

This would give more overweight passengers extra incentive to lose more weight.

As you'll see in this video, airlines are finding 6 ways from Sunday methods to save on fuel costs: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42220638#42109773

Why don't they consider selling tickets by passengers' individual weights the next step? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Obese people would accuse them of discrimination and they would face lawsuits all over the place. BurtAlert (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There are other products that are sold based on weight or girth. For example, XXL clothes often cost more. And airlines do charge extra if they determine that an extra seat is required. So, I don't think it would be illegal or they would lose lawsuits. However, many people would find being weighed by the airline to be humiliating, even those who aren't obese, and that's poor customer relations. Perhaps if they weighed you along with all your luggage, that would disguise your individual weight sufficiently to reduce embarrassment. And, of course, it's the total weight that the airline needs to know, anyway. It might spawn a market for lightweight luggage that looks incredibly heavy though (I've seen plastic luggage that looks like metal). StuRat (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As you're hinting, a few years ago Southwest Airlines drew some negative attention by compelling some passengers they considered excessively large to buy two tickets. I don't know if they still have that policy, or if other airlines do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Googling [airlines obesity policy] turns up several airlines that do, in fact, have such policies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's take a rather standard plane like the Boeing 737. Let's say our plane carries 200 people. Let's say 50% of them are men, 50% are women. The average male weight in the US (according to Body weight) is around 190 lb, average female is around 160 lb. So our base average weight is 19,260 lbs — let's assume that is what the current price point of aircraft seats is optimized for. Now the questions seem to me to be: Is the deviation from the average going to be enough to be worth charging more (e.g. will it have a measurable effect on fuel consumption)? Will the deviations towards the lower end of the scale account for that (for there are people who are under the average as well)? If not, what is the difference, and what does that translate into in terms of real costs for fuel? My statistics juggling isn't up to these last tasks, but I suspect this could be done with some data in hand and some statistical knowledge. If the monetary loss is negligible, the customer dissatisfaction at being charged for being overweight is probably not worth it. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That's right, it would only result in more profit for the airline if either:

A) They use the change in pricing to hide a secret overall price increase.

B) They change consumer behavior, either by convincing people to lose weight or convincing lighter people fly more than heavy people.

And, of course, both of these would have to outweigh the profits lost by those people who would avoid flying on that airline due to the humiliation factor.StuRat (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, airlines use statistics to to make sure the plane will be safe up to a couple of standard errors above the average expected weight of the passengers. Since the number of passengers is reasonably big, it's extremely unlikely you'll get a sample that's enough of an outlier to make a difference. There are actually more problems with comfort than with weight - airline seats are optimized in the opposite direction, towards a minimum space allocation that an average sized adult can fit into with reasonable comfort, so large people cause discomfort both for themselves and the people they sit next to. Airlines would actually do better setting up separate sections of seats designed for particularly large and particularly small people, to balance out the comfort issues and maximize space allocation, but that would be an even worse public relations nightmare (I'm sorry ma'am, but we need to move you to the chubblet section, while your husband goes to that tiny persons' row; I'm sure you understand...) --Ludwigs2 01:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"This seat for compact models only." StuRat (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How high is the humiliation factor compared to current arrangements whereby passengers regularly need to remove their shoes and belts, and empty out whatever's in their pockets, in order to get through security gates? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's different — that's equal for everyone. Depending on what's in your pockets, maybe, but that's under your control, and you know ahead of time. --Trovatore (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not an unheard-of notion; Bloomberg found one consultant who mentioned it as a possibility in this story, though it wasn't treated very seriously. Ludwigs2 above missed the point; this isn't about safety but because more weight means more fuel is needed to get the plane to the destination. As the consultant in that story states, all other freight is shipped with charges based on weight; the only reason humans aren't charged the same way is because of humiliation or distaste. I could see a crazy budget airline like RyanAir doing a test of weight-based pricing on a single route, and if they are able to eke out a sliver more profit than they do now, then other crazy budget airlines could maybe follow their lead. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Tuttle, statistically that makes no sense. The variance in weight of a single passenger is insignificant with respect to a 100,000lb aircraft, and the variability of the combined weight of 100-200 passengers is fairly small. Airlines might be bothered be the demonstrable increase in average weight of passengers (in the US, anyway), but no airline cuts its fuel margins that close to the wire. If this is anything at all, it is just a smokescreen for corporations angling for new avenues of profit. --Ludwigs2 07:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

