Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:31, 24 January 2013

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

January 19

Human worshiping

In the history of humanity, is there any known religion in which its followers worshiped a human instead of a god? 174.93.61.139 (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See "Veneration of the dead".—Wavelength (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Hero cult and cult of personality. The issue is that when something is religiously venerated, the object of veneration is usually categorised as divine in the relevant context. It's a definitional issue. So the Greek heroes of the hero cults may not have been Olympian gods, but they were certainly frequently thought to have a share in divine nature. Worship of LeBron James is fairly extravagant, for example, but it's not usually considered religious worship. But if the worship of him was so extravagant and intense—such that people were building temples to him and claiming that it was a moral imperative to worship him solemnly—then maybe it would be called religious, and the worshippers might fairly be seen as treating him as divine. In Ancient Rome, the Latin word religio referred to worship and otherwise pious behaviour toward gods and the divine, so it's not strange that still when using the word religion, there is an implied connection with the divine.

Note also that Trinitarian Christians worship a man, Jesus Christ, who is also a god. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never come across a Trinitarian calling Jesus "a god", though Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons do. Trinitarians would say that Jesus is a person within the Godhead, or a member of the triune God, or that he is God by nature (i.e. divine), but never a god/a God, as that would imply that He is a deity seperate from the Father and the Holy Spirit. They would however call Him 'a man'. Lindert (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debatable - the traditional formula, "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit" is a usage where Jesus is referred to as God. See also Jesus as God. Alansplodge (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the use of the indefinite article; maybe my use of "a god/God was confusing, I meant "a god/a God". - Lindert (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe θεός("God") of Trinitarian Christianity is a god. Just as Zeus is a god of Greek paganism, etc. So if Trinitarian Christians consider Jesus Christ to be θεός, then they also consider him to be a god. Since Trinitarian Christians don't recognize any other gods, it does not seem strange to me that they would rarely say that Jesus Christ is a god, as if he were just one of many, although sometimes they do that as well (e.g.: [1], [2], [3]). But on the topic of comparative religion, when trying to categorize the views of Trinitarian Christians toward their sole god amongst other views towards other gods, it seems worthy to treat their θεός as a god, so as not to prejudice the various positions. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't exactly my point. For trinitarians, 'Jesus' is not interchangeable with 'God'; They are not identical, because 'Jesus' comprises only part of what they consider 'God'. So they would say Jesus is God, the Father is God and the Holy spirit is God. These are three distinct persons, and yet one God. This is not analogous with Zeus and Poseidon, because the ancient Greeks would say Zeus is a god, and Poseidon is a god, so these are two gods. To use the indefinite article implies that 'god' is used as a countable noun, and that is not the way trinitarians use the word. So I wouldn't object to saying that the God of Christianity is a god, but rather that 'the God of Christianity' is not identical with 'Jesus'. - Lindert (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have to use the word the way Trinitarians use the word when doing comparative religion, nor are we necessarily best served by it, even when the comparisons involve Trinitarian Christianity (although I already showed that Trinitarian Christians do use indefinite articles with the word "god" in some cases as well). Why may we not be best served by it? Because although Trinitarian Christians only recognize one god, and so may have no countable use for the noun, people doing comparative religion deal with many gods, and so have do have a countable use for it. So we agree that θεός is a god, according to Trinitarian Christianity. And we agree that Jesus Christ is θεός, according to Trinitarian Christianity. But we disagree that Jesus Christ is thus a god, according to Trinitarian Christianity. We may agree that Clark Kent is Superman in DC comics. We may agree that Superman is a Kryptonian in DC comics. May we agree that Clark Kent is a Kryptonian in DC comics? It doesn't seem controversial to me, but I can't force anyone to agree.

Explicitly to your final point: I disagree. I believe Trinitarians do hold that the God of Christianity is identical with Jesus. That is one of the planks of the doctrine of the Trinity, as attested, for example, in the Athanasian Creed. Indeed, if Jesus Christ("the Son") was not treated as identical with God (and mutatis mutandis for the other persons), then all of the debates about the ontology of the Trinity would never have been doctrinal, because there would be no issue there, and the church would never have called the doctrine a mystery, as it would not be mysterious at all. If there is only one God, and the Son is not identical with God, the Father not identical with God, and the Holy Spirit not identical with God, and none of these three persons is identical with another, then there is no issue with infringement of the transitivity of identity. The issue only arose because the doctrine holds that the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit are identical with God, yet not identical with each other, which seems to infringe the transitivity property.

I wish to be clear that I don't believe the word "θεός" (or "God") in Trinitarian Christianity has the same meaning as "Godhead", and does not refer to the three persons of the Trinity. "θεός" is a scriptural word, imported into doctrine and used by Trinitarians to refer to the divine natures of these three persons. "Godhead" and "Trinity" are not scriptural words, but began with Church Fathers who wished to refer to the three persons jointly. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=theos+a+god&p=par.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese emperors have traditionally been worshiped as if they were gods. StuRat (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As were their Roman counterparts, and some of the Soviet dictators... 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the difference is that many Japanese actually believed their Emperor was a God, whereas few Romans, and just about no Russians, believed that of their Ceasar/Csar. StuRat (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Roman emperors (and indeed other prominent Romans) were - after their death - worshipped as gods (specifically divi), had temples built for them, and had organised cults that carried out sacrifices and other practices typical of Roman worship. See for example Antinous and Flamen Divi Iulii. Clearly the possibility of apotheosis was one that ordinary Romans accepted as part of their religious beliefs. It was not generally the practice, however, to worship a living Emperor. See Imperial cult (ancient Rome). Valiantis (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Evan Thomas, the commander in chief is "sort of God". μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese Emperor was IIUIC, believed to be a Kami which is more of a divine spirit than a god. The subject is an area of dispute. Monarchy and religion often go hand-in-hand - a 1953 survey found that a third of Britons believed that Elizabeth II had been appointed by God.[4] Alansplodge (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the Prince Philip movement...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly, the people of the island of Tanna worship Prince Philip. In fact, you may find the Cargo Cult article interesting. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just watch any episode of Entertainment Tonight and you'll get some idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's mentioned the Rastafari movement yet? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pharaoh was worshiped as a god. --Jayron32 16:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned Evan Thomas above. He's just now authored a Newsweek (no longer in print) front cover entitled The Second Coming. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone has mentioned the Church of Maradona, which in 2008 had 120,000 adherents in Argentina, apparently worshipping a stocky ex-footballer. --Dweller (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to find we don’t have an article on the Cult of Mao, but references are found in Chairman Mao badge and Cult of personality. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Buddhism KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin

Is there any truth to the story that Vladimir Lenin first became radicalized after witnessing a foreclosure on a neighbor's property? Or is it a legend invented by the later Soviet historians as part of his mythos, in order to promote his cult of personality? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... I assume seeing his brother executed by the tsarist regime for being a socialist would be a more plausible and propaganda-worthy event... 72.128.82.131 (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the other version I mentioned would fit in better with his description as a populist "champion of the poor". But I agree, the version you mentioned is much more likely, based on what we know now about him. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The brother's assassination is the usual reason given, but there were all sorts of socialist, anarchist, etc., assassins back then, like Czolgosz, Lucheni, and Princip, whose evil lives on today. Lenin was a piker compared to them. μηδείς (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PSU sex scandal

We don't identify crime victims, see WP:AVOIDVICTIM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please Revdelete this topic. Roger (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? For a first name, and not an unusual one? Anyway WP:VICTIM doesn't say that — it says victims not otherwise notable should not ordinarily be the subject of a separate article, not that they shouldn't be identified. --Trovatore (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policies are WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPNAME. This is just a matter of common decency, regardless of WP policy. μηδείς (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By request on IRC, I've suppressed the revisions with a name. For future reference, please send requests for revdeletion or suppression to oversight-en-wp

wikimedia.org for faster and less public processing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolescence of the Military drummer boy?

Please see and answer Talk:Drummer boy (military) and expand the Drummer boy (military) article. Thanks. --70.179.161.230 (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, that article needs a lot of work! Alansplodge (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signing of the constitional amendments (United States)

Hello; this image shows the second page of the 25th amendment to the US constitution. It shows the signature of the Speaker of the House and the Vice President. Why isn't it signed by the President (in this case Lyndon B. Johnson). This video indeed proves at around minute 12 that President Johnson has signed it into law. But why is there no presidential signature? It is simiular to other constitiunal amendments before, that don't show a presidential signature, altough it is known the the President has signed them. The only amendment with a presiential signature I've seen is the 13th with President Lincoln have signed it. --78.51.193.66 (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure for US constitutional amendments, as I understand it, is that both houses of Congress have to pass it by a 2/3 majority, and then 3/4 of the several states have to ratify it. The president has no formal involvement whatsoever (in particular, it can't be vetoed). If Lincoln signed the 13th, maybe he asked to do so as a special favor because it was so important to him? But I'm just speculating. --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the Vice President, he signs it because he is the President of the U.S. Senate, equivalent to Speaker of the House in some ways. --Jayron32 00:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image you linked to bears the signatures of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, who have signed it because it was passed by each of those bodies. It just so happens that the President of the Senate is the Vice President of the United States, but it's in the former capacity that he's signed. Johnson signed the Archivist of the United State's certification that the Amendment had been ratified by the states, as a witness at a strictly ceremonial occasion. He signed a certification, not an amendment, and he certainly didn't sign it into law; it became law following the certification that it had been passed by the requisite number of states. See http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/ . (via edit conflict) - Nunh-huh 00:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to recheck what exactly Lincoln signed, because he died before the 13th amendment was ratified. According to http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/13thamendment.html, Lincoln signed a Joint Resolution submitting the proposed 13th Amendment to the states on 1 February 1865. Lincoln was assassinated on 14 April 1865. It was not until 18 December 1865 that William Seward, the Secretary of State issued a statement verifying the ratification of the 13th Amendment. - Nunh-huh 00:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

e. battiglia/titled pieces

Does anyone know about this 17th-18th century italian sculptor? I'm looking for a specific marble carving. I need the name and a photograph of the original piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.199.141 (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This says Eugenio Battiglia was a Tuscan working in Florence in the late 19th century, and there are various other hits for Eugenio Battiglia, but none of the ones I've seen shed any more light on him than that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 20

