Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

April 28

Request to add photo of eminent Economist

Hello,

I was wondering if it would be possible to include a photo of Paul Ormerod on his homepage - I tried to read through the steps but found it difficult to follow,

there's a good one here:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XeUuBx5mKuU/UcG829tln3I/AAAAAAAAAn8/CgsT3eDe9QY/s1600/ormerod.jpg

He has written three very highly acclaimed economics books so far, and I think it would be right to put a face to his page.

Thanks,

Liam.

159.134.232.43 (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a reference desk question. Please use the Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions for assistance in uploading images.--Maleko Mela (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Eminent" might be a bit much. How about "better known than average"? RomanSpa (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. If he's notable enough for an article, he's notable enough for a mugshot. —Tamfang (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Eminent economist" has a certain eloquence that "better known than average money guy" lacks. There are more important things than absolute truth. But the truth is, there's still no picture. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

You'd probably get better help at either the WP:Teahouse or the WP:Help Desk, for these sorts of questions about Wikipedia.

To put a picture in an article, it must first be uploaded to Wikimedia. To do that, you need to be logged in to an account. Anyone can create an account for free, without even the email verification that many websites use.

Be aware that there can be WP:Copyright issues when it comes to pictures, which is why articles on people don't always have the greatest possible picture: we can only use free (as in copyright, not cost) images, which often means someone has to go to an event, take a photo of the person, and upload it to Wikimedia, selecting the option to release the image under an appropriate licence. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Or argue fair use on things that meet the criteria. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

Russian Air Force

According to our Russian Air Force article, it is commanded by a lieutenant general. Why so low a rank? For instance the much smaller RAF is commanded by an air chief marshal (=full (four star) general). SpinningSpark 12:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't that low a rank. Lieutenant general is a three-star level rank, so he would be only one rank below an Air chief marshal. This is to be expected as the Russian Armed Forces have a unified structure under the command of a four-star general. (The same structure, for instance, exists in Canada where the Canadian Forces are commanded by a four-star General and the Royal Canadian Air Force is under the command of a Lieutenant General.)

(It does get a bit confusing that a Major out ranks a Lieutenant, but a Lieutenant General outranks a Major general.) - Eron^Talk 16:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The present incumbent is one Viktor Bondarev, who is indeed a Lieutenant General (equivalent to NATO rank code OF-7 or RAF Air Vice-Marshal. However, his predecessor was Alexander Zelin who was a Colonel-General (NATO OF-8 or RAF Air Marshal), so it looks as though it isn't set in stone. Zelin was sacked but nobody knows why - how very Russian. Alansplodge (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Post-World War I Plebiscite (Referendum) Requests Which Were Rejected

I know that shortly after World War I several plebiscites (referendums) took place in order to help determine the borders of various countries. I also know that requests for plebiscites in Alsace-Lorraine and in South Schlewsig got rejected. My question here is this: Were there any other cases shortly after World War I where there were requests for plebiscites which got rejected? Futurist110 (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This book mentions Austria (anschluss with Germany), the Åland Islands, and the Vilnius Region. jnestorius^(talk) 20:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War

Is this is the first war in human history for which so many first-hand video footage from the warfront are available in the internet for public viewing? Is there any previous war which saw such wide number of videos? --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan just love to post pics they take of their bombs going off and killing people. StuRat (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Another question, can members of US military make videos using smartphone cameras while in the battlefiled? Is it legal? --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not encouraged, in light of recent incidents of photos being released and causing severe PR damage, but it may or may not be illegal. I'm not familiar enough with military law to comment on that. StuRat (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Basdeo Panday

Hi I am from Trinidad in the West Indies. Recently I read the profile on Basdeo Panday and saw his birth place being that of Trinidadian. To my knowledge he was born in Guyana. Could you please verify this and contact me or make relevant changes if necessary.190.213.37.76 (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this, though a better place to do so would be on the talk page Talk:Basdeo Panday. His birthplace, like most of the information in the article Basdeo Panday, was unreferenced (which means it is a very poor article, and I have added an appropriate tag) so could have been removed; however, I have found this, saying that he was born in Princes Town, which seems to be in Trinidad, and have therefore added the town and the reference to the article. If you have a reliable source that says he was born in Guyana, you should bring this up on the talk page; but if it is your own knowledge unsupported by published sources, I think the Parliament of T&T wins! --ColinFine (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Is blue hair a "thing" in England for older women?

File:Enid Blyton.jpg

I saw today's featured article and noticed the picture in it and it seems to me I've seen other older English women with blue hair watching some shows and movies but I couldn't swear how many times or pinpoint where. I was just wondering if it's a thing in England and if so its origins?--108.46.109.33 (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Blue rinse is the stuff. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not just England. Google a song called "Blue Hair Driving In My Lane". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget Marge Simpson. StuRat (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The origin is surely that people with greying (or fully greyen) hair sometimes feel the need to not look like they're grey (and by extension, old). So, they add a colour to enhance the impression of relative youth. The bags and lines and cracks in their faces do tend to give the game away, though. Marge is a much later comer. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• You might also watch A Clockwork Orange. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It's very easy for grey hair to develop a yellow tinge and this doesn't flatter older skin, so the blue rinse is used to reduce or remove the yellow tones. You're welcome. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Purely anecdotal evidence, but I don't recall seeing any elderly ladies with a "blue rinse" in London since the 1980s, but then again, I haven't been looking too hard. Alansplodge (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The blue rinse lives on in New England (USA), though it may literally be dying out. I don't often see it on women under 80. Marco polo (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• In case it isn't clear to some: the goal of using blue rinse by many people is NOT to turn their hair visibly blue. The objective is usually to change a yellow-gray to a silver-gray. The picture posted above is someone who did it "wrong", at least probably in the eyes of her peers. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I am certain that some elderly women in the United States want their hair to appear pale blue. Typically, they apply the rinse to hair that is mostly white, rather than gray. Marco polo (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Corporal Punishment

Recently there was a video on facebook where a mother beats her 12 year old daughter for posting unfit pictures. This happened in Trinidad in the West Indies. The mother's name is Helen Bartlett. Could you please verify this information?190.213.37.76 (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Verify that such a video exists, or that it's not fake ? StuRat (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

For some reason, I am not surprised that the OP's IP geolocates to Trinidad. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Neither appear to be actresses. So whether the strop stung or not: it is pretty good acting. The follow up however, suggests this was not done for the benefit of the camera. So I'd say, what you see is what she got.--Aspro (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

April 29

Mailer/Behan punch-up

I've just been reading a 1999 review of the book "To Convey Intelligence: The Spectator 1928-1998" by Simon Courtland. The reviewer writes at one point:

• It also held newsworthy parties, at one of which Brendan Behan had his famous punch-up with Norman Mailer.

This event seems to be so "famous" that I cannot find a single online reference to it. Mailer was somewhat prone to such behaviour (his fisticuffs with Gore Vidal get/s a few hits), and Behan was also an uncouth type given to brawling; but there's nothing about a fight between these two, either in the context of a Spectator party or anywhere else.

Was the reviewer mistaken? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of it either, and like you can find no references for it. By the by, it does seem that neither Mailer nor Behan were much cop as pugilists. STORMIN' NORMAN. DuncanHill (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Duncan. That does mention that they had a fight, but it sounds more like a pre-arranged match. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I should read more carefully!DuncanHill (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I've concluded that the reviewer was mistaken, there being no evidence of this allegedly "famous" punch-up. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Anglo-Saxon exiles after 1066

Has there been any study or history book relating to the groups of Anglo-Saxons (mainly the former nobility and their widows and children) who escaped England after the Norman Conquest and resettled as expatriates in other parts of Europe?--170.140.105.10 (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article about Edgar the Ætheling notes that some of the exiles ended up in Scotland, and used it as a base of operations for attempts to oust the Normans. His sister, Saint Margaret of Scotland, would become Queen of Scotland and grandmother to both William Adelin and Empress Matilda. --Jayron32 02:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sons of Tostig Godwinson ended up in Norway, it seems. --Jayron32 02:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Gytha of Wessex (Daughter of Harold Godwinson) ended up in Denmark on the way to marrying into the royal family of Kievan Rus'. That article also mentions two of her brothers ending up in Denmark as well, but doesn't mention which ones. --Jayron32 02:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Gytha married Vladimir II Monomakh of Kievan Rus'. I've read elsewhere that this could be connected with the establishment of Nova Anglia mentioned below. There's a little more information here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Gospatric, Earl of Northumbria also ended up in Scotland with the other exiles there, before finding his way to Flanders. --Jayron32 02:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be more interesting to learn about their entourages, the groups of fellow exiles and the communities they formed in these foreign lands. --170.140.105.10 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Some of them apparently ended up in the Varangian Guard in the Byzantine Empire. I'm certain there have been studies on exiles in general - the Anglo-Saxons are a well-covered subject, although it's not my field in particular so I'm not sure where to look...but for the ones who went to Byzantium, you could try "The English and Byzantium" by Jonathan Shepard (Traditio 29, 1973) and The Varangians of Byzantium by Sigfus Blondal. (There must be more recent works that I'm not aware of, though!) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