But do we know this or are we just assuming it? I'm curious what the cost difference would be, in jet fuel, is for a long-haul flight if you have, say, a plane full of NBA players (Shaq clocks in at 325 lbs according to his page here), versus a plane full of schoolchildren. A Shaq plane (known as a Plane o' Shaqs in the trade) would be 65,000 lbs of passenger weight, compared to, I don't know, 16,000 lbs of schoolchildren? Does that 49,000 lbs make a significant difference in fuel efficiency in a flight from NYC to LAX? Obviously comparing polar opposites of the scale is not a way to make general policy, but if even that wouldn't matter much, then we know well enough to throw the general policy idea out the window. Knowing how much the most extreme case matters might give some benchmark into thinking about the more general case. All of this is separate, of course, from whether this is a good business idea or not. :-) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr.98: statistically speaking, getting a 'shaq plane' has a vanishingly small probability. total expected variation of a sample is the standard deviation times the square root of the sample size. 35lbs*sqrt(147) for a standard 727 gives an expected deviation of 425 pounds, meaning that the probability of getting more than a 1000 lb excess is less than 2% - getting the (roughly) 30000 lb excess you're implying above would be .00000000...%. even considering non-statistical factors - basketball and/or football teams all traveling together on a commercial flight, say - you'd still need maybe a dozen teams all flying together on the same airplane to make a noticeable impact (and for anything like that the teams would most likely charter a plane.) weight-safety statistics is a well-defined and frequently used tool - elevators, bridges, public buildings and skyscrapers are all designed to withstand the maximal expected weight of people and objects they are expected to hold - planes are no different, except that they have to add fuel considerations into the equations.

(a funny/scary story from san francisco: on the anniversary of the completion of the Golden Gate bridge, they closed the bridge to traffic and allowed people to walk across it. unfortunately, the politicians who did this were ignorant of engineering principles and sadly lacking in common sense; they did not realize that people en masse are far more dense than automobiles, or that allowing people to walk from both sides without traffic control would be likely to cause some confusion. and so they ended up with two solid walls of people from each end meeting in the middle of the bridge, unable to move further, while the bridge itself swayed and groaned under a load it was not designed to handle. They're just lucky it didn't collapse, plummeting thousands of people into the bay.) --Ludwigs2 15:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, that sounds a lot like an urban legend (actually, like the one where the local university library forgot to take into account the weight of the books). Our article says that 200,000 people walked across it during the opening festivities, with no mention of either a traffic jam or danger of collapse. I know you posted this mostly for humour, but can you provide a reference for your story? (And if it's a RS, maybe it should be added to the article). To be honest, I don't believe a word of it, but I've been wrong once or twice before... Matt Deres (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it's not a likely thing — I didn't propose it as a likely thing! I proposed it as a thought experiment. I thought I was quite clear on that. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out that obesity is not the only factor that can make a person heavy. Some people are heavy not because they're obese but because they're tall. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I recently took a couple of flights on Nature Air. They operate very small planes. They actually do have weight limits for passengers and their baggage, and they actually do weigh passengers and their baggage before issuing boarding passes and baggage claim checks. Their procedure is to weigh the baggage first, then ask the passenger to step onto the scale. That way, they are not weighing the passenger directly. However, I'm sure their computers can do the math. Marco polo (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Very small aircraft have load balancing concerns (sell large ones do too, it just takes a lot more to get there) so the weight of the person and of the luggage would need to be calculated separately if they are stored in separate parts of the aircraft if it is small. If would guess small here would mean 8 seats or so. Googlemeister (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I travelled a few times on a Loganair Britten-Norman Islander (8 passengers - 9 if you sit next to the pilot) and they weighed luggage and passengers separately and told everyone exactly where to sit on the plane, presumably for balance as you say. Mikenorton (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that all airlines have some passenger weight limit, as they can't just let a 500 lb person sit in a normal seat, it wouldn't work. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How about a reference on the Reference Desk? I am very disappointed that the last eight posts in this thread had no references, other than Matt Deres shooting down an urban legend; but instead consisted of just guesses and the application of logic, with no data, by non-pilots. Please, people, do not post if you don't have an answer or a significant advance toward one. A few minutes of googling yielded this thread, including references and actual math, in which it's calculated that on a Boeing 777, if jet fuel costs US$3 per gallon, it costs about 11 cents to fly 1 extra pound on a trip of 3300 nautical miles. (That's about the distance from Houston to Honolulu.) The extra cost for a passenger who is 10 pounds "overweight" over whatever number you choose is about a dollar. Another enterprising poster in the thread calculated that if all the passengers on their flights urinated before boarding the aircraft, the subtraction of a mere 4 ounces of weight from each passenger would save American Airlines some US$3.1 million annually (assuming 85% full planes, whereas the actual number these days is around 70%). Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking those up — very interesting. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And what makes you think that none of those who responded are not pilots? Googlemeister (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Off topic question, but I'll answer: No pilot would have written any of the above answers. Pilots have a god complex and would have given a definitive answer immediately. Pilots would also be able to calculate this and would have just given a correct answer. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, most of your experience with pilots came from watching Top Gun. Googlemeister (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason is that the question of whether it would make economic sense for airlines to charge by the passenger pound simply doesn't come down to fuel calculations and standard deviations. That's rather missing the entire point (that people would refuse to fly on such a plane, on principal, and the airline would go under). I suppose, if there have been surveys about whether people would be willing to be weighed, then those links might be relevant. However, I doubt if this has been done, since common sense says that this idea "wouldn't fly". StuRat (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This was actually jokingly suggested by Air Asia X [23]. It caused comment some positive many (and usually more virulently) negative and eventually they just said they'd been misquoted [24] (as I said I think it was actually more of a joke that wasn't supposed to be reported seriously). As others have said a number of airlines will either deny boarding or require an extremely obese passenger to buy an extra seat as BB said a simple search will find them e.g. this North America oriented ref [25] or [26] [27] although you can also see from there that even that has caused controversy and legal issues. Having been on a plane where I was weighed (can't remember being required to sit anywhere but I think the weight ranges weren't that different) it's worth mentioning even in that case I still got a standard (reduced) luggage allowance and don't get charged extra due to your weight. (I'm not sure what happens if they find out they can't fly with all passengers and luggage, I expect it's rare. And possibly they have some unaccompanied luggage or other stuff they don't have to take anyway.) P.S. I suspect quite a number of people would be less annoyed by being weighed then being frisked or having to go thru a full body scan as happens in the US and seems to be expanding to the rest of the world. Nil Einne (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

