Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous

Welcome to the miscellaneous section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

May 14

An inspiring movie in the 60's

As a young teenager back in the early 60's I watched a movie which I did enjoyed a lot. It was in English and was centred around the time when cavaliers were around. I can vaguely remember the story centred upon a man who appeared to be fightnig for justice against a corrupt establishment and he was helped by a beautiful lady who was somewhat linked to the ruling elite. After many escapades the man was caught. At this point I can't remember much of the plot as I was with my girlfriend at that time. However, I seem to recall that the man's twin brother (obviously played by the same actor) appeared on the scene and who appeared to be well heeled and well attired. There were further action and a court case? the twin who was incarcerated was sentenced and put to death. But the ending of the movie showed a very happy lady joyfully hugging the twin who was supposed to have been hanged, crying 'I can't believe you are you, and you are alive!' (or something to that effect). Apparently the other twin had exchanged places with his condemned twin brother so that he could be free and united with his beloved. I know this is a big ask, but I hope somehow, somewhere in this world, someone would have seen this movie too, and maybe remember the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hiew (talk • contribs) 07:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the answer I'm afraid, but I want to hear more about what you were doing with your girlfriend which made you miss the film :) --Viennese Waltz 09:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Two long shots: The Man in the Iron Mask (1939 film) or The Corsican Brothers (1941 film)? --Viennese Waltz 10:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There's definitely no trial or noble exchanging of places in The Corsican Brothers (1941). In fact, one brother tries to do in the other. The plot of The Man in the Iron Mask also has the brothers at each other's throat. Also, neither film is set in England. The closest match I can come up with is a film version of A Tale of Two Cities, with Sidney Carton being very noble indeed, but again no trial and no England. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Have to sign off now, but you could try browsing List of actors who have played multiple roles in the same film. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I realize that neither of my suggestions fits the description, but I thought I would mention them anyway as they seem to be the only swashbuckling films about twins. Also, he wrote "in English", not "in England". --Viennese Waltz 12:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Cavalier would mean England almost assuredly, although it's not impossible the OP is using the word incorrectly and means knights or cowboys or some other type of rider (as the word comes from the french for rider, and is similar to the french word for knight, and may well be related to these concepts in most romance languages). 64.201.173.145 (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think he's using it in a non-country-specific sense to mean swashbuckler, but we'll find out if he ever comes back. --Viennese Waltz 15:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• How about The Prisoner of Zenda? There is also The Prince and the Pauper, but the former seems more likely. Looie496 (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• A Tale of Two Cities. --Onorem♠Dil 14:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd missed Clarityfiend's response. I'd think it almost has to be at least an adaptation of some sort for the story. --Onorem♠Dil 14:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all for the suggestions. I am afraid none of them fits in. Yes, the film was in English though not necessarily had any connections to England. It was definitely European in setting with temperate looking flora. The period costume suggested an era akin to The Three Muskeeters i.e. with swashbuckling duels and cavalier attitudes. The rendering of the actors hair seems to suggest that the film was made in the 50's or early 60's. One of the most memorial scene I can recalled and which had the movie audience laughing was when the newly arrived twin walked hesitantly along a corridor (with his back to the camera) towards what appear to be a dead end and the camera then panned right to have him emerged from the another side looking sheepish. I can also recall a scene where fighting took place around a huge made make earthern or concrete mound that was shaped like a skull (or maybe my imagination ran riot at that time). I wish I had concentrated more on watching the movie but my girlfriend had other ideas - like exchanging saliva. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.41.193.62 (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

One-child policy

Am I right in understanding that if the one-child policy, which I understand is in used in some Asian countries, was to become world-wide, it would eventually lead to the extinction of the human race?

The way I see it, if a woman is only allowed to have one child, then each generation is half the size of the previous one, as men can't have children. And that's not accounting for infertile women, women who choose not to have children, women who can't find a mate, or women who die before childbirth. Even if we relax this policy to allow one child per family and allow women to remarry, the number of women who remarry will still be less than the number of men altogether, which will also lead to each generation being smaller than the previous one.

So am I right in understanding that in order for the human race to survive, at least some women must have multiple children? JIP | Talk 17:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