Searching for origin of quote about armies going to war over pieces of land not big enough to bury the dead

I could swear that I remember some quote about WWI (or WWWII) that armies or nations would go to war over pieces of land not big enough to bury the dead in. Does anyone know the exact quote or who said it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who exactly said it (other than the fact that it was a Russian general), but the exact quote was: "We have taken just enough Finnish territory to bury our dead". BTW, that was about the Winter War. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine the exact quote was in Russian, so translations will likely vary quite a bit. For what it's worth, Colin Powell made a similar statement regarding America's role in the War on Terror, but I doubt that's what you were referring to. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TOTALLY FALSE -- what he said was "the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead", which has a COMPLETELY different meaning from the above! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, there's no need to shout. I meant that the "land enough to bury" comparison was similar, not that the context and meaning of the two were identical. One could easily misremember the statement, so I figured I would throw it out there to see if the OP may have done just that. For the record, the exact quote was "Far from being the Great Satan, I would say that we are the Great Protector. ... the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are." /digression Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded of Hamlet, Act IV, Scene IV:

...[W]hile to my shame I see

The imminent death of twenty thousand men

That for a fantasy and trick of fame

Go to their graves like beds, fight for a plot

Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause,

Which is not tomb enough and continent

To hide the slain...

Helene O'Troy - Et In Arcadia Ego Sum (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of Fiat?

Is [5]? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was rather tricky to track down, but I think I've got it. I believe this is a Fiat Tipo 2, or possibly an early Fiat Tipo 2B. Compare your image with this, of a 1911 Tipo 2. Unfortunately, I can't really be completely certain, since there are some inconsistencies between the car in you picture and the picture of a Tipo 2. However, this is somewhat expected, since it was much easier in those days for owners to drop a new body onto the chassis, resulting in a much wider range of body styles than today.

Assuming that it is a Tipo 2, the car is almost certainly immediately pre-war. The 2 was only made during 1910 and '11, with the 2B taking over in 1912. We have a brief article on the 2B, but there is a longer article on the Italian Wikipedia, covering both the 2 and 2B. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the 1912 Fiat Zero was a possibility maybe too ---- _nonsense ferret 22:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so did I. To be honest, this really could be any Fiat built between 1910 and 1925. What tipped me towards the Tipo 2 was the shape of the bodywork to the rear of the driver, although I now notice that the shape of the front mudguards/wheel arches is different between the picture I found and Kitty's. Also there is a windscreen fitted, with a tilting mechanism, which there isn't on the Tipo 2 in our picture, although there is a a windscreen (albeit with no visible mechanism) in our Fiat Zero article.

Like I said, I believe that car bodywork of the period was liable to vary almost from owner to owner, and having a custom-coach built car much more common then than now. Nonetheless, I wonder if it really is a Fiat, since I've found it impossible to find any pictures that match Kitty's. To be honest I think I lack expertise in this area - maybe you could find someone more knowledgeable in ~~veteran~~ vintage Fiats through the Veteran Car Club of Great Britain. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economic value of a phd

I was talking to someone not long back, and he told me that a PhD was worth less in the market than a basic degree. I told him I wasn't surprised, because you do something rather esoteric, and it can be a delaying tactic as much as anything. Then my supervisor told me there was a strong correlation between your educational level and your income, even with higher degrees and PhDs. The "anti" guy was in oil and gas engineering, and had apparently got most of his skills on the job, so both sides could probably be said to be arguing for their own position in the market. Does anyone know anything up to date and reasonably reliable on this one? I'm sure it would make a difference whether one is talking about vocational areas or pure ones (I'm in IT, so my first interest is on the vocational side, but I'm curious about all areas separately, and then also about all of them taken jointly). Thanks in advance, IBE (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The figures you're looking for are known as the "rate of return" or "return on investment". It will depend a lot on what country you study in and what country you are seeking employment in, your gender, your age, and whether you will be looking for academic or private sector work after graduating. I found http://www.oecd.org/social/labourmarketshumancapitalandinequality/37578152.pdf this paper for Canada, very old figures. So old they don't even seem to have IT courses as a category. This report for Britain http://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/career-choices-and-impact-on-graduates-report_tcm8-6388.pdf, if you scroll down to Table 14, bundles Computing with Maths and shows a non-significant rate of return for men, a fairly high rate for women. All the studies stress how difficult the rates are to calculate and how many things they depend on. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently saw a study about entry level incomes for PhDs vs. Master employees at a large German chemical manufacturer. PhDs made about EUR 500 more per month, or something between 5 and 10%. If it pays for the 3-5 years typically spend on a PhD is doubtful, especially since your cost is before tax, but net income is after tax (which, depending on family income, would be somewhere around 40% on that extra EUR 500 in Germany). But then you shouldn't get a PhD for the money, but because you like science and want to learn more. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me it's more about being in my 40s and having a mid-life crisis ;) IBE (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As good a reason as any. It'll drive you into science... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw figures not long ago (I can't recall where) which basically said that in the U.S., on average, a bachelor's degree gives you a significant lifetime earnings increase over no college degree; a master's degree gives you a significant increase over a bachelor's; and a Ph.D. gives you almost no increase at all over a master's. This is not to say that Ph.D. jobs often do not pay more than master's degree jobs, but the opportunity costs for a Ph.D. are much higher than a master's in the US. (In the UK I don't think it is quite the same as they have much shorter Ph.D. periods than the U.S.) But it varies greatly by field; a humanities Ph.D. (English being the lowest of these in terms of economic value) qualifies you to teach in a university but almost nothing else (and in fact may make it very hard to get any job other than a university position), and most university jobs are not very high-paying. An engineering or math Ph.D. often does come with quite a salary increase, if I recall, in the private sector (and, for that reason, in universities that are trying to be competitive). Between those two poles there was a lot of variation. These are unsourced assertions of mine at the moment, memories of articles once read, but such numbers have been floating around for awhile in places like the Chronicle for Higher Education. (It should probably be noted that many higher degrees in the humanities do not require you to pay tuition, in part because there is so little expectation of paying them off later. There are still other real and opportunity costs, of course.) --Mr.98 (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly proverbial that a PhD in postmodern literature, or the economics of 14th century agriculture, will make you almost unemployable. But don't people in practice just leave this off their CVs when applying at eg. McDonalds? Or is it just too hard to explain the lost time to a potential employer (as in "Well, Mr. Foucault, what exactly were you doing for the years xxxx to xxxx? Cleaning offices 2 nights a week doesn't sound like much..")? IBE (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely anecdotally, I have heard people with said degrees (usually in the last year or so of grad school, trying desperately to get a job) wonder and gripe about this. The problem is that for people who have gone that career route, they rarely have any work experience worth putting on a C.V. by the time they get to that stage. "Yeah, I worked at a book store when I was an undergraduate. And then I fell off the face of the Earth for 8 or 9 years and have nothing to show for it." It is not just postmodern literature or 14th century agriculture; almost no humanities degrees these days are tailored to practical problems and almost all sound completely esoteric to people who are unfamiliar with the subject matter. The very presence of a fancy-sounding Ph.D. makes most of the employers think you are overqualified for any entry-level job, while being completely under-qualified for anything higher than that. Plus all of the (sometimes justified) prejudices about how people with Ph.D.s regard themselves, regard others, and so forth. There isn't any good answer to the question that I've seen, except encouraging people to just get master's degrees if they can imagine themselves do anything other than trying to teach at a third-rate college in the middle of nowhere. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not legal advice, but I wouldn't assume that it is legal to leave qualifications off your CV. It could be seen as misrepresentation. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be quite right, but there is a difference between what may be nominally illegal and what is worth an employer's time. In Australia, you frequently see the warning that giving false information on a CV is grounds for dismissal - that doesn't mean you must disclose everything, and there is no practical risk of ending up in court. They might ask you about further qualifications in the interview, and then you may be caught - there may be no paper trail showing that you lied, but still you did misrepresent yourself. Somewhat tricky, because you are being asked to cheat yourself out of a job, thus joining the dole queue, and making the prospective employer pay for you anyway. In practice, you will only get fired for it, at worst. IBE (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judith, it may be different where you are, but I would say that in general there is no offence in understating one's accomplishments and qualifications. In my last job I was always advising clients to tailor their CVs and applications for the job they were going for, and that ipso facto means that the CV you present on one occasion is in some way different from the one you present on another occasion, and that usually means you're leaving something off on one of those occasions, whether it be qualifications or experience or whatever. That's simply keeping it relevant, and thus enhancing your chances of staying in the race. It's only when one overstates the situation that one can get into trouble. One would do this by claiming qualifications or experience that one simply does not have. I'm sure it goes on, but I never advised my clients to do that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it depends on the jurisdiction and there are different cultures too. I agree that it's normal tailor CVs and bring out one aspect more than another. Leaving whole major qualifications off may not necessarily be OK. Certainly if an employer says that you must disclose everything then you must. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's as clear cut as "major qualifications", you may have a point. But even in that case, while the company may have cause to sack you or not hire you in the first place, if they discover you have failed to disclose your PhD in Advanced Ancient Bureaucratic Paper-Shuffling, under no circumstances could it ever become a police matter. There's no law against showing humility and not boasting. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...I'm sure it goes on..." I hear it happens rather a lot. I met someone who (afaicr) said she spoke French to work as a nurse in a French-speaking hospital. She picked it up pretty soon on the job. I am always amused by the similarity between applying for a job, promoting a product in a sales job, and promoting oneself to potential romantic partners. "Oh yes, I'm under 30, wealthy, with only useful qualifications, I would make a great parent, .. and, did I mention I have a good sense of humour?" IBE (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of my grad school professors joked that the academic job hunt was just like dating. That sounds pretty terrifying to me. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the press a lot, and sources abound, so I am confused no one has linked the available estimates.