They still allow unaccompanied luggage ? That's dangerous, as terrorists who don't want to blow themselves up are likely to send a bomb through that way, as in the Lockerbie bombing. StuRat (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean like with any cargo? But that reminds me of another point, if they really have nothing to leave behind I guess they may ask you to leave your luggage behind and bring it over on the next flight. Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by "other cargo". Largo cargo shipment usually go by cargo plane. Yes, there's a risk there, but at least a plane full of passengers isn't killed. StuRat (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK most large passenger planes usually do carry other cargo. According to [28] it's actually the majority of freight cargo to the US (that is carried by passenger airlines). This isn't really that surprising, when you consider many of the passengers airlines have got into trouble for colluding on the costs of air freight in a number of countries [29] [30]. No point colluding if people don't have a reason to use you. BTW, when I said unaccompanied luggage I actually meant to include all cargo but your answer doesn't seem to be thinking of this which is what confused me. Nil Einne (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

By "luggage" I meant suitcases and such, things normally carried by passengers. StuRat (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes that's why I'm still confused why you think this is of greater risk then any other cargo. Nil Einne (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Airlines are more concerned about the weight of a person's luggage than the weight of their bodies, which is why you get charged so much for heavy baggage and extra pieces. The uproar about fat people is more about volume and the comfort of passengers than safety on takeoff. If the pilot notices that every single person on board is the size of the incredible hulk, then they'll adjust their calculations for takeoff, but in a typical flight, the women cancel out the men and children cancel out the fatties and you get to your nice average weight range, I think it was something like 160lbs per occupied seat, though they may have adjusted it from when I worked at the airport, I remember my crew supervisors commenting about how the standards were from the 50s when people were slimmer whenever they saw a large person stressing the shocks.129.128.216.107 (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think airlines are more concerned about luggage weight, they just know they can weigh luggage without losing customers. StuRat (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see more than boycotts apply - an airline that discriminates against fat customers should be denied the opportunity to bid on slots at an airport, so as to ensure the availability of satisfactory flight options for all. Wnt (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Try saying that with a straight face when you are in the middle seat between 2 300 lb people. Googlemeister (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I recently saw one of those Air Crash Investigation or Seconds From Disaster shows on a documentary channel (sorry, can't remember exacly which episode of flight was the subject). In the crash featured in that episode, the aircraft failed to gain sufficient altitude and crashed into fields close to the airport. It stated the probable cause was the aircraft weight being higher than the maximum take-off weight. The investigation showed it was due to a number of factors including heavier than average passengers and a large amount of cargo. Apparently, airlines usually guess at something like 160lb per passenger, but the investigation showed the average passenger weight on that flight was somewhat higher. Added to that was the unusual seating pattern where almost everyone was seated in the last 20 rows to compensate for the heavy cargo load. Astronaut (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Artificial countries"

Present-day Libya is composed of three very different regions which were only brought together by the Italian colonisation in the first half of the 20th century. As such, it is an "artificial" country, one created only by outside influence. Why then is there all of a sudden a clamour not to let Libya break up in two parts if Gaddafi doesn't fall?--Leptictidium (mt) 07:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya is actually quite a bit less artificial than a number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, and allowing unlimited scope to irredentism and secessionism would lead to general chaos (which is why the Organization for African Unity / African Union is very insistent on Uti Possidetis). Anyway, a North African state without access to the Mediterranean (such as a Fezzan-only state) would be unviable and almost certain to fail. In my opinion, the world would be far better off if Saudi-Arabia were split into three parts (Hejaz-Haramein, Hasa-Dahna-Gulf, and Nejd-Wahhabistan), rather than Libya... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And then there's Iraq, where Kurdistan could break off in the North, and possibly also "Shiite-istan" (East) and "Sunni-istan" (West). I think the problem is that any such divisions are likely to involve border skirmishes, at the least, between these new countries and possibly with neighboring existing countries. Kurdistan, for example, has claims in Turkey and Iran. StuRat (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopia seems to remain viable, despite its loss of access to the Red Sea due to the secession of Eritrea. Corvus cornix_talk 22:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The answer to the question is (as said above) that this is not a "sudden clamour" - it has been the policy for everyone to try to keep all African countries together, at any price, since at least the sixties. Presumably one thought that any adjustment of borders would lead to a chain reaction and civil wars in all the other "artificial" countries. Hence, we have seen some nasty wars to keep countries together like the Biafra War and Katanga war. Only in the last ten years or so has this been somewhat altered, with Eritrea and South Sudan. (Namibia is sort of different as it always was a "separate" entity from ZA). However, still note that while Somaliland and Puntland is somewhat stable (at least one of them, I think) and run as independent nations, nobody recognize them internationally, so there is still a clear preference for keeping "artificial" countries together. Jørgen (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Supposing that all the Kurdish portions of various countries were able to split off and form their own nation, Kurdistan or whatever, what would their economy be based on? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a theme in Card's Hidden Empire where a plague in Africa allows political boundaries to be redrawn along tribal lines. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Agriculture has potential in its large pasture lands on the plateaus both in animal rearing (sheep) and cereals . It would have large oil and gas fields in the Iraqi and Iranian territories and mining (copper and chromium) in its Turkish area. Energy production from the dammed rivers would be a substantial export. Tourism could also be developed. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Computer discovery of two bishop checkmate?