See also New England (medieval). The state of Nova Anglia was supposedly founded on the Black Sea coast by these refugees in the Varangian Guard. SpinningSpark 08:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Our article Harold Godwinson, says that his sons sought refuge in Ireland and from there mounted an counter invasion, landing in Devon. I'm struggling to find much more about that, but give me time. Alansplodge (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a study, but for a fictional account I strongly recommend The Last English King by Julian Rathbone. DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

John Bedford Leno

Without wishing to be disrespectful, there are some howlers here which permeate several different pages. I have corrected one reference to the Reform League, Hyde Park Riot and intend to do the same for the incorrect reference to Edmund Beales and to the Reform League but the root of the problem appears to be the page on Leno. Leno could not have joined the First International in 1848 as it was not established until the 1860s. I know that, but have insufficient knowledge of Leno's life (sources are scarce) to know what alternative organisation the author was thinking of. I would like to collaborate with other scholars to tidy this up because frankly it is a mess. Is there any mechanism in Wiki through which I can request collaboration in this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.1.31 (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but the best place to discuss these issues is Talk:John Bedford Leno. --Viennese Waltz 09:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite right, but when you've done that, leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom which should get the ball rolling. Good luck. Alansplodge (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The article was (largely) written by an editor who has not made any contributions at all since 2008.. and I doubt if that article is watched by many pairs of eyes. My advice to 121.44.1.31 would simply be to edit it yourself to remove any obvious errors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As for "some howlers", I'm sure there are many others under active discussion, many others yet to be discovered, and many new ones getting inserted every day of the week. We have over 4.5 million articles, and that's just in the English language version; we have versions in something like 200 other languages to boot. It's all done by unpaid volunteer editors, who are not required to demonstrate any academic credentials whatsoever. They range from university professors to people who are barely literate. It really is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". That is its sorrow and also its joy. You'll find plenty of examples of both. Happy reading and, if you're interested, happy editing. We need people like you: an eye for detail, can string a sentence together, shows respect, sees the bigger picture. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

April 30

short story identification

Not science fiction but I think it was written by an SF writer, maybe R. A. Lafferty.

Narrator is the credit manager of a department store, in the era before Equifax. His job is to evaluate credit applications from customers and approve or disapprove credit. Some stores had strict rules for credit approval, others were more subjective; this particular one was an "ironclad system house", i.e. very strict. A customer comes in and cheerfully admits not meeting any of the credit requirements (income, residence stability etc) but seems so charming and trustworthy that the narrator breaks the rules and approves credit anyway. Customer buys a lot of stuff and can't pay. Store can't get the cops involved, since the guy never committed fraud (truthfully admitted not having money) and didn't steal anything, so he was just a deadbeat, not a crook. Credit manager confesses the error to the big boss, expecting to get fired. Boss is understanding, says the same customer did the same thing at a lot of other stores, all of them strict like the narrator's--the loose ones were left alone, and the boss himself may have personally done an approval, so the credit manager is forgiven. I'm not sure if there is a moral or conclusion after that.

Thanks, 70.36.142.114 (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Diplomatic immunity and firefighters

How does diplomatic immunity apply to quasi-governmental entities such as firefighters? For example, imagine that a fire is raging in Dupont Circle, and the Washington firefighters are having to use extreme measures to stop it. Are they allowed to enter a diplomatic compound without the ambassador's permission in order to fight the fire? Are they required to gain permission before doing anything to a fire in the compound? On the opposite side, are they permitted to do anything that they're permitted to do at private properties? I'm assuming that there are tons of local regulations on their actions; I don't care about those, since I'm only interested in international law. I'm basically asking about what (if any) components of diplomatic immunity are waived by international law for public safety agencies (excepting law enforcement, of course) in emergency situations. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe that you're thinking of extraterritoriality, not diplomatic immunity. --Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, they would need the ambassador's permission, or permission of whoever was in charge, to enter the embassy. I suspect that, lacking permission, they would limit their actions to spraying water from the outside the embassy compound, to prevent the fire from spreading beyond the embassy. StuRat (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations covers this. Article 31 states that consular premises shall be inviolable and permission is needed for authorities of the host state to enter them, but notes that ""The consent of the head of the consular post may, however, be assumed in case of fire or other disaster requiring prompt protective action." - Eron^Talk 02:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's a link to an actual case, at the Cuban Consulate in Montreal in 1988: Consulate staff did not allow city firefighters to enter the premises and three employees died who might have been saved had the firefighters been allowed to intervene. [1] --Xuxl (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Combat footage

Is it legal for members of the US military to capture live footage from the warfront and then publicly distribute it? --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as Bradley Manning was convicted of Espionage Act violations for passing such footage to Wikileaks, I doubt it. --Viennese Waltz 11:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Recently I watched a documentary titled Apocalypse: The Second World War. The entire films consits of footage caputred by armed forces members of the major power of the Second World War. How could they capture it if it was illegal, especially the footage of the Nazi military. --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between, for example, an army film unit recording footage for official distribution, and individual soldiers using their smartphones or whatever. And likewise, there's a difference between what the military releases promptly, what it keeps for its own purposes and releases later under timed disclosure rules, and what it doesn't want released at all. WW2-era soldiers were not generally toting their personal cine cameras at the front line. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, what Chelsea did was illegal because the footage was classified and no one approved the release. I don't think it is relevant to the question, which I read as asking about "unofficial" footage being captured by soldiers with theit own devices. There are almost certainly rules that must be followed before releasing that sort of footage (if they're even allowed to take it in the first place), so we should try to find references for those rules. Katie R (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was assuming that all footage was classified, whether taken by a soldier with his own device or by some kind of official cameraman (if such a thing even exists anymore). There's no reason to draw a distinction on the secrecy level of a piece of footage based on who shot it. --Viennese Waltz 14:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily who shot it, but what it depicts. In WWII, news media were allowed to report on events which would already be known to the enemy. You may recall that Geraldo Rivera caught some heat in the early weeks of Gulf War II, as he was imbedded with the troops, and on at least one occasion he talked a bit too much about where they were and what was going on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it legal/illegal? That asks for a legal opinion... you would have to ask a lawyer. (Note that Wikipedia is not supposed to give legal advice or opinions... we can look things up in law books and quote the text of a law, but we can not interpret the law). The applicable text for the US Military would be the Uniform Code of Military Justice... other nations will, of course, have different laws. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This writeup from 2006 indicates that the DOD has been pretty liberal with allowing soldiers to capture and post pictures and videos. But they do draw the line at certain things, including the type of stuff that got Geraldo in trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Two official film departments were the US Army Pictorial Service (a division of the Signal Corps), and the First Motion Picture Unit. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, April 30, 2014 (UTC)

More recent (2008) info can be gleaned from this New York Times piece. More about censoring the embedded press, but the same sorts of things should logically apply to social media soldiers. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I think most soldiers can easily capture a footage like, say, launching of an anti-tank missile in the direction of a T-90, or launching of a stinger etc. I don't see how these footage could reveal classified information.

• Regarding the historical significance, I will rank the Syrian Civil War as a history setter because it is the first war in the history of mankind that produced widely available combat footage using consumer electronics, both from the side of the Syrian military and the rebels. The same is for South Sudanese conflict (2013–14).

• The smartphone revolution is relatively a new thing beginning in the year 2011. And the only war involving major military powers is the Libyan war for which the most widely watching video is probably the launch of Tomahawk missiles from a ship. But that video was probably shot by a professional film unit as the youtube channel is called MilitaryNotes. --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if the launching pad counts as the "warfront". It's the killing part they generally censor, tactical info notwithstanding. Big guns and fast planes are good recruitment tools, so long as people see fire, not blood. Glory, not guts. Whenever you see a story involving pictures of US war killing, it becomes a scandal story instead. These are the types of military videos the Department of Defense prefers. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Matthew Brady's exhibit of photographs of the dead of Antietam caused a major stir, because it's about the reality of war, which can undermine support for it, especially of bodies of allies as opposed to enemies. That same mentality continues today. No small amount of controversy even over coffins draped in US flags, while the controversy over graphic photos of Saddam Hussein's dead sons was much less. (In fact, according to the articles, the US itself released those photos.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As Mel Brooks said, "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die." The Hussein kids weren't intended as sideslapping hilarity, but certainly to put a smile on some faces. Of course, it only really works when the dead have been sufficiently built up as heels. If there's uncertainty (as is usually the case with "suspected militants"), uninvolved viewers will generally default to empathy.