There's a lot of interest in it, and a lot of press articles, but there's a shortage of reliable research that breaks the return down into different academic subjects or occupational sectors. The main reason for this is that a proper research study involves contacting people several years after they have graduated and them being willing to disclose their salaries. This is an expensive methodology. You need to start off with a large base in order to cope with the fact that some people will be hard to contact or will decline to take part. If the results are to be meaningful when broken down by sector and by gender, you need an even larger base. And not many people do PhDs. There is likely to be a selection bias, in that the PhD graduates who have had successful careers and earn good salaries are easier to contact and more likely to want to take part than those who never used their PhD and are struggling in routine occupations. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly economists make a lot more with a PhD than with a master's. The article computer scientist links to this site , which says that in 2010 the median pay for Computer and Information Research Scientists (PhD required) was $$100,660. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crime and otakus in Japan

Hi, I am from Japan and there have been a series of crimes involving otaku young adults that has created a social phobia against us. Not so long ago a 20-year old fan of an anime series killed his parents and a neighbor with a knife and killed himself and the media criticized the series. There have also been notorious serial killers involving otakus and such. My question is, is there any possible relation between otaku and murder? Kotjap (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us any links to what you are talking about? μηδείς (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yukio Yamaji, Tsutomu Miyazaki, Hiroaki Hidaka, Hiroyuki Tsuchida. All of them otakus. Kotjap (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant article is otaku. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any firm evidence to suggest that the phenomena described by Japanese terms like otaku and hikikomori are actually more common or significant in Japan than elsewhere? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say all Otaku are Hikikomori. I worked in Japan as a counsellor for adults and children, and many were 'futoukou' (kids who would refuse to go to school, for whatever reason that we had to find out). It happens also here in England. I doubt there is much of a difference in the statistics, except in England the kids have to go to school, otherwise the parents will be put in prison, so they are forced to. I have a couple of friends here in England who were beaten up late at night, and they will not leave the house. It happens everywhere, though I have no firm evidence for this. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got blisters on my fingers

There was a question on the Miscellaneous Desk about the difference between steel and nylon guitar strings, which brought to mind the line "I've got blisters on my fingers." Googling it for the meaning, I found our article Helter Skelter (song), which explained many things, including that a helter skelter is a type of amusement ride in Britain--which I had never heard of.

Even more surprising was to learn that this was a Paul McCartney song.

I had always assumed it was by Lennon, whom I always assumed was the most brilliant Beatle. But I have come more and more to believe the pretty one was the best of the bunch, and listening to this extended version of Helter Skelter has been a revelation. I have three questions. (1) Is there a definitive published version of such recordings as the one I just linked to, and, if not, is there any known bootleg title? (2) Is there a highly regarded biography of the Beatles as a group? And, (3) Is there any notable critical commentary comparing McCartney versus Lennon (as well, perhaps, as Harrison and Starr)? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A more or less definitive publication on all the recordings is The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions by Mark Lewisohn. It does list some alternate versions (the sorts of things that appeared on the Anthologies, although it was published before that), but it's mostly about the official recorded versions. There are tons of bootlegs though...I'm sure things have been written about them, but I don't know what. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All [all? I meant I've] always been surprised that it was Ringo who shouted the blisters line, not any of the guitar players. The Beatles are full of surprises. Mingmingla (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Ringo was beating the shit out of his drums, and the song took so many takes to get right that, on the last take, he shouted the famous line as he really did hit the drums so hard and so much that he got blisters on his fingers. --Jayron32 23:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution in the Head: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties by Ian MacDonald provides a critical commentary on each individual song. It's a long time since I read it, but it would certainly go some way to covering your point 3 and is a worthwhile read for anyone with reasonable familiarity with the Beatles' output. Hunter Davies wrote the authorised biography and that is detailed and, as I recall, not too sanitised or corporate despite being authorised, though I read it 25 years ago and I'm not familiar with more recent editions. I also read Philip Norman's Shout! - again many years ago - which was also, I understand, generally well-received, though skimming through reviews on Amazon now I notice that several readers allude to it ascribing to the "John was better than Paul" theory, so it may not be the ideal one for you. We have a Category:Books about the Beatles, but no articles on either of the biographies I mention (which seems like an omission). Valiantis (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's about 30 years old now, but it's not like there's been a whole lot of band history since then, I always liked The Compleat Beatles as a documentary film about The Beatles. It covers their life as a band through the Cavern and Hamburg years until they broke up in 1970. --Jayron32 13:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious - if the term "helter skelter" is unknown in the US, why did Don McLean include it in American Pie (song)? Was he just looking for a rhyme for "summer swelter"? Alansplodge (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term isn't unknown in the US; it's just not used to refer to an amusement park ride. Instead it has the colloquial meaning of "haphazard or disorganized; in disarray". Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the connection to Charles Manson and his evil doings. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. It seems that meaning is much earlier than the slide[6]. Thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I finally understand the line when I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide. I'm pretty sure "all this way and that" is the original meaning of helter-skelter; the meaning in the sense of a slide seems to be a later innovation. --Trovatore (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Etymology Online (linked above) gives first use as an adverb in the 1590s and as a adjective "from 1785". The slide has a late 19th century look about it. Alansplodge (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! "Originating in America with the famous Coney Island park, the term helter-skelter is first recorded in the UK in 1906 at Blackpool Pleasure Beach."[7] Alansplodge (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite book of the Beatles is The Beatles Anthology, which is essentially a collection of their words from various interviews stitched together. A very similar book was done for Monty Python and it, too, is the best of its kind I've read.

The version of Helter Skelter you linked to appears to be a slightly truncated version of the track recorded on 18-7-1968 and often referred to as simply "Take 2" or "Helter Skelter Take 2" or some variation thereof with the date. The longest version I have is 11:55 long, while the YouTube video is only 10:10 and when it was eventually released on the Anthology 3 disc it had been cut down to a mere 4:37.

As with Led Zeppelin, the cataloging of Beatles bootlegs is an enormous undertaking; our article just scratches the surface - this should give you an idea of the volume. Now, if you're interested in the particular track you linked to, the bootleg disc called Most Wanted Tracks Raccoon Records is at least one possibility; I downloaded a FLAC version a few years ago off of usenet, though I imagine it's to be found elsewhere. Besides a couple of versions of Helter Skelter (but not, alas, the long fabled 27 minute version), it also has alternate versions of Penny Lane, I am the Walrus, and a few others. Matt Deres (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for comparison McCartney and Lennon, I'm not aware of anything published on those lines, but my own opinion is that each was better for having the other to compete with. Neither of them has written nearly as many great songs solo (or with Wings of the Plastic Ono Band) as they did while they were in the Beatles. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage of disabled people in the UK accessing the countryside annually

Hi I'm doing a masters in Horticulture and am working on a module regarding access for the disabled to the UK countryside.My question is How many disabled people in the UK access the countryside annually ,so far I have tried all the disabled web sites I can manage to find re countryside access, HM Gov, and the office for statistics and have come to a dead end .Does anyone have this figure as I find it incredible that to enhance access for this portion of our society we first need to know how many do actually access it in the first place. There are stats for the number of disabled in the UK How many have mobility issues ,How many are registered blind,deaf but not 1 figure for accessing the countryside

Please help

Many Thanks

P Bailey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.20.245 (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify/define what "access the countryside" means. Without a precise definition it is impossible to even try answering your question. Roger (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you expect this information to be gathered. I seriously hope that our society isn't that closely monitored by the powers-that-be. Alansplodge (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Equality Act 2010 - which reconciles various earlier anti-discrimination legislation - public authorities have a an "equality duty" and "must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to — (a)eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; (b)advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; (c)foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it." [8] Disability is one of the "protected characteristics". What this means in practice is that public authorities (government departments, local councils, National Parks Authorities etc.) [9] must take steps towards making their services available to people with disabilities on equal footing with the able-bodied. As significant areas of "the countryside" fall under the control of public authorities, or if the land itself does not, then facilities such as visitor centres, car parks at beauty spots etc. do, then this means many public authorities have some legal requirement to be able to show they are meeting their responsibilities under the act. It's therefore likely that they will keep statistics re: users or visitors, what proportion have disabilities, and what proportion were able to access the facilities. I wouldn't imagine this would be on a census basis (i.e. every visitor to a site is asked "Do you have a disability?", "Did you find the facilities adapted to your disability?"), but may well be on a survey basis (e.g. once a month all visitors are asked "Do you have 5 minutes to answer a survey?"). So there are probably some stats out there. However, each public authority will keep its own stats for its own purposes, the stats won't necessarily be comparable as they won't be centrally defined, and they may not be actively made available to the general public (although they would generally be accessible by means of a Freedom of Information request). Unless there's an academic who has already compiled statistics from multiple sources (and your tutor should be able to assist you with this), gathering this information strikes me as likely to be a significant piece of research in itself. Valiantis (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an addendum to my previous post - as I was curious if anybody did know the answer to the OP's question - I did a little googling. Increasing access to the countryside by people in minority groups was one of the aims set out in the government's 2000 White Paper "Our Countryside: the future" [10]. "By 2005, we will carry out a full diversity review of how we can encourage more people with disabilities, more people from the ethnic minorities, more people from the inner cities, and more young people to visit the countryside and participate in country activities." Reading between the lines, they didn't actually know whether such people were visiting the countryside in large numbers or not, but thought they probably weren't (and this is how government policy gets made...). The Diversity Review that was carried out by Natural England [11] concludes there is "strong anecdotal evidence of under-participation" by minority groups including people with disabilities and that there is "a significant lack of good baseline information regarding the level and nature of participation in countryside activities by under-represented groups". I conclude there are no centrally-held hard facts, which is a lacuna that is of interest in itself. Valiantis (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are special interest groups you could ask: Accessible Countryside for Everyone for example. (Of course you could be working for them already in which case I apologise.) I have a Twitter contact who may be able to help with your research, if you'd like to contact me on my talk page. A web search on "disabled access to countryside" brought up many useful links: it seems that support (and probably therefore statistics) for disabled people to access countryside is organised at a county level, and you may need to contact relevant counties. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - this looks like a topic that would be of great interest to WP:WikiProject Disability. I don't think we have any relevant articles yet. Roger (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a research base on this, will see what I can find. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This presentation http://geography.lancs.ac.uk/envjustice/eiseminars/downloads/Edin_Stearn.ppt but I am looking for something with a literature review. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02614360903071704 is qualitative but should be of interest. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of Montreal questions

What are the investment products and mortgage products of Bank of Montreal? Thanks. --Donmust90 (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

I'd start here at the BMO website: [12] Bielle (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

Hereditary Democracy article?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2013/01/20131201843418977.html

What is the actual name of the Hereditary Democracy article? Hcobb (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about that in the link that you provided. What makes you think there is an article? RudolfRed (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that most Google links refer to the fact that several members of the same family have been prime minister of India it would seem to me to be a made up term to cover that. The closest I could find to something like that is Constitutional monarchy#Executive monarchy versus Ceremonial monarchy. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A "hereditary democracy" sounds like a modification of the elective monarchy idea: access to the executive position is restricted to members of a certain family. It could also mean that the executive is nominally a democracy, but that members of the same family are repeatedly elected to it. --Jayron32 13:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similar articles we have are Political family and Family dictatorship. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources about Tokugawa Ieyasu's palmistry?