To maintain population levels (not taking into account immigration and such), there must be as many births as deaths. If every family of two had only 1 child, there would eventually be not enough children to have more children. See Population stabilization and the various links therein for more details. Mingmingla (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The replacement rate is somewhere just over 2.1 children per couple; the .1 to cover sterility/early death/homosexuality in some children. μηδείς (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• (I'm retracting everything I said here, I'd forgotten that humans aren't self-pollinating :)No to your last question, at least conceptually. You're forgetting grandchildren. Humans are not semelparous; we do not die after reproduction. In some situations, a single child per couple could sustain the population at viable level. Consider if every woman had a child at age 15. Then woman A would be a grandmother by 30, a great-grandmother by 45, etc. Since A's first daughter will also be a grandmother when A is 45, there are potentially many humans added to the population at the time of A's death, and the population would grow. Population dynamics is a very rich topic, and it cannot be summed up so simply. Note that the replacement rate quoted by Medeis makes several assumptions to get there. UK replacement fertility rate is 2.075, but it would go down substantially if they started having babies younger. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • • Rather decent of you, Semantic. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the retraction, I am happy to say never mind. Yes, when I said "somewhere just over 2.1," and mentioned reasons why some children won't reproduce I was mentioning several of those assumptions. But a population that halves every generation is going extinct, no matter how slowly or quickly it wants to do so by postponing or front-loading childbirth. Replacement rate cannot drop below 2.0 no matter what.μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• If every woman had a single child and there was no sex selection of babies, the human race would go extinct in approximately a thousand years. However, it would take a couple of hundreds just for the population to drop back to the level in the year 1900 -- so the problem is not one of vast urgency. Looie496 (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that there's an absurd assumption in the question. That assumption is that such a policy would be maintained as population levels dropped. The very reason for such a policy is to prevent overpopulation, so, once this is no longer a problem, the policy would be eased or eliminated. Also note that exceptions to the one-child policy exist, and there are also those who don't comply, and these affect the numbers. StuRat (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that a) the one-child policy in China is not enforced in lightly populated rural areas, especially among non-Han indigenous populations. b) Because of concerns over sex-based discrimination, the policy allows many families to have a second child if the first is a girl (though if you have two girls, tough luck) b) Violations of the one-child policy require the violating family to pay a fine. This means that rich people get to have larger families than poor people, as a practical matter, and may thus be seen to represent a sort of economic eugenics. So there are ample opportunities in China to have more than one child, according to the Wikipedia article and sources it cites, only about 1/3rd of China is under the strict one-child limit. --Jayron32 19:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the policy is not so much a case of "you're not permitted to have more than one child", rather one of "if you do exceed your quota, you will have to pay a fine". For many, this is a real barrier, but for others, not. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For poor people it is a real barrier. For the rich, not so much. That's why the reference to Eugenics, in that it allows China to alter its demographic makeup by limiting the ability of its underclasses to reproduce while allowing the rich and powerful to do so. --Jayron32 21:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem is, there's always some group at the bottom of the ladder. They become the nouveau pauvre. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got it a little backwards on eugenics. Eugenics is about attempting to improve the gene pool. Actual implementations end up being classist for various reasons. The policy you are talking about is not about trying to improve the gene pool, it is about trying to limit overall population growth. Its actual implementation also ends up being classist for various reasons. But that shared classism does not make it eugenics. They are their own, separate things even though they may have classist dimensions. (Similarly, a regressive tax structure can be classist, as well, but it is not eugenics just because it is classist.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A system which would eventually kill off the poor and leave only the rich, is big trouble. There has to be someone around to do actual work. So it's not likely to be allowed to get to that point. There will always be enough poor folks kept around to prevent the rich from having to get their own hands dirty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree - it wouldn't do that. The likely consequence is a reduction in the number of the poorest people - and a redistribution of the wealth of the very rich into multiple children - and if the fines are stiff enough - more income for the state that can be invested in construction projects and other things that will provide more income for the poor.

Imagine a couple who are worth (say) a million dollars who break the law, pay the fines and have four kids - then the kids stand to inherit $250,000 each - which results in one very rich family becoming four merely comfortably off families, and in the generation following that, a dozen or more people in the middle classes. If the original millionaires could only have one child, then two people's life's worth goes to one child who will therefore be even richer than either of the two parents individually were - and then if rich kids marry rich kids (as is often the case) - then you get richer and richer family empires as wealth gets consolidated into fewer and fewer hands.

The reverse happens with poor families, where one child gets all the benefits from two parents instead of the family vegetable lot and the four goats being split amongst two or more children. When poor kids marry other poor kids, combining the vegetable lots and goat herds of two sets of parents greatly improves the prospects of families in the next generation and pushes them out of poverty and into the middle classes.

So over the long run, allowing the rich to have more children is going to tend to even out the differences between rich and poor - not accentuate them.

