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 1

Chychkan State Zoological Reserve / Chychkan Wildlife Refuge

WP has an article named Chychkan Wildlife Refuge, but I can't find any other references to this entity on WP or in fact on Google. On the other hand, I've found g-hits and WP-mentions of a "Chychkan State Zoological Reserve". Is anyone here familiar with Kazakhstan? Are these the same? Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Chychkan Wildlife Refuge points to here: [1], while googling "Chychkan State Zoological Reserve" points to here [2]. So yes, they are the same place.Anonymous.translator (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Any idea which name is more accurate? Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea. I do know that "Chychkan Wildlife Refuge" is the more commonly used name online though (at least according to Google). That might be biased because WP uses "Chychkan Wildlife Refuge".Anonymous.translator (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Next we have to confirm if the "Chychkan Game Reserve" is also the same... Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In this document the Russian name is given as "Чичканский зоологический (охотничий) заказник" ("Chychkan Zoological (Hunting) Reserve"). The areas with the "Zoological (Hunting) Reserve" designation in that pdf all correspond to those called "Game Reserves" in the Protected Areas of Kyrgyzstan template.--Cam (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nautical superstitions

This web page gives a list of superstitions believed by seamen. Very interesting, however it doesn't give any sources. Could anyone recommend a good book (preferably still in print) on the subject? Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've seen good reviews for Seafaring Lore and Legend: A Miscellany of Maritime Myth, Superstition, Fable, and Fact by Peter D. Jeans (Amazon link) - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes, the book looks good! --BorgQueen (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If you look at http://worldcat.org/ you can search by "nautical superstitions" and find a whole list of books on this topic, and then search by location to find them for free in a library near you (or take the ideas of the titles and purchase them through amazon.com, if you prefer.) Here are a few more books: Don't Shoot the Albatross: Nautical Myths and Superstitionsby Jonathan Eyers --(coming out this month)

http://www.worldcat.org/title/dont-shoot-the-albatross-nautical-myths-superstitions/oclc/758980020&referer=brief_results

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=don%27t+shoot+the+albatross&x=0&y=0 Superstitions of the Sea, James Clary http://www.worldcat.org/title/superstitions-of-the-sea/oclc/31361214&referer=brief_results

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.189 (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC) 

Using the database Books In Print, we found a title that will be published this month (March 2012) called Don't Shoot the Albatross!: Nautical Myths and Superstitions by Jonathan Eyers. It looks to be informative and entertaining, if that's what you're looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.8 (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Viktorin Hallmay(e)r

What's his name? en.wp calls him Hallmayer, vaticanstate.va Hallmayr. --88.66.203.93 (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

vaticanstate.va also spells it "Hallmayer". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Top5 Libraries in the world by stock?

Which are the five largest (national) libraries in the world by stock/holdings/collection/resources? 1.LoC, 2.British Library, 3. Russian State Library, 4.National Library of France, ... ??? -- Cherubino (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a stab in the dark, but the Vatican Library is regularly cited for the size of its collection. --Jayron32 20:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is more known for the numerous rarities in its holdings that for the size of its printed collections. For example 1,100,000 books is a relatively small collection when it comes to national libraries. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at numbers of holdings, I think the next two on your list would be the National Library of China and the Boston Public Library. Just another guess tho, as I'm picking randomly through articles at this point. --Jayron32 20:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)It also depends on how you define largest. Some libraries has figures for total number of items (books, manuscripts, etchings, pictures, sheet music etc), while others only lists number of books or printed volumes. From a brief survey of some of the articles in the "National libraries"-category: Royal Danish Library holds 32,400,000 items, National Library of China holds 26,310,000 volumes, Biblioteca Nacional de España holds 26,000,000 items, German National Library holds 25.4 million items. Bear in mind that some of the articles, like Imperial Library (Japan), doesn't contain any information on the size of their holdings. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The Library of Congress article says it has 32 million books "and other printed documents", plus other holdings. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

He has already mentioned that as no. 1 on his list. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Try this but my 2011 copy of Top Ten of Everything[3] (also giving number of books) gives LoC, BL, Russian Academy of Science, National Library of Canada, Deutsche Bibliothek, Russian State Library, Harvard University Library, Boston Public Library, National Library of Russia. Thincat (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Then, of course, there's the The British Library which "is the world's largest library in terms of total number of items". Fair makes yer proud dunnit? Alansplodge (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

How does it come that Boston has such a good public library? (and invests 1% of its budget in it). XPPaul (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

A lot of that is legacy. Boston's moneyed class (mostly Harvard educated) has traditionally valued education very highly, and supporting the public library has been a favorite cause, particularly for bequests. The library has an endowment of more than $50 million, which gives it a considerable income beyond appropriations from the city budget. See here. Marco polo (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, here is a list of the US-Largest Libraries http://www.libraryspot.com/features/largestlibraries.htm -- Cherubino (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It is also on Wikipedia: List of the largest libraries in the United States. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Internet Archive? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Do the various lists pointed to so far account for State or National library systems?... these are conglomerates of multiple individual libraries that have inter-library loaning systems in place. Each individual library by itself may not have a large collection, but taken together - they do. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The British Library is certainly all in one humungous (and to my eye, rather ugly) building; "the only major public building to be built in Great Britain in the twentieth century.". Hmmm... Alansplodge (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure the big British Library site in Yorkshire counts as all in the same building! http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/quickinfo/loc/bsp/index.html MilborneOne (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2

Telemann vs Vivaldi

Hello. Is it easy for a common, non-musically trained person to mistake Telemann for Vivaldi? I recently heard Telemann's Sonata 3 for 2 violins and my friend (who was not aware of the piece) said it reminded him of Vivaldi; I understood that Vivaldi is better known than Telemann but as a musician I don't know how common people viewed it. 24.92.85.35 (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

They are both composers from the baroque period. I think that a person not used to classical music would be likely to find them similar. Marco polo (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Persons who are used to classical music would also be likely to find them similar. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

...arguably more so, because they could recognise the similarity of style. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, they were exact contempories. The Baroque musical period is rather a long one, but both of these were doing their best work in and around the 1720s. Whether they actually heard each other's music is another issue. Alansplodge (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

passing along ideas

I recently sent some ideas to the WB Shop and The Price Is Right online store. The ideas I sent to the WB Shop are three different versions of Donna Troy plush dolls. The idea I sent to The Price Is Right online store is a key ring. When I got replies from both stores, they stated they'll pass my idea along. What does that mean? And does it also mean the ideas might be acted upon?24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It means they will forward your communication to the people responsible for deciding which products are produced and sold. Don't hold your breath though as far as your ideas being acted on. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It might also be a lie and they have no intention of passing your ideas along. That seems more likely, to be honest. --Viennese Waltz 10:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In many cases, companies (especially production studios/publishing houses like Warner Bros.) will have an official policy of not even reviewing suggestions that are sent in. Since you received a reply, I assume this is not the case. Regardless, though, the chances of anyone choosing to act on your suggestions on a corporate level are very slim. However, I don't think there would be any kind of corporate policy of lying to those who mail in suggestions. It is entirely possible that it was passed along, but don't get your hopes up. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 10:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If they don't say who — or what — they passed it along to, they may have happily passed it along to the trash bin and not thought of it again. Technically not a lie. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Companies and individuals who create things are wary of receiving the "great ideas" others want to send them, because even if the great idea is obvious and trivial, or has been done before, if the receiver later markets their own independently created work which is in any way similar, the submitter may claim that "his idea was stolen." Sometimes a trusted intermediary (such as an agent) is the only way to submit your ideas for consideration. If The Price is Right people "accepted" someone's idea for a "talking keychain," a "flashlight keychain" a "glow in the dark keychain," "floating keychain" a "keychain with a 3d image," a "scented keychain" a "keychain with bluetooth connectivity" or a "keychain with a camera" then any such product they might independently develop in the future would be cursed with demands for payment from the unsolicited submitter of the obvious or trivial idea. "Ideas" are cheap. Fully researched ideas, with prototypes, production cost estimates, suppliers, and market research, are not cheap. Edison (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, companies often claim to release products "due to customer demand". There's a difference between submitting an idea for something that might be copyrightable/patentable (like a screenplay or invention) and a more mundane request for e.g. them to release merchandise for your favourite show or put more nuts in your favourite cereal. Hence companies may be more willing to act on the latter. Analyzing customer comments, requests, etc, is an important tool for marketing, so some companies may well keep records of what people are writing about. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Economist building, london

So, this is fun, suddenly turns out I have an entire university coursework assignment I hadn't heard about before that is due in on monday, I am supposed to be working in a group to produce a short presentation on the above mentioned building, but noone thought to contact me until just recently, and whatever information they have managed to acquire, all I get is these instructions: 'If you would like to analyse the technical and the key characteristics and send me them' Somehow, then, I have to work out what these instructions actually require, find information on the building, which seems rather sparse to me so far, and write up an analysis, in spite of the fact that they are withholding what seems to be a substantial amount of research from me and implying that I am trying to get out of doing any work at all.

Anyways, if anyone here can sort of point me in the right direction regarding where i can find out about this place or what these rather vague instructions mean, that would be very helpful.

148.197.81.179 (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I expect that you've already found this, this and this. The Grade II Listed Building text is here, and the plaza outside is apparently, a rather nice outdoor art gallery. "The Economist Building provides the only outdoor public exhibition space in Central London committed to a continuous programme of sculptural works by contemporary artists". There's some geeky technical stuff here, but you have to subscribe to see it. Alansplodge (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about its design and aesthetic impact, or basic area/height/construction data? The former will be easier to find than the latter, although that might be forthcoming from the landlord/owner/The Economist if asked nicely. Acroterion (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This is all completely anecdotal, but the Economist Building is used as the canonical example of why major organisations building new headquarters in Britain try to avoid making them iconic designs. The Economist Building became an iconic design immediately it was finished, with the result that it was listed only 25 years later. That meant its owners were unable after 1988 to make any major changes to adapt the building to their changing needs or to provide more modern facilities. It is said that future buildings are therefore deliberately designed to be slightly bland and thus avoid listing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

All I know is what's given in the original post, this was thrust at me at short notice with no explanation, and all I can find are a very few simple bits of information, the height, number of floors and so on, and the odd few words on the place. I'm not even sure how many of the buildings surrounding that plaza are even counted as part of the site. I think I need more advanced tecnical stuff, about the way the structure inside works and how it was built and whatever else. 85.210.118.31 (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The most useful thing I can find online is this book includes plans and some basic details of construction. A search for "Economist Building" and "Smithson" turns up lots of other books only available online in, at best, snippet form, but if you have access to a library, it should be a good start for your search. Warofdreams talk 00:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Christian Values

I was reading a Wiki article on Gothic architecture, which led me to the page on Christian values, as if Christian values influenced the architectural style. Anyway, as I was reading the article on Christian values, I drew a blank in my head, because the "historical" Christian values were the teachings of Christ, and then the article reports that the current "21st century Christian values" are censorship, censorship, and more censorship. I am not sure if I am interpreting this correctly, but it seems that Christian values have changed from something desirable to something undesirable, many of which are political and positions made by Fundamentalist Christians. My question is: so, is the point of the article trying to persuade me to think that modern-day Christians are not following Christ's true teachings, thereby rendering them as unchristian and immoral by the judgement of the Christian God? Or is the article trying to say that modern-day Fundamentalist Christians are misusing the word "Christian values" to fit their own worldly appetites for restrictions on sexual norms? All I can is, the article does not really paint a very bright picture of Christianity, but rather a sexually oppressive religion that rules through fear. WTF? SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

1. love of God: "You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" ,
2. fidelity in marriage: "Whom God has joined together let no man put asunder"
3. renunciation of worldly goods: "Gather not your riches up upon this earth, for there your heart will be also",
4. renunciation of violence: "If a man strikes you on one cheek, turn the other cheek",
5. forgiveness of sins: "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us",
6. unconditional love: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you".

censorship of sexual content, especially in movies and on television the desirability of laws against induced abortion sexual abstinence outside of marriage and abstinence-only education the promotion of intelligent design to be taught in public schools and colleges as an "alternative" to evolution the desirability of laws against same-sex marriage and support for laws against the acceptance of homosexuality into mainstream society the desirability of re-instituting faculty-led prayer in taxpayer-funded schools — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSuperSmarty (talk • contribs)

It is important to note that there are many many types of Christians on this planet, with extreme variances in accepted doctrine. For any Christian theological interpretation that you can take, you will find many Christians who believe something completely different. For example, I see the Prosperity Gospel promoted sometimes, but a lot of Christians feel that the Prosperity Gospel is decidedly against the teachings of Jesus. For the purposes of this conversation I'm not saying "one group is wrong, the other is right", but naturally each of the two groups of people that I mentioned believe pretty strongly that the other group is not on the right track. The only way to really answer your question is for you to research what Jesus meant (you can read the texts, look at theological positions, etc), and decide if modern-day Christians are acting according to Jesus's teachings. With my interpretation of things, I see many Christians acting in ways that I find decidedly opposed to Jesus's teachings, as well as many Christians who are working toward what I believe we are called to do. But really, this is a very very subjective question. To get even a half-decent answer, you must first establish what Christian Values are. Falconus^{p t c} 16:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see that it was you who proposed the listed Christian values (I took the liberty of reformatting them; feel free to undo if you don't want them numbered). By the values that you proposed, do you think that modern Christians are following them? I know many who are following them (making an effort anyway), and I know many who are not following those six examples, per my interpretation at least. Falconus^{p t c} 16:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think most people who called themselves "Christians" historically followed the teachings of Christ, either, particularly pacifism (only a few sects, like the Amish, actually do). What they followed was the Old Testament (pre-Christ) teachings, including killing off you enemies. It's a mystery to me why billions of people have insisted they followed the teachings of Christ, when clearly, they did not. (I don't think pacifism is a good idea, myself, but I don't insist on being called a Christian, either.) StuRat (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I see a comparison with communism. In true communism, everyone is supposed to share the wealth equally. The nations which called themselves communist didn't actually do this, though, but only used communism as a propaganda tool while enriching the ruling class on the backs of the workers, same as always. StuRat (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good point; I learned in Christianity class (which was teaching about Christian history and theologies, not teaching us to be Christians) I recall the teacher making a point that the early Christians were pacifists, but when religion became the religion of the Roman Empire, and the church gained political status, pacifism was discouraged. In any case, as Christianity made the transition from being persecuted to being forced, I believe that there were a lot of complaints about the changes that accompanied on a level of doctrine and who joined (let's face it, the level of commitment is quite different depending on whether becoming Christian is the cool thing to do or if it is likely to get you mauled to death by a lion). Falconus^{p t c} 17:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding a wikilink to the page under scrutiny. Alansplodge (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Returning to your original post, in which you ask what is the point of the article in question, the article in fact should not have any point of view, and the only point of an encyclopedia article should be to inform. Any interpretation that you make from that information (for example, that the use of the term Christian values is inconsistent between groups or, going a step further, that some groups' claimed Christian values are not really Christian values) is your own. As Falconus has said, you really can't generalize about Christianity as a whole. It certainly is not true that all or most Christians subscribe to Christian fundamentalism, which is the typical theological basis of the Christian right. For a discussion of the diversity of Christian political views, see Christianity and politics. Marco polo (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That article is so bad I'm almost tempted to nominate it for deletion. For one thing, the article is strongly leaning toward a POV (as well as bad formatting) in the lede just by listing the teachings of Jesus and Christian teachings in separate paragraphs the way it does. I can think of several ways of fixing that. Second, it only lists American Christian values, when American Christians comprise about a tenth of the worldwide Christian population. And, to boot, the entire article seems to be viewing Christian values from a protestant (southern conservative) paradigm. I'm going to edit this thing... Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 19:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

We Wikipedians are called upon to write articles that demonstrate a neutral point of view. That does definitely not mean "no point of view". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I get that. I honestly do; but the way the article was a few minutes ago was just implying way too much for my taste. It is slightly better now. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 19:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There is more than one definition of point of view. I think my wording made it clear that I intended the second linked definition. Marco polo (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

March 3

Members of Association of Arab Universities in English

Is there a list of members of Association of Arab Universities in English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.105.158 (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Click the flags from here. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 04:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Arab Universities in La Francophonie

Which universities of the Arab World are members of La Francophonie meaning AUF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.105.158 (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

How would an orphan get a birth certificate?