Still troubling with the unreferenced claim that he had a single transverse palmar crease.--Inspector (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remove it, then. It's hardly an important fact to begin with. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, plus I suggest placing it in the Talk:Tokugawa Ieyasu page for visibility. There it might attract the attention of an editor willing and able to follow through. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this picture a valid source?--Inspector (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

West and Johnston publishers

West and Johnston, Richmond, Virginia, were the publishers of the Confederate version of Les Miserables. What is the history of the company? RNealK (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some information in this Google Books preview; Virginia at War, 1864 edited by William Davis and in The Imagined Civil War: Popular Literature of the North & South, 1861-1865 By Alice Fahs. Alansplodge (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful. RNealK (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

Orient vs Occident

Why Human Development Index is higher in the Occident compared to Orient? Why human right is always more respected in the West than in the East? Why civil rights, liberty, justice are more respected in Western Europe and North America compared to eastern democracies? For example a look at Capital punishment in the world shows most countries that continue death penalty are African and Asian.Torture is prevalent in the East, not in the West. I want to know is there any sociological/anthropological explanation behind this? For example, take a look at Western Europe and Russia, both are technologically advanced regions, but when it comes to cultural and social issues like human rights, HDI, liberty, justice, civil rights etc., Europe beats every region on Earth. Why? Great Divergence is a historical phenomenon, but does it till exert influence in today's world? Does Great Divergence have anything to do with the concepts of human rights, liberty and justice? --PlanetEditor (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I question your basic assumptions. Regardless, compare that map with a map showing relative prosperity, and you might see a trend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am I hallucinating, or does this question fit a pattern? μηδείς (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification that I am offended by your assumption as I have no relation with that or any other user. --PlanetEditor (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"For example a look at Capital punishment in the world shows most countries that continue death penalty are African and Asian...". Obvious exception is obvious... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The United States", as such, hardly ever applies the death penalty. Some individual states still do. But the condemned are guaranteed a long appeal process, which is likely to be absent in those other countries. And in reality, capital punishment is not all that common in America. Maybe that's why the USA gets a solid blue in that chart. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is blue on the map; the USA is red. And it looks like the USA is in the world top 10 for gross numbers executed, and in the top 20 for executions per capita. Moreover, the USA sentences people to death more than twice as fast as it executes them, leading to large numbers of convicts living out the entirety of their lives under sentence of death, but dying of other causes. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what map you're looking at, but this one has USA as solid blue, like Canada. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The death penalty is irrelevant when it comes to the UN HDI [13], except as it affects live expectancy and other factors (and in reality it may have an advantage since those executed are I expect more likely to be illiterate). We are talking about the death penalty here and so AT was referring to the File:Death Penalty World Map.svg where the US is red, as to be expected because they do retain the death penalty. Note that HDI was only one factor mention by the OP. Nil Einne (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting factoid, as our Roper v. Simmons notes, the US is in the company of Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and China as having executed juvenile offenders since 1990 and the only one of those who had not decided or planned to end the practice until 2005. The last juvenile offender executed in the US was in 2003 List of juvenile offenders executed in the United States. As our Use of capital punishment by country notes, Saudi Arabia and Iran have done so since 2009 despite earlier promises and it seems for a variety of reasons most other countries in the earlier list managed to execute people after 2003 [14], but it's still a small list. Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It bears repeating, however, what Bugs has said, because it calls into light the fact that the United States is distinct, as an entity, from the various states of the United States. Capital punishment by the United States federal government covers the usage by the United States federal government, while Capital punishment in the United States also covers state use of capital punishment. Again, there is a distinction between things done by the Federal Government and things done by the various states, and the difference cannot be ignored in a discussion of this nature. --Jayron32 17:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But is that a useful distinction, Jayron, when we're comparing events that occur in one country with events that occur in other countries? The agency behind the decision to execute is not relevant in the big picture; what's relevant is that they're all people being executed in America by a justice system that is undeniably American. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's a useful distinction. If you're going to go on a shooting rampage, it matters whether you do it in Illinois or in Texas. There's a huge difference in legal systems and in culture between places in the U.S., and it isn't really helpful to consider the U.S. as a monolithic entity when studying this topic. --Jayron32 20:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really disagree. A sovereign nation is a sovereign nation. If the USA decided again that the death penalty was unconstitutional, executions would cease in Texas. We don't make this kind of special pleading for the German Bundesländer or the Swiss cantons, and not much for the home nations of the UK. If someone asks 'Which western nation executed the greatest proportion of its own citizens last year?', the answer is the USA. The fact that the USA lets local governments decide whether or not to gas, fry, or shoot their criminals is of absolutely no interest to the international situation. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The abolition of the death penalty would probably require a constitutional amendment, and there's not even a hint of discussion along those lines. So what the USA continues to "decide" is that this is a states-rights matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't as simple as the federal government allows the states to decide. Rather, the Federal Government is broadly prevented from deciding. The U.S. government is restricted to acting within its enumerated powers. I know that people from outside of the U.S. have a hard time wrapping their heads around this, but the U.S. has a genuinely divided sovereignty, and the Feds cannot legally act in superceding state laws in many cases. It isn't a case of having the power and choosing not to use it, they actually don't have that power. --Jayron32 03:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The American people, collectively, have arrived at a consensus that each state can decide whether or not to have the death penalty. Unless that consensus changes and an amendment is passed, opponents will have to try to craft constitutional arguments against it. So far they have failed to convince the courts, aside from the early-70s moratorium... and as I recall, that was based on discriminatory application of it, not that it was inherently unconstitutional otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did the OP ask about the internal politics and governance of the USA? Let's bring it back to the OP's question. Please list the US states that are part of the West, and those that are part of the East. And you know what I mean by those terms. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page and section lists the official regions of the U.S. as defined by various agencies. There is no official region known as "The East", but it would include the states that are part of the New England, Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic regions. There is a region listed there as "The West", but it's probably too inclusive; as most people don't think of the Rocky Mountain states as "The West", that terminology is usually confined to the Pacific States, sometimes including Nevada and Idaho. If you had to force me to define the terms "east and west", I would define them as such:

East: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, MarylandVirginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida.

West: Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, maybe Idaho or Nevada.

Regions known as the Rocky Mountain States, Great Plains, Midwest and Deep South are rarely included in either the east or the west. --Jayron32 04:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite an elaborate joke. Let me just get my crowbar here and try to prise it off the floor. I was talking in a global, international sense, naturally. Here's a hint: All of the USA is in the West. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't intended it as a joke. --Jayron32 05:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AT and JoO here, it's not us that are missing the point. Most of us understand the nature of the US political system. That doesn't change the fact people are executed by the government in the US. And it could be, but hasn't stopped either by the states themselves or by a constitutional amendment, just as basically every country whatever their political system can put an end to the official death penalty.

To use a related example, no one says compulsory sex segregation is okay in Malaysia or doesn't reflect poorly on Malaysia because it's just some states [15] nor that silly guidelines on Chinese new year celebrations are okay because it's only one or some states [16]. Similarly in cases like Pakistan and Nigeria.

Note that the ability of various levels of government to stop such practices is mostly besides the point, the key point is it is happening. (People may occasionally make a distinction between government actions and actions by outside parties which are allowed but aren't done by the government and actions by outside parties which technically aren't allowed but the government turns a blind eye to and actions by outside parties which aren't allowed and the government is trying to stop. But that's a different distinction.)

To use an extreme example, if the US civil war had never happened, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has never passed and the US had continue to official allow slavery well in to the 20th century if not continuing today no one would be saying the US didn't continue to allow slavery or it didn't reflect poorly on the US because only certain states did it.

It's the same here, if you believe the death penalty reflects poorly on those who practice it, for the purposes of this question it's sufficient to say it is practiced in the US. If you want to look in more depth at the practice in the US vis-a-vis other countries, looking at intricacies like the execution of juvenile offenders, what sort of crimes it is handed out for, the number of people actually executed (probably per capita), the fairness of the justice system etc may all come in to play. (The US comes ahead in a number, but clearly not all of these compared to other countries where the death penalty is still practiced.) The fact that it's only certain US states is a minor detail rarely important in a world analysis. (If one US state regularly executed people including juveniles for minor theft in a court system widely seen as flawed, the fact it was only happening in one US state wouldn't make it a lot better.)