The problem is in the short term - where one child has to look after both parents into their old age - which is easy for rich children - but difficult for the poor. But in a one-child society, allowing richer people to get away with having more than one child doesn't hurt the poor people to any degree whatever - even in the short term. It's also unrelated to Eugenics...it's quite the opposite in fact. SteveBaker (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, reducing poverty is a noble goal. However, the question becomes how to reduce poverty in a way that is just. There are all kinds of possible solutions to getting rid of poverty, but breeding out the poor people doesn't sound to me like a terribly moral way to do it. It's picking winners and losers based on accident of birth. If you get born poor, fuck you, you don't get to have the same rights as those who had the good fortune to be born rich. You could save the step of waiting a few generation, and just shoot all the poor people in the head. That'd get rid of them too. The question is not whether or not the elimination of poverty is a universal good, the question is how to accomplish that task in a way that is just and fair and right. The reason that it is related to Eugenics is that it involves the use of breeding to "weed out" societal undesirables. True, it doesn't use genetics as the deciding factor, it uses socioeconomic status. But the process and results are the same. You're picking winners and deciding who gets to breed and who doesn't. Doesn't sound to me like a very equitable way to run a society. --Jayron32 17:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's not moral - but that wasn't the question. There are plenty of immoral things that will work anyway. I argue that forcing poor people to only have one child and allowing rich people to have more children - whilst highly immoral, will none-the-less be effective in reducing the disparity between rich and poor over the long run. Shooting a bunch of poor people still leaves you with a bunch of poor people - but adjusting the relative birth rates should (in principle) result in all people - rich and poor alike heading towards the middle classes. The problem (aside from the undeniable moral issues) is that in the short term, it's a total disaster...as the Chinese are discovering. SteveBaker (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, killing all of the poor people leaves you with no more poor people. That's what happens when you kill someone. They stop being people and start being corpses. It solves the problem. --Jayron32 19:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem is, poverty is a relative thing. There will always be those who are less affluent than others, no matter what assets they have in absolute terms. That's what I meant by my reference above to the nouveau pauvre. In a world full of millionaires, those with the least will still be considered "poor". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, but there's a distinction to be made between "less than the richest people" and "not enough to live a happy life". The goal of civilized society is to eliminate, through just and moral means, the second group. Not having as much money as the richest people is not a problem. Not having enough money to afford nutritious food, quality education, sufficient shelter, and good healthcare is a problem in any society. You're conflating two unrelated issues. Sure, we have no reason to ensure that the sufficient are all made rich. But we do have a responsibility as a species to see that the insufficiencies are fixed. --Jayron32 23:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I would note while there may be some support for eugenics among various people in China, and even some clear cut government policy in this regard, the idea of the one child policy being intended as some sort of social eugenic policy in favour of the rich or to eliminate poverty breeding is unclear and doesn't seem that well supported as the intentions of the majority of the designers (although it's possible perhaps even likely that it did occur to some and some of those in charge of implementing and enforcing it do support such goal). For starters, as you mentioned there are various exemptions which don't seem to fit such a goal.

More significantly, if you read various documents about it, our article for example, it seems clear that the intention is not that the rich are allowed to have more children because they can afford to pay the fines. Rather it's supposed to be a policy that everyone embraces and accepts. The trouble is what happens when you don't? You could do some of the stuff did under Mao etc in the past and send such trouble makers to a reeducation camp. You could take away the children and raise them elsewhere. You could force sterilisation (which according to numerous reports does happen). There are many possibilities, most of them likely unpalitablity or at least considered problematic to the designers. A fine may have seemed the best way to try and give the policy some teeth without becoming too controversial or causing other problems. The parents are also supposed to support the children fully which would seem fair because one of the reasons for the policy is to reduce the strain on various services.

Even then, the pressure on the local governments and other agencies tasked with enforcing the policy has resulted in numerous rather controversial actions. Note that the fine is apparently generally partially tied to income. (There are of course many areas in the developed countries which rely on fines as the primary means of enforcement. E.g. minor driving offences. I don't think most designers of such systems, even in the many countries where they're not tied to income were intending the policy to make it okay to violate these laws if you're rich. Of course such problems are the reason they're tied to income in some countries and they implement other things like a demerit system or the threat of jail time.)

Our article does mention 'Some of the offending officials did not face penalties,[76] although the government did respond by raising fines and calling on local officials to "expose the celebrities and high-income people who violate the family planning policy and have more than one child'. In otherwords, theoretically there is still supposed to be social pressure against even rich people violating the policy and I strongly suspect it was a key part of the plan. And it's worth remembering that at the time the policy was formulated and first implemented, Deng Xiaoping Chinese economic reform was only just being implemented so the role of the private sector was small. And the naïve belief that the people would do what the government told them was probably still fairly strong. (And as our article says the policy was and is still intended to only last one generation.)

The other problem, as highlighted by the part before quote where it mentions a number of people don't seem to have paid the fines/fees is one common to many countries particularly developing ones. Whatever the high level policy makers may decide, it ultimately falls on low level bureaucrats to implement (and in China given it's geographical size and government design, local officials) so corruption and incompetence means your plans will get distorted and may fail.

In other words, although the proof is in the pudding, so by no means am I defending the policy and as our article highlights there are numerous questions about other options which don't seem to have been well considered as well as the general question about human rights and fairness and as I said earlier there are some eugenic parts of the policy and plans; we also have to be careful not ascribe motives which may not have been there, at least for the original designers of the overall policy. (It's of course possible, perhaps even likely that a many or even of the people involved would have considered the poor-rich divide as a likely outcome. Particularly those who have continued to refine and support the policy in later years. Some may have thought it acceptable. That doesn't necessarily mean it was their intention.)

Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

With a world population of 7 billion and an average generation time of 20 years, the idealized math says we'd have 33 generations or 660 years before going extinct. But that assumes that every woman has exactly one child that survives to procreate. The true rate would be faster than that - especially in the last few generations where fragmentation of the population across the globe and the random nature of how many boys and girls are born would greatly hasten things. 500 years is a more realistic number.

But it's worth noting that we'd be in deep trouble long before extinction. As long-lived animals, the elderly depend on the youth to a greater or lesser extent to support them. If there are twice as many old people as young (and that's a very generous number!) then our health-care systems, farming, you name it would collapse in just a couple of generations. The problems we're entering into as a result of the aging of baby-boomers would be chicken-feed compared to a fully enforced global "one child per woman" rule. Add to that the biasses inherent in some cultures to demand boy children, then the problems with an excess of males in the population can make things spiral out of control even faster. This phenomenon is already noticeable in both China and India.