I read this in the New Scientist mag about 2001. It had hitherto been thought impossible to checkmate in an endgame with a king and two bishops against a sole king. Then a computer found that a mate was possible with perfect play, indeed inevitable, but it took about 30 (or more) moves. I’m very vague on the details but I’m sure about a computer discovering a new mate. Can anyone throw light on this because there is nothing I can find in WP which tells this story? Myles325a (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Two bishop checkmate has been known for a long time - it didn't take a computer. See Pawnless chess endgame, Bishop and knight checkmate, and Two knights endgame for a couple of articles on this topic. I too have heard of a checkmate that was discovered by computer, so I did some searching and found http://www.gadycosteff.com/eg/eg96.pdf but I don't know if that's the one I (or you) heard about. Ariel. (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The article Tablebase surely is of interest regarding the question. Specifically, the section on Endgame Theory. Ariel has also pointed to the interesting article Pawnless chess endgame above. One case that could be what the OP was looking for is KBBKN (King and two Bishops against King and kNight, long thought to be a draw with perfect play, but has been shown to be a win for the stronger side most of the times).

For someone curious about this endgame, I just checked this site and the position White: Kb1,Ba4, Bg1; Black: Kf7, Nf8 (fen 5n2/5k2/8/8/B7/8/8/1K4B1), White to move, showed a checkmate exists in 66 moves (¡?). Pallida  Mors 20:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

interpretation of essays

is there any websites that interpret essays into simple sense in which I can understand? The essays are "The Geographical Pivot of History" by Halford Mackinder, "The Roosevelt Corollary" by Theodore Roosevelt, "Why Geopolitik?" by Karl Haushofer, "The Truman Doctrine" by Harry Truman, "The Sources of Soviet Conduct" by George F. Kennan, "Soviet Policy and World Politics" by Andrei Zhdanov, "The Brezhnev Doctrine" by Leonid Brezhnev, "The End of History" by Francis Fuyukuma, "The Clash of Civilizations?" by Samuel P. Huntington, "The Clash of Ignorance" by Edward W. Said, "The Pentagon's New Map" by Thomas P.M. Barnett, "The American Empire: The Burden" by Micheal Igntieff, "America, Right or Wrong" by Anatol Lieven, "The Coming Anarchy" by Robert D. Kaplan, "Reading Robert Kaplan's 'Coming Anarchy'" by Simon Dalby, "No Escape from Dependency: Looming Energy Crisis Overshadows Bush's Second Term" by Micheal T. Klare, "Oil and Blood: The Way to Take over the World" by Micheal Renner, "Canada in the 21st Century" by Jennifer M Welsh, "Letter to America" by Osama Bin Laden and "The clash of Barbarisms" by Gilbert Achar. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.196 (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

With essays like this, trying to find 'simple sense' interpretations is self-defeating. You will only find essays by people with strong opinions about the matters, and then you will have to read the essays and interpret them yourself anyway to figure out what those biases are.

more to the point - our information-lite world notwithstanding - you're doing yourself a disservice if you do stuff like this. The brain needs exercising just like muscles do. Yes, the first time few (or many) times you go into a gym it's painful and embarrassing how little you can lift, but over months you get stronger. Yes, interpreting essays like this is hard for someone who hasn't done a lot of it, and you're likely to be embarrassed by your efforts at it, but over time you get smarter about it. Trust me, by the time you're 30 (assuming you're a high-school kid with homework) you will be far, far happier with the results of the hours you'e spent thinking than with the results of the hours you might spend in the gym. --Ludwigs2 15:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are just learning English and find these essays very difficult, you can use them to improve your English. You will need some time, but read through each of them slowly. Identify words or phrases you don't understand. Look up the words in a dictionary. If you have trouble with phrases, you can type the phrases into Google, each surrounded with quotation marks, like this: "phrase you don't understand". See how the phrase has been used by others to learn what it means. When you have learned the words and phrases you didn't know, read the essay again. You should be able to understand the meaning this time. You might then read the essay a third time. Stop to take notes about the arguments in the essay or the point of view of the author. These notes will help you form your own interpretation of each essay. Learning to understand each essay will improve your knowledge of English, and the next essay will be a little easier to read. Marco polo (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on the Truman Doctrine. We may have some other articles, too. Making sense of Osama might be tricky, though, if his thoughts are as random and crazy as Qaddafi. StuRat (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you feel compelled to just say things you don't know anything about? Osama and Qaddafi have really essentially nothing in common in terms of their ideologies. Read the letter for yourself, it's not very long. You don't have to agree with him, of course, but the guy is fairly "rational" if you accept his axioms. Some of his axioms are loopy, to be sure, but they're not from Mars, like Qaddafi's. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Loopy" is what I'm talking about. And I have heard his (translated) speeches, which tend to ramble and get off into weirdness, too. Same for Qaddafi. So what makes you assume I know nothing about it ? StuRat (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