JoO does have a point that in terms of the question, if some of the states would be considered part of the West and some states would be considered part of the rest of the world then the distinction between states would be relevant to the question. But I think we all agree it's not the case.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Americans are not executed by "the government", they are executed by individual state governments. The federal government has no jurisdiction. The only way to stop state-level executions is by amending the US Constitution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's still staggeringly irrelevant to the question at hand. The USA is a sovereign nation within which criminals may be executed. The UK is not. The fact that both nations have complex internal structures, including in both cases sub-national entities with entirely divergent legal systems, has nothing to do with the OP's question. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a serious answer, then I would consider the origin of the modern concepts of human rights, liberty and justice, as opposed to other qualities, such as honour, respect and virtue. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And where do you think the concept of (for example) 'virtue' originated? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A look at this map shows an interesting fact that the only regions with high HDI are West Europe, North America, Japan, South Korea and Oceania (known as the developed countries). Why? That is my question. There are countries with high GDPs like China, Russia, India, but why can't they have high HDI as opposed to GDP? Why the standard of living in the world's tenth largest economy is much lower than the standard of living of a smaller economy? Why per capita income is higher in the West? I have seen a high HDI is correlated with socio-cultural progressiveness. Is there any explanation from the perspective of cultural anthropology or economics? --PlanetEditor (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think South Korea and Japan are not 'the orient'? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah they belong to the orient. Probably "Developed vs developing" would have been a better section heading. --PlanetEditor (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then half of your question collapses; the HDI is higher in the developed world because that's what the HDI measures. Gross size of economy is no guide to individual prosperity; if you look at GDP per capita, you'll see a much closer correlation to HDI. As to respect for human rights, while I agree that there is a correlation, I'd suggest that the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights are a huge positive distorting factor here. Local factors also make a big difference. Someone in Bhutan might be worse off on paper than someone in even quite a poor part of the USA, but experience much greater protection for human rights. Poland may not be the world's finest democracy, but it's still awesome compared to neighbouring Belarus. And some things that people think of as less developed may not be: most of the world's most developed countries are monarchies, for example. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I couldn't explain myself properly. You said gross size of economy is unrelated to individual prosperity. True. But economic development is a prerequisite for human development. For economic development, a country needs advanced technology, human resource, and political stability. Both India and the UK have advanced technology, human resource, and political stability. They why HDI in UK is higher than in India? Both China and Luxemberg have technology, manpower, and stable government. Then why Luxemberg has higher HDI than China? What are the factors responsible for disparity in HDI? What are the factors that affect per capita income? Why, despite having the same resources necessary for increasing the quality of life, some countries have high HDI and some countries have low HDI? What is the explanation? --PlanetEditor (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) It's very complicated. You're asking for an explanation for quite a large slice of the fields of economics and human geography. But if I had to pick factors you might want to consider, the following things seem to affect countries especially deeply: (1) proneness to natural disasters - this is true even among the states of the USA, and even more so between countries further afield; (2) the extent and duration of European imperialism in the nation in question, and the relative tidiness with which it ended; (3) the extent to which a country has succeeded in attracting multi-national businesses to base the financial operations there, compared to the propensity of such corporations to acquire their raw materials and primary industrial labour elsewhere; (4) the extent to which Communism, Fascism, Corporatism and other inflexible political ideologies have inhibited development for non-pragmatic reasons, or have harmed social cohesion in the longer term; (5) the extent to which official endorsement of specific religious or philosophical positions has helped or hindered development. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This explanation has vastly increased my understanding of this topic. But I'm still waiting for an explanation of the cultural difference between developed and developing-underdeveloped countries. Except for a few religious states like Saudi Arabia, what we know as western tradition such as respect for civil rights and human right, is still prevalent in developed countries including Japan (which is not western country). I am well aware of the book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, but have not got a chance to read it. Also Japan is an interesting case as it is very prone to natural disasters, but still one of the most advanced economies in the world. --PlanetEditor (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Japan's case, I'd say its more or less total resistance to European imperialism was a major factor, followed by its close involvement with Prussia/Germany in the 19th century and the USA in the 20th. (This in spite of its own imperialist expansionism in the early 20th century.) Japan is also much less prone to tropical diseases than other Asian nations, which is important, and I've seen it argued that the national fondness for tea has further driven down disease levels. I believe Diamond's work is well-regarded in this area, although I've not read it myself. Beyond this, you're well into a field of both complex and quite highly contested study - beyond the scope of this desk to give even helpfully indicative answers. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also what I have seen is that Americans in general have a greater tendency to support civil rights and question authority, while people from countries like Russia have a greater tendency to oblige authority and oppose individual freedom. For example, after arrest of Pussy Riot members, most Russians were supportive of court order, while the international opinion was largely for freedom of expression. --PlanetEditor (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with you. However, the USA produced HUAC, the USA PATRIOT Act, the highest execution rate in the western world, drone strikes against its own citizens without trial, the internment of Japanese citizens during WW2, the Kent State shootings... it's easy to go on. Equally, the UK, which is also regarded as a very free, archetypically western nation, is a monarchy with an established church, some of the toughest gun controls in the world, a state-funded broadcaster, a free-for-all when it comes to CCTV (which contrasts sharply with tight regulation of CCTV in, eg, Sweden), the Official Secrets Act under which it's potentially a criminal offence for me even to tell you whether or not I know an official secret, and a libel regime so biased in favour of litigants that 'libel tourists' come here from abroad to sue their fellow-countryfolk. And I really like the UK and the USA - it's just hard to produce clear definitions of things like progress and liberty. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) You may find the book The Geography of Thought by Richard Nisbett interesting on this subject. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC) You may also like to investigate the work of Geert Hofstede. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...drone strikes against its own citizens without trial..." Got a link for that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar al-Awlaki. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I thought you meant we were bombing communes in the San Fernando Valley or something. Well, we could have killed Benedict Arnold, too, if we had had drones in the 18th century. US citizen or not, if someone sets himself up as an enemy of the US, sits in a war zone, and helps make war on the US, then he's fair game for military targeting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the answer is less convoluted than the above makes it seem. Human rights is a distinctly Western concept--Western in origin, in inspiration (see Enlightenment and constitutional monarchy), and in first adopters. It makes complete sense that the inventors and first adopters of any idea are more likely to believe in that idea than strangers on the other side of the globe. You might as well ask why Islamic fundamentalism is concentrated in the Middle East and not in Peru. If you're really asking why other countries haven't adopted Western values, the first answer is that they have, and in overwhelming numbers. The number of stable, human-rights-respecting democracies today is far larger than in 1989, before the collapse of the Soviet bloc; it's significantly larger than in 2010, before the Arab Spring; and it's certainly larger than in 1960, before the first wave of decolonization that put former colonies into the hands of thugs. The second answer is a combination of dictatorships spreading anti-Western propaganda, traditional values, and religion. Religion has especially been a problem in Islamic countries, spreading hatred and intolerance of the West even more effectively than America's support for Israel and support of Arab dictators. --140.180.255.25 (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Alex, what are you referring to by CCTV? μηδείς (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed-circuit television. The distinction is that in Sweden, there is no CCTV in public places; there aren't even speed cameras, just radar guns. My contact told me this was due to anti-surveillance legislation. Privately-owned, publicly-accessible places like shops may operate cameras, but must warn visitors that they do so. Here in the UK, by contrast, government agencies use a great deal of CCTV, and private bodies can operate cameras overlooking public places with impunity. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the theory in the USA seems to be that if you're out in the open, you're fair game for observation. It cuts in various directions. One example is the video that happened to pick up McVeigh's rental truck on the way to its destination in Oklahoma City. There's also the Rodney King incident, in which cops were shown beating up on King. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a security camera which was appropriated by the authorities, however. That was a private citizen who saw the police beating the shit out of a man and decided on his own to tape it. --Jayron32 03:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Sweden: There are strict regulations on CCTV but they are not uncommon in public places. You generally need a permit from the County if the camera will cover a public place, including some buildings where the public has access (there are exceptions for shops, banks and the like). Speed cameras have existed for some years (the Swedish article) but were very controversial when they were introduced. Sjö (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moral panic and societies of the World

Hi!, I am from Japan and I'm an otaku and was once a hikikomori. My family helped me to recover. My question comes about after the murder in 2003 committed by Hiroyuki Tsuchida against his mother, he killed her with a baseball bat in order to 'not hesitate' when killing more people. He was arrested before he could do that. He was both otaku and hikikomori and like in the case of Tsutomu Miyazaki, there was a renewed wave of moral panic against otakus. Has it ever happened in your societies with other social groups? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons & Dragons controversies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask this again, because I think it's relevant to the question: how do these allegedly-Japanese-speecific terms like 'otaku' and 'hikikomori' differ from English-language terms like 'geek', 'shut-in' or 'agoraphobe'?

But I agree with TOAT: the D&D controversies are a good example, that I remember well from the time. There's also perennial hysteria about the effect of violent films and video games - for instance, in connection with the Newtown/Sandy Hook massacre. And today the BBC is reporting [17] that MP Diane Abbott is warning everyone about 'pornification', even though there's virtually no evidence and the only large-scale statistical evidence is of people's beliefs about the facts, not the facts themselves. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, the difference is that here in Japan it's massive. Kotjap (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have comparative figures to show that? Or is the idea that 'otaku' and 'hikikomori' are more distinctive to Japan than elsewhere itself the product of a moral panic? (Or something else, of course - I wish to avoid false dichotomies.) AlexTiefling (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article the OP linked above gives a variety of figure for Japan, but not anywhere else although it does say 'People who have all the characteristics of a Hikikomori have also begun to emerge in France and the USA' source to a French source. However the statistics don't really explain what they mean. For example, are they only referring to people who rarely, if ever, leave their houses? Or people with less severe forms? As noted above, there is a figure of 2.2% of the population of the US having agoraphobia but it's almost definitely the case that the vast majority of these are not the form that they hardly ever leave their houses. Nil Einne (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hikkis are a relatively specifically Japanese phenomena, though I could point you to any number of Western Otaku hikkis by reference to online communities. Compared to shut-ins and agorophobes the avoidance of the immediate family while still living with them is an important differentiation. Regarding "Otaku" its radically different to "geek" culture. In part geek culture was always viewed as socially productive, see the US science scare of the late 1950s as a result of Sputnik. In part "geek" culture has been reclaimed as "cool" in conditional circumstances. Otaku don't necessarily have the connection technophilic competence that "geeks" have. Imagine if western rail fans were demonised after a couple of domestic murders or rapes. Western "Otaku" rarely are, though again it is possible to draw a distinction, mainly around access to doijinshi culture. User:Shii would be best placed to help here. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did semiconductor manufacturing in China first overtake manufacturing in the US?