Clearly there are far too many humans on this planet right now - but to get that down to a sensible number, you have to make the decrease happen very slowly.

SteveBaker (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It is in no way clear there are too many people on earth at this point, and if you assert there are, you ought to point out which ones are the ones you think shouldn't be here. μηδείς (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem of caring for the elderly in a one-child-policy system is covered by the 4-2-1 phenomenon; the Wikipedia article is pretty stubby, but the concept is also discussed in more detail in the one-child policy article. --Jayron32 21:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't tempt me! :-) If I'm stuck in traffic on a freeway, I can say "There are far too many cars on this freeway" without having to point out which cars shouldn't be there. Clearly all cars on the freeway have as much a right to be there as I do - but just as clearly, there are still too many of them. Same deal with overpopulation. I can't imagine how you think there aren't too many people on earth. We're very clearly stressing the planet in many ways - over-fishing the oceans, eliminating animal habitats, essential wetlands and rain forest by over-farming, instigating global climate change by burning too much fossil fuel, consuming too much water from rivers and lakes. Having enough food and water for 7 billion humans requires more resources than the planet has - period. If there were (say) just one billion humans instead of seven billion - we wouldn't have a problem. So it's quite plain that there are too many of us. But I don't deny that everyone has just as much right to live as any other. So it's unreasonable to ask that I point out individuals or groups who "shouldn't be here". Given that we agree that everyone who is currently alive is entitled to continue living, the only humane way out of this problem is to reduce the number of children we have in order to allow the population to decrease to a level that the planet can continue to support. Alternatives such as massed killings, wars, large-scale suicides and so forth are not considered morally acceptable. We need to find ways to reduce our global average birth rate from something like 3.1 per woman (what we have now) to well under 2.1 - and keep it there for a few hundred years. One-child-per-family is a bit aggressive. Two-children-per-family (if enforced, worldwide) is better. SteveBaker (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're also trapped by your perspective. You can say "right now, on this freeway, there are too many people driving". One solution is "get rid of some cars". Another solution to realize is that one freeway is not the whole earth, and that there are lots of freeways that are lightly driven. To scrap that analogy and come back to the topic at hand, there is no evidence that there are now too many people. There are lots of people who have a shortage of resources, but it is not abundantly clear that there is a global shortage of resources, or just a local shortage created by inefficient systems or bad local politics or whatever. It's a logistics problem, not a total resources problem. For the freeway example, if we could find a way to get more people to live and work in less populated areas with excess freeway capacity, you could reduce traffic in the big cities, without necessarily causing unreasonable traffic in lightly populated areas. If we could find ways to better distribute food and shelter and energy and clean water, it would solve the problems we have without requiring us to reduce the current population. --Jayron32 17:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Restricting people's reproductive freedom is not morally acceptable either. There is by no means universal agreement that the earth has "too many" people. Larger concerns are overconsumption in some areas of the world, and distribution barriers in other areas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

@Bugs: It's naive to assume that there will ever be "universal agreement" on anything - there are still people who think that the earth is flat or that they have invented perpetual motion machines. But just as global climate change has overwhelming scientific support, so does the idea that the earth is close to (or actually, somewhat past) breaking point (the two are clearly related). Check out Human overpopulation - it has good references for the claim that the earth's ecology is breaking under the strain, and very few that say that it's all OK. If you read it with an open mind, it's hard not to come away with the idea that there are far too many people here on this tiny planet.

@Jayron: As you say, the answer to the freeway problem is "Build more freeways" - but the analogous solution for earth: "Build more planets" ain't so simple. It's also very rash to assume that we can allow the population to increase further by doing better logistics. Better logistics would have helped 50 years ago...but all we have now is worse logistics. I was at an IKEA store in central Texas recently who were selling bottled water from Norway. Smoothing out the supply versus demand geography entails shipping product longer distances - and that increases costs and causes us to burn more fossil fuels doing the shipping. Inefficient systems and bad politics are even harder to fix than the population size!

SteveBaker (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I say again: Restricting people's reproductive freedom is immoral. And there are not "too many people". I recall something that was said when Paul Ehrlich wrote his book The Population Bomb - that the idea came to him when he was in India, surrounded by people of a different skin color than his. People who stress over population growth often want to restrict someone else's freedom. If you don't want kids, then don't have them. But don't try to tell others what they can or can't do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Does that freedom extend to unregistered IPs too? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. IP's are just as free to be fruitful and multiply as anyone is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say it was "moral" or "immoral" I didn't even say that we should do that. I'm certainly not saying that people from one demographic or race or geographical location should be singled out to make a population reduction. What I *am* saying it that there are too many people for this planet - and either we reduce the number by some means that we devise or we suffer the severe consequences...which will ultimately produce at least the same human population decrease - but in a way produced by mother nature - not by human choice. This will doubtless mean that the privileged in the 1st world countries will do better than those in the rest of the world...but not because we chose to do it that way. As for "If you don't want kids, then don't have them" - my wife and I considered this carefully and had just one child - I consider that the moral thing to do in an overcrowded planet. I'm not telling anyone to do anything - merely pointing out the indisputable facts of the impending doom that failing to decrease our population will inevitably bring.