Control Room gives a decent look at the issue (and others) in war news around invasion time, particularly at Al Jazeera. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

No. BB's surprising theory that a notorious bushranger from Van Diemen's Land reincarnated 35 years after he died and snapped pics at Bull Run and Antietam has an initial sensationalism that pales on confrontation with the correct link to the American civil war photographer Mathew Brady. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

D'oh! Yes, it was Mathew Brady whose photo exhibit in New York caused a bit of a row due to its potential for undermining the warhawk propaganda machine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Notable members of the British Home Guard in World War II

I was thinking of starting a new section in our Home Guard (United Kingdom) article, about notable people who served in the Home Guard. I already have George Orwell, George Formby and Patrick Moore, as well as a few retired generals like Douglas Brownrigg who was the military advisor for the 1943 film The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. Do any others spring to mind? Alansplodge (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Perry of course. DuncanHill (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A few more listed here, including, rather pleasingly, Arnold Ridley and John Laurie. DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'd forgotten about Jimmy Perry. In trying to find some references, I came across Undiscovered Scotland: John Laurie wich says; " John Laurie served in the Home Guard, the only future Dad's Army cast member to do so". More work needed. Alansplodge (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

To me, my father was notable. After a night's work at a London newspaper office he feel asleep whilst on guard duty and collapsed upon his bayonet leaving a scar over his eye for the rest of his life.85.211.136.204 (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

An excellent story. Many people forget that HG duties were on top of wartime extended working hours, with many working 6½ days a week. Alansplodge (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Alansplodge, it brought a lump to my throat again!85.211.136.204 (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

May 1

Shanty town and slum

What is the difference between Shanty town and slum? --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It should be reasonably clear from the articles, but the key factor is this: a shanty town is necessarily composed of ad-hoc buildings made of junk and readily-available materials. A slum might be a shanty town, but many notorious slums have been, and still are, comprised of purpose-built houses in traditional building materials such as wood, plaster, brick and concrete. I'd go so far as to say that all shanty towns are slums, but not all slums are shanty towns. Rookery (slum) is about a historic form of slum in which the main buildings were mainly purpose-built houses, but where a lack of repair and maintenance, combined with ad-hoc extensions, had started to transform them into something more like a modern shanty town. (My ancestors lived in something like this, round the back of St Martin's church in central London.) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're interested in such things, you might like Kowloon_Walled_City, a fascinating example of a fort that turned into a slum, and then perhaps a shanty town. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"Murder on the Orient Express" question

I just read this book, and there's something that confuses me: in his summation (part 3, ch. 9), Poirot says that as soon as MacQueen was told about the letter fragment (part 2, ch. 2), MacQueen immediately told the others, and they all agreed to deny any connection with the Armstrong family. But in Princess Dragomiroff's subsequent interview (part 2, ch. 6), she freely admits that she was a friend of Linda Arden and godmother of Sonia Armstrong. So does Poirot misspeak here? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No... the Princess may well have agreed to deny any connection with the Armstrongs... but under Poirot's questioning she slips up, and mentions her relationship when she probably should not have. Poirot is good at getting suspects to do things like that. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Or Poirot was (gasp!) slightly wrong when he said everyone agreed. Maybe the princess considered that as she and the Armstrongs were both public figures, her connection might be known and it was safer if she, alone, did not conceal it. (That said, I haven't read the book, and it's been quite a while since I saw the movie, so it's possible that there's something I don't know that makes that not sense.) --50.100.193.30 (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Popular critics of Internet communities?

I just want to know who are the popular critics of Internet communities and a brief summary and references about their opinions in regards to "disembodied gatherings and worship online that create a false form of community". (Exploring Religious Community Online: We are One in the Network, written by Heidi Campbell 2005) I presume it's a common observation. Hence the lack of citation in the book. Still, I'm interested in the claim and what the popular critics have to say about "disembodied gatherings and worship online". I never even knew that you could worship online. 140.254.227.117 (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

On the mechanics of running "worship online," my first guess is a videophone-type thing or a broadcast setup, as if everyone logs on to a webcast that shows a preacher and/or song leader at various points. Also consider websites like www.sermonaudio.com [I can't give the full link, since it's on the spam blacklist], a site that offers downloadable sermon recordings. It definitely wouldn't work with any of the Christian sacraments, since they all involve one-on-one interaction. 2001:18E8:2:28CA:F000:0:0:2B89 (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

But songs and sermons only play a part in many traditional Christian liturgies. There are the recitations of the various creeds and prayers, and many Christian liturgies are done uniformly and synchronously. 140.254.227.117 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ship of Fools (website) has experimented with worship, though obviously not with sacraments, through at least two different social platforms over the years. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The website mentions "complete atheists". I wonder if they are Christian atheists or some sort of post-Enlightenment atheist or the Dawkins atheist or a confirmed atheist who personally does not believe in deities but still respect deceased spirits of family ancestors due to family heritage and tradition. 140.254.227.117 (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I used to be a regular. We had all of the above, as I recall, as well as a few adherents of non-Christian religions. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I went to the website and noticed they have purgatory. The only Christian denomination that accepts the doctrine of purgatory is Roman Catholicism and maybe Roman Catholic dissidents (i.e. "traditionalist Catholics" or "Old Catholics") who are not Protestants, Orthodox Christians, or non-Trinitarian Christians. 140.254.227.117 (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Without wishing to prolong this tangent too far: those names were not chosen to reflect the theology of the site, or even of the site's organisers - they were just amusing titles for the forums in question. There is no practical connection between the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory and the SoF forum for the discussion of serious topics. You have no need to explain to me which denomination believe in the doctrine of Purgatory. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry.140.254.227.117 (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Among Buddhists the e-sangha concept, meaning an on-line community paralleling traditional sangha monastic communities is relatively uncontroversial. In contrast, the Catholic Holy See has taught for centuries (see Aquinas) that sacramental confession requires three "acts" on the part of the penitent: contrition of the soul, disclosure of the sins (the 'confession'), and doing penance, i.e. amends for the sins, but seems nonplussed in bewilderment about the ecologically progressive fulfilment of these functions via Skype with an on-line Priest. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

'Nonplussed' would imply they say nothing on the matter: in fact, the Catholic Church says a fair amount about Confession over telephone or through other distance media. You also need to bear in mind the concerns about privacy when it comes to the Sacrament of Reconciliation: where exciting new sign-language translators have been installed in Confessionals, it has been strongly emphasised that they have no means of connecting to any networks or other computers, let alone the internet. That they consider it invalid does not mean they say nothing about it. And I fail to see how running a computer at each end, two routers, and all the servers involved, is more eco-friendly than walking into a Confessional. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It's presumably more eco-friendly than driving your car to church in order to confess. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Taken to an extreme, that's an argument for all people working from home, electronically connected to their workplaces and the rest of world, never needing to leave the house, and never meeting or interacting with other people. Worldwide institutionalised agoraphobia, the end of sexual activity, and the end of human life. The environment would be fine, though. Except, nobody would ever experience it, not even while there are any people left who could theoretically do so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 14:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The Code of Canon Law, Canon 964.1 states: The proper place to hear sacramental confessions is a church or oratory. my underline. The French Catholic Church is not impressed by phone lines. The Conference of French Bishops said in a statement: "For the Catholic faithful, it (the confession) has a sacramental meaning and requires the real presence of a priest," it said, adding that the "Cord to the Lord" line had "no approval from the Catholic Church in France." However, the church has set up a 46-cents-a-minute hotline for worshipers to place a prayer petition at the Grotto of Lourdes. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. I suppose this must have much to do with the concept of the "presence of the Holy Spirit", a phrase well recognized on Google. It is at least hard to think of a concept in Christianity more fundamental than the Holy Spirit, or more mysterious... anything I say is likely to be misinformed. Is the "presence" a physical presence, a presence within a social network of interaction, a presence that is connected with the causality of events, something else? I would expect that some of these models might be distinguished by asking whether the Holy Spirit can be directly perceived in the film of an event - I would use ca. 1:20 on [2] as a best known example to me, but I don't know what others would think. However, to recognize some effects of any possible thing on a group of people may not be actually the same as perceiving the thing itself. Wnt (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian development pace