I ask this in the Humanities section because it's a business question, not about the technical details of the product. 20.137.2.50 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still, semiconductor sales would be more appropriate on the Computer Desk. StuRat (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Does Foundry model#Foundry sales leaders by year help? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Lloyd-Webber

How many wives and children does he have? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without checking, I can say he has at most one wife. But he may have had earlier ones, to whom he is not currently married. His article says he's had two wives and two children: a son from his first wife, and a daughter from his current wife. Do you have any reason to doubt that, Kitty? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I suspect that he only has the one wife right now and it appears from this from March 2012 that it is #4. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That says he is on marriage no. 4. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a deadline for U.S. troops in Japan or not?

Is there or not? Kotjap (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not one I've ever heard of, although the official occupation of Japan ended many years ago (April 28, 1952), so Japan can evict US troops whenever it wants. However, since they rather benefit from the protection of US troops against enemies like North Korea and China, this would seem to be unwise. StuRat (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you manage to convince yours to leave, please explain me how to do it, and I'll try with mine. --pm a 21:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think they bring money in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only US military base I'm aware of without the blessing of the local government is Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the US had a long-term lease with Castro's predecessor, and refuses to go. See United States Navy in Vieques, Puerto Rico for an example of where the locals did kick the US out of a military base. StuRat (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1954 Security Treaty Between the United States and Japan is open-ended. Article IV states, “This Treaty shall expire whenever in the opinion of the Governments of the United States of America and Japan there shall have come into force such United Nations arrangements or such alternative individual or collective security dispositions as will satisfactorily provide for the maintenance by the United Nations or otherwise of international peace and security in the Japan Area.” DOR (HK) (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I,m looking for a political word, partially defined below

When one government controls or highly influences a foreign government by means other than military force or occupation(physical contact), instead using threat, fear, intimidation or ?. Not colonialism, imperialism, annexation, occupation. HELP, 72.86.146.153 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hegemony? --Jayron32 20:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could give an example of what you mean. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Finlandization what you have in mind? John M Baker (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lateral pressure theory? Satellite state? --PlanetEditor (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's neocolonialism. There are also types of diplomacy, like actual or threatened trade embargoes. StuRat (talk) 08:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vassal state? --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Client state. --PlanetEditor (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gunboat diplomacy is mostly about threats. Sjö (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

French laws regarding police, riots, and crowd sizes.

Are there any French laws governing police responses to riots (based on crowd size)? Also, do larger crowds necessarily require authorization for more manpower? Thank you in advance for your help. Vidtharr (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can start with the article on this matter in the French-language wikipedia [18]. It points to article 431-3 of the French Penal Code (see here [19]) which governs public gatherings and how they can be dispersed. I'm not sure if any of this information is available in English, however. For example, the interwiki link from the French article redirects to something completely different in English. --Xuxl (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To continue, most public gatherings in France, e.g. demonstrations, marches and outdoor concerts require a permit from the local préfecture de police or its equivalent. To quote from the French wiki article "Manifestation" [20]: "En France, les manifestations sur la voie publique sont soumises à l'obligation d'une déclaration préalable indiquant le but de la manifestation, le lieu, la date et l'heure du rassemblement et l'itinéraire projeté. Les autorités peuvent demander aux organisateurs des modifications de parcours ou d'horaire. Elles peuvent interdire une manifestation si elles la jugent de nature à troubler l'ordre public ou si ses mots d'ordre sont contraires à la loi, mais ces interdictions sont rares." (In France, demonstrations on public roadways need to be signalled in advance to authorities. Organizers have to indicate its purpose, location, date and time of the gathering and the proposed route to be followed. Authorities can ask organizers to change the time or route. They can prohibit a demonstration if they consider that it may disrupt public order or if its slogans are unlawful, but such bans are rare. - my quick translation). --Xuxl (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hohenzollernsche Lande

Why did Prussia annex the states of the Hohenzollernsche Lande in 1849? Our Province of Hohenzollern article says that the princes handed over sovereignty to Prussia; Prussia doesn't mention it at all; Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen says only that "it lost its independence" after the prince was deposed in the 1848 revolutions and his successor turned to Prussia for aid; Hohenzollern-Hechingen says that the prince sold it to Prussia after the 1848 revolutions; and Kingdom of Prussia says simply that it was an aftereffect of the previous year's revolutions. Did King Friedrich Wilhelm simply want to gain extra territory by pressuring his cousins to abdicate? Did the princes prefer selling out and abdicating over becoming constitutional monarchs? Did the princes run out of money fighting the revolutions? Something else entirely? Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some details on the revolution in de:Revolution in Sigmaringen. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of work

Aristotle and Plato, in ancient Greece, stated that reason most people worked "in order that the minority, the elite, might engage in pure exercise of the mind — art, philosophy, politics."

So, here's the information I can gather: as the elite apparently performed "mental exercises", the majority felt that someone had to do physical work. So the majority started working, as a result.

So, taking into account the information above, was the concept of work (as in jobs, employment) invented as a means to give the world's people something to do? I know people work in order to earn money, but the thing I'm thinking about is the reason why the need to earn money led to the requirement of working. One could say the reason why was that work was originally the unpaid laboring hunter-gatherers had to perform for subsistence. I don't think this reason holds up, though. Because it fails to explain why jobs like, say, playwrights for instance, came into existence. And hunter-gatherers didn't need to write plays to survive. They needed food and water. Rebel Yeh (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you said, originally people had to "work" just to survive. That included hunting, gathering, making tools, cooking, building shelter, making clothes, etc. There would have been barter, for example, where one person better at making weapons might have traded a weapon to a hunter for some food. At some point money came about as a means to enhance bartering. For example, if the hunter needed the weapon first in order to go get the food, some type of a token (say a seashell) could have been used to mean "I owe this guy food". Over time these tokens took on a value of their own. By the time of the ancient Greeks, money was in wide usage, and you needed to work to earn it, in order to buy food, shelter, etc., unless you were lucky enough to be born into the ruling class. I think those philosophers had a rather self-centered view of the world, where they saw everything as existing solely for their benefit. From the POV of the working class, they were working for themselves, not to support some rich "parasites". StuRat (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was work invented in order to give people something to do? No, I do not believe so. Labour begins with a combination of desire and apparent scarcity (although perhaps, as well, some madness could cause someone to work). Almost everyone desires. Some few people suffering either from schizophrenia or a major depressive episode may at times have no desire, and they may be in states of catatonia. Such people do not perform labour, exactly because they have no desire. So desire is quite natural. Now, if there were no scarcity, then desires would be fulfilled without labour. But because there is scarcity, one must labour in order to fulfil desires. So why are there playwrights? Because people desire plays and there is a scarcity of plays. You may be interested in division of labour, however. See [21] for a discussion of Durkheim's The Division of Labor in Society--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also History of money and Refusal of work. --PlanetEditor (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a citation for the quotation in the OP, that apparently claims Plato and Aristotle wrote the exact same thing. I could perhaps believe Plato had said such a thing, but that would not necessarily make it true. Plato said a lot of things about "ideal" conditions (as in his The Republic) which was merely wishful thinking rather than a description of the actual conditions of his day. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation is from Adriano Tilgher, Work: What It Has Meant to Men Throughout the Ages as reported here, and the text is searchable here.

First, note how Tilgher reports: Plato and Aristotle are saying that this is done to solve social problems, not that this is the actual origin of all work. But certainly such a sentiment exists in both: For Aristotle see NE 1094b, where he says that political science subordinates other jobs and prescribes "which ones each class in the city should learn, and how far". Then see Pol. 1252a: "Self preservation is the basis for the natural division between ruler and subject. For the capacity for rational foresight makes one a natural ruler and natural master, and the capacity to execute foresight by bodily labor makes another a subject and a natural slave" (Fine & Irwin translation). For Plato, see Rep. 590c-d: "the condition of the manual worker is despised...when the best part is naturally weak in someone, it can't rule the beasts within him but can only serve them and learn to flatter them...Therefore, to insure that someone like that is ruled by something similar to what rules the best person[read: the philosopher], we say that he ought to be the slave of that best person who has a divine ruler within himself." (Grube/Reeve translation). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Work came before money, not the other way round. People work in order to have enough to survive. Money is simply a tool to make goods and labour more interchangeable. Why would you think otherwise? Jobs which do not provide the community with food, shelter, or other things directly related to survival arise out of living together in communities. Whereas in a pre-urban culture stories might be told by anyone around the campfire, a culture which has built a town might think it worthwhile to pay the best storyteller to come to a designated place in the market and tell stories there, so that many more people could hear the best stories. Other jobs arise directly from urbanisation; a rural culture has no need of a sewer-repair-crew, but an urbanised one will find one very useful. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the OP is asking is not origin of work, it is origin of division of labor. This paper provides an interesting insight. --PlanetEditor (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have an article on Division of labour; in many ways the transition from hunter gatherer or transhumant societies to settled agriculture marked the earliest divisions of labor and the creation of different types of work. Neolithic Revolution is the moment in time when this happened. --Jayron32 17:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A poem that is at first gentle but then becomes transfigured, dissonant.

Hello.

I need a poem that fits the description that I gave in the headline. It should be gentle at first, but then, it should turn the same subject of its gentleness into something darker, as if some sort of transfiguration occured. Any length will suffice. On its language, it would be best for it to be written in Italian, English, Spanish or German. Any type of verse (if any at all) will suffice. It would be best if its subject was about love, but any other subject would do it, should none concerning love could be found.

Thanks in advance.