"The Population Bomb" was a very bad book...poorly researched, not grounded in science at all. But it's instructive to see why it went wrong. For example, it predicted a disasterous famine in India - which didn't come to pass. People were going hungry, not because there wasn't enough food - but because governmental corruption was failing to distribute it properly. India went on to fix the corruption, and malnutrition rates more than halved from 90% to 40%. But the problem is that you can only fix corruption once. Once it's fixed and you double the food supplies, you've managed to postpone the worst of the malnutrition, but there still isn't enough food - and if the population doubles again, they'll be right back where "The Population Bomb" predicted. Sure, you can fix ad-hoc problems and stave off the problem of overpopulation for a while - but if you don't find a way to stabilize (and somewhat reduce) the population - you're just inevitably going to run into trouble in another generation or so.

The trick is to figure out why people want so many children and arrange that they don't need to do that. It's immoral to forcibly sterilize people after their first child - but it's not wrong to arrange for people to be confident that they'll be cared for in their old age without needing four children to support them. SteveBaker (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

@SteveBaker, I'm quite afraid I never said the things you've said I've said that you are arguing against. Please reread my previous statements on the matter, and craft an argument against what I did say so I can respond to it. I have no means to respond to arguments against things I never said or even implied. --Jayron32 12:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I guess I did somewhat misunderstand your reasoning. I'll think on your response a little more. SteveBaker (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Demographics of China, the population growth rate is currently around +0.5% / year, with 1.5 children per woman. That tells you something about how the Chinese policy and its various exceptions have played out in practice. Since 1.5 children per woman is still below the replacement rate, China's growth should eventually turn negative (assuming no further changes in policy) once the cohort from the population boom years (e.g. 1950s - 1960s) start to die off in earnest. Dragons flight (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "I can just say" is what is called flatus vocis (verbal diarrhea). What is relevant is either saying, if there are too many people, I should die (in which case, who's stopping you?) or other people should. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

641 tested recipes

I have a recipe book that was printed in 1954, Is this something anyone would like to have — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlealabama (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC) It is a Sealtest Kitchen recipe book — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlealabama (talk • contribs) 18:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Amazon.com shows 22 used copies for sale, starting at $0.01 (plus $3.99 for shipping). Looie496 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Contact an organization like Freecycle http://www.freecycle.org/ and offer the item. Most libraries will also take and then resell used books in good condition. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I just discovered http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook:Table_of_Contents recently that is free and handy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The user seems to be trying to give one away, not find one. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

PICTURE

Here's one!

I searched up a picture of the lanco hills skyline but i dont know if its legal to use it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilan123 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If in doubt, it probably is not - i.e. it's copyrighted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure where Lanco Hills is, but in the US copyright is now assumed automatically unless explicitly renounced or otherwise forbidden as with federal government documents and works. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's at least one that can be legally used (inserted at right). Looie496 (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

May 15

Public transportation bus start to operating the automated annunciator system

Roughly when did the public buses started to do the automated annunicator system, in the case when you go on the bus and approach intersection,you often hear "Now approaching Crown Valley Pky and Marguerite Pky, transfer points through routes 82, 85, 212, and 216", or "Now approaching Alton Pky and Jeronimo Rd, TP through routes 86 and 211" or "Now approaching Culver Dr and Walnut Av, TP through rotues 66 and 79". I know in Orange County Trans. Authority, the bus systems does those, but I don't know when did these started. 1997, did it have that program, I remembered I start to take OCTA bus in Summer 2007, I didn't remember these buses have auto-announcement broadcast, but 2009 when i start to start bus, it had that. i start to learn more about bus and every buses have 4 digit pin code like 7553, 7545, 7515, 7575, 7568 (I think these are new fashioned buses) 5666, 5596, 5673, 5572, 5536 are like these types. I know the 22xx or 23xx are the cutaway buses with speakers on only the 53xx don't have the broadcast announcement systems. Is it only Orange County which maintains these system or Los Angeles County buses some of it have these systems. I thought all Los Angeles County buses are cutaway styles, so I doubt any of these LA buses operates announcement autobroadcasts. What about San Diego County? Any buses over there does automated announcements?--69.233.254.115 (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking specifically about Los Angeles buses? Because public transport all over the world used automated announcements. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it seems clear to me that he is asking only for information about Los Angeles buses. --Viennese Waltz 11:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In Israel, the Egged bus company started approximately a year ago on the intercity line I travel on the northwest coast, and possibly elsewhere in the country. Nateev Express, a local company serving outlying areas, has yet to add these announcements. I would suppose older model buses can be retrofitted with the necessary equipment. It seems this in (tardy) compliance with accessibility laws to benefit passengers with visual impairments, as at around the same time, intersections in the town of Nahariya got audio-equipped notification systems for pedestrians at crosswalks, that at the press of a button announce the location and direction of the traffic signal.-- Deborahjay (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A similar system has been in use in London since 2007. See London iBus system. Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing that the system is actually called "Automatic Voice Annunciation". But I can't seem to find any SoCal archival news for it. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

With the buses in Orange County, when did they start announcement, the in formations are found Orange County Transportation Authority#Current, is just quite a bit for me to memorize. The table said 2101-2161 started in 2000 along with 7301-7320, and 2200-2399 started in 2001 along with 7401-7420, but the 5500-5678 and 7500-7592 started in 2007 to 2008, these are the ones I get most of the time.The 5121-5150 are the models made in 2008 --69.233.254.115 (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

May 16

Why did my question got bumped off?