See "The Geographical Pivot of History", "The Sources of Soviet Conduct", "The End of History and the Last Man", "The Clash of Civilizations?", "The Pentagon's New Map", and "The Coming Anarchy". StuRat (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

House rental guarantor

I am soon to be paying the deposit on renting a house, well, sharing the rent with a few other people at the moment. Anyway, one of these future housemates keeps mentioning something about a garanteur or garuanteor or something, (they can't spell it so I have no chance) and I'm thinking I have no idea what that is, and I really don't want to disappoint them or invalidate the contract or whatever, so I'm wondering if someone could let me know what this is and why it's so important that I haven't got one. 148.197.120.206 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The guarantor is someone who promises to pay up if you don't pay what you owe. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If the person taking out a loan or a lease is under a specified age, some contracts require there to be a signature from a guarantor, promising to come to the party if the principal person defaults. It's ageist, sure, but is also common sense. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That really was quick. I take it they mean if I decide to just not bother paying anything, for some reason? I couldn't imagine that ever happening, but then I guess that assertion wouldn't be enough for many people. 148.197.120.206 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

When taking part in a group that is renting a place, the members of the group need a legal guarantee that everyone's part of the rent will be paid. Also, the owner of the place needs a legal guarantee that the total rent will be paid. If someone has poor credit (because of age, unemployment, poor credit history, etc...) it is normal to ask for a guarantor who has good credit. The guarantor is legally obligated to pay the rent if the person who is supposed to pay it doesn't make the payment for some reason. Usually, a guarantor is a person's parent. -- kainaw™ 19:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

All very interesting. I don't know what my credit rating is, but it should be quite reasonable. Chances are I'd have to lend my parents the money so they could pay it, that doesn't matter, does it? 148.197.120.206 (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It probably does matter, if the landlord is diligent at all. A landlord will normally try to find out whether the renters are really able to pay, and then find out whether any guarantors are able to pay. If nobody is able to pay then the landlord may decide it's too much of a risk and not rent to you, or tell you that you have to put down a larger deposit, or shrug and say it's fine. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Only indirectly, if it means that they are poor and have a lousy credit rating. One other concern the landlord may have is that renting to a group of people increases the chances that any one will fail to pay. A way around this is for him to rent only to one person, with a good credit rating, and the ability to pay the entire rent, and then allow that renter to sublet rooms. Another is to ask for guarantors from each individual renter. StuRat (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If local laws allow, landlords usually impose joint and several liability on all renters and co-signers/guarantors to a lease. (Effectively, joint and several liability means everyone signing the lease is a guarantor to everyone else.) In that case, rather than wanting to limit the number of people signing, there is an incentive to add everyone, as it increases the chances that at least one will be able to pay. Joint and several liability doesn't help the other renters, though, if one of them decides to skip out on the rent. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Our article on co-signing explains the basic story, although it isn't very detailed. (By the way, please try to use meaningful titles when you post questions here.) Looie496 (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a useful subtitle. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

March 25

modern satire

so nowadays you see people like matt stone and trey parker being compared to other satirists throughout history as a "contemporary swift" and whatnot.

my question is whether it's a unique phenomenon for a satirist to be compared to his predecessors, or if it's something that is always realized in retrospect. did people call swift the contemporary voltaire? voltaire the contemporary chaucer? chaucer the contemporary aristophanes? or is this a newer phenomenon? Jasonberger (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect comparisons of all forms go back as far as people do: "Grog not funny, Grog just rip-off Ugh". StuRat (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant "I suspect", StuRat. Yes, but I'm not sure that earlier ages had the sweep of history available to them for comparison the way we have today. They had "the classics", to be sure (whatever that meant in a given period) but apart from that very little writing, drama or music was available even from the previous generation, let alone a century before. (An example I'm thinking of is that Bach was all but forgotten until Mendelssohn "rediscovered" him less than a century after his death). --ColinFine (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, typo fixed. StuRat (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

First Crusade and the Jews of Bodrum, Turkey

I have a book on the Kaifeng Jews of China that recounts oral legends by their ancestors to a Chinese researcher during the 1980s. One legend claims the Jews were originally from Bodrum, Turkey and fled the Crusader armies to China in the 1060s (yes I know the Crusade kicked off in 1099). Researchers believe the Jews actually came from Persia to China as merchants, so the legend has no basis in history. I think the legend may have been influenced by a then newly translated book on the Crusades, but I am not sure which one it could possibly be. Are there any books on the First Crusade which mention Bodrum at all? If I can find one or two, I might be able to find out if any of them were translated into Chinese during the relevant time. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The First Crusade didn't go anywhere near Bodrum, but the Hospitallers built a castle there in the 14th century. I'm not sure what book would have been translated into Chinese, but in the 1980s the standard work on the First Crusade was the first volume of Steven Runciman's "History of the Crusades". (I've only glanced at it quickly just now, but I don't think Bodrum is mentioned in it.) Sorry, I will check further when I have some more time. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Halicarnassus was securely within the Byzantine empire in the 1060s, and was subsequently threatened by Seljuk Turks after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071... AnonMoos (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

French monarchy/titles......?