I tried googling this one and couldn't find an answer, so here it is: suppose a person doesn't know who their parents are or exactly when they were born. (perhaps they were dropped off on the steps of an orphanage or something) How would they go about getting a birth certificate? Would it even be possible? Would the orphanage/child care services arrange that for them in childhood or would they have to take care of it as an adult? What would be on it, seeing as they wouldn't be able to put down parents' names or a precise date of birth? I'm thinking primarily of the US (any state will do), but I'd be interested in hearing how other countries handle it as well. 24.247.162.139 (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The process probably depends on the laws of your state. Start with your state health department and ask them that question, and see where the conversation goes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There are examples in my family history where two birth certificates have been issued to the same person, one shortly after birth and the other on adoption. (UK here) The original birth certificate and the indexes have been annotated with this information at a later date. As to what is on the original certificate, I presume the original issue was a short form giving only name and date of birth or date of finding in the case of a foundling. A quick search on "foundling birth certificates" has brought up some interesting forum posts. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

independence through referendum

Which nations have won their independence through referendum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.105.158 (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It could be argued that Australia was one, but it's complicated. Have a read of Federation of Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Except nobody seriously argues that Federation brought with it independence in any sense. There is no universally accepted date for Australia's independence; the main contenders are 1920, when we were accepted as having a voice at the League of Nations separate from that of Britain; 1939, when the Statute of Westminster was adopted here; and 1986, when the Australia Act was passed. But 1901 is not one of the contenders. In 1901 we went from being 6 colonies to one colony with 6 internal divisions; we didn't call it that, but that's what it was. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't argue with that. You see, I said it was complicated. Many argue that the top left corner of the flag still suggests a bit of subservience. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It gets worse if you start to do political economy regarding ownership networks in the Australian economy; or, track the divergence of the "Australian settlement" from international capitalist standards over time (the Australian settlement—not that good in the first place—has largely been dismantled in favour of worlds' "best practice"). It is then arguable that Australia was more independent between the 1880s and Australia Act. :) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

South Sudan and East Timor.
Sleigh (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Norway, Iceland, Guinea, Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Georgia, Ukraine, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Eritrea, East Timor, Montenegro, South Sudan. Note that the definitions of 'independence' and 'referendum' vary a lot. See Independence referendum. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Scotland in a few years. Astronaut (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If I can recall correctly, most people in Scotland want to remain in the UK rather than cede. Quebec nearly did years ago. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There's never been a referendum on independance for Scotland but there's one on its way. There's a big fight about when to have it and what question to ask. See Scottish independence referendum, 2014. Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Some places that have voted AGAINST independence or joining another country are Saarland (1935: 90% and 1955: 67%), Northern Ireland (1973: 98.9% but the opposition abstained), Gibraltar (1967: 99.19% and 2002: 99.51%) and the Falkland Islands. Alansplodge (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Tokelau voted twice on becoming independent: in 2006 and 2007. In each case, more than 50% wanted independence, but a two-thirds majority was required. The second referendum fell short of that majority by just 16 votes.-gadfium 00:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

When have the Scots last fought for independence from England, as opposed to the Jacobite rising (Battle of Culloden) in 1745 in which they fought to rule a united Britain? Would it be the Wars of Scottish Independence ending in 1357? That article says Scotland "retained its status as an independent nation," but was united with England in 1707. If Scotland goes its own way, would Elizabeth II still rule "Great Britain" or the "United Kingdom" or just The Kingdom of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland?" (Apparently the channel islands are not really part of the UK). Will Wales and Northern Ireland also get referenda to vote on independence, if they so choose, or was Scotland a special case? Edison (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Culloden was really about Scots fighting to rule Britain - there were Scots and English on both sides, as well as various other nationalities. There are lots of issues that would need to be cleared up in the event of a 'yes' vote in addition to the names and the monarchy (borders, marine resources, the military, EU membership, NATO membership, Scotland's constitution, etc.), and no firm decisions have been made yet, but I think it is generally expected that Scotland would still have Elizabeth as its head of state (on the same basis as the other Commonwealth Realms). There is very little support for Welsh independence (for example, a recent poll showed only 12% of people in Wales would want independence if Scotland became independent, and only 7% if it didn't), and even less for England and Northern Ireland. There has been some disquiet about England becoming even more dominant in UK politics, but it is a little difficult to imagine a solution to that - there are about 51 million people in England, 5 million in Scotland, 3 million in Wales and 2 million in Northern Ireland. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

So a future "Queen of England," with an independent Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, would rule 83.6% as many people. That would not seem such a big deal as one would have thought. Independence of the other nations would be even less of a big deal if they still were Commonwealth nations with Her Majesty as a figurehead. Edison (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Scotland fought for independence from England in what's sometimes called the Third English Civil War (see Scotland in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms), including Oliver Cromwell's invasion of Scotland in 1650-51, with further minor uprisings in the following decade until the Restoration in 1660. The issues were complicated, about who should be on the throne of Scotland and England and who should control the Church of Scotland; Scotland basically became part of England in Cromwell's Commonwealth, and many Scots fought against that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me make a comment on the OP's question. No one wins independence through a referendum. Only if the ruling nation agrees or is forced (militarily, by insurgency, or politically) into offering independence does a referendum possibly get held to clarify or formalize the residents' wishes on the matter. 203.214.66.250 (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

On getting what they didn't want

On a slightly off-topic note: I know of one case where a referendum returned a resounding NO vote to proposed self-government (not the same thing as independence, but related), but self-government was granted anyway (10 years later, and in the face of sustained opposition from some quarters who felt their express wishes, which they were invited, nay required, to register at the ballot box, were being ignored). I quote from Referendums in Australia:

In 1978, the Australian Capital Territory voted at a referendum on whether the ACT should be granted self-government. Voters were given the choice of becoming a self-governing territory, a local government or continuing with the Legislative Assembly being an advisory body to the Department of the Capital Territory. 63.75% voted to continue with the then current arrangement. Despite the outcome of the referendum, the Parliament of Australia passed the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act in 1988 and the ACT became a self-governing territory in 1989. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wycliffe's "On Civil Dominion"

Where is there good information on John Wycliffe's "On Civil Dominion"?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC) withdraw--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it an AfD? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 08:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No. It was just curiosity - of which I found.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Koran burning

Why do some Muslims get so offended by it? It's not exactly as if Westerners would want to burn every Koran or as if they, the Muslims, would be committing a sin. XPPaul (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The devout of many religions do not recognize a distinction between the laws and traditions of their religion as it applies to non-believers or believers. In other words, the laws of God are not for believers, they are for humanity. Furthermore, the burning of an object can be seen as disrespectful, regardless of who does it. Consider the vast controversy surrounding flag burning. Also, being offended is a personal thing; it is not valid to project your values onto the values of others and decide that it is illogical for them to be offended at an action because your values tell you that it should not be offensive. --Jayron32 14:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It happens due to lack of freethought, and the cognitive bias of the people. In this particular case, the people are showing belief bias. As Jayron said, it is not only about religion, people also get offended by flag desecration. All these are illusory cultural constructs where individuals believe in the superiority of faith or an abstract national identity. In this case, the offended individuals are equating their own identities with a particular religion, and feel threatened when the scripture is burned. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What's illusory about war? What's illusory about persecution? Religions, cultures, nationalism — these have real consequences in the world we live in today. These aren't abstract concepts that don't affect people. People are living and dying because of them. Whether you believe that at the bottom they are just figments of the human mind or not, figments of the human mind do have real-world effects. Nationalism as a concept has no scientific reality worth worrying about, but that doesn't make it real in the sense of affecting people's lives. Ditto religion, race, and whatever "abstract" concept you want to throw under the heading of "cognitive bias." It doesn't matter if there's no biological or physical basis to it if people are willing to kill you over it, or if there are political and economic ramifications to it. That makes it as real as it needs to be from a lived perspective. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a different question. Why would someone burn a Koran? HiLo48 (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

In the most recent case, it was largely a bureaucratic mistake — burning a lot of "trash" which happened to also include Korans. It was a stupid, unnecessary activity that at best was an administrative oversight and at worst reflects a lack of understanding or respect of the local culture. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The official U.S. position on the recent controversy is that some copies of the Koran ended up on a refuse pile which contained all manner of trash.When the trash was burned per normal procedure, the Korans were burned too. 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests covers the background. Basically, some copies of the Koran had marginalia and other notes written in them which were "extremist" in nature, and so were disposed of in the trash. When the trash was later burned (as trash often is), the burning Koran copies were identified by local Afghan workers who were employed as custodians; not knowing why they were put in the trash (and not sure if it would have mattered if they had known) the Afghan workers reported what they found, and people got pissed.--Jayron32 15:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's surely largely a catalyst for larger issues relating to the fact that the United States has now been engaged in a war of occupation in that country for over a decade, ostensibly relating to the destruction of a small group of extremists, but now, thanks to mission creep, involved with trying to get rid of folks who actually probably represent the views of a large portion of the population there. In the process they've set brother against brother, variously destroyed and re-made local economies, created a volatile political situation, killed some 40,000 fighters and some 34,000 civilians (depending how you draw that line in this case), in response to attacks on the other side of the world which claimed some 3,000 lives. Put yourself in that headspace and see if it isn't a little bit infuriating to you.

The individual event — the Koran burning — is just one small additional bit of apparent disrespect to the region, the people, and their religion. Historically, these sorts of apparently small offenses by occupying powers have set off very intense waves of feeling. The best historical analogy I can think of are the tallow-greased cartridges of the Sepoy mutiny, an even more apt comparison when you consider that many of the protesters/fighters involved are those working for the native Afghan security forces the US is training (and the folks to whom the US will happily leave any resulting chaos after it pulls out). Writing it off as a nutty thing that fanatics worry about misses the real point here, and trivializes what is for these people a really quite delicate, life-and-death situation.

I write this not as some kind of anti-US rant, though it does have some of those characteristics. I write this because if you don't understand what people are thinking, you won't understand their actions. To understand what people are thinking, you have to understand it on their terms, not just write off their reasoning as some kind of idiocy or bias. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this really any different from burning an Amercan flag? Done in the proper way it shows respect in the destruction of an item that is too worn to be of further use and done in an improper way it shows disrespect for the culture it is a symbol of. Hcobb (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Muslims do get all offended by it. However, terrorists who had previously planned some attack love to find any pretext they can to blame the attack on Americans. If a fellow terrorist or terrorist supporter had burned a Koran, they wouldn't even have mentioned it. StuRat (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Muslims" is about as useful a construct as "Christians" in this context. Some Muslims will get offended, just like some Christians get offended by Piss Christ or The Last Temptation of Christ (film), and some American get offended by burning the flag. In either case, people are more likely to take offense if the act is seen (or portrayed) as an act of deliberate offense. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You can imagine how Jewish people would feel if someone would burn a Torah. It's not apples to apples because a Torah scroll is hand-written while a Koran is just printed like any other book. But it's considered similarly sacred I suppose. Let's also keep in mind that people in traditionally authoritarian countries may not be able to understand that what individuals do in Western countries is not necessarily sanctioned by their governments, because in dictatorships nothing happens legally that's opposed by the state. So when a newspaper in a Western country prints an "insulting" Muhammad cartoon, angry people in Muslim countries may blame the entire society where it happened. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Why were some Muslims offended by the burning? Perhaps because it seemed an "in your face " provocation. Burning someone's holy writings is like spitting on them or pissing on them. There were alternative actions, if said copies of the Koran had revolutionary slogans or other undesired writings added by prisoners (perhaps in itself an impious act). They could as easily have been packed in a crate and placed in one of those famous government warehouses (like the Arc of the Covenant in an Indiana Jones movie). This wise-ass action and provocation by unidentified soldiers has resulted in the deaths of 6 US soldiers in Afghanistan. Edison (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Wise-ass" makes it sound like an intentional insult, when they were just disposing of the Korans (which they had provided, BTW), in the same manner they dispose of other papers. As for the 6 deaths, I bet those attacks were already planned (although the timing might have changed) and the terrorists just used the Koran burning as a pretext. What I wonder about is the Afghan "allies" on the base who reported this info to the proper people to ensure that it could be used as propaganda. Those people should be kicked off the base, at the very least. StuRat (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Because an occupying force that hides its deeds under a veil of secrecy is so much better at establishing trust and cooperation with the native population? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Some things should be hidden. We're not talking about a massacre here. Should they film the crying children every time they smash down a door to look for the source of enemy fire, and then post this online to avoid a "veil of secrecy" ? The standard by which we should decide what to show and what to hide is if showing the event causes more serious problems than the event itself. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Which action would have worked out better? (1)Put the scribbled copies of the Koran in a box and ship them to a warehouse for storage (or for offsite shredding and disposal) or (2) Send them to a burn pit next to the base where local Muslims find them smoldering, and riots and killings of US troops ensue? You have ten seconds to decide. Edison (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the warehouse is the better choice, but the fact remains that such a minor faux pas shouldn't cause people to be murdered, and wouldn't, unless a terrorist organization is then given that info as an excuse to justify their next attack. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Of relevance here is Quran#Treatment and disposal of the book. Surely writing additional words (eg. extremist slogans) in a copy of the Koran is "defiling" it. And "...worn-out, torn, or errant Qurans are ... burned...", though that is referenced by an article from the Slate, an online US publication owned by The Washington Post. Astronaut (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In cases like this, it's helpful to read the ref which says:

Burning isn’t a popular choice, because fire is associated with the devil as well as the early rival religion Zoroastrianism, but some scholars find it acceptable. Saudi religious authorities place burning on par with burial, as long as it’s done ritually on mosque property. They point out that Uthman ibn Affan, a friend to the prophet and early caliph, sanctioned the burning of nonconforming Qurans after compiling the official version. Other scholars view burning as a last resort, for example, in an emergency situation to prevent the book from being defiled. After burning, the ashes should be buried or scattered over water.