I wrote a question on, I think, April ninth this year. It was about my love life, of course, the main concern of the question is some sort of advice from the readers.

Well, when I looked into the archives of this desk. My question got missing. It was gone, I guess. How do it happened. Actually, I was a new user in here. Thanks for some whom will answer this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.240.231 (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The real question here is: Who is "I"? I ask this as there is no earlier Ref desk question from IP address 125.60.240.231, as you can see if you click on the linked address. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I says "who is you?" "This is Mr. Bones" --Trovatore (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I would guess it was removed because "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." Answers to questions about your love life would be just that.196.214.78.114 (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

How to use chika dot com

Hi! May I ask those who were using the chika.com? How do you use this site on sending free SMS to a friend or someone. Could you tell me the steps on sending an SMS with the use of the said site? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.240.231 (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean Chikka? Chika dot com seems to redirect to a placeholder page with various adverts. Our article includes links to the various services provided by Chikka. It appears you have to register with the site to use their services. It might be quicker to explore the site and check their FAQ and help functions for yourself, rather than hoping that someone here may have used it and can explain it to you. - Karenjc 17:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Purchase Toyota HiAce

I am interested in purchasing one of the hiace super long custom 005? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.126.253 (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

(I added a heading to your question.)

Do you mean one of these? If so, please note there is no such thing as a 'hiace super long custom 005' - the '005' being a part of that image's file name. Nevertheless, you can enquire about purchasing a Toyota HiAce - a good place to start would probably be your local Toyota dealership. Toyota' Caribbean site lists Steele's Auto Supplies Co Ltd. as the distributor for Grenanda. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse for Spanish Wikipedia

I want to create or help to create like a Teahouse but in the Spanish Wikipedia. It sure will help.??? Thoughts?? User:Technical 13 thinks it is a great idea Can anyone help me??...Thanks Miss Bono (zootalk) 14:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a reference desk issue. --Onorem♠Dil 14:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The primary people involved in organizing the Teahouse were User:SarahStierch and User:Heatherawalls, if you want help of insight into porting this idea to other language Wikipedias, they would be the first people I would go to for help. --Jayron32 17:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

May 17

Did Wikipedia decrease its font size?

All of a sudden Wikipedia's font size seems much smaller, and it can't be because I'm using a different computer -- because I'm using the same one I've used for months now. It's very difficult to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.5.201 (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you accidentally reduced the font size? Try holding down the Ctrl key and turning the click wheel. --Viennese Waltz 05:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Or just "Ctrl +" to increase or Ctrl -" to decrease. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Or Ctrl 0 to bring it back to standard. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If those don't work tell us what browser you are using. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Moroccan powdered coffee

A find brought me back some loose coffee from Morocco. It's ground to a fine powder, almost like talcum. You add it to (just enough) cold water, in a saucepan, and boil it. It's delicious, Does this type/ method of making coffee have a name? Is it sold in the UK? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That method is most commonly known as Turkish coffee, or sometimes as Arabic coffee, I believe. It is ubiquitous in the Middle East, with minor variations. Looie496 (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the stuff; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have found it on sale in at least one UK delicatessen, and amazon.co.uk sells it at a fiver a tin (other suppliers are available). - Karenjc 16:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Tax protesters and dumb legal claims (in various countries)

We have a nice article about US tax protesters and it has a link to a very nice case book of stupid arguments. I read it for the entertainment value, it's pretty insane what people claim - I highly recommend it. I was wondering, however, if there are equivalent sort of things for other English-speaking (and Common Law) countries. Specifically, I am not so much looking for individual cases where e.g. people claimed they aren't the same person if their name is spelled in all caps or are ambassadors or whatever, but for a long list of the things people claim, with examples of what they claimed and maybe judges' responses, like in the external link I gave above. Since a large proportion of nonsense derives from specifically American things (like various constitutional amendments, whether IRS exists and what it is, whether the states are actually parts of the US, etc.), I am curious as to what replaces this for other countries. I am not specifically interested in tax-related things, it's just that those cases tend to be ones where the crazies come out in force, but really any sorts of claims where people make delusional claims about the legal systems and look for insane loopholes would be good. --216.239.45.78 (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Claiming to be a different entity with all caps than with mixed case is sometimes called the "Unix defense". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Freemen on the land and sovereign citizen movement look like good starting points. --Carnildo (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are, but they only give a small selection. I am looking for a comprehensive list. Plus this only includes one kind of legal reasoning and not stories like this one from the US:

Plaintiff brought a nearly incoherent lawsuit, alleging that he was immune to federal laws - presumably including the tax laws - against one person who was clearly his buddy and 100 unidentified "John and Jane Does" who were apparently govt employees, with the one buddy immediately confessing judgment on behalf of all his co-defendants)

Perhaps there's simply not that level of creative legal sophistication outside of the US:) 216.239.45.78 (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There certainly is on the part of the lawmakers. The following is part of Australian tax law, specifically s.165-55 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services) Act 1999 [1]:

For the purpose of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may:

a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and

b) treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as:

i) having happened at a particular time; and

ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity; and

c) treat a particular event that actually happened as:

i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or

ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity).