Why the development pace of Egytian civilization throughout thousands of years was generally slow (as evidenced by slow and sometimes minor changes in dress, technology and science) when compared to, say, AD 100-300, AD 300-900 or AD 1000-1300 timeframes in European realms and countries? --93.174.25.12 (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Do we know for sure that it was that slow, or is it just that we have more detailed information for the more recent past? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how it is possible to measure quantitatively the pace of a civilization. Science as we know it is a modern invention. In ancient times, people did think differently than people today. 140.254.227.117 (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

People usually don't realize how much Egypt did change over 3,000 years. New Kingdom Egypt, from roughly 1500 to 1000 BC, had chariots, bronze weapons, and a multicultural empire, which would have been hard for Egyptians in the Old Kingdom, roughly 2700 to 2100 BC, to imagine. Egyptians in Ptolemaic and Roman times prayed to their age-old gods and wrote stories about legendary pharaohs like Ramesses II while they were holding Greek-style athletic games and collecting manuscripts of Homer. Part of the reason for the illusion of changelessness is that the Egyptians themselves constantly reworked their traditions so it would seem that they were doing things as they'd always been done. (Barry Kemp's book Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilisation gives a lot of examples of that habit.) An inscription from the Roman-era Temple of Dendera that claims its floorplan was laid out in the reign of Khufu, 2,500 years earlier. A temple did exist at that site in the Old Kingdom, if not quite as far back as Khufu's reign, but the specific claim is flatly false. Most Old Kingdom temples were nothing like the size of the Roman temple at Dendera, and their ground plans were very different. A lot of architectural and decorative motifs (columns shaped like plants, hypostyle halls, cavetto cornices) would have been shared, but the ones at Dendera were almost always more elaborate than their New Kingdom counterparts, let alone those from the Old.

It's true that life in ancient Egypt did not change as much as life has changed in the past 2,000 years, but I think that's a product of the increasing pace of change in civilization in general. More sophisticated technology, more cultural exchange, and more people create a snowballing effect. Egypt started at the beginning of recorded history, so it's naturally going to appear more slow-moving than anything in our recent experience. The other factor is Egypt's relative isolation, which allowed it to maintain more of its original traditions than Mesopotamia, where a new people invaded or supplanted the locals every few centuries (Akkadians, Gutians, Amorites, Hittites, Kassites, Medes…). Egypt didn't have frequent invasions like that until after 1000 BC. A. Parrot (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

One example of how their technology changed is pyramids. The earliest ones were made of mud brick and didn't survive. They figured out later how to build them to last, and those are the ones we still see today.

Also, near the end of the independent Egyptian era (before it was conquered by Rome), it was in decline, something like Europe in the dark ages. So, if you include that period, then that's like saying there was very little progress in Europe from, say, 1000 BC to 1000 AD. StuRat (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Software playlists

I was wondering f there are any other software playlists beyond Real player? the amound of times that thing has frozen up and deleted my lists, I cant deal with it anymore? But im looking for a similar free software to play it. the VLC media player doesn't offer thisl.Lihaas (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

QuickTime. 140.254.226.235 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of audio player software will give you an overview. --Jayron32 12:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Male Mormon missionaries vs. female Mormon missionaries

Is there a statistically significant discrepancy between the number of male Mormon missionaries and female Mormon missionaries? 140.254.226.235 (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Historically there were fewer women Mormon missionaries because the LDS set the minimum age for men missionaries at 19 years old, while setting a minimum age for women missionaries at 21. This rule changed last year, with the minimum age for women missionaries dropping to 19. Since that change, there's been a sharp increase in the number of women missionaries. A third of new missionaries are now women. There are figures in this news article. [3] OttawaAC (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2

Best selling books

I read somewhere that "don quixote" has sold more copies than "A tale of two cities". If its true it should be changed accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhinav0908 (talk • contribs) date

Hi, thanks for the heads up. If you find where you read it, please come back and tell us; we can't change it without a source. 184.147.147.28 (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The fifth sentence in List of best-selling books has someting to say about this. (Note also that Don Quixote is placed in a special "No reliable sales figures" table in that article.) Deor (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

May 3

Are we getting dumber?

Hi all. I have been thinking about the cultural phenomenon that, in general, couples that are more educated and/or economically advantaged and/or more intelligent tend to have less children than those that are not. Is this proven science or hogwash? What studies have been done? What is the current accepted viewpoint? Has this existed throughout history? Do genes really have a huge effect on cognitive traits, or is it more like hitting the lottery? And lastly, what are the potential impacts to humanity in the far future? Are we destined for an Idiocracy? Justin15w (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

See this nydailynews article, which states "According to a study conducted by London School of Economics researcher Satoshi Kanazawa, a woman's maternal urge decreases 25% for every 15 additional IQ points." Does this occur in men as well? Justin15w (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Intelligence still seems somewhat important to staying alive, especially in dangerous situations, like war or living in a ghetto. In either case, "street smarts" can keep you alive. I can't think of many situations where being able to solve a partial differential equation would save your life, though. ("The tank I'm stuck in has water coming in at the rate given by this equation ... so how long before I drown ?"). 03:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

How does one gauge intelligence? By the words people speak or write? That is a tricky matter. Some people seem to think that "children" is an uncountable noun, but I wouldn't suggest that means they're idiots. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

See Flynn effect. On average, we are getting smarter as time progresses. --Bowlhover (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

One of the proposed explanations of this effect is "the trend towards smaller families", presumably because children get more parental attention in that environment. I found Smaller Families May Lead to Smarter Children, Small Family, Smart Family? and if you have time for a hefty read, Family Size and Achievement Alansplodge (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Cracked agrees. Of course, studies prove anything and everything. Like Jack implies (or I infer), if we can't measure it, we can't compare it. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:04, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

The article about Flynn effect (increasing intelligence) also notes the possible end of this progression due to either the negative correlation between fertility and intelligence noted by the OP, or to youth culture having "stagnated" becoming oriented more towards computer games than towards reading and holding conversations. A study (Meisenberg) predicts the average IQ of the young world population is declining by 1.34 points per decade. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Certainly in this era it doesn't seem like people are getting dumber! In the past 40 years we've gone from lots of people spending their lives turning a few screws on an assembly line to legions of skilled technical people who can design and troubleshoot complex systems. It is true, alas, from wages ample to support two in middle class luxury to those capable of supporting one in rented squalor, with far more difficulty in finding that. But I'd think this only reflects that society's parasites and exploiters have increased in intelligence even more than the others. Has anyone managed to quantify this sort of occupational intelligence? Wnt (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

See here:

"In a two-part paper published in the journal Trends in Genetics, Stanford University researcher Gerald Crabtree suggests that evolution is, in fact, making us dumber — and that human intelligence may have actually peaked before our hunter-gatherer predecessors left Africa."

"“A hunter-gatherer who did not correctly conceive a solution to providing food or shelter probably died, along with his or her progeny, whereas a modern Wall Street executive that made a similar conceptual mistake would receive a substantial bonus and be a more attractive mate,” Crabtree wrote in the paper. He also noted that the average Athenian from 1000 B.C. would rank among the smartest and most emotionally stable in today’s society."

Count Iblis (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I love Steve Jones' comments in that article! Also, I think it's possible that there could be no contradiction - that people today might be more intelligent but worse at survival. After all, nerds aren't really the ones you think of winning at Lord of the Flies or Survivor. But mostly, I strongly suspect that our so-called pure Darwinian (which isn't really) way of looking at this, in which we ignore the role of epigenetics/acquired inheritance, could lead us astray. I suspect that the short-term educational and nutritional history of the past few generations has more impact on how the body bets how much nutrition to allocate to the brain than a hundred thousand years of evolution. Wnt (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

READ

hello,

i just want to know if your information is actually REAL!

anyone can change information on this and someone will use it on a report or an exam.

please make sure that your information is correct.

chow for now,

Billy Bob Bob Billy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.163.69.105 (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

If anyone vandalizes a Wikipedia article, the misinformation is usually quickly fixed. However, you would be wise to follow up by clicking on the links in our articles to find other sources to confirm anything you read in Wikipedia. StuRat (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Anybody copying a report or exam without bothering to learn the subject deserves to fail. See test for more information (some true). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Saudi princes and all that