So burning may be okay in some circumstances and by some people. However burning it along with trash by people not aware of what they're burning is unlikely to be.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The attitude, demeanor and intent of the burners are relevant. If the local American Legion post in the US has a respectful burning of worn out American flags, that is not to be conflated with someone burning American flags in a display of disrespect. A similar consideration might be given Korans or other symbols venerated by some group. Is it a wise decision to desecrate a symbol venerated by some group, when even a child could foresee that it might lead to the killings of persons from the dis-respecting group. Was it really worth it? Could it have been handled better? Edison (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the word "desecrate" applies here, as that implies intent. They were just disposing of the Korans as they would with any other document. StuRat (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is actually the problem. Some devout muslims will not even touch a Koran without ritually washing their hands first, lest they make the book unclean. It should be clear to even the lowest-ranking clerk stationed in Afghanistan that you don't just throw a Koran in the garbage. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Burning doesn't seem nearly as disrespectful as tossing them in the garbage. Then there's also the question of the degree to which non-Muslims should be required to follow Muslim rules, while in Muslim nations. Should non-Muslims be forbidden to eat pork ? Should non-Muslim women be subject to Sharia law ? StuRat (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Burning isn't necessarily the issue. It's more A) throwing them in the garbage is obviously disrespectful, and B) U.S. representatives were involved, which just feeds into the "Americans are trying to destroy our culture!" hysteria that drums up support for Al Qaeda. The officials involved should have asked a local Muslim leader to oversee their disposal. It would have shown more respect, and be far less likely to cause the uproar we've seen.

As for what rules to follow, it's a matter of respect and courtesy. Only the more radical and conservative will demand strangers adhere to every tenet of their religious beliefs. But, it pays to think through your actions when in a different culture. Eating a pork BBQ sandwich isn't necessarily offensive, but eating it in front of a devout Muslim may be. Eating it in front a devout Muslim who is fasting during Ramadan is just being a WP:DICK. Eating it inside a mosque is asking for a riot. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Attacking communism in China

I've always had to ask this. China's been communist since 1920, around the time of the Soviets. Then it soon spread to Vietnam and the Americans went to war with them. Then they went into a Cold War with the USSR, and almost every country despised communism. But why have the nations of the world always been so "kind" to China? From what I read they were no wars trying to stop communism there. Is it because they think China will stop giving them cheap products? 64.229.204.143 (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps those other "wars" weren't really against communism. HiLo48 (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

China only became fully communist in 1949. In 1950, after the start of the Korean War, the United States began to provide active support for the Nationalist Chinese, to prevent the fall of Taiwan. Mikenorton (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A short answer is that during a critical period the anti-Japanese struggle was supposedly prioritized above Chinese internecine struggles (see the famous Xi'an Incident). AnonMoos (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There have been quite a few historical factors that have brought the US and China together. As well as those listed above, a big one was the Sino-Soviet split, a massive falling out among the Communist nations. China and the Soviet Union became fairly bitter enemies, even fighting proxy wars across Africa and Asia. China and America had a common foe in the USSR, and they became distantly friendly to each other (the so-called "Rapprochement", famous for giving us Ping Pong Diplomacy and the phrase "Only Nixon could go to China"), for both trade and military reasons (at the time, selling American products to China was a bigger issue than selling Chinese products to America). As long as the Soviet Union - which was far less willing to trade and far better armed than China - was a risk, the US wouldn't want to waste energy going to war with one of the Soviets' most potent enemies. Smurrayinchester 17:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's the difference between Maoist and Stalinist foreign policy. The foreign policy pursued by Russia after World War 2 was to aggressively convert countries to Communism, and where countries wanted to leave the Communist bloc, they would invade: see Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. China, on the other hand, was not aggressive and did not wish to convert other countries to Communism - except where China regarded those countries as having been part of a historical greater China, such as Tibet and Mongolia. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC) We have an article: Foreign relations of the Soviet Union which bears this assessment out. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

China is run by an organisation that calls itself a 'Communist Party', it is however not 'communist' by any objective assessment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Tammy, last time I checked the state of the research, the Soviet Union did not invade Yugoslavia after the split; though it did conduct a number of exercises in relation to planning an invasion. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like they got off lightly then... --TammyMoet (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Soviet military planning in this period emphasised the almost unacceptably high cost of opposed military operations in friendly countries. 1953 in Berlin was seen as costly. The Red Army had been fighting Polish and Ukranian partisans from 1939/1941 through to the late 1940s, and these campaigns were seen as costly. The plans against Yugoslavia were to a significant extent permanently deferred because of the Korean War, and had probably been constructed as exercises to prove that an invasion of Yugoslavia would have been unacceptably costly, even using Warsaw Pact allies as the first echelon. When Władysław Gomułka surrounded Soviet forces with Polish troops in 1956, this lead to a negotiated withdrawal of the offending Soviet forces and the cementing of Gomułka's relative freedom of action. Hungary 1956 was seen, by military experts on the political committee of the central committee, to be significantly dangerous even without the Hungarian army intervening on the side of the revolutionary movement. In the event of the invasion, the cost of the operations in Hungary to the Soviet Union were significant, appreciable, and of concern. Yugoslavia got off lightly in the split, but it is questionable if the Soviet Union would have had the willingness to pay the price of invasion in the first place. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking why the US didn't try to invade China to turn them from being Communist, the answer is that by the 1950s, it became clear to the US that fighting China directly and winning would probably require nuclear weapons or a war big enough to draw in the USSR (who had their own nuclear weapons). There was some enthusiasm for invading China during the Korean War but most of the policy folks saw that it would be a colossally bigger mess than the Korean War, which itself was already a colossal mess. By 1964, China had its own nuclear weapons within range of key US interests in the area, and was therefore pretty off-limits for direct confrontation. By the 1970s, the US realized that once the Vietnam mess was taken care off, that it had more to gain from being a pal of China that it could from being a mortal enemy of China. These days, China is a thoroughly modern country with a thoroughly modern military (complete with second-strike nuclear weapons capability) — attacking it would be idiotic.

Realpolitik dictates that you don't attack the really powerful countries; you attack the weak ones. China is a powerful country. It wasn't always one in the past, and there were times when the US kicked it around a bit (e.g. with nuclear blackmail during the second Taiwan Strait crisis), but the Chinese learned from that (and made their own nuclear bombs). Incidentally, the Chinese and the Vietnamese were not pals, and got into a bitter war immediately after the US got out of there. Similarly the Chinese and the USSR had a split in 1960 and became bitter enemies. Just because these countries are lumped in as "Communist" did not mean they were cooperating with each other. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

In the period after WW2 and during the first phase of the Cold War, China was:

• ...very poor and underdeveloped. By the end of WW2 the Soviet Union was a modern industrial superpower, where China was still an overwhelmingly agrarian society.
• ...riven with internal concerns and particularly its deeply broken attempts to modernise. Whereas Soviet collectivisation had been disastrous, Chinese attempts at modernisation were catastrophes of biblical proportion.
• ...far from most strategic US interests (bar Japan, perhaps) and, as noted above, historically uninterested in large-scale military expansion. Stalin's Red Army, by contrast, had shown skill and dedication at invading huge areas of land, and the US had every reason to be concerned that, unchecked, this wave could continue over western Europe, altering the world power balance very materially (and ditto for a move down into Persia and the Gulf). Even if China had exhibited more expansionist tendencies, the neighbourhood wasn't really all that worthwhile a target.
• ...fairly uninterested in expanding its economic, political, or ideological influence overseas, fostering communist revolutions or insurgencies in far away places (where the Soviets were eager to help fellow travellers in the Americas), or engaging in wholesale espionage in western countries or neutral territories.

All in all, China posed little risk to the US, and showed little interest the US or its affairs. It's instructive to consider which, and to what extent, these factors still hold today, as that may hint at where future conflicts may arise. Can I tangentially put in a good word for Olaf Stapledon's 1930 novel Last and First Men, the opening part of which seems more eerily prescient than ever. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, in light of Finlay's aptly put analysis of the situation, the US elite fractured on China and proceeded to purge itself. Obviously, at the time, a faction of the US elite believed that China was an interest and/or that they had the capacity to maintain China as an element of their sphere of influence. "Who lost China?" as if it was theirs to have. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Military flank

I am aware what a flank is. But I would like to know: in a text I am reading, it makes mention of the left flank, and the right flank (Battle of Tannenberg, Francois was supposed to attack Samsonov's left flank). But I'm not sure which side left is: is it left from the perspective of one facing the army formation, or is it left from the perspective of someone facing the same direction as the army? Brambleclawx 21:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Usually, the perspective of that army - so Samsonov's left flank would be the left as seen from the Russian side, and the right as seen from the German side. Shimgray | talk | 21:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Samsonov's left is just that: the left flank of Samsonov's force as he himself would see it. Looking at Battle of Tannenberg (1914)#The main battle (26 August to 30 August) it has the German I Corps under François attacking the Russian I Corps - the map shows this movement a few miles south of Tannenberg itself. This, from Samsonov's perspective, as he faces west, is his left flank. His right flank is way to the north, comprising VI Corps. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Brambleclawx 22:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Fatty Arbuckle and arrests

Hi all, I recently found this mugshot of Fatty Arbuckle, which would be a good addition to the article; however, it would only definitely be in the public domain if it is from the 1921 arrest and not a subsequent one. I was wondering how many times Arbuckle was arrested. His article only says once, in 1921, but it could have been omitted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I used TinEye which found around 15 copies of this photo around its database, and only this link made any effort at describing the photo; but an uncited caption at suicidegirls.com is probably not a WP:RELIABLE source. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This book labels it as being taken shortly after his arrest in connection with the death of Virginia Rappe, so it's probably 1921 (he was arrested ca. September 16). --Mr.98 (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Shame the author didn't note a source. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

March 4

The only woman in Margaret Thatcher's government besides her

I have heard, that prime minister Margaret Thatcher appointed only one woman as minister in her government during her years as prime minister. Is this correct? And in that case, who was this female minister? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Virginia Bottomley. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

She served under John Major. The only woman listed at Thatcher ministry is Janet Young, Baroness Young. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Bottomley's article reads "received her first ministerial position in 1988 as a junior Environment Minister[2] and was appointed Minister of Health in 1989." Thatcher was PM until 28 November 1990. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

True. She became Secretary of State for Health in 1992. What's the difference between that and the "Minister of Health"? There's no mention of any such portfolio for the UK at Health minister. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you were actually right the first time. It's Minister for Health (well, "Minister of State for Health"), which is the next level down from Secretary of State, and it's they position Bottomley held in those years. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 01:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Before 1988, Health wasn't its own department, it came under Health and Social Security, so there was a Minister of Health that reported to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. This is all in the article you linked to. However, that is not consistent with Bottomley being Minister of Health in 1989... perhaps she was a Minister of State in the Department of Health (there are currently two of those according to Department of Health (United Kingdom)#Ministers, although I don't know about 1989)? I don't think that would normally be described as "Minister of Health", but it would be an understandable mistake to make. --Tango (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

So, I'm wondering why this portfolio (whatever it was called) isn't listed at Thatcher ministry if the holder was called "Minister". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it wasn't a Cabinet post, it was a Minister of State post, and the article you link to only lists the members of the Cabinet. In the UK, Ministers of State are junior ministers who do not run a government department and do not (generally) sit in cabinet, but normally take responsibility for a particular area of their department and are often described as "Minister for X" (more commonly nowadays) or "Minister of X" (no longer as common a usage). So for example in the large Department for Work and Pensions there is a Secretary of State and four Ministers of State who are called the Minister for Employment, the Minister for Pensions, the Minister for Disabled People and the Minister for Welfare Reform [4]. Valiantis (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Just correcting myself. There are two Ministers of State (Employment and Pensions) and two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State (Disabled People and Welfare Reform) who are even more junior ministers than the Ministers of State (i.e. their portfolio is less wide-ranging and their pay is lower [5]). Valiantis (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, if the question is really about ministers in general rather than just cabinet ministers, there's Edwina Currie, who was a publicity-shy Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health. Henry^Flower 04:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The OP did write "minister" but the statement that is commonly repeated is that she only appointed one Cabinet minister. See for example this recent Vanity Fair article[6]. Valiantis (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This biography of Bottomley [7] from the parliament.uk site confirms she was Minister of State at the Department of Health from 1989 to 1992. I've edited the article and added the reference to clarify this. Valiantis (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Thatcher ministry article has a main list called "Ministry" and supplementary lists that mention the word "Cabinet". There's nothing to indicate the "Ministry" details are confined to Cabinet posts, and if this is the case, it really should be spelt out. Because, without this qualification, it's extraordinarily tempting to believe that anyone who was a Minister in her government would be listed in the "Ministry", and that anyone who's not mentioned was not one of her Ministers. It'd sure make answering questions like this one a whole lot less fraught. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Baroness Young was the only other woman cabinet member during a Thatcher government, and she was in post for only a year. There were several other women non-Cabinet ministers and junior ministers. The full list is:

• Baroness Blatch: Baroness-in-Waiting 15 January 1990 – 7 September 1990; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment 7 September 1990 – 28 November 1990
• Virginia Bottomley: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment 25 July 1988 – 28 October 1989; Minister of State, Department of Health 28 October 1989 – 28 November 1990
• Lynda Chalker: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health 7 May 1979 – 5 March 1982; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport 5 March 1982 – 18 October 1983; Minister of State, Department of Transport 18 October 1983 – 10 January 1986; Minister for Overseas Development, Foreign and Commonwealth Office 24 July 1989 – 28 November 1990
• Baroness Cox: Baroness-in-Waiting 3 April 1985 – 2 August 1985
• Edwina Currie: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health 10 September 1986 – 16 December 1988
• Peggy Fenner: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 14 September 1981 – 10 September 1986
• Baroness Hooper: Baroness-in-Waiting 17 September 1985 – 14 June 1987; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science 13 June 1987 – 26 July 1988; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy 26 July 1988 – 28 July 1989; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health 29 September 1989 – 28 November 1990
• Sally Oppenheim: Minister for Consumer Affairs, Department of Trade 6 May 1979 – 5 March 1982
• Marion Roe: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment 13 June 1987 – 26 July 1988
• Angela Rumbold: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment 2 September 1985 – 10 September 1986; Minister of State, Department of Education and Science 10 September 1986 – 24 July 1990; Minister of State, Home Office 23 July 1990 – 28 November 1990
• Gillian Shephard: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security 25 July 1989 – 28 November 1990
• Baroness Trumpington: Baroness-in-Waiting 11 June 1983 – 25 March 1985; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Health 30 March 1985 – 13 June 1987; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 13 June 1987 – 28 September 1989; Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 28 September 1989 – 28 November 1990
• Baroness Young: Minister of State, Department of Education and Science 7 May 1979 – 14 September 1981; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 27 October 1981 – 6 April 1982; Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords 6 April 1982 – 11 June 1983; Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office 13 June 1983 – 13 June 1987