P.S. For the response, either linking me to a page where I can acces the poem, writing the poem itself (or a fragment), or giving me the name of the poem and its author should do the trick.157.253.186.13 (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A poem by Heinrich Heine comes to mind. He describes a bucolic scene, and the last line (I wish he'd shoot me dead) comes as a bit of shock. On the other hand, the first line hints that not everything is well, so it might not entirely fit your requirements. --Wrongfilter (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did not list French among the languages, but "Les Djinns" by Victor Hugo [22] is a famous example of what you're looking for. It starts off very quiet, builds to a peak of violence in the middle stanzas, and then calms down again. It's not about love but describes a wind storms that locals attribute to supernatural forces. --Xuxl (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the perfect example is To His Coy Mistress by Andrew Marvell -- which also happens to be one of the best poems in the English language. Looie496 (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a poem in the form of song lyrics, we have You Oughta Know by Alanis Morrisette. It starts out nice but then turns quite nasty: [23]. StuRat (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With those criteria, I'd say Richard Cory by Edwin Arlington Robinson, or (kind of) Der Erlkönig. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 20:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For gentle to transfigured - Goethe's Ganymed. If fragmented counts as 'dissonant', it has that quality too. Paul B (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French Probate

Am looking for assistance on an "Intestate" death of a cousin of mine who lived in France? How do I go about or find;- 1) the french equivalent of the United Kingdom Treasury Department "Bona Vacantia"; 2) find out who the handling "Notaire" (solicitor) is; 3) find out what City or Town he died in? Any help would be good

Joegush (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find out he died ? That source ought to know where he died, which is the starting point. StuRat (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of processed carbohydrate

I want a brief overview on the history of processed carbohydrate. --PlanetEditor (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest processing of carbohydrates is probably bread, Wikipedia has a History of bread which is pretty good. --Jayron32 17:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also porridges and gruels. Beer. See History of sugar for another carbohydrate that needs a lot of processing. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Pasta#History. Alansplodge (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same articles in a different media

i dont know if there is any term for this issue. I am runing a study that shows there are some same articles in a different media. How and why it happens, how to resolve. As well as I need some examples. I really do not know where to find about this. In my country this problem is not small even though there is no survey on this issue. I do not know for foreign countries. Thats why I am asking you. Thank you for helping. Please give me anything that may relate the topic. About- Same and very similar artcles in a same week. Many daily newspappers have very similar informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.46.201 (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers have articles with text in common because much of the text of newspapers is written by the wire services like Associated Press, United Press International, and Reuters. That is, newspapers reprint content written by one of those services. --Jayron32 18:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about plagiarism or, for example, articles on a book and a film made from the book. StuRat (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syndication, especially print syndication, might be relevant too. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW the IP looks up to Mongolia. Nil Einne (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outgoing Pres. Clinton briefs Pres. Geo Bush about al-quaeda

Please advise about that breif. Did Geo. Bush receive any warnings about an upcoming attack prior to 9/11/2001?21:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)LaniMein (talk)LaniMein

It is likely unknown. The details of such security briefs are classified, and it is likely that very few people outside of those actually present know the answer to that. It certainly isn't likely to be public knowledge. --Jayron32 22:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were plenty of mentions of a general threat from planes to the WTC right after the '93 bombing and in the years after, as well as plenty of mentions in the press (The New York Post) of chatter about a coming major terrorist attack in August of 2001. Unfortunately, Googling those facts is almost impossible. But none of this was a surprise to anyone paying attention. There's also the FBI agent (or was it CIA?) who had warned of such an attack and who died on 9/11. There was a History Channel documentary about him, back when the History Channel did history. μηδείς (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, see Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Clarke was a Clinton-era holdover who found it very difficult to even schedule meetings with incoming W. Bush high-level appointees before 9/11, in order to discuss terrorism threat matters with them. John P. O'Neill was the Yemen ship-attack investigator who died on 9/11... AnonMoos (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The usual way in which the President gets intelligence updates is through what is called the President's Daily Brief (PDB). On August 6, 2001, President Bush's PDB warned that "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US", and mentioned hijacking as a possibility. It did not warn of an imminent attack, however. There were also, apparently, earlier briefs in 2001 that warned of an al Qaeda attack on the United States. The White House apparently did nothing to act upon these warnings. You can read more PDB's relating to Bin Laden here, if you are interested. It is a complex situation; there was nothing that said, "an attack is going to happen tomorrow and it's going to work like this." But there were quite a lot of attempts from the CIA and the counter-terrorism officials to get the White House's attention on this matter, and they were, as far as anyone can tell, pretty much ignored. The best one can say for the Bush administration is that they did not treat it as a very high priority concern, possibly because the amount of actionable intelligence available to them was limited. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is that there were so many threats that they didn't know which one(s) to take seriously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the entire point of the CIA preparing a Daily Brief is to tell the President which ones to take seriously. Read the NYT article I posted if you want to contribute meaningfully to the conversation, rather than just making up whatever comes to mind. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking a respondent in front of the OP is bad form. If you want to contribute meaningfully in the future, you should refrain from that activity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason it's called the daily brief, not the only-when-we're-absolutely-sure brief. Every day, the president gets tons of contradictory information saying that this or that is a threat, or this or that group of people is planning to do something. CEOs of large companies face the same problem, albeit not with terrorist threats. It's easy for critics to point at people, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and wonder why they ignored a certain piece of information, not realizing that they also ignored hundreds of similar pieces of information that turned out to be unhelpful. In this case, the intelligence in question is "bin Laden is planning to attack...some day, some where, using some method", as if that doesn't apply to every terrorist group for every moment of their existence. Not only that, the CIA had warned for months that an attack could be "imminent", even though intelligence suggested the timeframe was "flexible". --140.180.244.202 (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many Secrtary of States have been grilled after an attack on Americans in foreign countries

How many Secrtary of States have been grilled after an attack on Americans in foreign countries. Was Pres. Ronald Regan's Sec of State, George Shultz grilled by U.S.Congress after 241 US service men were killed in an attack on the Marines in Beruit Octember 1983? Was Pres.G.W.Bush's Sec of State,Colin Powell grilled by U.S.Congress after 9/11/2001LaniMein (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing an important detail. The Benghazi attack was on a US embassy, and those embassies are run by the US State Department, which is led by the US Secretary of State. As such, it was her responsibility to ensure that the workers there were safe. Of course, even with all reasonable precautions, determined attackers, particularly suicide bombers, might still get in. However, in this case, the security precautions seemed grossly inadequate, given the threats in the region. This is why Hillary Clinton is being "grilled". The Secretary of States are neither responsible for US Marine barracks nor airline security, so questioning them about those attacks would be pointless. Of course, there have been other attacks on US embassies, most notably the Iran Hostage Crisis, so you might want to ask if the Secretary of State was "grilled" in each of those cases. StuRat (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secretaries of State. Multiple secretaries. One state. --Jayron32 22:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or Secrtaries of State. There have been seemingly countless times the US has been caught flatfooted by these kinds of attacks. This was only a recent example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't merely a recent example. It was the first U.S. Ambassador killed in 33 years and apparently one of only six assassinated ever. A rather unusual event. Rmhermen (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the ambassador being killed was unusual. The fact of us being attacked by radical Islamists was not unusual. But we always seem surprised when it happens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US does not now, nor has it ever had an embassy in Benghazi. That was a consulate. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 24

Roy Raymond (businessman)