What are the world's richest people doing with their money? Could it be used to fund scientific and technological research? Would spending this sequestered currency cause inflation? --78.148.106.196 (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in the US much of it is spent to subvert the democratic process and ensure that laws are all changed to favor the rich. Some is also spent on charities that genuinely try to help people, although these can sometimes be ineffective or even backfire. Spending savings can cause inflation, but also can cause economic growth. StuRat (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I really must ask for citations for the first 2 sentences, Stu. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you need a citation to tell you the obvious, such as the sun will set this evening and another to tell you it will rise again tomorrow? That ants will sudden stop being ants and start to explore outer space... or that high status homo sapiens will suddenly stop preserving their status quo at the expense of whomever they believe to be their lesser brethren?--Aspro (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, would welcome our new insect overlords. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. As for a failed charity, look at Roundabout_PlayPump#Criticisms. Another charity (I saw a documentary on it) which backfired was the Earthquake relief in Haiti. There the charities provided food and water for free, which put the local businesses doing that out of business, making Haiti even more dependent on such aid in the future. Instead they should have worked to expand those local businesses, by provided no interest loans, etc., in order to make Haiti more self-sufficient. I believe they later tried a voucher system, where those in need of free food and water were given vouchers, gave them to local businesses for those items, and the charities then reimbursed the local businesses. That worked better, but required more manpower, as they needed to ensure that each person only got their own vouchers, so they couldn't just dump them out the back of the truck and say "come and get it" like they had done with bottled water. Perhaps making each voucher a cinder block might keep one person from grabbing a hundred. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Citation for "it is spent to subvert the democratic process". And a slightly older one covering the same trend, I believe mentioned in the first. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian. And there was no need to smallify your post. It is, in fact, the most relevant post in this thread, so far. This isn't the "Everyone Knows (or Thinks They Know) That" Desk. It's the Reference Desk.

To Aspro: If Stu's first assertion and its outlandish content (particularly laws are all changed to favor the rich) was so "obvious", why did the OP ask the question in the first place? That's an insult to the OP, and you should apologise.

To StuRat: Corrupt and all as the US is, it cannot possibly be true that all laws are skewed towards the rich. That sounds like the view of a hyperbolic arch-cynic rather than a dispassionate reference desker whose purpose is to provide referenced information from reputable sources. Can you be more specific? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Their goal is to change all laws to favor the rich. That does not mean they have succeeded, in all cases, yet. A commonly cited case is how regular cocaine possession (expensive, and therefore favored by the rich) gets only a slap on the wrist, while crack cocaine possession (cheap and thus favored by the poor) results in long prison terms. StuRat (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Aye. They're trying to build a prison for you and me to live in. But what's a supervillain if his plots are never foiled? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

Well, here we go again, Stu. Can you provide a citation for "Their goal is to change all laws to favor the rich", please? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

They are free-enterprisers. The earth is just another developing planet. Their third world. They are dismantling the sleeping middle class. More and more people are becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery. They have us. They control us! They are our masters! Wake up! They're all about you! All around you! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

I think the process being alluded to is regulatory capture, and more generally rent-seeking etc. Certainly a lot of money is spent on it, though saying anyone spends most of their money on it needs some quantitative support if it's intended to be taken literally. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

If you refer to my first answer, I said "much", not "most". StuRat (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is an answer to the question in the first sentence, rather than the section title, which seems to racially target a particular subset of rich people. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

When money is sitting in the bank, it's not just sitting in the bank ("sequestered"). It's being spent by the bank, on a variety of investments and sponsorships, which allows them to give you (or the Saudi prince) a slice as interest. That slice often "just sits" in the pool, helping the world run. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the banks need that money to hire lots of smart people to come up with high-risk, short-term investment mechanisms, knowing that if they go bad they can rely on a federal bail-out because they are too big to fail. StuRat (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, their portfolios are mainly blue chip. That's not to say they don't have a finger or two (or 21) stirring up the aforementioned prison system. But it's more often as boring (and helpful) as steel and hydro. Exactly why more don't even get to the "almost" failing stage. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, there's even less distinction between savings and investments in the US, after this Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Seems like one of those things I'd have heard of by now. According to that article, John Dingell warned it would cause the subprime crisis and require a bailout, using the term "too big to fail", but it's not mentioned in either article. Whatever happened to reciprocity, on Wikipedia or elsewhere? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:31, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

If we're actually talking about the Saudi economy, when Faisal claimed the oil (and his country) back from the multinationals, he set up a system whereby the oil money never really stays still. His intention was to provide long term stability from the astronomical sums generated when crude finally found its own level on the market. In other words, the cash is spread globally, generating more cash, and moving frequently to generate security. This system was also famously employed by a son of one of Faisal's contractors, the bin Laden family. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And sticking with Saudi Arabia, they have a severe problem that their oil will run out some day, and at that point they will lack their main source of economic, political, and military power and probably collapse as a nation, unless they can come up with an alternative economy by then. They have very few natural resources, aside from petroleum, and their climate, religious restrictions, terrorism, and climate make large-scale tourism unlikely. Even solar power might not work there, due to sandstorms which could damage the panels. And, of course, most of the land is unsuitable to farming. So, it might go back to a desolate land populated only by a few nomads, like it was before they struck oil.

On the plus side, they do have the Hajj, and a nice infrastructure in place, so perhaps they can make a minimal living off those tourists. If they could convince all Muslims to make a yearly visit for the Hajj, and perhaps convince them to spread their visits out throughout the year, so they can handle the crowds, then they might even have a thriving economy. If I were them, I'd start an advertising campaign, and maybe convince a few clerics to argue that any visit qualifies as a Hajj, regardless of the date. StuRat (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Attempt to get closer to the topic

Some good answers and comments above, but a lot of polemics. I don't see anything in the question about the political abuse of wealth, although the links by Ian Thompson and 70.36 are certainly interesting. The question seems to be more about the economic aspects of extreme wealth, that is, what are the knock-on effects of the spending behaviour of the super-rich, not about how they might be abusing their power. My own knowledge here is limited.

Say you have a trillion dollars (a one with 12 zeros after it), and you put it in the bank. Then the bank loans it out again, as others have pointed out above. Then you decide to withdraw it and put it into investment projects. You will have to do this slowly, or there will be a run on the bank, but say you do it over 20 years. Then there is less money in the bank for loans, so the interest rate for all loans will be expected to rise. At the same time, the money you spend on science means the government doesn't have to spend on science, so this government money has been freed up. They spend it on other things, so effectively your trillion dollars is spent on those other things. This is not conjecture, but a real effect of donations from the World Bank and IMF, as discussed by Joseph Stiglitz in Globalization and Its Discontents. Your donations to science may also affect the efficiency of spending on science, because you are not skilled in accountable decision making, but that is much of a muchness, and depends on you (and on who decides what counts as "efficient"). As for inflation, I don't know, but it depends on whether you really increase the money supply.

Although you didn't mention this, if you spent the money on food for the poor, then the same thing happens to interest rates on loans from the bank. More money spent on food means higher demand for food, pushing food prices up (I don't know whether this would lead to higher inflation overall). Then more land will be made available for food (because it is more profitable), which could mean more salination, land degradation, or whatever. The general supply-and-demand aspect of bank loans is discussed by Steven Landsburg in The Armchair Economist, although I don't think it says the exact point I am making here. IBE (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be based on the assumption that the government has a target value for how much science and how much charity there should be in society as a whole, and adjusts its spending to match. But these targets change spontaneously and in response to political forces even in the absence of external money sources. Despite the occasional instance in which a party in power might have a goal of n% for science, I think that overall, or over time, the goal may be something else, e.g. to provide employment for the bureaucrats who oversee the program, to placate constituents that their priorities are reflected in the government budget, etc. Wnt (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

No such assumption. This is a real effect, described in the book I gave as a reference. IBE (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Connections between Isis (Auset) and Ishtar?

Isis and Ishtar were both worshiped by speakers of different Afroasiatic languages, usually as the wives of dying-and-rising gods associated with fertile waters (either rivers or rain) killed by some chaos-figure. I found this early 20th century collection of late 19th century papers, but I'm kind of amazed that I'm not seeing any academic discussion either suggesting or rebutting potential suggestions that the two were related.

I tried Google books, but my search was cluttered with new-age-y crap that also suggest ridiculous stuff like Inanna and Inari being the exact same figure; or else scholarly works merely discussing later snycretism instead of a common origin. However, I'm not talking about a simple interpretatio graeca, but sources discussing whether (or not) they might (or mightn't) share a common origin just as Dyaus Pita and Dis Pater derive from the from Proto-Indo-European *Dyēus ph₂ter. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I know nothing about Ishtar's origins, except that she and Astarte spring from a common Semitic source. As for Isis, I don't think any Egyptologist in the past half-century has suggested Isis came from outside Egypt. Egyptologists don't speculate about deities' origins as much as they used to, because it's so often a fruitless exercise. Past generations of scholars did it more often, and they did raise the possibility that a god was imported from elsewhere in prehistoric times. I've gotten a glimpse of that attitude in The Origins of Osiris and His Cult by J. Gwyn Griffiths (1980), which looks at just about every hypothesis for Osiris' origins that any Egyptologist put forth in the century or so before the book was published. On pages 90–91, it briefly discusses the conjecture by Théodule Devéria and Samuel A. B. Mercer that Osiris had some connection with Ashur (god). But the book doesn't mention any claim that Isis originated in Mesopotamia, even though that section discusses Isis' origins too. The best guess for her beginnings seems to be that she was a personification of the king's throne, or of his mother.