It's worth saying that some of these were more prominent than others. Sally Oppenheim was probably the second most prominent Conservative woman MP in 1979, and had a populist job, but reportedly did not get on with the Prime Minister. Edwina Currie, who was in a very junior role for two years, became very well known to the public. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Solo artists who have played with all four Beatles

Questions like this make me wish I had something more constructive to contribute... Anyway, would I be correct in assuming that Eric Clapton is the only artist who has performed with all four Beatles/ex-Beatles on a solo basis (i.e., with John in Toronto, George at the Concert for Bangladesh and Paul and Ringo at the Concert for George)? Thanks in advance. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Odd use of the word "solo", which I take to mean an artist performing on his or her own, so if Clapton performed with somebody, they weren't solo.HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think he means: was Clapton the only artist to perform with each of the Beatles, after the Beatles broke up? Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, no artist is truly "solo" if they have a backing group, right? But that's been the accepted use of the term for the past fifty years or so, so I went with that. Blueboar is spot on with regard to my meaning. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 01:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Elton John. A search for "Elton John George Harrison" brought a YouTube video of those two plus Ringo Starr. A similar search for "Elton John Paul McCartney" has also produced videos of concerts. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Oh yes and to clarify, EJ and John Lennon recorded "Whatever gets you through the night" together. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Billy Preston. He also (like Clapton) played on a Beatles record while they were together, and even performed with them live on the rooftop. His article says he worked on solo records with John, George, and Ringo. He also appeared in Concert for George with Paul playing "My Sweet Lord". (There's a youtube video of that.) Staecker (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well if you're going to have Billy Preston, you could also have Klaus Voorman... --TammyMoet (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

behavioral economics

How is the research conducted in this field? Thanks... 84.229.140.166 (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read our article Behavioral economics and come back here to ask if you have further questions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I read it before posting the question. It doesn't specify, I believe, how exactly is the research conducted. What exactly do they do to reach their conclusion. What is the daily routine of a behavioral economist? Thanks again... 84.228.3.29 (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Behavioral economics#Behavioral economics vs experimental economics says it uses a mixture of experiments, theory, and observations in the field. Different behavioural economists will use different methods, whether it's conducting experiments, studying previous experiments, making observations, collecting data, studying historical data, or studying theory. It's not possible to give a typical daily routine; if they work in academia much of their time will be spent on teaching and administration, and even those conducting experiments will only do this occasionally. The best way to get a sense of the methodologies would be to read some academic papers on the subject. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hollands Land reclaimation

This shows what Holland would look like without all its dykes, and I'm trying to find out when and how they actually began reclaiming land? All I can find is the stuff in Flood control in the Netherlands, which now I actually look at it is kind of useful, but I'd really appreciate some casual level reading on this as it seems super interesting but I don't know much about Holland's history, for example I don't even know how civilized the people occupying that area were at that time. 109.150.87.106 (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK so I just took a look at that flood control article and it is more in-depth than it initially looked and so I've edited my initial question. I'd like some stuff from other places though maybe? 109.150.87.106 (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Indian National Congress provincial affiliates

Which states don't have provincial affiliations of Indian National Congress? So far, I know that Tamil Nadu doesn't. Who else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.100 (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Arab nation relationship

Which Arab nations have strained or good relationship with each other like Lebanon and Syria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.100 (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

So you are asking for a chart showing the current relationship status of every Arab nation with every other ? Since there are about 22 Arab nations, that means 22×21 or 462 combinations. That's a lot to ask of us. StuRat (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

All Arab nations have a strained or good relationship with each other. XPPaul (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

We have a whole bunch of good articles with the title "Foreign relations of <country>" such as Foreign relations of Lebanon. Get stuck into those old bean! Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

My (limited) understanding is that whatever notions of "arab unity" may ideologically exist, it has rarely played out in practice. Realpolitik comes first, as it does pretty much everywhere in the world. "We have no permanent friends, only permanent interests" (quote from some diplomat). As to Lebanon and Syria, Lebanon pretty much lives under Syria's thumb. It certainly isn't a relationship of equals. Lebanon, by virtue of both its' geographic location and demographic makeup, has seldom enjoyed any true independence. 203.214.66.250 (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

differences between national dresses

Does China and Taiwan each have a national dress?24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You can see Hanfu movement... AnonMoos (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(Though I'm not sure why all images have been removed from that article since the last time I visited it...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are images that have been removed from the page. The removals lack edit summaries, and are not menioned on the talk page. The images have been deleted by different editors. I won't restore the images, but maybe someone knowledgeable about this should restore them if they're relevant? The first and second images still appear on the Chinese version of the page. (And BTW, according to the logs, the removals happened before your last edit to the page, AnonMoos). --NorwegianBlue ^talk 10:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

File:HanfuGB2009.jpg A group of Hanfu enthusiasts.

A group of Hanfu enthusiasts on a busy street in China.

File:Wang Letian.jpg Wang Letian wearing the first version of Hanfu that was made for him in the streets of China. He is generally recognised as the first person to wear Hanfu publicly as a form of proper dress in the modern era.

I've got stuck in and put all those photographs back in. Rather odd they were removed - not cricket! Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll rephrase the question. Does Taiwan have a national dress/costume? If so, how it is different from the hanfu?24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The hanfu isn't actually the national dress of China; it is the traditional dress of the Han Chinese ethnic group. But Taiwan has an even larger Han majority than mainland China (98% compared with 92%, according to the Wikipedia article), so if you can say the hanfu is the national dress of China, it's also the national dress of Taiwan. 59.108.42.46 (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

So if Melinda Wang models for the Taiwanese national costume, would she sport a hanfu or qipao?24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I find it misleading to say the "hanfu" is the "traditional dress" of the Han Chinese ethnic group. It is the historical dress of the Han Chinese ethnic group, and then only a subset of them, depending on occupation. The "traditional" dress of the Han Chinese ethnic group has developed in the last 300 years or so, and examples include the robes and waistcoats familiar from the turn of the 20th century. It seems historically revisionist to deny that the dress has evolved simply because some of that evolution came due to the imposition of Manchu customs on the Han Chinese.

So to answer that last question, the qipao is firmly a part of the traditional national dress of the Chinese, Han or not, even if it is Manchu in origin. For one thing, the modern qipao looks nothing like the original Manchu dress-robe. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Rather, to answer your question specifically: a qipao would be part of the traditional dress in both China and Taiwan.

Hanfu would not fit the usual definition of traditional dress for either China or Taiwan, except to a historical revisionist - it is more like a historical costume rather than a national costume. Another point to note is that the traditional dress varies significantly from region to region even among Han Chinese populations - in Taiwan, it may well be felt that certain (rustic) Hakka or Fujian dress, or even the ethnic costume of Taiwanese Aboriginese, are more representative of it than modern traditional Chinese dress. Similarly, in various parts of mainland China there would also be regional dress that may be regarded as more representative of traditional dress there. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus as a name

I wonder about the frequency of this as a given name in many Spanish-speaking countries (as Jesús). It seems pretty clearly based on Jesus from the Bible. In America, if I saw someone named "Jesus", named by English-speaking parents, I would think his parents were trying to make some sort of statement. At the very least, it would be eyebrow-raising, and I think that, acknowledging I paint with a broad brush, most Americans would react similarly. But given the commonness of the name, it doesn't seem like naming someone after an important religious figure is a problem. I also find the name Muhammad strange for the same reasons, particularly given the usual response by Muslims toward depictions of the Prophet. So maybe it's not that Spanish-speaking, or Muslim, societies don't have issue with it, it's that America does. Any light to shed on this? Thanks! 68.54.4.162 (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

According to our article Muhammad (name), Muhammad is the most common given name in the world, including variations. Ibrahim Mogra, chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain's interfaith relations committee and an imam in Leicester, is quoted as saying "Some of us believe we are assured of heaven if we name our children Muhammad.", see BBC news article What can't be named Muhammad. So there is clearly no taboo against naming boys Muhammad among Muslims. There does seem to be a taboo, or at least reluctance, against naming boys Jesus among Christians, with the exception of Spanish-speaking and Portuguese-speaking countries. All the notable individuals listed in our article Jesus (name) appear to have Hispanic roots. The thought occured to me that the frequent usage of Jesus as a given name in in Hispanic societies could have arisen during the nearly eight centures that parts of Hispania were under Muslim rule. This is just speculation, no sources. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 08:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

See a recent discussion on the same subject here. Alansplodge (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

James Jesus Angleton was mentioned in the article Alansplodge linked to, commenting that no-one found his name offensive. I'd just like to point out that his mother appears to have been Mexican (judging by name and place of meeting), something which was not mentioned in the previous discussion. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 10:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not just America that has an issue, I have an issue with it aswell; I'm certain that others in the world also has issues with it. The only way that I would not have an issue, is if the etymological definition of the hispanic varients are unrelated, which I doubt. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hold on, I've just read of the article on the name, it seems that the definition is not so exclusive as I had thought, but the idea still doesn't suit me very well. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If really want to use the full name, it is Yehoshua Immanu'El Mashiah. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The above takes several (distinctly theological) liberties with the name. More likely he would have been known as "Yeshua ben Yosef" or, in reference to his place of origin, "Yeshua miNetzaret". "Yeshua haMashiach" is the closest Hebrew equivalent to "Jesus Christ". If we wanted to get technical, it's worth nothing that the name Joshua, and all variants thereof, is etymologically derived from the name Yeshua or Yehoshua (both meaning either "Yah saves" or "Yah is (my) salvation"), which forms the basis of the Greek form Ieosous, which eventually became Anglicized (via French) to Jesus. Joshua is actually closer to how Christ's name would have been pronounced, minus the J (which didn't exist until France in the 16th Century). Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 09:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you please define theological liberties? Most likely those were his public names. The name I gave is simply a compilation of every name that he was given throughout the Bible, including His title. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that I missed one. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Immanuel was not a name given to (or claimed by) Christ during his earthly life. It may have been applied to him by those who recognized him as the Messiah (in accordance with Isaiah's prophecy), particularly after his death/resurrection, but it wasn't his "name" in any meaningful sense. And what do you mean by "most likely"? Are you just guessing? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 12:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The bible is a collection of various documents, nearly all of which try to make a theological point, and very few of which even make a claim at being historically correct in the modern sense. I'm not aware of any reliable evidence that Jesus was called Immanuel (or any variant thereof) in his lifetime. Indeed, even Matthew does not claim this, he only relates Jesus birth to a prophecy by Isaiah. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I knew one guy named Jesús, and yeah it's really no big deal in an overwhelmingly Catholic country like ours. I still find it disconcerting though when English-speakers tend to mispronounce the name as "Jeezus". Same with the male given name Ángel. It's weird, as if the very act of uttering them in English changes their intended meaning, from being something quite normal to something bordering on the ridiculous (though in the case of the former, it might have to do with the fact that Angel in English is usually a female given name).

This is all original research, but I think the way these different cultures view Jesus (the diety) could be a significant factor. In predominantly Catholic Latin countries, the Christian God isn't really viewed as a distant, angry, and jealous authoritarian figure. It's more like that of an affectionate but stern father. And in the typically closeknit families of these cultures, the greatest honor you can possibly give to a father is to name his son after him. It's also symbolic, important in cultures where symbolism is woven into the way of life. The fact that the name is taboo among English-speakers might reflect the difference in how their version of Jesus is perceived to react to having someone named after him. In one it is assumed he would be insulted and angry, in the other it is assumed he would be honored and rain blessings on the child. Go figure.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus (name) has the definitive answer to this. It sounds strange at first for English speakers, but remember that at Jesus' time, Jesus was a pretty common name and it being a biblical name and all made it common in many languages, and not only in Spanish and Portuguese. Obviously, all languages use their own variety of the name. English is an exception here. XPPaul (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

@ Genius: We can agree to have our opinions rather than argue about what were, and are is His names. To answer your question, the names that you gave sounds like original research. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Jesus" is etymologically equivalent to "Joshua", and there is no shortage of Joshuas in English. It's just not customary in northern Europe to name kids "Jesus". Probably considered blasphemous or something. Not so in Latin countries. Now, if a Hispanic family named their kid "God" or "Jesus Christ", that would likely raise some eyebrows. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose those Joshuas in the English speaking world are Jewish. WKB52 (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they are just of Jewish heritage. If a Jew named Joshua has children with a non-Jewish woman, he'll still have some motivation to call the children Joshua. The truth is, however, that's not possible to know how many Joshuas have a connection to the Jewish community. And maybe some Muhammad is not a Muslim, just have a connection to the relevant community. WKB52 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Including well-known Jews like Joshua Gibson. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't discard Josh Gibson being Jewish. Being black is not incompatible with being Jewish and here is a link of him in a Jewish hall of fame: [[8]]. 88.8.68.249 (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. According to the US Government, Joshua was the third most popular name in the US from 2002-2006 and fourth from 1984 to 1996 (with a few breaks)[9]. In New South Wales, Australia, it held the number one spot from 2000 to 2003 before slipping down to number two[10]. An opinion poll in the UK makes it number one in 2010[11]. The two names may have a common root in Hebrew, but for English-speaking Christians, Jesus and Joshua are two distinct people in every translation of the Bible; Joshua is the noisy chap at the siege of Jericho and Jesus is a carpenter who tells good stories and falls foul of the Romans. Old Testament names are common among Christians: Jonathan, Samuel, David, Daniel, Nathan, Sarah, Judith (my sister's name!) and Rachel. Aaron and Isaac have become popular recently. Alansplodge (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