How's that! -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Any idea what could be the purpose of that language (which happens at least twice in Australian tax law)? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Presumably, since they can say that something that happened, didn't, and that something that didn't happen, did, they are making sure that whatever did or did not happen you still have to pay taxes! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the Act that Jack was kind enough to link, it's part of the anti-avoidance section (section 165, the purpose of which is explained in s165.1). It essentially means that if someone is playing silly buggers with loopholes to avoid paying taxes, the government can declare that, "no, you didn't just do that, and you do still have to pay taxes on that transaction as if you had carried it out normally". Taking the one clause out of context looks really weird, but it makes a lot more sense as part of the entire piece of legislation.

A number of countries' tax codes now include GAARs – General Anti-Avoidance Rules – to broadly bar similar schemes, or they incorporate such anti-avoidance provisions into specific tax laws. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

May 18

The character "娬" in early Chinese computer character sets

I'm not sure whether this question should be categorized under Computing or Language, but here it is:

I have a friend from China whose name contains the character 娬 (wǔ). However, when she went to get her (computer-produced) ID card during the 1990s, she was told that this particular character could not be produced with the computer systems that existed back then, so they substituted the character 斌 in its place, which, although visually similar, has a completely different pronunciation (bīn). Could this be explained by the limitations of early Chinese character sets such as GB2312? In other words, is it true that GB2312 (and possibly other early character sets) did not contain the character 娬? 24.47.141.254 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This is an ancient character. It is not in my small dictionary of 10000 characters, but is in a larger one. (the meaning is connected with beauty). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Plastic Bags

Resolved

Why do plastic shopping bags from UK supermarkets like ASDA have four little circular holes in the bottom? Surely it can't be for airflow, as the holes are in the bottom and are likely to be covered by what's in the bag. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

To make it less likely that rug rats will suffocate? Dismas|^(talk) 11:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This not quite reliable source appears to agree that it's for suffocation hazards. Dismas|^(talk) 11:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

If someone finds a reliable source, perhaps this information should be included in our Plastic shopping bag article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose that makes sense. Children do tend to like putting things over their heads, but I didn't think it was for that reason. So why is it that just the free bags have these holes, and not the ones you pay 5p for (the 'Bag For Life', as they call it in ASDA)? Is there a regulation on this, or is it just voluntary on the part of the organization making/distributing the bags? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The 5p bags tend to be slightly heavier plastic so although not impossible it is not so easy for the rug rats to suffocate as it is with the very thin free bags. [2] MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Cheers - you've answered my question perfectly. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Pigeons

Beginning hobby / is there any way to determine the sex of adult pigeons? Mine are gray with some colorful blue green plumage. This is my first experience with pigeons , so I am open to Advilce & help from experienced/knowledgable response.

15:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.193.12.14 (talk)

Removed duplicate post, seems Jayron32 and I both did one former and one latter lol. Addressing the question since they are adults you could wait around for a few months and if all else is in working order that would prove it for sure. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sexing Pigeons. μηδείς (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Rule 34? --Jayron32 21:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Not really, at least not the first few dozen hits. μηδείς (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the species/breed. Homing_pigeon#Sexual_dimorphism explains how the sexes can be differentiated by external morphology. Others may need to be flipped over and fiddled with, as shown in Medeis' link above. If you are starting to raise/breed pigeons, I highly recommend you find and join a local club [3], as this kind of info doesn't transmit very well online. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Been away from Wikipedia for 4 years.

Hello Everyone! I just created a new account and look forward to being a Wikipedian again. I last edited in July 2009 and haven't even been on Wikipedia at all since then. I have two questions about what may have changed. 1. What is the current consensus on paid editing? Did the issue of paid editing ever get resolved? (I remember it was pretty contentious back in 08-09). 2. What is the role of Jimbo Wales here these days?

Also, is there anything else that has changed remarkably that I need to know about? I look forward to reading all your answers. Thanks. Bacon Avacado Burrito (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PAID and WP:JIMBO. Looie496 (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PAY regarding paid editing. RudolfRed (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/Years. (You seem to have misspelled "avocado". See wikt:avocado.)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

See "History of Wikipedia".—Wavelength (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. That seems like a lot of reading though and I'm getting into middle age. Would you mind summarizing the issues for me in your own words? Thanks. (As far as the Avacado thing, I did misspell it, but I copied it verbatim from the menu of the cafe I was at earlier.) Now, about those summaries...Bacon Avacado Burrito (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Schnitzel Syndrome is apparently alive and well. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Paid editing is tolerated, provided it's neutral, but WP:conflict of interest promotion leads to death by WP:TROUTing. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised about the WP:PAY section. Back four to six years ago paid editing sparked reams and reams of heated debate, hurt feelings, and banned editors. Now it's just a few paragraphs in the COI policy, huh? Wow. So what's the current "hot topics"? Bacon Avacado Burrito (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We had a bit of a row about not putting references on every post on the Reference Desk a few months ago...