Hi! I am a French-Canadian, living in Japan. Following the devastating earthquake and tsunami on March 11, I want to help the people in northern Japan to the best of my ability. Therefore, my question: About 35 years ago, a woman connected to geneology in the French government, contacted my father and informed him that he was the inheritor, of a title of duke of a province (?) of France. My father did NOT want to have this (his)title recognized/registered, at that time. I have never considered using the title, myself, until now...... if I used the title to help get some kind of aid to the victims of the earthquake/tsunami in the north of Japan, I would like to get information about claiming/using the title. Any ideas as to where to begin? Thank you.Afrenchduke (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Title would be duc. See "extant" in incomplete List of French dukedoms.
Sleigh (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Be careful. It may be a scam. "Recognition" or "registration" might come with a big price tag. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And how would having a title enable you to help Japan ? Maybe if you were a king, people might pay some attention to your appeal for charity, but for a duke, I'm skeptical. StuRat (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree; this sounds like a common scam. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no real French nobility anymore; there are still "titres de noblesse", but since 1835 they have no longer been connected to the ownership of land. It sounds like a scam to me as well, but if you have proof of a noble title, you could get in touch with the Ministry of Justice to make it "official."[31] All that would mean is that you would have the right to use it on official documents in France. See also the Association d'entraide de la noblesse française website and this article, which explains the history of the French nobility. Lesgles (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're a homeless man with newfound business savvy, how would you get back on your feet with no more than $10?

Let's assume that your company goes under and you lose your house, your good suits, and whatever else would easily help you re-land a career:

You either have $10 left in your fraying billfold, or you panhandle or visit a church and make a good enough friend with a congregation member or clergy to have them grant you a $10 bill.

With that $10, how would you turn that investment into a larger amount of money, and feed that return into more investments until it balloons into you getting a new place, vehicle, and suitable life for yourself?

If I ever get homeless in my soon-to-be post-college life, I would hope to know exactly how to get back on my feet.

(Let's assume that employers won't hire you just because you're homeless, or don't have good enough interview attire. Therefore, you'd be forced to somehow turn $10 into a growing pocketbook.)

Thank you,

--70.179.169.115 (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be asking where you can find magic beans. Anyone with 'business savvy' will understand that they don't exist. In order to make money, you need to be able to sell something: your labour, most likely. If I knew of a sure-fire way to turn $10 into more without effort, I'd either (a) do it myself, or (b) pay others to do it for me - the latter being the preferred method once you have the startup cash. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(E.C.) Did I mention "without effort?" I hope not. I know it takes effort to buy apples at a discount grocery and sell them on the street for twice the price, but that's just a Great-Depression example; before people in most American places stopped trusting homeless-looking street vendors. (And my apples could rot before I managed to sell enough of them anyway. I'd need something that's robust and not as limited by time as perishable items though.)

Bus stop, so if the economy/conditions were bad enough not to be able to land employment, what would you do with the $10? --70.179.169.115 (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think apples would work, because nobody wants to buy food from somebody who looks diseased. Selling flowers at intersections might be a start. Many try that. Then there's "outsider art", where being a crazy old bum might help your "rep". StuRat (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Apple sales in the US Depression were a pyramid scam. The following are all tactics I have observed over the years. In the present day, "street people" (aggressive moochers) regularly enter my downtown church and ask for money. Many folks will give them $5 just to get them to leave quietly. Four churches, easily visited on a Sunday morning, would thus yield $20. Then a common scam is to request the fare for a ride on mass transit. The reason is "I have a job interview at the other end of the city, and I only need $2.25 for the transit fare to get there, and then I will become a productive member of society." Who could refuse such a plea? One can also sit outside a fast food restaurant shaking a cup and asking passersby for money to buy a sandwich. ("I haven't eaten for 3 days! Please have a heart!") A Big Mac costs about 3 or 4 dollars, a basic McD hamburger is a buck or so. If someone actually buys the sandwich and gives it to you, you could eat it (quite tasty) or if full, return it to the counter and demand a "refund" on the grounds that it "tastes terrible." An enterprising scammer should thus be able to accumulate $50 on a given day. Then take that to a thrift shop and buy a set of interview clothes, along with getting a haircut ($12 plus tip) and buying a razor and shaving cream and deodorant, as well as a $15 cell phone to receive callbacks from employers. A smelly, shaggy person with no phone contact number and no references is hard to place in a job. Big cities have facilities for a penniless person to take a shower and thus be presentable for interviewing. A public library will provide a computer and printer for preparing a resumė and researching companies who are hiring. A bit of "social engineering" should provide some good-hearted folks who will provide glowing fictitious or slightly prevaricating references, or an address of record to use on a job application. If you look and sound foreign, you could research suitable colleges which were destroyed in some civil war and "graduate" from there, with a created transcript, or buy a degree from one of the US diploma mills. Many jobs require no college degree. Even in this economy, there are part time jobs at stores paying $8 per hour for 30 hours work. The trick then is keeping low the expense for food and lodging while accumulating funds and networking. Contractors hire laborers as needed and pay pretty well for hard, sometimes dangerous work. Appearing sane, sober and washed as well as not having long shaggy hair and beard would help with many employers. Crashing with a friend and mooching for grub are promising tactics. Many immigrants to a country with poor language skills and no capital become cab drivers or deliver pizzas, but a deliverer needs a car, generally. Back in the day, I got a couple of "good" (at the time) entry level jobs just by showing up when thee person doing the hiring was in a bind because someone had just left or been fired, and the boss had to do the job until he hired a replacement. Timing is everything, and "No job openings" can change in an instant when someone leaves. There is a vast hidden job market, such that employers do not post vacancies because they do not want to receive 2,000 applications, but they are looking for someone with particular attributes. Being a clean and honest-seeming individual they wouldn't mind working with is a good start, and training and experience certainly help. Go get 'em, entrepreneur! Edison (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You could sell a street newspaper. --Frumpo (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you know how to bake and have access to a kitchen, you can invest your $10 in flour, sugar, eggs, milk, and flavorings, and bake and sell cakes. Or if you have access to a plot of land, you can invest it in seed and grow and sell flowers and vegetables. If you're not absolutely repulsive to look at and have low self esteem, you can invest your $10 in slutty clothes and become a prostitute. There's lots of ways to make money. Pais (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Though those three suggestions aren't exactly winners. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Only because you're looking at them individually... but consider a hooker who sold pies and flowers as a side business and there's no way you could lose. Guys would come over for the whoring, then pick up a pie to take home to the wife for dessert and a bouquet to apologize for being late. Everybody wins! Matt Deres (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