US Constitution

There seems to exist in America an almost religious reverence for the Constitution. I wonder if there are any writings explaining or discussing this phenomenon that refdeskers have read and could recommend? Thanks! 68.54.4.162 (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's kind of an interesting point. Maybe to clarify a bit, are you talking in a wide sense, in that every american politician/statesman professes adherence, or are you talking more specifically about law makers in particular (whether congress, or the courts). Part of this phenomenon is of course less a reverence for the Constitution than it is for the rule of law. I'm sure there's plenty of discussion about that development and what it means and its origins. As an American lawyer, the respect for the rule of law is a constant, with a few exceptions perhaps. And in the U.S. that means the Constitution. Every person who works for the U.S. government, and every person who becomes a member of the bar takes an oath to that too. So I understand the religious analog you're making. However, what you're referring to is a basic human feature, not something about religion, or unique to Americans and the American Constitution. We all have prominent texts that, in whatever way, define core characteristics of ourselves. In American public life the Constitution is one of those documents. Shadowjams (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In case you weren't already aware, the U.S. Constitution is not just an ideal, it is the law of the United States. Saving debates about natural law which were quite active in the early years of the U.S., but have dissipated significantly since, there is no higher legal text than the Constitution. That may be why it appears to be revered. But if you already knew this and were getting more meta... see my answer above. Shadowjams (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What did you mean by "As an American lawyer, the respect for the rule of law is a constant, with a few exceptions perhaps"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The rule of law is the uniform guiding principle of every person, at least in theory, that swears an oath to become a lawyer in every common law country, and I assume almost every other country as well. That oath may, in rare circumstances, contradict some lawyers' personal codes. There are instances of laywers following their personal codes, rather than their legal ones. That's the exception I'm speaking of. Shadowjams (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I almost thought you were talking about yourself as the American lawyer, but the rest of the sentence didn't bear that out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the premise of the question is true. As said above, the Constitution is part of the law, which is why Americans reference it so often. But I remember historians complaining when the 200th anniversary of the Constitution came & went without Americans seeming to much care. The real "religious" document in US history is the United States Declaration of Independence. As discussed in the article, people have long revered it as something akin to a sacred text. The best book on the Declaration is called American Scripture for this reason. —Kevin Myers 13:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ. While the Declaration of Independence has significant meaning, it is not the same as the Constitution. And as much as we love telling the crown what it can do with its colonies... we also owe something to English common law, and the sensibilities that came with it. The "constitution" that comes with that is codified in the U.S. Constitution, which has unique legal significance in a way the Declaration of Independence does not. Some of the misplaced reverence you might be referring to may have to do more with popular ignorance. Shadowjams (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Lord only knows what you're "begging to differ" with, since nothing you say differs from my point. Your statements are almost self-evident truths, to coin a phrase, and not in dispute. —Kevin Myers 15:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One time we were going to a Quiz Bowl tournament and had to cross the border. The customs lady thought it would be fun to quiz us, and asked when the Constitution was signed. I knew what she meant, so rather than risk annoying a border official, I just said 1776, and she was happy. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a great story. I think a lot of history buffs learn to hold their tongues at certain times, but there's no historical confusion quite like the confusion between the Constitution and 1776. I saw a children's book once that told impressionable youths that Jefferson wrote the Constitution. The confusion is ingrained early. —Kevin Myers 17:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Jill Lepore has written a number of excellent articles in the New Yorker over the last few years about (apparent) Constitution-worship and (apparent) Constitutional-literalism. She points out that the literalist approach is comparatively newer than one might expect (and that none of the Founders actually believed it was some kind perfect, carved-in-stone document), and that most of the people who claim to be huge fans of the Constitution are, at best, fans of the Bill of Rights, and know next to nothing about the actual Constitution itself. (She also points out that despite the claims of the literalists, the Constitution qua Constitution is a pretty tough document to make sense of, full of really quite specific 18th century legal terminology.) This one in particular is quite excellent. Note that the frame of reference was the Tea Party claiming to be Constitutional literalists, but it goes quite beyond that in exploring the phenomena. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Also see American civil religion. A lot of Americans see "our Founding Fathers" not as they were -- as imperfect politicians that squabbled a lot, often hated what the others were doing, put their pants on one leg at a time and used outhouses but, like Biblical figures, as nearly perfect individuals whom we should treat with, as the questioner says, religious reverence. So for example, some people say we can't mess with the Electoral College because the "Founding Fathers wanted it that way" (even though current presidential elections are organized in a way the founders never actually imagined). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason for the Electoral College was to help get the Constitution ratified. The House of Representatives, and hence the Electoral College, were deliberately designed to give the small states a somewhat disproportionately larger voice, and thus a chance to temper being overwhelmed by the larger states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course you mean the Senate (two votes for each State) rather than the HR (proportional to population). But the EC might well exist without the Senate. One of its purposes is to avoid letting the vote be scattered among many local favorites; hence the command that "the Electors shall ... vote for two persons, of whom at least one shall not be a resident of the same State with themselves." (Those who can be bothered to check the text, rather than rely on my memory, feel free to correct it and remove this parenthesis.) —Tamfang (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was that the Founders thought that state legislators would choose electors, who in turn would scatter their votes among a group of eminent citizens, with the final decision to be made by the House of Representatives among the top five. They could not have imagined the issue of popular vote vs. electoral vote that we have today. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The idea was and is that the states elect the President, not "the people" as such. And the Electoral College purposely gives excessive weight to the smaller states just as they have excessive weight in the House of Representatives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If that was the intent, it is not clear that it worked. Another thing the founders didn't necessarily foresee was that slates of electors would be pledged to a particular candidate, and chosen all-or-nothing (with the exception of Maine and Nebraska).

In a simple model where all states are evenly divided between two candidates, the probability of an individual vote changing the result in a given state is proportional to N^−1/2, where N is the state's population. However, the chance of that state changing the outcome of the election as a whole is proportional to the number of electoral votes of the state, which is approximately proportional to N for large N. So an individual vote counts roughly proportional to N^1/2 — that is, an individual vote actually counts more in a large state.

In practice, of course, most large states are not evenly divided. Very little attention is paid to Californians, for example, because for the forseeable future the outcome is taken as a given (that is a fairly recent development; you can thank Pete Wilson for it). Floridians, though, have enormous influence, because they're in a fairly large state that's fairly evenly divided. --Trovatore (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(perhaps a more cautious way of putting my point about California would be: For the forseeable future, any Republican presidential candidate who takes California — will not need California) --Trovatore (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, that's twice you've said that small states have disproportionate weight in the House of Representatives. Have I missed something? —Tamfang (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Allegiance to the Constitution

Let me take a slightly different tack. When the United States were formed as a Republic (worship of republicanism being a closely-related but distinct topic), there was no human equivalent of the King to whom her civil officials and military officers (most emphatically including the President) would swear an oath of allegiance, in the way that a British officer swears loyalty to his or her monarch. There was no human embodiment of the nation and its ideals equivalent to a human monarch or pontiff. Instead the Constitution itself requires (at the end of Article II, section 1) the President before taking office to swear or affirm that "I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." In addition, Article VI requires that the "Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution". The current oath or affirmation (which I made upon becoming a census-taker in 1980 and 1990) is, according to Wikipedia, that

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

A similar oath or affirmation is made by those entering the armed services, with the addition of a pledge to obey lawful orders. So when a soldier or federal agent risks or sacrifices his or her life and limb, it is not for his King (or Queen) and Country, but for the Constitution and the Union. The Constitution is (or should be) the guarantee that the Republic has a popular and legally-limited government.

¶ This is of course, the beginning of an answer rather than a whole one, but it should be borne in mind when trying to understand Americans' attitude towards the U.S. Constitution. Another parallel to be borne in mind is the passion of many revolutionary movements, from the French Revolution to the Prague Spring and Arab Spring for a new constitution that would limit tyranny, increase liberty, and give (or return) more power to the governed. In fact, appeals to a venerable and hallowed English Constitution supposedly already long in existence was a staple of revolutionary and reform movements from the English Civil War to Chartism, a tradition with which the American colonists very much identified themselves in their own struggles with the British King and parliament. Although the U.S. Constitution was adopted several years after independence, it was in a young Republic born of such a struggle in blood. And when far more blood was shed two generations later, both sides declared and believed they were defending the principles of that Constitution as well as of the American Revolution. So in some ways, the United States (especially when feeling under internal or external threat) has always felt that revolutionary spirit, and part of that spirit is expressed as dedication to the Constitution. It's not unnatural that sometimes dedication to the Constitution and admiration for the best and most effective parts of it, can combine into a worship of the whole document that some find extreme. This isn't meant as a patriotic Fourth of July oration (in fact, although I've lived in the U.S. most of my life, I haven't yet taken U.S. citizenship), but to try and explain the motives of behind "an almost religious reverence". I have also not discussed the use of rhetorical appeals (sometimes passionately sincere, sometimes quite calculated) to the Constitution in political and legal debates, such as those surrounding the Civil War, civil rights and civil liberties. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Mary Macleod (painter)

File:Elizabeth Alice Aubrey Le Blond.png

Hi! Does anyone know anything about Mary Macleod, an artist and painter, who painted this portrait showing Elizabeth Alice Aubrey Le Blond and this: [12]. I need informations about her life ... Thanks a lot, Doc Taxon (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I could find was this page, advertising an exhibition called "Portraits by Mary Macleod" in December 2011 at the Southampton Art School & Gallery in Wingham, Ontario. They might be able to tell you if it's the same one (there are an awful lot of people called Mary Macleod out there) and give you some information. Alansplodge (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One more: a note near the bottom of this BBC blog suggests that a portrait painter called Mary Macleod was the daughter of Edward J Leveson. Alansplodge (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Who is this Mary Macleod? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Haven't a clue as the link says "You have reached your limit for this page"...--TammyMoet (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If you click the "next" link at the top you do get taken to a readable extract. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.209 (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

And if you then click "Previous" you get to the page that wasn't shown in the first place. Funny. --Jeppi (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Kitty Ussher's husband

What is PeterJ Colley's middle name please? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking through the GRO index there are several people called Peter J Colley, however only one who is the same age as Kitty Ussher. His middle name is John, however there is no guarentee this is the right person: her husband could be older or younger than her and there are plenty of candidates to choose from. -- role^player 18:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Reason behind separate race question in corporate surveys

A specific example for this if you are the type that demands specific is Walmart's at survey dot walmart dot com. This one, for instance, has a question whether the survey taker is of Latino or Hispanic origin, and the very next question asks the survey taker to check all boxes that apply to them, including labels such as caucasian, black, asian/pacific islander. Both questions of course have an option to prefer not to answer. My question is why there is a specific question about Latino/Hispanic and why isn't this just another checkbox in the other race section? Remember, the checkbox one allows you to check as many boxes as you want. 69.243.220.115 (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This is probably done for consistency with other US demographic data, such as the census; see Race and ethnicity in the United States Census for a discussion. Shimgray | talk | 16:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, then I'd be compelled to wonder about the reasoning behind why they (or whoever (an individual organization or a group of organizations) was first and everyone started copying) specifically singled out Latino/Hispanic origin. The third paragraph of Race and ethnicity in the United States Census flatly states this but doesn't provide any backstory or justification of any sort. 69.243.220.115 (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

See the section on the 2000 census in the article you linked to for some backstory. It was a kludgy attempt (which, in traditional bureaucratic style, really satisfied nobody) to figure out who came from Latin or South America irregardless of what "race" they fall into. (Most Latin and South Americans are of European or African ancestry. A good number are actually of Asian ancestry, which usually comes as some surprise to Americans...) To its credit, the 2000 census categories tried to give people a lot of options for mixing-and-matching while self-identifying their race/ethnicity, in part because just handing people categories that seem sensible to white folks has been frowned upon for quite some time. The result, of course, is that census data on race/ethnicity makes almost no sense except to say "these folks are non-white" (which ironically is what the old categories basically told you, anyway) and is thus very hard to draw strong sociological conclusions from. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the question asks why "Hispanic origin" is a separate question rather than a choice in the "race" question. This article on the Census website says they first asked it like this in 1970 and found in testing that that way "would produce the most accurate and reliable results." It looks like the guy you want to talk to about this is Jorge del Pinal at the Census Bureau. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hispanics are not a "race" in the conventional sense. Many are of "pure" Spanish extraction and would be considered Caucasian, and many many more are of mixed race. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Nicholas Sarkozy and African leaders ceremony

What was the ceremony that was held in Paris where French President Nicholas Sarkozy and African leaders of former French colonies met? I was told it was called sans Afrique or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.73 (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it was in Paris? Sarkozy hosted the 25th African-French summit in Nice in 2010 ('vingt-cinquieme Sommet Afrique-France') detailed here, the 24th was in Cannes in 2007 (ici), the 26th hasn't been held yet and 23rd was long before he was President. --Saalstin (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sarkozy was also the keynote speaker at the 16th African Union Summit in Addis Ababa in 2011: details -- role^player 18:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

spirituality question

So, I was discussing dreams and such like with someone, and we got onto some weird stuff I did in my younger years that seems to be impacting on my dreams now, or at least the memories of it and of what might have happened had it gone wrong. I was given this advice

' Are you familiar with the term "Banishing"? Sounds like you have some obssesive and or destructive thoughts. The idea behind banishing is to "Deguasse" if you will. Like demagnitizing a tape head. I prescribe learning the Golden dawn banishing of the Pentagram and banishing of the Hexagram. Simple to learn. All good holy wholesomeme stuff Angels,Gods, Up stuff not down stuff.These will put your mind at ease and distance you from any "Occult" or unseen forces. Just a suggestion. '

I know nothing about this, anyone point me in the right direction here?

148.197.81.179 (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be referring to a sort of spiritual degaussing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

To get an idea of the context, you could start by reading our article Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and decide if you really want to delve into Ceremonial magic. (To clarify: as a Wiccan I'm relaxed about the milieu, but many people might not be, especially if they have a conventional Christian outlook.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.209 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That looks very... structured and wizardly to me. not what I was expecting. (to clarify my own position on such matters, I am very casually polytheistic, and sometimes wonder if I should be more active and involved in such matters, no conventional christian outlooks here) 148.197.81.179 (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of "fighting fire with fire", then it should be easy to understand that is one Satan's campaign techniques, he makes evil seem like good by using disinformation and whitewashing. For instance, do know that angels can be either good or bad? Not everything is as it seems, he uses evil to get rid of evil. You'll end up in a viscious cycle if you go down that path. Do you not think that if he can send angels of lucifer (demons) that he also withdraw them? Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't Jesus accused of the same thing ("fighting fire with fire" as in casting out demons in the name of the devil in Mathew 12:22-30)? Rabuve (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense to me, I can't see what you're trying to say, other than the good and bad angels, which I already knew. Though, I do wonder what makes something good or bad. But then, as I say, I'm not christian, so it doesn't apply to me. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I recommend you read the books written by Richard Dawkins. If that doesn't "Deguasse" your concerns about evil spirits and such, nothing will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, quite. It's not evil spirits, though, I'm usually quite logical and sensible about such things, I know it doesn't make sense, but when I'm in bed, half asleep, it does, even when I can tell myself otherwise. Partly the memory of what I might have done, of losing control like that, partly perhaps my subconscious mind playing with my fears, which whenever I think of them just seem to grow and grow and feed on themselves... Yes, I'm all messed up inside, maybe something like that could help, maybe not. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion, not related to answering the question. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What I mean is that engaging with spirituallity and other occult practices is certain to cause you or someone around you to be worse off, and I'm not just saying ts based on bias. I've done a background study on this kind of stuff, and I've seen the inevitable consequences. A wiccan almost killed her son with a "protection encantation". Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Citation needed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC) How did she do that? something go terribly unexpectedly wrong? or do you mean something about the universe balancing itself out, bad for every good, that sort of thing? 148.197.81.179 (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC) I don't remember much of the details, but I remember that he was attacked by sprites which threw items at him, and chased him out of the house. Apparently, the incantation was spot on, but it backfired, possibly because he converted to Christianity before returning home from military service. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Yeah, right. The mystical woo you believe in defeated the other mystical woo... Really convincing evidence from the most reliable of sources - some bloke on the internet... If you're going to try to promote your belief-system on the reference desks, at least do us the honour of pretending to have evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC) What are you talking about, I just answered the OP's last question? I never promoted my belief system, I'm just saying that from what I've learned, it is bad news. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC) No you haven't. All you've done is told us what you think 'apparently' happened, and that somehow 'Christianity' put it all to rights. You've given no evidence at all. That isn't an answer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC) I told him what I could remember from the report, and I did not say that Christianity put it all to rights" or any form of those words, simply that based on the circumstancial evidense from the report, it is my opinion that it may be a relavent factor. Neither did I say that I have cited evidence. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Which 'report'? This is a reference desk. People are entitled to expect answers to be based on something more than 'opinion'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Yeah well, an opinion is all that I can provide. I don't remember what the report was, because it was some time ago. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the other commentary, if you feel "messed up inside," you should see a physician or psychologist. They are better suited to this than random strangers on a website. Magical incantations might ease your mind for a bit, but won't actually identify the issue or help you deal with it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Follow up: culture and magnets, how do they work?