The article says he sell his business for 4 millions dollars and at the time his business is making 6 million dollars a year (just few years later the company he sold grew into multibillion-company). So why would anyone want to sell something that worth less than you can possibly make from it and has potential to keep expanding? What is the story behind it? Was he desperate for money at the time or was he simply just stupid? Obviously he committed suicide in the end after regretted about it.184.97.244.130 (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says it was grossing six million, which usualy means income before expenses. It doesn't say how much the net was, so we don't know how much was left over from the incoming money each year. RudolfRed (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) He wasn't collecting $6,000,000 per year in salary from the business. The money that a business makes belongs to the business. It would be a bad businessman (and possibly a criminal one) who pocketed every cent in revenue from such a business. Plus that was $6 million gross (before expenses) income. That wasn't profit. Profit is revenue minus expenses. --Jayron32 02:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still even if he only made 1 million a year that's still a lot better than 4 million dollars sold out. In just a short few years, he can make more than that and potential to make a lot more. If he sold out he got 4 million dollars just sit there and do nothing. He is either a very bad businessman with short minded or is there a reason behind it. I'm curious about the story behind it, details of what happened. Perhaps he got tricked into selling it. He can't be too stupid if he came up with a billion dollars worth idea (as it is right now) like that. 184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, ideas aren't worth that much money. Bill Rasmussen came up with the idea of ESPN. He lacked the business acumen to lead the TV network to what it became, and also lacked the personal finances to give it the necessary capital to do so. So, the people who he went to for financing (Getty Oil) replaced him with someone who could lead said network. Rasmussen was justly compensated for his work during his short stint as ESPN CEO. The network moved on without him. There's some hard feelings, perhaps, but in the end there's also thousands of employees who may not have their jobs today had Getty Oil not provided the necessary financing or had they not placed people they knew and trusted into positions of leadership of ESPN. Take Victoria's Secret. It was hardly the world's only mail-order lingerie business, and it wasn't all that big of a business before Raymond sold it. What if those people that purchased Victoria's Secret instead purchased a different mail-order lingerie business, and took THAT business to a multi-billion dollar enterprise, while Raymond's company floundered? What would that mean? The idea is certainly worth something, but lots of people have similar ideas, and it takes a combination of ideas, capital, and business ability to make it grow, and the latter two are far more rare than the first. --Jayron32 03:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well your explanation is good and making sense to me. But I disagree with you over the value of idea. Not many people have the exactly the same brilliant idea as you said. Those ideas may be similar in some way but not exactly, so there will be competition and the best idea rise up to be the best and started to dominate the industrial. Take example of facebook (simply idea, just a derived idea of something similar already existing), doesn't take much to start out. The problem with people these days is most people don't understand the "real" value of a brilliant and usually ended up making stupid choices. There are many examples of new brilliant ideas that later on flourish into billions dollars. Anyway they can't just replace him if he doesn't agree to. I still think he made a big mistake to sell it off for just 4 million dollars.184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that ideas aren't that unique. ESPN is often cited as inventing the "all-sports network", which isn't really that true, they were just the first that was successful. Before they ever became a major player, there were other competitors out there, but they all floundered. SportsChannel America was founded before ESPN, and founded by Cablevision, the same people that launched HBO, so they knew something about Cable TV, and it never took off like ESPN did. Why did SportsChannel flounder where ESPN succeeded? It wasn't the idea, as SportsChannel's founders had the idea first, and there's nothing in that idea which is substantially different than ESPN. What made ESPN work was the execution, which required the right people in the right jobs doing those jobs well, and the right financial backing to make it happen. Likewise with Raymond and Victoria's Secret. He owned a bra-and-panty business. It wasn't a unique idea, it wasn't even a major player in the market at the time. Frederick's of Hollywood was founded thirty years before Victoria's Secret, and was in a largely identical business. It took the right financial backing, the right leadership, the right marketing, and a lot of other things that happened long after Raymond was out of the picture that made it into the industry leader. There were 4000 different tiny patent medicine companies making various sweetened tonics at the turn of the 20th century. Coke and Pepsi didn't become national brands because the idea of what they were is all that special. They became successful because they were well run by business people, not someone who said "lets throw a bunch of sugar and fizzy water in with some odd flavorings". The idea of Coke and Pepsi isn't why their industry leaders, anymore than the idea of an all-sports network or the idea of a lingerie store is. --Jayron32 03:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're getting at. But look all those ideas are not exactly the same. Yes, they are related but completely different ideas (each idea is unique in some way) otherwise they would come out as identical products. I would agree with you that there are many other factors which contribute or determine the success of an idea. Most cases, you got to have a good idea and good money to back up and good management for it to success. But coming with a good new idea isn't easy. Believe it or not, most people can't come up with a brilliant idea (otherwise we would see a lot more billionaires now). Those who can come up with a good idea usually are just a tiny portion of the population. However, in some extreme cases an idea itself is enough for you to strike super rich. I agree with you that there are many other factors but to me an idea value a lot more than most people think it is.184.97.244.130 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, there are a few times when the idea itself is the thing. But a bra-and-panty business isn't such an idea, and Raymond was justly compensated for the value of his business when he sold it. That someone later took his raw materials and turned it into a giant industry leader isn't because of what he sold them any more than the minor that digs the lump of iron ore out of the ground has a stake in the value of the Lamborghini that lump of iron ore much later becomes a part of. It makes for a nice story, but ultimately Raymond's idea wasn't that big of a deal. Steve Wozniak did build a computer in his garage; but so didn't hundreds of other geeks in the 1970s. He got lucky enough to do it while his buddy Steve Jobs was watching. Ub Iwerks was a creative animator, but it took someone with the business acumen of Walt Disney and his successors to turn Iwerk's doodles into the world's biggest entertainment company. None of those companies was founded on a unique idea; they were founded on a common idea that was exploited by people who knew how to run a business, and run it very well. It goes on and on. We romanticize ideas because it makes for a nice story: a wunderkind has some brilliant idea no one else has ever had, and then has the wherewithal to take his totally unique idea and built a global empire out of it. That's probably almost never happened just like that. Ideas are products of their times as much as they are of any one individual, they're part of the zeitgeist of an era. The biggest, most successful companies aren't built on magical, solitary ideas from one person. They're built on keen business skills and proper leverage. --Jayron32 04:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a typical business, $6,000,000 gross translates into a net profit of $60,000 to $300,000. For a rapidly-expanding business, it might translate into no net profit at all, if all extra money is invested in further growth. There are almost no businesses in the world that have the 16% profit margin you're estimating. --Carnildo (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what kind of business is that. How can the profit be 60,000 to 300,000 dollars a year? 60k to 300k is obviously a very underestimate net profit that he made. Expenses won't take that much of money. For what I know my parents expenses are like 20k to make 60k. If any business spend that much and get only 60k to 300k that would mean the business doesn't know what its doing. I'm sure there are a lot of business if not most make a lot more than 16% profit margin.184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few businesses work at that level. Apple reported a 22% profit margin for 4th quarter 2012: [24]. However, that's Apple and they are quite likely the most profitable business in the world. They are far from typical. If we look at a retail company built like Victoria's Secret, something like Abercrombie and Fitch, shows they had what is considered an outrageously good quarter and reported a 6.5% profit margin. Walmart reported 3.5% profit margin, and that's also a very successful business. 3.5% of $6,000,000 is $210,000. And again, if Raymond stuck that $210,000 into his pockets each year, he's a terrible CEO, but let's just say he did. It would take him 20 years to realize $4,000,000. He got that in one swipe. --Jayron32 03:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can the profit margin is so low? So expenses actually taking up most of the grossing amount of money? How can my parents spend only 20k and make up to 60k?(they gross 80k with 60k profit)184.97.244.130 (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because your parents are people, and not a business. Your parents are paid a wage and spend that wage on living expenses. A business is selling a product, and needs to use its revenues to keep producing that product. Totally different sources of revenue, totally different types of expenditures. --Jayron32 03:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are making big profits then someone else will enter the market with lower prices and take all your business, since they would still be making reasonable profits. In a competitive market, businesses make pretty much the minimum profit that makes running the business worthwhile (ie. they make just over their opportunity cost of capital, that is the amount they could make if the capital were invested in the next best thing). To make anything more, there needs to be some lack of competition - it's known in economics as making supernormal profits. --Tango (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

rival package companies with smaller aircrafts

I saw some videos on YouTube. They were of FedEx Cessna aircrafts. That made me wonder if UPS also uses the same things.142.255.103.121 (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they deliver to small markets then small planes would make sense. An alternative strategy is to just deliver to major cities (and areas a short drive from those cities). StuRat (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being attracted to / impressed / fascinated by the incomprehensible

Greetings! I am looking for a psychological (sociological?) term which describes the situation that "ordinary people" (not "experts") are attracted or impressed by or occupied by ideas/concepts (fact or fiction) despite the fact that they actually do not (or can not) understand them. Mere "curiosity" would be to weak. Examples are homoepathy, relativity theory, evolution, extraterrestial life, meaning of Hermann-Hesse-books, abstract art, texts of holy books etc. - the whole mixture of hard or soft stuff. I'd appreciate your help, even if it will be only keywords (which would help in further search). GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 09:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some related concepts would be esoterica, esotericism and arcana. However, those words more describe this group of concepts itself rather than the attraction of people towards them. --Viennese Waltz 09:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm ... no ... it can also be hard science, which is absolutely not understood but "painted on the personal flag". I assume that this has something to do with the "social access" or "social reputation" which you "gain" by adhering to these concepts - on the other hand: I could be wrong. GEEZER^{nil nisi bene} 10:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know Pierre Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital? But I think it's too generic for what you're describing. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright law UK

Hi, i've read the licensing terms but am still unclear on whether or not i could use something like this commercially in the UK. A lot of sites i've seen using images of cars for commercial use here have removed the badge of the manufacturer in the pictures and i'm unsure if that's a requirement. Can someone clear this up for me? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we can't give legal advice. If you want advice related to your specific situation, then you need to consult a lawyer. The user that uploaded that image claims they own all the copyright to it - you can either believe them or get a lawyer to confirm it. We can't help. It also varies a lot from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The photo was taken in France and you want to use it in the UK, so it's not even immeadiately obvious what jurisdiction applies (there are all kinds of copyright treaties that determine that sort of thing). That said, I doubt removing the badge will make any difference whatsoever - other sites may do that because they don't want to provide free advertising for the manufacturer (which may annoy other advertisers). --Tango (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 12:24, 24 January 2013 edit Tango (talk \| contribs) Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 19,387 edits →‎Roy Raymond (businessman) ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:31, 24 January 2013 edit undo Tango (talk \| contribs) Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 19,387 edits →‎Copyright law UK Next edit →
Line 296:		Line 296:

	Hi, i've read the licensing terms but am still unclear on whether or not i could use something like [[:File:Citroën C3 Picasso 002.JPG\|this]] commercially in the UK. A lot of sites i've seen using images of cars for commercial use here have removed the badge of the manufacturer in the pictures and i'm unsure if that's a requirement. Can someone clear this up for me? Thanks '''[[User:Jenova20\|ツ <span style="color:red;font-family:comic sans ms">Je<font color="gold">no</font><font color="blue">va</font></span>]]<font color="purple">[[User_talk:Jenova20\|20]]</font> <sup>([[Special:EmailUser/Jenova20\|email]])</sup>''' 10:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)		Hi, i've read the licensing terms but am still unclear on whether or not i could use something like [[:File:Citroën C3 Picasso 002.JPG\|this]] commercially in the UK. A lot of sites i've seen using images of cars for commercial use here have removed the badge of the manufacturer in the pictures and i'm unsure if that's a requirement. Can someone clear this up for me? Thanks '''[[User:Jenova20\|ツ <span style="color:red;font-family:comic sans ms">Je<font color="gold">no</font><font color="blue">va</font></span>]]<font color="purple">[[User_talk:Jenova20\|20]]</font> <sup>([[Special:EmailUser/Jenova20\|email]])</sup>''' 10:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
			:I'm afraid we can't give legal advice. If you want advice related to your specific situation, then you need to consult a lawyer. The user that uploaded that image claims they own all the copyright to it - you can either believe them or get a lawyer to confirm it. We can't help. It also varies a lot from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The photo was taken in France and you want to use it in the UK, so it's not even immeadiately obvious what jurisdiction applies (there are all kinds of copyright treaties that determine that sort of thing). That said, I doubt removing the badge will make any difference whatsoever - other sites may do that because they don't want to provide free advertising for the manufacturer (which may annoy other advertisers). --[[User:Tango\|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango\|talk]]) 12:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)