But is $10 enough to invest in pie ingredients, flower seeds, and slutty clothes? I suppose you could start with one of the three jobs and then expand to the others as you gain capital. Diversification is important in business, I think. Pais (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. - Hustler, not hooker. The OP's header does specify a homeless man. Pais (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this the basic premise of The Pursuit of Happyness (at least in part)? Astronaut (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Recall, though, that despite the presence of Horatio Alger and get-rich-quick stories (and how we Americans still love them!), they are exceedingly rare. They should not be seen as plausible models for success. The income disparity statistics alone show the falsehood of these kinds of myths. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In Britain the local authority is required by law to give you accommodation (which could be b&b or if you are lucky a flat) if you were genuinely homeless. The state would give you money for rent on the flat, and give you money to live off, which includes being able to buy other things in addition to food. So you would have enough food, be clean, and able to afford a haircut.

My point is, you would have an physical address. So spent the $10 on a cheap mobile/cell phone from Tescos so that you have a phone number. Get an email address by using the free computers at your local library. As the state likes to help people to get a job, provided you were not fussy you could probably get a not very good job quickly. You could get an interview suit very cheap from a charity shop, or the state would probably be willing to loan you the money to buy one. Then do evening classes to study to get qualifications that will earn you money such as accountancy, not arty-farty useless things like media-studies. You could take other qualifications, such as a degree as a mature stuident, full-time, which will give you something to do for three or more years and give you a fresh start. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You're going to have to get a job, I'm afraid. If you have business savvy, you will impress your boss with your business acumen (unless of course he or she ends up firing you because you're telling him or her what to do all the time) and as you assume new responsibilities you will be granted responsibility for them until you are able to get promotions and raises, and get enough experience to get higher-level jobs in the same field, etc. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think in Britain you could go straight from being homeless to being a full-time student. That would give you the thinking time to think up some internet business that did not require any significant capital to start. 92.28.242.170 (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I would start Begging in a good location, such as Canada: according to our article, the median income is $638 CAD. If that didn't work, I'd buy One_red_paperclip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

US Healthcare: Federal support of HMOs?

Hello.

I was wondering how much the federal state subsidises HMOs (and MCOs in general). I tried giving [HMO] and other pages a read, but mostly they speak of the "national healthcare dollar". When I know that eg. US Medicaid administrative expenses are ~2% of their budget, it confuses me to see some write 7%. At some point, budgets are conflated, and I don't know which.

Also, I've heard HMOs can attempt to increase their subsidies from the federal gov't by inflating certain costs, so that their on-the-paper costs meet a certain criteria. Their deductible towards the state, if you will - the same way that many insurees have deductibles. Is this the only area where the feds sponsor HMOs?

Thank you.

80.213.11.105 (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I edited out my "Purchasing Power?" at the end of the title. I forgot to remove it. 80.213.11.105 (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Ulster Defence Regiment commanders

Would anyone happen to have a list of or be able to point me to an online site that has a list of all the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR) commanders since its formation in 1970? Thank you very much.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Epilepsy

I just lost my Brother yesterday 24th march 2011,Age 35years, Doctor in Nigeria said to my parent to be using this drugs for him

1. Leukeran Tablets 2mg (Chlorambucil)
2. Alkeran Tablets 2mg (Melphalan)
3. Docetaxel Tablets
4. Irinotecan Tablets
5. Oxalipatin Tablets.