Are there any religious movements that make ceremonial use of magnets, particularly with the ceremonial intent of removing information from structures? In a related question, what is the cultural and social function of non-diagnostic or atypical diagnostic techniques involving magnetic resonance imaging? To what extent have scholars considered these uses as having a ceremonial or cultural meaning centred purpose rather than a purpose inline with "normal medicine"? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Just listen to yourself. “Cultural and social function of non-diagnostic or atypical diagnostic techniques involving magnetic resonance imaging”. You use so many long words in your post it sounds like management-speak. – b_jonas 11:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a perfectly well-formed question. I think making fun of a question because you don't understand the words, or the question, makes you look a little ignorant. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have seen work on this from two specific points of view, both relating to brain imaging in particular. One is the way in which brain imaging studies are often trotted out to support various Buddhist beliefs. The other is specifically on the use of brain scans as representations of human selfhood, especially in legal contexts. (Technically that one talks about PET rather than MRI scans, but same difference.) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would think there would be little use of MRI's for "ceremonial or cultural" purposes because they are too expensive. Bus stop (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo's question likely assumes that the line between ceremonial and cultural purposes and, say, diagnostic or medical purposes is a somewhat arbitrary one. "Cultural purposes" is an almost infinitely vague notion. The fact that in the US such tests are done because of a quirky, contextual confluence of insurance company requirements, malpractice lawsuits, and public unease about missed diagnoses fits pretty well under "cultural purposes" in my book, and potentially even "ceremonial" purposes, if you have a wide-enough view of "ceremony". I had an MRI done at a research laboratory once as part of the training of undergraduate scientists — is that any less "cultural" than any other rite of passage? --Mr.98 (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr.98 is right, I'm assuming that "normal medicine" is culturally constructed as a practice. So an entire medical system could verge into abnormality (sluggishly progressing schizophrenia anybody?). Bloody Buddhist physicalists; it reminds me of Christianity and geology in the 18th and 19th century. The idea of constructing a self with a magnet is a particularly curious one, I'm not completely up on the continental philosophy work on bio-power etc, but there are some curious attempts to manifest consciousness in the world, and law is a domain where these issues are hard fought. Thanks Mr.98. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

But from where are you getting an idea of "constructing a self with a magnet"? And also in an earlier post you mention "…use of magnets, particularly with the ceremonial intent of removing information from structures". I don't understand where these magnets come into play and for what purpose. Bus stop (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If you read the discussion in the section above regarding magnets, where a comparison is made between "degaussing" and a particular religious practice—thus asking about the ceremonial use of magnets to (in a belief) literally remove information from a person, an "erase head." Regarding constructing a self with a magnet; isn't this the implication of claiming that MRIs (or PETs or CATs) image a substantive element of consciousness in relation to legal debates about personhood, identity and self? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I don't believe that magnets banish demons or image "the mind"—I am asking about people's belief in practices that are "culturally meaningful" to them. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify the phrase "culturally meaningful"? The field of medicine is a part of the "culture" of humanity. That would entail construing "culture" broadly. Bus stop (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I referred to ritual or ceremony. To the extent that Doctors over-proscribe antibiotics without reference to demostrable placebo effects, they're participating in a transfer of cultural significance. The patient propitiates the Doctor with claimed symptoms and an expectation of expertise, they're unnecessarily proscribed antibiotics (or, "necessarily" within a treatment regime that has been broadly published as outmoded), and the patient then feels that their sickness has been culturally accepted as meaningful because they've got a small packet of amoxicillan. I'm not referring to the system of meanings within normal medicine's claimed epistemology, but to ceremonial or ritual exchanges lying outside of that. Mr98's suggestion regarding the atypical use of MRIs in the United States; or, the Australian Government's funding structure for major medical purchases that encouraged the purchase of major diagnostic equipment well above and beyond the need are examples of behaviour more to do with the reproduction of US or Australian culture as a whole, than the reproduction of the culture of normal medicine in those societies. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not "ritual" or "ceremony" to wastefully or harmfully deploy medicine and medical procedures. I don't think that ritual or ceremony ever interface with anything objective or rational. Those terms can be used fancifully. I don't see how they apply to standard medicine. Bus stop (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"I don't think that ritual or ceremony ever interface with anything objective or anything rational". Perhaps you should try thinking a bit harder? I find myself unable to restrain myself from pointing out the apparent interface between the rituals of circumcision common to many cultures and the physical object at the centre of such practices... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—what is the "physical object at the centre of such practices"? Does it have a name? Bus stop (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

See penis and foreskin... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—circumcision is an objective term, but a ritual practice that may seem similar may in fact vary in some ways. The ritual practice may be an older practice than the comparable medical procedure. But the ritual practice is likely to vary in other ways as well. Bus stop (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. Any ritual circumcision interfaces with an object, often using an object constructed solely for this ritual function, and carried out in another object constructed for ritual functions. Your original statement is so self-evidently wrong that it isn't worth debating further. You might consider researching the subject of material culture a little before making such daft assertions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—"object" and "objective" are two different terms. Just because a penis is an object doesn't mean that a ritual procedure involving that object is as objective, or rational, as a similar medical procedure involving that object. Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm not interested in arguing semantics. Your attempt to divide the world into the 'ritual' and the 'rational' is so utterly at odds with everything the social sciences have taught us in the last century that it isn't worth debating. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You are generalizing. A medical procedure and a ritual are two different things. Can there be a point at which the distinction between the two is burred? Maybe there can be such a situation, but I don't know of such a situation. Can you suggest or describe such a situation? Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Just wrong. Not worth arguing further. Though you might like to look into Medical anthropology to see why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision is a medical procedure. When is circumcision a ritual? We are talking about related but different procedures. One of the distinctions is in the context in which they are performed but there are other distinctions. The exact procedure may be slightly different. The setting may be different. The language accompanying the two procedures is likely to be different. We can't just overlook differences and pronounce medical procedures indistinguishable from rituals. Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wronger still... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaving it up to you to tell us when the distinction is blurred between the medical procedure and its closely related ritual. If no circumstance exists in which the distinction is blurred we can assume that the two sorts of procedures are different. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Humongous wrongness... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—can you articulate where I am wrong? Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

More or less everywhere - you seem to be under the misapprehension that there are no ritualistic aspects to 'medical procedure'. Like I said, see medical anthropology - though I'd have thought this was blindingly obvious anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

...and on the more general subject of ritual and health, I'd recommend reading "Body Ritual among the Nacirema", a seminal ethnographic essay on the subject: [13]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you mention[14] medical procedures and rituals in relation to "penis and foreskin". When are medical procedures and rituals indistinguishable from one another in relation to "penis and foreskin"? Do you know of any such circumstance? I do not. Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you read "Body Ritual among the Nacirema"? It's only a short article, and will answer your questions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I have no idea why you are comparing modern medical practice to the practices of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. They are very different. Again, getting back to a point that I made much earlier in this thread—one sort of practice is objective and rational—the other sort of practice is not. You can argue that these distinctions do not create as bright a line as I assert. But if you are going to do so vis-a-vis the example you gave, you would have to show that the ritual of removing the foreskin is, under some circumstance, similar to the medical procedure of doing so. Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

ROFL! "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" = "Nacirema"? Not exactly 'indigenous', Bus Stop. You've got it backwards ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I am fully cognizant that Nacirema is American spelled backwards. So what? What is your point? Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

My point is that your assertion that are no ritualistic aspects to 'medical procedure' is just plain stupid: ritual is everywhere - as the "Nacirema" article points out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you joined this discussion here. Correct me if I am wrong but almost the entirety of your first post was: "Perhaps you should try thinking a bit harder? I find myself unable to restrain myself from pointing out the apparent interface between the rituals of circumcision common to many cultures and the physical object at the centre of such practices". I've been trying since to get you to tell me when the "ritual" version of this practice is similar to the "medical" version of this practice. I still can't get a response from you in relation to that question. My assertion is that the ritual version and the medical version are in fact distinct. Bus stop (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion is wrong. Medical practice involves ritual. Heck, in the UK at least, waiting for a bus involves ritual. All it takes is a hour or two of ones time, and an open mind, to see this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—concerning the removal of the foreskin, can you describe a situation or a circumstance in which we would not be able to tell if it were the "ritual" procedure or the "medical" procedure that we were observing? Bus stop (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see no point in discussing this further. Medical practice involves ritual, as does every other aspect of human social behaviour. That you are too stupid to understand this is your problem, not mine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—your argument that "medical procedure involves ritual" and "waiting for a bus involves ritual" is not all that relevant to what we are discussing. Two distinct versions of the removal of the foreskin are found—one medical, the other ritual. You are going on at length about the notion that there is "ritual" in medicine too. Nevertheless the distinction remains concerning circumcision in the "medical" sense and the quite different though often similarly-named circumcision that is part of "ritual" involving religion and other arcane ideas, which tend to be much more irrational than any you would encounter in a medical context. Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you win. I wasted four years studying anthropology. The entire field of medical anthropology is wrong. The social sciences in general are wrong. They must be. Because you know more than them, obviously. Because... hang on, what are your qualifications here? As far as I'm aware zilch, zero, nada, none at all. But because you are Wikipedia's number-one expert in out-of-context quote-mining, asking for evidence for things people haven't said, and missing the point entirely, you must be right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you are not showing by real or hypothetical examples that removal of the foreskin in a religious setting is the same as removal of the foreskin in a medical setting. We have articles on Brit milah (Jewish setting) and Khitan (Muslim setting). I think that these settings are different from a medical setting. You are missing the point when you focus solely on the notion that there may be "ritual" even in modern medicine. Bus stop (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware male circumcision was a cosmetic ritual when it was practiced medically in Australia. Parental demand centres around meaning structures with shared names, but distinct from, the medical functions of male infant circumcision. In particular, the use of male infant circumcision as a general prophilaxis, and transmitter of shared socially constructed but biologically worn masculinity, by parents is significant. In some cases mothers seem to believe that it gives the child sexual power, or the capacity to bear sexual power. In the US it might vary, but over here it seems to be transmitted by family unit and often to do with "resembling his dad." Now there's a Freudian terrain you wouldn't want to expose without an ARC grant. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, the reason I'm not "showing by real or hypothetical examples that removal of the foreskin in a religious setting is the same as removal of the foreskin in a medical setting" is because I never said it was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—no matter how "ritualistic" modern medicine may be, and I think there is considerable doubt that modern medicine can be properly described as "ritualistic", the core applicability of the term "ritual", in relation to circumcision, or procedures closely related to circumcision, is to a form of procedure that is resistant to change, dates back several centuries, and is closely related to religion. The religious groups involved have often been practicing circumcision for many centuries. Their methods for performing the procedure are very resistant to change. Modern medicine by contrast is willing to adapt to new technology and procedures. Modern medicine is not beholden to a large body of arcane literature. You are using the term "ritual" innovatively but such usage would still be distinct from the way in which the term would be used in reference to the religious ritual of circumcision. Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As Fifelfoo has already pointed out, many supposedly 'medical' circumcisions are in fact carried out for 'cultural' reasons. Your dichotomy is false. As for modern medicine not being "beholden to a large body of arcane literature", I suggest you visit the library of one of the many excellent medical colleges to be found in your home town (New York I believe?) - you will find endless shelves of exactly that. As part of the rites-of-passage involved in becoming a master of the arcane medical arts, one tends to have to visit such libraries, and ideally, read a little of their content: though one can also try sleeping amongst them, in the hope that the contents will enter your mind as you dream - this seemed to work for me when I was a student ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say "many supposedly 'medical' circumcisions are in fact carried out for 'cultural' reasons". These are not rituals. These are medical procedures. Under Judaism for instance a medical circumcision is not Brit milah. One is a ritual; the other is a medical procedure. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, please cease your babbling nonsense. Humanity isn't constrained by your lack of imagination, and neither is it constrained by Halachic law, except as it chooses to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—the halakha that you refer to is part of Judaism and is many centuries old. Modern medical procedure departs from the Jewish procedure. One procedure has a very old rationale. The thought processes in support of the Jewish version are purely ritualistic. The medical version is not ritualistic except in the fanciful use of the term ritual that you have been presenting here in this thread. A medical doctor will not likely be touting a ritualistic reason for removing the foreskin. I am willing to entertain ideas that you might have about how a ritualistic procedure might be indistinguishable from a medical procedure but you are not presenting any examples for our examination. Therefore what we have are the two distinct set of circumstances that I think represent all procedures of this sort, or at least that I am aware of. You have to present concrete examples or all that you are doing is insisting that there is no distinction between medical and non-medical removal of the foreskin. Stated conversely, we need to see presented at least hypothetical circumstances in which the ritual and non-ritual removal of the foreskin are indistinguishable procedures. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, I have never asserted that "there is no distinction between medical and non-medical removal of the foreskin". As for why doctors remove foreskins, I'm sure quite a few do it because they get paid to do it. They may also (as the article I linked earlier pointed out), enlarge or reduce other parts of their 'patients' anatomies, for no better reasons. None of this is of any relevance to the question as to whether current orthodox medical practice can be free of ritualistic and symbolic content. It isn't, it cannot be, and regardless of why (or how) a circumcision is carried out, if a doctor does it, he or she will be doing it in a social role deeply imbued with meaning, and laden with ritualistic practices, whether anyone taking part in them is particularly aware of it or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As I noted above, getting your son's penis modified because "its cleaner" or as a general prophylaxis against fear for their health is not the same as a procedure proscribed by a recognised medical professional that normal medicine claims will have a prophylactic health benefit. This isn't to say that the latter couldn't also be ritualistic, as I noted above with anti-biotics, even within normal medicine much of the conduct is ritualised and bears meanings not contained within the epistemology of normal medicine ("I like him, he has warm hands," much?). Similarly, getting your son's penis modified for reasons of the cultural transmission of acceptable masculinity, or because of family tradition, is again ritualised. Getting open heart surgery is ritualised. Revising the DSM or ICD is ritualised. Publishing a review of cases is ritualised. Many of these rituals don't bear any meaning from the epistemological system related to their action. Some of the rituals bear content related to their epistemological system, for example, the ritualistic esteem placed on Doctors is related to normal medicine's construction of Doctors as experts. Even when "Doctor as God" isn't in play, other ritual relationships hold, such as "Doctor as mechanic." Similarly the technical hierarchy of the Ward bears both ritualistic content and at the same time content from normal medicine's findings. (Hell, even the technical organisation of medicine into Wards, Departments, Hospitals and Health Care Providers bears ritual content; that sickness is enforced as a distinct geographic and spatial moment in life). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say "It isn't, it cannot be, and regardless of why (or how) a circumcision is carried out, if a doctor does it, he or she will be doing it in a social role deeply imbued with meaning, and laden with ritualistic practices, whether anyone taking part in them is particularly aware of it or not."[15] I don't think we automatically make assumptions without evidence. I think the above remains a medical procedure unless we have reason to conclude otherwise. You are referring to something that is "deeply imbued by meaning." Where is the evidence for that? What would make you conclude that? It is not part of the scenario you describe above. "Laden with ritualistic practices" as indicated by what? You are describing a straightforward, nonreligious, medical procedure. No "ritual" is in evidence in the description you provide above. You refer to a "doctor". I have no reason to believe that just because the individual is a doctor that there is any "meaning" above and beyond the standard medical role expected of that individual in their professional capacity. Bus stop (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bus Stop, this is a reference desk, not your own personal soapbox. As for what makes me reach the conclusions I do, I'd say it is a product of the accumulative knowledge of the social sciences, as imparted to me through my time spent studying anthropology at university, and indeed also imparted through personal experience. As has already been pointed out to you repeatedly, there is an entire academic field (medical anthropology) devoted to the subject we have been discussing - the interaction between 'medicine' and 'culture'. If you want to find out more, I suggest you study the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo—you refer to "getting your son's penis modified for reasons of the cultural transmission of acceptable masculinity".[16] From where are you deriving that this sort of thing takes place? I have yet to encounter the articulation of a notion of "acceptable masculinity" in this context. Do you have a source indicating that "acceptable masculinity" ever plays a role in "getting your son's penis modified"? This may be the Humanities reference desk (as opposed to for instance the Science reference desk) but I think a source would be a plus. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It took all of two minutes for Google scholar to find this example: [17] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