Probably the most important development is a greatly increased focus on preventing abuses in biographies of living persons; see WP:BLP. Looie496 (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that it's not like paid editing controversy has gone away. There have been several hot issues of the last year or two where it came in to play sometimes in addition to other stuff besides COI, e.g. Bell Pottinger which lead to [4] amongst other things, [5], [6]/[7], Gibraltarpedia. There are of course also various COI related ones where paid editing is not necessarily a major factor, including one involving User:Qworty which is active right now. See also List of Wikipedia controversies and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-10-01/Paid editing. Note that as Looie496 said, there is also a focus on protecting BLPs (I don't know if I'd say it's greatly increased since IMO we were already fairly focused on it 4 years ago, although it's definitely greatly increased since 6-8 years or so ago) and when it comes to editors, avoiding outing so I (and we) have to be careful what I said in reply. Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Guns in towels

I know nothing about guns. Why do I see that TV characters so often have their handguns (usually hidden) wrapped in a cloth or towel? I hide things, but not normally wrapped in towels. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Because it's soft and also will leave the gun in a shiny lustre. Plus a towel (especially an Italian waiter's towel) can also be used as an imprompteuax silencer if you need to shoot your local crime boss and take over his "action." (a la the flashback scenes in Godfather II) Bacon Avacado Burrito (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You're not specific about when you see them hidden. When the character is holding it (presumably intending to fire) or when it's hidden in storage or what? If it's while being carried (and intended to be shot) a towel is a benign object that is often carried over a person's arm. So, nobody notices. If shot, the bullet will exit but the gun won't be seen by bystanders if it's under a towel. Shot is fired. Everyone looks around. You're just some guy with a towel running away with everyone else. If it's hidden but in storage, it doesn't mar the finish of the gun. Dismas|^(talk) 01:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Leon Czolgosz shot William McKinley with a gun wrapped in a handkerchief.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I meant they are wrapped in towels when they are hidden during storage. I have recently seen this on Sons of Anarchy, when a hidden gun is pulled out of the back of a drawer, and True Blood, when a gun is pulled out of what looks like a chimney or a hole in a wall. I also saw it recently on a third show, probably Breaking Bad, because I commented to myself that was the second time I had seen it when I did on SoA. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It is to keep it clean. Covering it with a towel can stop dust getting into the mechanism while in storage, as dust can cause the gun to malfunction. The towel itself is also used when stripping down a gun to clean its parts. Might as well keep them together. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The answers make sense, although I would have expected guns come with cases. The towel thing struck me as about as odd as people keeping their cars under down comforters. μηδείς (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The contrast and the manual action of revealing contents may introduce a desired element of drama. If a gun is hidden in a "chimney or a hole in a wall" it needs to be presented to the viewer as not just junk, but rather a valuable and protected object. Guns may come with "cases" but cases may not fit into chimneys or holes in the wall. The towel may reduce the size of the secreted object relative to a comparable case. The towel-wrapped gun may conform better to available space. Generating fear in an audience is a high priority at a point at which a weapon is revealed in a story. For dramatic effect, the primitive brutality of the gun may be presaged better by the more simple associations brought to mind by a towel than by the more complex and nuanced associations brought to mind by a made-to-order gun case. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

May 19

Powerball

What channel can I watch the Powerball drawings live? I live in California. Thanks in advance. 71.146.1.122 (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You may not be able to. I didn't see anything on the CA lottery site [8] and the powerball site doesn't show any California TV stations [9]. RudolfRed (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This is their official youtube channel here. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Address

Can anyone find the mailing address of the God Bless America Fund for Redistribution? My Google-fu has failed me. (If you're curious, they own the rights to the song God Bless America and disperse profits to the Girl and Boy Scouts of America.) Sophus Bie ^(talk) 11:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the capital 'R' in 'redistribution' in thart article is incorrect, which has led you to think that there is an organization called the God Bless America Fund for Redistribution. The 'r' should be in lower case, and the fund is just called the God Bless America Fund. See here [10] for a reference. I can't find the address of the Fund either, but I imagine it is administered by the trustees of Irving Berlin's estate. --Viennese Waltz 11:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Aha! I guess I was right the first time around; the article made me think that I had been searching incorrectly. In any case, I still need the address (of the trustees or otherwise) in order to request permission to arrange. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 11:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I can't supply a mailing address, the sheet music I have for the piece indicates at the bottom the following: Copyright 1939 by Irving Berlin, Inc. Copyright assigned to Herbert Swope, Theodore Roosevelt Jr. and Gene Tunney, as Trustees. It may be that there are specific trustees for the piece of music separate from the trustees of the composer's estate. I hope this helps in your search.--Romantic Mollusk (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)