Nor do I know that anybody has tried to reconstruct Proto-Afroasiatic religion the way they have for Proto-Indo-European. The Afroasiatic languages diverged longer ago than IE (see Afroasiatic languages#Date of Afroasiatic), and I believe they're the oldest language family that most linguists accept. Nobody can even figure out how the major branches relate to each other, so reconstructing a religion may seem hopeless. As regards Egypt, most of the deities that undoubtedly date to Predynastic times (Horus, Set, Min) seem to be thoroughly native. The one place I have seen scholars link a deity to a broader cultural background is the cattle goddesses (e.g., Hathor and Bat (goddess), who may go back to the pastoral culture that was present all across northeastern Africa before the Sahara went dry and pushed the pastoralists toward the Nile.

Isis took on traits of Hathor eventually, but only much later. Her first appearances are in the Old Kingdom, when she is already the mourning wife of Osiris and the mother of Horus. Even her throne connection, if that is how she started, is barely discernible aside from the glyph on her head. A. Parrot (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson -- I strongly doubt that there are any linguistic-etymological connections, since Ishtar goes back to the early Semitic stem consonant sequence ʕ-θ-t-r (where [ʕ] is a voiced pharyngeal consonant), and the Egyptian form of Isis doesn't resemble that. In early Egyptian history, Hathor seems to have been more important than Isis anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

May 4

"Government intervention" as a misnomer

I've been pondering the nature of law, property, and contracts lately and it's seeming like the use of the phrase "government intervention" is highly misleading. I've seen libertarians say things like that without "the state" there would be no laws giving corporations "special privileges". But this is the problem: one needs law to even define property and the nature of contracts. Law is always around, so it's not something that can be said to be in a state of intervening or not. Is there any material that touches upon this? — Melab±1 ☎ 04:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A democracy (the pure kind, anyway) or free market is supposed to be largely shaped by the consensus of the people. When a few at the top start doing things their own way, that's overstepping.

Here's some touching material. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:46, May 4, 2014 (UTC)

• Law is not something that's always around unless you are in North Korea, and even then it's not really "law". There's anarchy, separatism (the Amish) and simply private transactions not made public. Law is needed when a contract is entered, and then one party feels aggrieved and wants redress--they go to civil court. Then civil law matters--and that's why a smart businessman pays taxes and votes. (Criminals find it hard to sue.) By natural law, property is something one acquires without theft or fraud or by consent: a shell on the beach, a purchased item, or a gift. Again, no need for law unless there's a claim of theft or fraud and this may involve civil or criminal law.

The notion that corporations are a creation of the state is bogus, it is held by leftist so-called libertarians. Churches and banks are corporations that existed before government got in on the business of handing out charters. The same folks who abhor slander laws, then get apoplectic if you say that's because they kill the boys the sodomize, and who opposes copyright, but who throw a fit if you publish their work with your name on it often do claim that corporations are statist artifacts that exist to get special priviliges. But not all coporations lobby the government to give them an unconstitutional advantage over people or other companies. It is as sound an argument as saying that newsstands exist to sell porn to underage children. You'll find plenty of discussion of this on Objectivist fora, at Mises.org, and refutations in Reisman's impressive Capitalism college textbook, downloadble for free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 07:08, 4 May 2014‎

I question the credibility of anyone who begins by demonstrating inability to imagine simultaneously holding the sincere opinions "X is unethical" and "laws against X are harmful". —Tamfang (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

While corporations may be pre-state (indeed, one might argue that a state is a form of corporation), modern limited-liability corporations are indeed a state construct. It used to be that the corporate shareholders would be fully liable for corporate debt (either to their share in the company, or even up to the full debt). Limited liability corporations have many advantages (they enable risky ventures to be taken, and if they succeed, that venture may create value for many people), but they also have disadvantages (if they fail someone is holding the short end of the stick). To mitigate these disadvantages, lots of additional constructs are needed, from accounting standards to safety standards (imagine me handling off my nuclear waste to a LLC that I just created for that purpose with a capital of EUR 50, and then washing my hands of it) to things like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. And so we arrive at todays very complex and still very imperfect society. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A distinction has been asserted between laws that formalize custom and laws enacted to alter the "playing field". —Tamfang (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC) — One may quarrel over where on that spectrum a given enactment belongs. —Tamfang (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Can I just say I don't have the faintest clue what any of you are talking about? And by the way, the unsigned post was by Medeis. I haven't the faintest clue what it is saying, even if you take out the apparent irrelevance to the question. I take the question to be about the potential for the term "government intervention" to be fallacious, and whether there is anything worthwhile to read on this specific issue. IBE (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

User Melab has a history of asking question related to libertarianism, one minority position among libertarians is that all corporations are invalid as such, many libertarians will have more limited criticisms of vary practices. I suspect Melab will get the gist of the responses here, and some resources have been suggested. μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

On the Origin of Inequality, by Rousseau. →Σσς. (Sigma) 19:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Medeis, I think your knowledge of English history is a bit shaky. The Anglo-Saxon charters certainly predated the existence of banks and were roughly contemporaneous with the existence of churches. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not quite sure of your point, or where I limited the discussion to English history. The Vestal Virgins were a corporation of sorts--a non-hereditary body with a charter that engaged in commerce of a sort. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the best-known libertarian work in this area (meaning the rationale of having laws, not corporations in particular) is Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia, but I haven't read it myself so I can't be sure it addresses quite what you are asking. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Freedom charter monument kliptown

Who built the freedom charter monument in Kliptown South Africa? My tour guide who took me to see it could not tell me and I can't find anything abput it on Wikipedia, other than a photo. Why was it built the way it was? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.8.225.185 (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This article contains much information on the design of Walter Sisulu Square, including the monument. Deor (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

May 5

The long arm of the victim

Isn't her arm huge ? It's as big as his leg. Was she supposed to be an Amazon, was he a midget, or was Cezanne not good at perspective yet ? StuRat (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Like another famous post-impressionist, Van Gogh, Cezanne deliberately distorted proportion in many of his paintings (perhaps in this case to emphasize something grotesque or monstrous). There's a brief discussion of this technique here [4]. OttawaAC (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have access to that article. StuRat (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's a different source that will tell you a bit about Cezanne's approach.[5] “The young Cézanne wanted to make people scream,” says French art historian Jean-Claude Lebensztejn. “He attacked on all fronts, drawing, color, technique, proportion, subjects . . . he savagely demolished everything one loves.” OttawaAC (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a deliberate distortion of proportion for artistic effect. My favorite example of this kind of thing, not by an Impressionist and not remotely for the same purpose, is what Mantegna did in Lamentation over the Dead Christ, in which Jesus has very teeny, tiny little feet. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Awww... InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

Just looking at this cold, with no context or formal training, I'm pretty sure that little red woman has the big red guy wrapped around her tiny finger, and has had this gargantuan slain over some minor slight. Meanwhile, her husband stands by, almost featureless, but betraying an ever so faint look of regret, since he had loved the giant, after she had saved him from bandits. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

It appears I was probably mostly wrong. Just skimming through that article, I can't really tell what's going on. I like how it has a character named "Blonde", though. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

And now I see I may have been misled by the vague term "Die Entführung", and this has probably nothing to do with that. Do we even know for sure that she's a she? Men get abducted sometimes. Still, that's a pretty big arm. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia (sort of) says "Subjects of his paintings from this period are portraits of family members or demonic-erotic content in which resonate own traumatic experiences. Examples are The Abduction and Murder." So maybe she is he himself. Was Cézanne ever abducted? Anyway, thanks for sharing this, Stu. Never heard of the guy, but he's pretty good, in a Night Gallery way. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