international shipping

I need to get £85/70lbs of toys across the atlantic from colorado to england. my contact in the area assures me the cost of this could be as much as $600, which seems excessive to me just to post something. Anyone suggest any cheaper way I could do this? Or, at least give me a more accurate price, since he seemed a bit unsure on this.

148.197.81.179 (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Try this link. Moonraker (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Looked at that, isn't it for sending stuff from england though? 148.197.81.179 (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Try this. Moonraker (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Try the post office website, [18]. They have a price calculator. It depends on the weight and dimensions of the package. The number is coming up quite high for me ($300+), but that's for express service. You can probably get a better price for slower delivery, but you might need to call or go into a post office in person. You could also stop in at a local mailing store which seem to be everywhere and ask for advice. RudolfRed (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It is going to depend heavily on how quickly you need to get it where it is going. If you can afford for it to take several weeks, then you can send it by sea fairly cheaply. If you need it there within a couple of days, then you'll need to fly it and that could very easily cost $600. --Tango (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Might not need this any more, my contact has agreed to instead become my business partner and help ship things out to customers, many of them likely in america anyway, a huge saving there. But thank you for all your help anyway. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

March 5

Rock star whims

Why Hollywood and rock stars tend to have weird whims? example. Is it because people get more pedantic when they realize they can get away with wathever they ask? Is it a marketing strategy? Is it to appear with a extravagance halo? (as an aside note, I'm a bit surprised there is no whim (psychology) article)--85.55.220.40 (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

One theory I heard once is that it's actually a way of measuring the amount of detail that the people providing the amenities put into their job. I.e., if they M&Ms have been purged of the yellow ones, then you can be sure that the sheets are being changed and the bathrooms kept clean, etc. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily, if they're spending all their time searching the M&Ms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed by David Lee Roth in his autobiography (Snopes article). -- BenRG (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's their way of showing they are the boss. While this can happen with anyone rich and/or famous, it's probably more common in those who achieve fame and fortune early, without learning to be humble first. Rock/pop/rap stars, sports stars, and actors can fall into this category. But then again, Donald Trump seems to have managed to become quite a jerk, even though he inherited his money and/or made his money in real estate. StuRat (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Richard Stallman of free software fame has some pretty specific instructions for people who want to invite him to speak, see here. In some cases famous people clearly do it just because they can get away with it (the Bob Hope impersonators and all that), but on the other hand, life on the road is tiresome. People have drunk themselves to death staving off the homesickness. And it's no fun having to tell kind strangers that their thoughtful attempts at making you comfortable are actually making you uncomfortable, when instead of a five-star hotel all you want is to sleep on someone's couch or instead of champagne you just want Haribo brand gummi bears. Actually, now that I mentioned that, particular brands of candy seem to figure pretty often on these lists - comfort snacks, obviously.--Rallette (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you expect? Picture this scenario. A rather ordinary-looking guy with a modicum of talent as a singer, drummer, guitarist, whatever, finds himself a clever manager who lands him a record contract. He gets lucky and he/his band sell lots and lots of records. The power trip naturally comes as a resuly of people constantly kissing his ass, groupies kissing other parts of his anatomy, kids telling him they have all his records, journalists asking him his opinion on world affairs, even if he has never opened a book in his life...obviously at some stage he's going to believe he's a modern King Louis XIV.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Stallman's demands, by the way, are so lovably and understandably sincere and specific. He's not particularly demanding, but he's very exacting. 68.190.231.128 (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of the requests on those lists tend to be more or less reasonable. The exceptions are often understandable. Mary J. Blige wants a brand-new toilet seat in her dressing room. Heck, why not? If I was a pop star, why not take advantage of the fact to ensure I can sit on a toilet seat that's never been infected with germs? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A truly discerning person prefers used toilet seats for their residual warmth. Bus stop (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course someone who can demand a new toilet seat wherever they go can also demand a heated toilet seat.... Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There's far more germs on a damn door knob than on most toilet seats. People fuss self-importantly about the most ridiculously trivial things, and ignore the elephants in the room. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Do rock stars ever demand elephants? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary erotic painting

Hello, if anyone knowledgeable about this subject please reply. I want to know the name of notable painters associated with erotic painting in contemporary art (i.e. 1950s onwards). Some notable contemporary erotic painters I know are Cecily Brown and John Currin. Some other notable names (excluding pin-up artists and comic book artists) who's themes in painting include modern settings such as striper, nightclubs etc? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 03:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Mel Ramos, John Kacere, Hilo Chen, Hubert De Lartigue, Jock Sturges, John De Andrea (sculptor). I found all of those names at this gallery's web site. We have an article on one of the owners of that gallery, Louis K. Meisel. Tom Wesselmann. Bus stop (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, some of Eric Fischl's stuff is quite racey. Alansplodge (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Balthus? Bus stop (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Beryl Cook? More comical than erotic, but certainly often set in strip clubs, nightclubs etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the links! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No one mentioned Jeff Koons' Made in Heaven series featuring his then wife Ilona Staller. Astronaut (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What was the ideology of the Republican Party in the South after Reconstruction 1877-1928?

It seems like most histories of electoral politics in the South end the Republican narrative in 1877 with the end of Reconstruction and don't pick up again until 1928 when the Solid South began to crack. I was wondering what was the status of the Republican party between 1877-1928? I realize that the South was effectively 1-party during that period and that the Republicans were a hopeless minority. I was wondering if there was any organizational Republican structure in the South (especially the Deep South) at all during this time? Was the racial makeup all-white? What was the ideology of the Republican Party in the south and how did it differ with that in the North? Was the Southern Republican party to the left or right of the Northern Republicans and Democrats? --Gary123 (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of articles e.g. Scalawag and Carpetbagger with small bits of information on Republicans in the south. The Republicans had strong support in parts of the former Confederacy, e.g. in Appalachia where there were fewer former slave owners, but not so much in the Deep South. In Georgia the Georgia Republican Party briefly held power after the war, with the support of blacks and those from the mountainous north and west. In South Carolina the situation was somewhat similar, with Republicans holding power thanks to freed slaves and carpetbaggers; see South Carolina Republican Party. In the South, the Republicans were sometimes in alliance with the radical anti-corporate Populist Party (United States), particularly pre-1900 when the Democrats were more pro-business. It's a long period with complex issues; you could explore the articles on the individual states' Republican parties, though these are of varying quality. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

During that time period, especially in the early part of it (say, last 3 decades of the 19th century), the Republican Party had almost no presence in the south. In many places, Democrats ran unopposed in local elections. During the latter half of the 19th century, the Republican Party, nationally, had two main sources of support: Large, corporate support from industrialists and abolitionists. Neither were very welcome in the south. The Solid South article sadly doesn't discuss the time period as much as it discusses the fall of the "Solid South", but basically the local Republican Party all but disappeared from the South (except for, as noted, some pockets in Appalachia) for many years. --Jayron32 23:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

During the the Nadir of American race relations, Southern Republicans often turned their back on blacks -- see Lily-White Movement. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

In my readings on McKinley and Hanna, I've learned that blacks were a large part of the Republican Party in the South. Even where they couldn't vote. There was considerable competition to be a delegate to the national convention, which was in the 19th century generally 2 delegates for each of a state's electoral votes, even though Republicans in the South rarely won them. The reason for this was, if you helped elect the winning candidate, you might get civil service patronage. You might want to review William McKinley#Civil rights and the sources supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, it is not quite true that the Republicans won nothing in the South. They took a congressional seat or governor's mansion now and then, and even had some success in the early 1890s with fusion tickets with the Populists. Republicans won a handful of Southern seats, in an arc from Virginia to Texas, in 1894, though nothing in the Deep South.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That "arc" you describe is basically Appalachia and the Ozarks, which was already noted as the one place that the Republican party survived in the South; Hillbilly politics always worked very differently than it did in the deep south, --Jayron32 20:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

West-gate of Moria

Why does the inscription on the arch of the West-gate refer to Khazad-dûm as "Moria"? The inscription was written in the Second Age, but the city was only renamed "Moria" in the Third Age. Double sharp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

An inconsistency or mistake on Tolkien's part, at least according to http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Doors_of_Durin Pfly (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Incident in early Islam

On the Entertainment desk there was a question about movies taking place during the First Fitna, which reminded me of a movie I was watching about an incident in the very early history of Islam, where a local Christian ruler attacked the Muslims, possibly after pretending to form an alliance with them first. It was while they were still in Arabia, so it wasn't a Byzantine or Abyssinian ruler. While I was watching the movie I remember looking up the details on Wikipedia, but this was about a year ago and I can't remember anything about it anymore. Was this actually an historical event or am I just misremembering everything? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The only movie you may have seen 'about an incident in the very early history of Islam' is probably this film, but I have seen it many years ago and cannot remember its details. --Omidinist (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have seen that, but this one was in Arabic (with badly translated subtitles). I was actually watching it on a Saudi Arabian satellite channel. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"The cry was no surrender" - The Siege of Derry

Disclaimer: I have (to my knowledge) neither English nor Irish background. But I find the history intriguing anyways.

A few questions about the Siege which our article doesn't seem to answer:

1. Did King James ride up to Bishop's gate in person to ask the city to surrender? Was this common practice for His Majesty alone to personally take such an action? He's the king - how would he take this risk upon himself?! He was lucky the defenders didn't succeed in killing him when they fired at him!

2. The city's decision not to surrender was no doubt brave - but to what end? Was it just patriotism (religious or secular)? Or were the inhabitants fearful of being dispossessed or slaughtered if they surrendered? Did King James have a reputation of cruelty towards those who surrendered to his forces?

3. If King James had prevailed, would it have likely made any difference to the ultimate outcome of the Williamite War in Ireland? (A "what if" question, I know). Our article says nothing about any effects of the failure of the Siege of Derry on the wider campaign.

4. Why didn't the Jacobite forces make greater efforts to secure (i.e. clog up) the river-head? The Royal Navy's tactic of forcing the way up-river would have been obvious, wouldn't it? Compare to the Defence of Fort McHenry, where the defenders clogged the river by sinking ships. Couldn't the Jacobite forces have placed better impediments to a naval force than a flimsy floating boom, easily dismantled by properly-equipped combat engineers? 203.214.66.250 (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Question 1: Yes, at least according to the rather florid Protestant accounts. Quoted from a speech to mark the 150th anniversary in 1826: "...the Monarch... who came down attended by a numerous retinue, to the brook in this side of Foyle Hill, within 300 yards of Bishop's Gate. He thought his royal presence would awe the garrison, surrounded by monks and Jesuits; he thought that he had nothing to do but hold up the beads and the ropes and that Derry's gates would fly open at their touch... after giving an astounding shout of "No surrender!", the beads were answered with a shower of 18-pounders". It goes on to say that one of the King's aides-de-camp was killed by a shot from Roaring Meg. These were big (for the time) seige guns and hitting any particular person with one would have been a very lucky shot indeed. 300 yards was well outside of accurate musket range (only 50 to 75 yards).
• Question 2: see Bloody Assizes, Judge Jeffreys and Jack Ketch, all of which are still bywords in England for merciless judicial barbarity. See also Alice Lisle (aged 68), who was convicted of harbouring fugitives from the Battle of Sedgemoor and was sentenced to be burned alive (although this was commuted to beheading). Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Question 3: See What if James had won the seige? for an opinion by Richard Doherty.
• Question 4: The boom was constructed by a clever French naval officer called Bernard Desjean, Baron de Pointis. France led the world in the art of military engineering in the reign of Louis XIV (you may have heard of Vauban) and I expect that they trusted their expert. To be fair, it did prevent Percy Kirke's squadron from entering Derry and left it hanging around in Lough Foyle for more than a month. The assault itself wasn't easy; the Mountjoy bounced off the boom and ran aground; she only avoided capture because she was refloated by the recoil of her guns. It may also have crossed the Jacobite's minds that if they won, there would have needed the city to start trading again fairly quickly - not really possible if you've blocked the river without any means of unblocking it afterwards. Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I finally found a Jacobite narrative of the Seige of Derry. In respect of your Question 4:"the said town could not be relieved with provisions but by a straight branch of the sea, which was not deep enough to bear a middling vessel at the ebb of the tide. By this we see the taking of the town depended on the stopping of a single ship from coming up the river, which was an easy task; for the work would be infallibly done by sinking across the channel a gabbard or two, which medium was proposed to general Hamilton in process of the siege, when three ships came into the river with corn for the king's army. But the general answered he would not have that done, because it would afterwards spoil the commerce of Londonderry, and thereby lessen the royal revenue. It is said that he had for his prohibition the king's authority." (pp. 65-66)

Further on, the author examines the failure of the seige: "...it is not so easy to understand how came this ship to pass scot-free by so many batteries, and yet in four or five weeks before, three vessels attempting the same fact were repulsed. The king's soldiers answer that the gunners of the batteries, or some of them, were this morning, the thirty-first of July, drunk with brandy, which caused them to shoot at random." The author goes on to speculate that the brandy might have been paid for by the English. He continues: "In the interim those gunners lost Ireland through their neglect of duty... However, some will excuse them, and say that their guns were so small and so few that they could not sink a ship in the passage. This makes me reflect on the best advice that was given in this business, which was that a bark or two should be sunk in the channel, and this infallibly would have done the feat and saved the kingdom, for no carelessness or treachery could there have place." (p. 84) So there you have it. Alansplodge (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(From the OP - different computer) Thanks so much for your well-researched answer. It is intriguing. King James (accompanied by his retinue of monks and Jesuits): "Open up these gates in the name of the Catholic version of Jesus!" I suspect that speech has some heavy propaganda-influence. Likewise the Jocabite idea of the Williamites secretly furnishing the gunners with brandy to sabotage them. Both could, of course, be true in theory. Thanks again. 203.45.95.236 (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Numbering systems in the West?