He always used all this tablets together since then,because he has epilepsy since early 90s and they finally take him to one private hospital for treatment in Octorber & Novermber 2010. All the Tablets finished two weeks ago and they can only find this two(Leukeran tablets & Alkeran Tablets) last week as they couldn,t find the remain Three Tablets in Lagos,he was using the two tablets until last saturday & Sunday when he got Epilepsy Action again & Again and he lost his voice,he couldn't speak till he die on Thurday morning 24th March 2011,Please help me!!! what could have happen to him during this process please?

Many Thanks Joseph Omotoso — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossydove77 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reformatted for better readability.) --Thomprod (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's very sad that you lost your brother, but the ref desk cannot answer medical questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are links to all those drugs: Leukeran Alkeran Docetaxel Irinotecan Oxaliplatin. Looking at those pages, those are all very serious cancer drugs! Nothing to do with epilepsy. I have a hard time believing your brother took all those drugs at once, and an even harder time believing he took them outside of a hospital setting. Ariel. (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Salary requirements for a position

How exactly would I go about finding out the standard salary requirements asked for a position? I'm looking at a job right now on CareerLink, and to my utter dismay, it states Please include salary expectations. Unfortunately, I've been out of work for several months now, and while I've worked in the field, I haven't worked as much as I would like to. It is a computer "desktop technician" job. 68.232.119.30 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What country are you in? In Australia, for example, such things are codified by the Industrial awards. In the USA, in most non-unionized industries, there are no general legal rules, but the Department of Labor maintains the database of the so-called "prevailing wages": http://icert.doleta.gov/ You need to search by occupation name (e.g. "Computer Support Specialist" or whatever) and geographical area (state, and then metropolitan area or county). This is not mandatory for employers, in general, but has to be used in certain situation, such as federal contracting, or hiring foreign workers. This is extremely detailed, and has both current-year and prior years' data, but lots of numbers seem to come from the thin air ("interpolation" or "extrapolation" of some kind?) - on an occasion, I was amused to find the prevailing wage for streetcar drivers in a state that has not had any streetcars for 50+ years. Still will give you some idea, though.

As a practical matter, though, when responding to a job ad you don't really have to include "salary expectations". If they like you enough to invite you for an interview, they'll do it whether you have provided "salary expectations" or not... If the question comes up during the interview, you can always ask them to make their offer first. -- Vmenkov (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends where you are and how much experience the job requires. Look at similar posts in similar organisations in your part of your country and you'll get an idea. Or ring a few recruitment consultancies that specialise in your field, in your city. If you're really stuck, you could indicate that you are "flexible" regarding salary, as you are "very keen to work for your organisation". --Dweller (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

1) I live in the United States (you can see it on my geolocate data next to my IP.
2) They did say to include it, so it would show terribly upon me as a candidate if I ignored it.
3) Good idea Dweller. I'm going to do some further reading and see if that's standard. 68.232.119.30 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am in the same position of pursing a new career. I discussed the salary issue with a representative from the local employment commission yesterday— she advised to not give a hard number, but to state that salary is negotiable. Here are two sites that look pretty good: [32] [33] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a great set of resources. I will have to spend a while reading that (*sigh*, I will be turning the application in later than I wanted to now... that's what I get for waiting til the last minute!). But seriously thank you all. I will leave this thread open in case anybody has any specific requirements they would recommend for someone in central Pennsylvania (see my geolocation) with a computer science degree, several years out of the field (poor career choices, not lack of talent), in a "desktop support" role where I'd drive around the state fixing people's computers (e.g., making Windows work, getting the printer up, networking, and internal support). 68.232.119.30 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Another good source is Salary.com, which will provide an average salary for a specific location such as yours. The standard advice is not to state a specific minimum salary, but instead provide a range (knowing that the employer will focus on the bottom of your range), or to state, perhaps that you are looking for something in a general range around $X, but that the salary is negotiable depending on the details of the job. When stating X, take into account 1) the average local salary and 2) your relative inexperience, which would suggest that X should be maybe 15-20% below the average local salary. Marco polo (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, you mention that you will be driving around the state. You don't need to bring this up in your cover letter, but during your interview you should find out how (or whether) they will reimburse you for your mileage, assuming that they expect you to use your own vehicle. According to this source, the standard mileage reimbursement rate this year is 51 cents per mile. During the interview you might say something like "I assume that you will reimburse me for mileage at the standard IRS rate. Can you confirm that?" If they do not reimburse, then you would have grounds to adjust your salary expectations accordingly. Marco polo (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Student loans for mature students, UK

I heard from the radio that under a proposed new system for student loans, you have any debt cancelled when you reach age 51. Is this age fixed regardless of how old you are when you take a degree? I'm wondering what would happen if you are a mature student in your forties, fifties or sixties - and when I was a student I did know other students of those ages. Thanks 92.28.242.170 (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Eastern europe holiday home investments

When it became possible to buy property in eastern europe, it was said they would make very good investments.

Was this actually true? Have people who bought holiday homes in eastern europe made significantly more money than they would have investing in somewhere in the UK?

Also, what about purchases made in france or Spain etc? Have these appreciated more than those in the UK? Thanks 92.28.242.170 (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)