From The Fitzwilliam Museum, which holds this painting: "The subject of this painting has been much discussed. One theory identifies the figures as Hercules and Alcestis, whom he has rescued from the Underworld. However, it is more generally believed that it represents the abduction of Proserpine by Pluto, as recounted in Ovid’s Metamorphoses." John M Baker (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Die Entführung (formally "The Kidnapping", though the word can also mean Abduction or Elopement) is one of several works depicting naked male and female figures in explicit erotic contact that Paul Cézanne painted in his dark period 1861-1870 including The Rape, The Murder (depicts a man stabbing a woman who is held down by his female accomplice), The Orgy, Afternoon in Naples with Black Servant and later Bacchanal (Der Liebeskampf) (1875-80). When an artist has used such extreme contrast and distorted figures to bring a female hand into stroking range of the male's genitals at the geometrical center of the canvas, peu des innocents, bien évidemment, c'est de donner une branlette! 84.209.89.214 (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that, but yeah, it is just hanging low enough. Not sure I'd call it "explicit" if someone has to point it out, but somewhat "erotic". On that note, I still wouldn't see a woman at all, if Stu hadn't planted that seed in my head. She looks a bit like Gérard Depardieu, who was apparently in Get Out Your Handkerchiefs (written "from the middle") and The Left-Handed Woman (directed by Peter Handke). Or perhaps a great-grandma Roussimoff. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, May 7, 2014 (UTC)

effect of gold influx,

Hi, during times of pure gold standard, and where gold was the standard "currency", have there been cases of a large 'inflation' or other 'printing of money' simply by virtue of huge stores of gold being discovered and brought into the economy? (Example, maybe columbus pillaged a lot of gold from north america, and that sort of thing). If so, what was the result? Was it very similar to inflation of the money supply as happens by fiat? 212.96.61.236 (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would have tended to cause inflation, but there would also be a stabilizing effect due to gold, unlike paper money, being useful in itself. So, if the cost of gold went down, more people would use it for jewelry, utensils, false teeth, etc., and that additional demand would keep the price from dropping too low. So, unlike with fiat money, you wouldn't get an inflationary spiral, just a one time jump to a new level. See Inflation#Gold_standard. StuRat (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It was my understanding that its value as money was always far above its alternative uses - so the alternatives didn't really matter or help prop it up? Much the same way as dollar bills have an alternative use as pillow stuffing material but this usage is hardly going to prop it up... likewise if the alternative uses have a lower price than gold as money, they aren't going to prop up the price of gold... You mention that there are specific cases of a one-time jump due to gold influx. Could you mention them? Did they happen during the california gold rush, for example? Discovery of the new world? Etc. Thanks. 212.96.61.236 (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Gold certainly has more intrinsic value than paper money. The goal would of course be to make gold coins worth more than the value of the gold, because otherwise people might just melt down the coins and use the gold directly. However, if the price were to drop rapidly, then it would hit that level.

As far as periods with a large influx of gold into an economy, I'd look at when Spain extracted shiploads of gold from the Americas, using slave labor for mining. They expected it to help their economy to a huge degree, but it didn't seem to help as much as they expected, in part due to inflation, leading them to lose power relative to England and others (the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 didn't help either). StuRat (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

See Price revolution for documentation on the effects of Spanish treasure fleets carrying gold (and silver) from the Americas to Europe. As far as intrinsic value, paper money can't really be worth more than the paper it's printed on — the ink doesn't make the paper more useful if people won't take it as a medium of exchange. In fact, it might be worth less than blank paper, simply because you can't really print anything on dollar bills, but you can print useful stuff on blank paper. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the Dilbert cartoon where his pointy-haired boss admired him for taking briefcases full of paperwork home each night, to which he replied "It gives me a warm feeling, sir". Later that night we see him shoveling it into his fireplace. StuRat (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

According to this article, it was "181 tons of gold and 16,000 tons of silver Spain got between 1500 and 1650 from the New World. Not a good time to be a Spanish vampire. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you thinking of silver bullets ? Those were the legendary method used to kill werewolves, not vampires. StuRat (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the best way to kill a vampire is with a werewolf. Vampires would have had it good. IBE (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Some vampires don't like small change, e.g. Blade's nemeses and Truly Bloody ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Silver was traditionally considered "pure" and used to ward off various evils. The whole silver bullet thing was more of a Hollywood addition to the werewolf myth. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

212.96.61.236 -- Over the course of the nineteenth century, economic activity was increasing faster than available gold, so that there was a long-term slight deflationary trend, periodically counteracted by discoveries of gold. For those who think that deflation is a bad thing, the periodic gold-rushes were in fact overall positive (though economically it would have been even better if expansions in the money supply could have been timed appropriately, instead of occurring randomly with respect to cycles of bust and boom). The whole "bimetallism" controversy in the United States during the late 19th century was mainly about those who wanted to pursue non-deflationary debtor-friendly policies vs. those in favor of creditor-friendly policies (even if slightly deflationary) -- see the Cross of Gold speech, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Gold standard and redeeming the "physical" metal

From what I understand, a gold standard is supposed to create a degree of financial stability, due to the fact that gold, unlike paper money, cannot be printed, thus limiting inflation.

My question is, in those economies which had a gold standard (or a hypothetical but unlikely future one), would the system be able to cope with someone hoarding the currency, then going to the central bank and saying "stand and deliver (the physical metal)"? Or would all hell break loose, of the sort seen on Silver Thursday? The Hunt brothers hoarded silver futures contracts, representing physical silver which in fact did not exist. When they demanded physical delivery, Silver Thursday was the result. What would stop a gold standard economy from developing similar issues (such as a run on the physical metal), other than an Executive Order 6102 style ban on citizens owning physical gold (which was a rather dictatorial measure)? Could a government allow physical redemption by citizens, and still have a gold standard survive? (I'm aware that under the U.S. system, the only ones who could physically redeem were foreign governments, and, as I said, "common citizens" were banned from even owning significant quantities of gold. I'm curious how other gold-standard economies worked, or how they could / would hypothetically work). 124.180.75.84 (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem you describe occurs only when the gold standard operates alongside a paper currency, fractional reserve banking, and legal tender rules obliging creditors to accept paper currency in lieu of gold. If, instead, only gold itself is legal tender (perhaps alongside silver, paper, or other media at their market exchange rates to gold), the problem you describe cannot occur. Otherwise, variants of the problem you describe tend to occur, such as the financial crisis of the 1930s, the Panic of 1907, and others. Marco polo (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't a paper currency be literally a gold standard, if the slips represent gold directly? Or does a "gold standard" mean that people actually trade in physical gold and not paper redeemable for gold? (Meaning that if you are in a country with a pure gold standard, by definition your wallet must contain gold coins - if it contains state-backed currency that is not 100% gold - but represents it - then you are not living in a gold standard country??) 212.96.61.236 (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, paper currencies can be linked to a gold standard, but unless they are strictly limited to the amount of gold that backs them, they can lead to "runs" that result in the failure of the bank that issues the paper. Marco polo (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Heard this podcast from the BBC's show Analysis, which informs very directly upon the questions you are asking, a few years back. Took me more than half an hour to track this bloody thing down again, but I was not to be denied! :) Snow talk 19:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

How did Ireland become christian before Britain?

It seems to run counter to logic because Ireland is further away from mainland Europe and the Roman Empire from which christianity spread to the rest of Europe. Also Ireland was never conquered by the Roman Empire while Britain was. It seems logical that Britain would become christian first, then spread westward to the Irish isles. ScienceApe (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

On what basis are you assuming that Ireland become Christian before Britain? The late Romano-British were certainly mostly Christians. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict] In fact, Christianity did reach Britain before it reached Ireland. St. Patrick was British. See Romano-British culture. Unlike Ireland, however, most of Britain experienced conquest by the pagan Anglo-Saxons, who drove the mostly Christian Britons into pockets in Cornwall, Wales, Cumbria, and Strathclyde. Marco polo (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

But it says over here, [[6]] that irish missionaries sent from Iona, converted many Picts. Also I recall reading that the runic alphabet was replaced by the latin alphabet due to the influence of irish missionaries. ScienceApe (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Also it says over here, Anglo-Saxon Christianity, "The history of Christianity in England from the Roman departure to the Norman Conquest is often told as one of conflict between the Celtic Christianity spread by the Irish mission, and Roman Christianity brought across by Augustine of Canterbury." ScienceApe (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Briefly: the Romano-British became Christian when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire. The Picts, beyond the frontiers of the empire, did not. Neither did the English, who had not yet settled in Britain. Ireland was converted by Romano-British missions, including that of St Patrick, in late Roman and early post-Roman times. After the Romans left, the English, who were pagan, gradually took control of what's now England over the course of a couple of centuries. The Welsh, the remnant of the Romano-Britons, were in no position to convert them because they were at war with them, so the conversion of pagans in Britain was mostly left to the Irish, until the Pope sent Augustine on a special mission to convert the English. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup - though 'English' is an anachronism in this context. 'Anglo-Saxons' it the preferred term (though even that is a simplification). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Our article Celtic Christianity gives an overview. Alansplodge (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

May 6

Business speeches

In business/sales presentation, to about 50 people, is it correct to use a casual conversational tone as if you were talking to them? I hear many people exaggerating in these kinds of presentations and they just seem unnatural and too rehearsed, as if they're reading a script. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.46.182 (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

OR and personal opinion here, but the presentations I've attended in the past have left more of an impression on me if the speaker is more conversational than if they are just delivering a script. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Should one sound authoritative or casual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.246.99 (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think one should sound authoritative and business-like, while still managing to be conversational. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

One of the most important things in any business speech is to convey the sense that you know what you're talking about; that you have your facts in order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Why don't many sports like accuracy?