Before the adoption of the Arabic numerals, what was the numbering system most commonly used in the West?200.119.78.251 (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Roman numerals. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And the abacus was used to do calculations.
Sleigh (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Death penalty in Texas

How many innocents have been killed by the state of Texas? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Before someone steps in to criticise the question, let me reformulate it for the OP's benefit. How many people have been executed in Texas for crimes which it has subsequently been proven they did not commit? --Viennese Waltz 16:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We are not allowed to speculate, so our response will necessarily omit people who were innocent but whose innocence was never proven. Marco polo (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A core problem in answering your question is that virtually all parties have a much stronger interest in overturning capital sentences prior to execution than afterwards. However, our wrongful execution article references this Executed but Possibly Innocent page from the Death Penalty Info Center, which lists 6 contemporary Texas executions. Likely no meaningful data exists for the historical record. We also have an article on capital punishment in Texas, and estimates could probably be made by projecting the rate of overturned convictions in recent years onto the number of executions in prior years (note that you can't as readily project onto contemporary executions as [some] improper convictions are already stripped out of that data set). — Lomn 16:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

List of exonerated death row inmates lists zero people anywhere in the US who were executed since 1970 and then later exonerated. Staecker (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as people who we are 100% sure must be innocent of any crime, probably none. However, there are many for which we aren't 100% certain they were guilty of the crime for which they were executed (and many of these are a matter of degree, such as if they did commit the murder, but it wasn't premeditated). StuRat (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As the Death Penalty Info Center site Lomn refers to says: "Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead." So the non-exoneration of the executed in the USA is a matter of the logic of the law, not of the non-existence of innocent people executed.Cameron Todd Willingham was executed for murder in Texas, where the weight of subsequent expert opinion is that no murder was committed at all.John Z (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

More cautiously, one might characterize expert opinion as declining to find convincing evidence of arson. Subsequent investigators have said that the reasoning of the original investigator was, basically, nonsense. I have not, however, heard any of them say "if this had been arson, we would have seen such and such, and we didn't".

It is hard to imagine that Willingham could possibly be convicted in a trial informed by current expert opinion. That is not the same as to say he was innocent. Personally I can't come to a conclusion on that either way.

There is no individual case, at least in the post-Furman era, where a person was executed by Texas and it subsequently became entirely clear that that person had been innocent. But there are enough cases where it seemed dubious that it seems almost a statistical certainty that some of them have been innocent. --Trovatore (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire." quoted in our article is quite strong. Would a cautious expert make a stronger negative statement about any fire? Being able to say "if this had been arson, we would have seen such and such, and we didn't" is an impossibly hard standard to meet. John Z (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

While the arson may not have been as was presented in the trial, Willingham's bizarre behavior, like trying to save his car while his kids were burning to death, makes it hard for me to imagine him to be innocent. However, others with similar bizarre behaviors, like Casey Anthony, who felt the need to duct tape her daughter's mouth and dump her in the woods, didn't seem to be enough to convict them of murder. When the direct evidence of murder is weak, juries seem divided on convicting based on behavior alone. StuRat (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's extremely weak evidence. The fact he may have been a disgusting person who didn't give a damn about his kids and perhaps was happy to see them die (I'm not saying this is the case, simply that it's a possibility if we accept what StuRat said as true) doesn't come close proving he murdered them in itself. Many people are happy Adolf Hitler died and wouldn't have helped him when he was dying, who weren't even born when he was alive. (I'm not saying the Adolf Hitler is the same as his kids, simply pointing out an obvious case when plenty of people wouldn't help a person dying yet clearly weren't involved in his death.) If the standard in Texas for a murder case with the death penalty is really so weak then it seems likely a lot of innocent people have been executed. Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I imagine the thought in the mind of the jurors was "I'm not positive he's guilty, but, even if he isn't, he still deserves to die for being a 'disgusting person who didn't give a damn about his kids and perhaps was happy to see them die' ". StuRat (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I know we all speculate a lot here, in general, but can you try to not do so when it's so blatant? Shadowjams (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I would note that even if we accept the suggestion the jurors had resonable doubt but decided to ignore it because he 'deserves to die', this doesn't mean they would have decided to convinct without the arson evidence, a standard suggested earlier. In fact, while I'm sure some questionable cases could be found, the only other case presented by StuRat suggests perhaps juries don't infact generally convict people just because of dodgy behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jury nullification is when the jury agrees that the person is guilty, but declare them innocent anyway, perhaps because they consider the sentence to be too harsh for the crime. I wonder if there's a term for the reverse, when a jury agrees that the person is innocent, or at least doesn't agree that they are guilty, but still convicts, because they despise that person and think letting them go is too lenient. StuRat (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Chester Bowles Asian Fellowship

Was the Chester Bowles Asian Fellowship which Gloria Steinen ws awarded associated with Chester Bowles, Former US Ambassador to India? Is there a list of other recipients? -- 16:34, 5 March 2012‎ 96.56.168.74

Painting by Milon

Hello,

I have a very large framed oil painting with the artist's name in the bottom left side as MILON in large green letters. It is approximately 35 to 40 years old, maybe older. It is in colors of reds and greens and of a potted plant, a bottle,(looks to be champagne), and a bowl of green apples (?). I have tried different sources for information on this artist and can't find anything. The Milon I did come up with was into glassworks. Does anyone on this site have any information on this artist? It's actually a pretty painting hanging in my living room. Thank you in advance for any assistance. L. Griffin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.217.6.134 (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There is an artist Milon Mukherjee who signs his works as "Milon" - here, and some more information here, here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sir Henry Arthur Blake

Was he generally known by his first or second name? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In this NY Times article he is consistently referred to as Sir Henry Blake. Almost all other references agree, except this page from Stanford, which names him Sir (Henry} Arthur Blake. I believe this is an error, however. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ditto here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

His London Times obituary has the title A Distiguished Irishman - Death of Sir Henry Blake MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Use of UK libraries restricted to local residents?

Am I able to use a public library in another area of the UK from which I don't pay council tax to? eg: a Liverpudlian travelling up and using Newcastle library etc?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.244.252 (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Depends on local arrangements. You'll need a proof of address that you're from the qualifying area, whatever that is - generally a county, but with some exceptions (e.g. the "Libraries West" arrangement allows any resident of former-Avon, Wiltshire, & Somerset to use each others libraries). Obviously, this only covers getting a card, & borrowing things - if you're just talking about walking in and using the facilities, anyone can --Saalstin (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I was just wanting to visit, so that's that sorted. As a visitor, though, you're still allowed to photocopy books when there, correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.244.252 (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This is OR from personal experience, but (at least in popular holiday locations) one can get a 'holiday membership' to a library, often on payment of a nominal fee - say £5. It generally allows borrowing of fewer books over a shorter period than regular membership, but it's worth asking about. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

People like teachers can sometimes get membership in the municipality where they teach, even if it's not where they live. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I used an "away" Cornall library, was asked if I was a member of my local library, and on answering yes, was given free access to their internet facilities. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

City of Westminster library, which I use, allows anyone with proof of permanent address anywhere in the UK to join. If you are actually intending to use a non-local library, it is probably easiest just to call them or check on their webiste. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all for the replies! I emailed the library in question and can become a member if I bring with me proof of ID and address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.244.252 (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking for an ancient poem or song

In a documentary by Richard Miles he refers to (quote from memory, I'm certain there are many errors here) "a 4,000 years old poem... describing a good city: The stores are well provided/and the people bath to the holiday/ The old man are mighty in wisdom/ and the old women give good advice/ the young man are eager to fight/ and the young women eager to dance/ The children play with joy/ The people are happy." Any idea as to the source? If I remember the dating right, it must predate Home by more then a millennium. 109.64.24.206 (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's really that old then it pretty much has to be either Egyptian or Mesopotamian. The Epic of Gilgamesh seems like the highest probability. Looie496 (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In the introduction to Ancient Worlds, Miles says it's from the "Curse of Akkad."--Cam (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but here [19] seems to be the entire (?) text, and no such description of the city. 79.183.18.214 (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Better to look at The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature for example: Here's their translation. Compare the lines you remembered with: "She [i.e. Inana] endowed its old women with the gift of giving counsel, she endowed its old men with the gift of eloquence. She endowed its young women with the gift of entertaining, she endowed its young men with martial might, she endowed its little ones with joy. The nursemaids who cared for (some mss. have instead: of) the general's children played the aljarsur instruments. Inside the city tigi drums sounded; outside it, flutes and zamzam instruments. Its harbour where ships moored was full of joy. All foreign lands rested contentedly, and their people experienced happiness." ---Sluzzelin talk 09:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all VERY much! 79.183.18.214 (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

March 6

negotiation

is the article on negotiation a possible research topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinyho (talk • contribs) 08:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to clarify your question. Are you asking about improving the existing article on negotiation in Wikipedia? If so, the answer is definitely "yes". But if you're asking about whether you can base a research paper for some academic institution on the Wikipedia article, the answer will depend on the requirements of the course and institution; but is likely to be "no" because in general encyclopaedia articles are not appropriate bases for research other than by providing a list of reliable sources to examine. --ColinFine (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

However, the "References and further reading" section at the end of our article could get you started on primary sources for your paper. StuRat (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Help in identifying subjcts in photo

Creole girls, Plaquemines Parish, 1935

Would anyone happen to know the identity of these three girls in this photograph taken in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana in 1935? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If you take a look at the Library of Congress site, [20] from which the photo was uploaded, there are dozens of 35mm photos which might have been taken around the same time and place as the one of the three women (sisters?). None of the others seem to show the same three women, but might be photos of neighbors. One creole individual is identified in on of the photos, and the occupation (unemployed trappers) is given. They might or might not be related to the three girls, who seem more prosperous (better clothes, jewelry). There is also identified a white family of tenant farmers. Several homes appear to be up near a levee, similar to ones I have seen by the Mississippi near New Orleans. I did not see a wire fence like the one behind the girls in the other photos. I won't give the names here because some of the children might still be living and it wold seem an invasion of their privacy. Given the parish and a couple of family names, one could then turn to the 1930 US Census to see who lived in and near the plantation. The 1940 census will also become accessible to the public a few days from now, and is accessible through Ancestry.com and other genealogical sites (subscription required.) Edison (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OT, but an interesting style of guitar I haven't seen before. It's evidently manufactured rather than home-made, as one can dimly discern a label through the soundhole. Can anyone point me to information on such? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.254 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a Balalaika to me. At least, that's where I first go when I see a triangular-bodied guitar-like instrument. --Jayron32 20:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There are too many strings to be a balalaika. The fingerboard looks like a standard guitar fingerboard. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There are uncountable number of hybrid string instruments. Like the guitjo and the banjolele and banjolin and any number of other such hybrids. They were actually quite popular in the 1920s and 1930s (c.f. George Formby), so I would not be surprised that a commercially availible "balalaika-guitar hybrid" of some sort were availible at the time. --Jayron32 20:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the hybrid aspect, but I just don't think it has anything to do with a balalaika. If you look closely, the body depicted here isn't even a triangle. There are four sides, whereas balalaikas have three sides with the apex of the triangle meeting right at the neck. The only similarity this instrument has to a balalaika is that it is vaguely triangle-shaped when seen from a distance. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The guitar is a "Harmony Supertone Hill Country" guitar.--Cam (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well found! --Jayron32 04:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Cam. (And apologies for veering from the OP's query). Now I wants one, but not, sadly, at that price. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.188 (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In point of fact I was curious about the guitar as well. What is truly incredible to realise is that the girls would all be in their 90s if they are still alive.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

italian poetry, read, online

are there free audio readings online of italian (not latin) poetry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.82.6 (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

things fall apart

with reference to Achebe's 'THINGS FALL APART' discuss Achebe's response to the colonial notion that Africa has no historical interest of its own ,for we find it's inhabitants living barbarism and savages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.205.183.34 (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't do people's homework for them. Read our Chinua Achebe and Things Fall Apart articles. And read Things Fall Apart itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

PLUTONOMY MEMO

Was the Citigroup Plutonomy memo really produced by the corporation Citigroup?If so where can I get a copy of the plutonomy memo that I can cite for my research papér? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.20.215 (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No doubt about it. Right now, the link in our Citigroup article is working. No link to the second memo, "Revisiting Plutonomy" there though. Can be hard to get them because Citigroup tries to pull them off the web.John Z (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the second report. [21] I find it quite cute that Citigroup et al thinks they are capable of censoring the entire internet. Anonymous.translator (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

March 7

Young adult novel where boy hears dead mom in fan?

Does anyone know the name of a young adult novel about a boy whose mother has died telling a girl that he hears the voice of his dead mother when he talks into an electric fan. --Gary123 (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

different "Wake Up America" poster

I'm trying to find a different "Wake Up America" poster. No, I'm not referring to the WWI and WWII versions by James Montgomery Flagg. I'm referring to a poster which depicts a bird singing and buildings appearing to be waking up. Where can I find such a copy?24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The two Universities shall kiss at Stamford

...a prophecy (to which you may find allusion in the fourth book of "The Faerie Queene" that both Universities [i.e. Cambridge and Oxford] would meet in the end, and kiss, at Stamford. Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, "On The Art of Writing". [22]

Can someone who knows more about Spenser than I do resolve the reference? And does anyone know of any other record of this prophecy? Marnanel (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The most famous "prophecies" in 16th-century England were probably those of Mother Shipton... AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)