Sprinters wear completely useless bling that by my math should make them lose races. Rarely, but still.

Soccer doesn't do the simple thing of making sure that a goal is really a goal and that even cost countries World Cups. And they still almost didn't change it. Tradition!, they cry. With cricket and baseball that I get but how can you complain about ruining the timeless tradition of a bloke just guessing when your goals, net, ball, clothes and boards are made of plastic and covered with Emirates logos? And your boards are HD displays?

They had that stupid ball that they didn't even bother to test so that the footballers found out it moved like a knuckle ball in the middle of competition. Said that it flew like a cheap ball from a third world country's supermarket [paraphrase]

They have the referee pull the amount of time to add out of his a** (in whole minutes) when the winning goal could come in the last seconds (okay, we know it won't happen - ever - ever, ever - like watching a circle of 600 men shoot the center and seeing a ring of 600 fused bullets pop out of thin air and fall, just kidding).

I thought this was ridiculous as a kid but why don't they have people in a booth each watching a small enough number of things that they absolutely can't miss anything visible in real time and blow the whistle accordingly. And have people watch it again in slow-motion with freeze-frame and frame-by-frame capability and fine everything the in-game refs miss? Like basketball, I don't think the refs can humanly catch every elbow, shove, flop, exaggeration and 1cm out-of-bounds plus zone defense (when illegal), slight palming, count the steps since the last dribble and keep several running counts of mississippis for everyone in the key.

I've come to not mind rules like you have to appeal not touching a base but if the 8 year old me way was the only I remember then I wouldn't have a clue that some people thought this was excessive. Top league 2100s sports will probably be refereed like this. Maybe even for the things that aren't even part of the game and hurt no one like baseball coaches slightly exiting the coaches box. Maybe not. The game wouldn't be slow because everyone would be more careful and not try to get away with stuff (like American football holding etc.) They would have to do it with reduced post-game fines first to not slow the game down or punish adjusting players too much. Possibly start with warnings.

Also, why did Test cricket adopt video referee before major league baseball despite Test looking more traditional (to my limited knowledge)? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Sports are not sentient beings. They don't like anything. People are sentient beings. Do a google search for "video replay in baseball" and you'll get many people's opinions on why (or why not) video replay should (or should not) be used in baseball. Repeat for any sport you want. --Jayron32 10:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Admittedly, these things are anybody's guess, since there's no precise answer to a "why" question unless the issue was discussed at the time. When they introduced video replays for test cricket, I'm fairly sure consistency with major league baseball wasn't an issue, so there is no reason why the order should be consistent. But, the most likely factor is that test cricket has to compete for spectators, not just with other sports of course, but with everything. Soccer doesn't have to worry about that, and baseball seems fine as well. IBE (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not just a question of being traditional or not: there is a strong current of thought that sports should be performed by humans and not determined by technology. The referees are human, as are the players, and neither will be perfect all the time. If you cannot accept that at some level, then sports - and team sports especially - may not be for you; there are other pursuits where perfection is the goal. Now, technology has grown by leaps and bounds recently and its application is no longer so intrusive, which is why you see things like baseball adopting instant replay or tennis with the "eagle eye". Video evidence has long been used to determine things like suspensions for players who sneak dirty hits out of the referee's sight (here's a random example [7]), so one of your example is already in place. What tends to raise opposition is introducing technology within a sport that fundamentally changes the way it is played: e.g. football (soccer) is not supposed to have interruptions, so introducing video review changes the nature of the game; not so in American football or baseball where there is a natural pause between each play, or in ice hockey where interruptions are plenty anyway, so adding one more does not change things.

Ah, I get football now, thanks. But they say GOAL!, GOAL!, GOAL!, GOAL!, GOAL!, GOAL! for at least 10 seconds, celebrate, and then have to reset the ball, so that's a stoppage of play. And if by "the players being human" you mean stuff like a player taking one base when they could've taken two or making a mental mistake, then I just see that as just another skill the game tests. Why if everyone could do what their current bodies could do then everyone with sufficient fitness would be better than Pele, we'd literally have at least a million of them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The stoppage is still very brief; they don't take a two-minute commercial break after a score as they would in American football or ice hockey. --Xuxl (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In the Premier League there is technology that says whether it's a goal or not. The ref wears a watch which flashes red if a goal is scored. It takes all of a second. The reason this isn't used else where? All I'll say is Sepp Blatter.Dja1979 (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Lets take baseball as an example. Lets say an onfield umpire calls a ball "foul" when it should have been "fair". If it had been fair, players on base may have tried to advance, but being foul they could not. If replay shows that it should have been "fair" after the fact, how do you simulate the play from the point from where the call was made badly? --Jayron32 13:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. There are provisions for umpires to then place baserunners where they think they would have ended up if the right call had been made, but that's subjective, and in fixing one problem, you introduce another. Technology is not always a panacea. --Xuxl (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind that, at least it's still a fair ball. A World Series could be lost on a fair ball being called foul. At least his team has a chance. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Or, to give a specific example, you're talking about Game 2 of the 2009 ALDS between the Yankees and the Twins [8]. That generated a lot of controversy (along with a couple other doubtful calls that postseason) and was a major step in getting baseball to start moving on the issue of instant replay. --Xuxl (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

With cricket, a driving force was the approach to televising matches taken, first by Kerry Packer's circus, and then by Sky Sports. Both these broadcasters brought in things like stump mics, and more than one camera at each end - hey I'm old enough to remember one camera per match in England! Also the invention of Hawkeye, which was able to give a prediction of how the ball might have continued in its trajectory had it not have hit the batsman's leg first, not to mention super slo-mo cameras that could see whether the catch was cleanly taken or whether it hit the ground first, and then there was Snicko that could tell you whether the ball had hit the outside edge of the bat... Because the broadcasters were replaying incidents and commenting on whether the umpires had got it right - and then if they hadn't got it right, covering it in the print media which they also owned, the administrators were being made to look foolish by not introducing technology to assist the umpires. Even now there are series where there is no (or very little) assistive technology and India seem very reluctant to approve its use for some reason. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The first rule in any "How to Be an Umpire" book is "Get the call right." Unfortunately, that has not always been the prevailing philosophy at the professional level. If the guy who botched the call in that non-perfect game a few years ago had consulted his colleagues, or better yet if they had spoken up, it could have turned out right. In the 2004 ALCS, when A-Rod was called out after umpire consultation when he slapped the ball out of the fielder's glove, I was amazed - for the first time I could recall, at Yankee Stadium, they made the right call instead of cow-towing to the home crowd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Purely as a matter of speculation from someone with no real comprehension of sports' appeal, I'll observe that things that are addictive have the ability to cause pain. Opium withdrawal, gambling losses, hangovers, whatever... there's always the element of pain that seems, somehow, to reinforce the behavior. I wonder if giving sports fans something to bitch about makes them more loyal; whether it makes it a better topic for conversation so that it can seem like a common bond. Wnt (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone know this novella/short story?

I am trying to recall the title of a novella or short story I've read a long time ago. It starts with the main character arriving at a train station of a small town after a long rail journey. I seem to remember that the setting was either a wild west or simply an early 20th-century America. And one of the minor characters in the story was a physician. Not too specific, I know, but I would appreciate if anyone could come up with some suggestions so I could dig further from there. Thank you in advance. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like the film Bad Day at Black Rock, which was based on the short story "Bad time at Honda" by Howard Breslin. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 20:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that could be it! Thanks a lot. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The movie's quite excellent, well acted, directed and written, Spencer Tracy, and technicolor! μηδείς (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

St. Leo of the Catholic Church

Who was St. Leo of the Catholic Church? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:804F:E100:21B:63FF:FEB5:698B (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There were 5 popes named Leo who were made saints, and at least one other St Leo. See "People" at the bottom of Saint Leo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

non-profit fundraiser limitations

Can a non-profit organization auction off marijuana to raise moneyin the state of Washington?74.220.246.155 (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)