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.
In the United States and Canada, if a person convicted of a crime dies before being sentenced, can his or her estate be fined? NeonMerlin04:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a recent case where Kenneth Lay was convicted of ten crimes in two trials. But he died before sentencing and all the convictions were vacated. His co-defendant in one trial received a 24 year prison sentence and a $630 million fine so Lay may have also been facing a large fine but his estate was untouched after the convictions were discarded. According to our article on Lay, "Civil suits are expected to continue against Lay's estate. However, according to legal expert Joel Androphy, claimants may not seek punitive damages against a deceased defendant, only compensatory damages". Rmhermen (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What might "K.H." stand for?
In the title page of Charles Bell's book The Anatomy and Philosophy of Expression, as connected with the fine arts, it says "by Sir Charles Bell, K.H.". What would the K.H. be an abbreviation for? I looked at KH but nothing seems appropriate. I thought it might be Kingdom Hall, but that's too recent. Richard001 (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was a knight of the Royal Guelphic Order. --Anonymous, 07:10 UTC, August 9, 2008.
there are 7 million millionaires in US but that number is very small because that calculates only investible assets. If you have one million in property and not in investible assets like stocks, you are not listed in that 7 million. I imagine there are 100 million households in US and some 50 million homes have total assets above a million. Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.31.37 (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your number seems rather high to me. It would suggest over 50% of houses lived in by their owners in the US are worth say US$750,000 (someone who owns a home worth this much will need to have other assets of over US$250,000 to be a US$ millionare). Remember many people don't even own their homes outright since they have hefty mortages and many people particular those with mortages or who have just finished paying of their mortages don't tend to have a large amount in other investments. Also AFAIK most statistics on millionares refer to individuals. If you're considering a married or similar couple with equal ownership of all assets, they'd effectively need to have US$2 million for them both to be millionares. Nil Einne (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This clip on NPR's Marketplace cites a 2007 report that there are 9.5 millionaires worldwide, with about a third of them in the U.S. As a more detailed example, Montgomery County, Maryland (in the Washington D.C. suburbs) is one of the most affluent counties in the country. RealtyTrac gives the median household (not individual) income as $71,500. As recently as April, the average home sold went for $543,000. Even if the purchaser paid all cash, he'd need another $450,000 in assets to squeak into the millionaire class... and the value of the home has almost certainly declined since April. (I do like the title of the question, which reminds me of the collective noun "a grasp of millionaires." OtherDave (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be assuming that most houses in the United States are worth $500,0000 or more and that most US homeowners do not have large mortgages to pay on their houses. Both assumptions are quite incorrect. Marco polo (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think "millionaire" usually refers to a member of a household worth over 1 million of whatever currency, not an individual. I'm not sure if the statistics people are quoting are households or individuals, though - the individuals figure is going to be large, which may account for the large differences between different sources. People need to read their sources more carefully and make sure they're talking about the same thing. In answer to the OP, I think the number of people with over $1m including their primary residence (other property does count towards the net worth, I think), but not without including it, is probably quite small due to the fact that a lot of people have large mortgages on their homes. --Tango (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if I'm using the term klangfarbenmelodie correctly. For example, consider this excerpt from some modern electronic music: Media:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg Especially in the middle part of that excerpt, the sound has only one fundamental pitch that doesn't change, but the timbre changes in a regular pattern that makes it interesting. When I hum this song to myself I usually do this part by humming different vowel sounds to the same pitch, and I'm sure I could also play this on something like a didgeridoo and make it recognizable. Is that covered by the standard usage of the word klangfarbenmelodie, or does it really refer to something different? —Keenan Pepper07:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a reference that excludes this usage of the term, but I guess wouldn't call it that, though the analogy makes obvious sense. I couldn't access your file, but the way you describe it and the didgeridoo example you mentioned seem to refer to an extension of the word melody, where change of perceived pitch, conventionally one of the constituents of melody, does not play a part at all anymore or is reduced to overtones (like in throat singing), and the "melody" is reduced to rhythm and timbre. I can't think of one word describing this kind of tone sequence though, so maybe klangfarbenmelodie is acceptable, I've just never heard it used in that sense. One famous electronic example where the term would apply, in the sense of (conventional) melodies radically fragmented among different voices and timbres, is Zappa's Jazz from Hell . ---Sluzzelintalk17:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please translate the relevant piece? Should Charlemagne be included in the category of Roman dictators? It also seems that it is different from the procedure of appointing other emperors who never were declared dictators.--Dojarca (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't much Rome in the classical sense (the Rome of Augustus or even Constantine) by the time Charlemagne arrived on the scene. Calling him Imperator Augustus made about as much sense as calling Henry VIII king of France: made him feel good, didn't cost much. OtherDave (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You asked if he should be included as a Roman dictator. Nothing about text in that particular question, thus, none in my answer. In the West, the Roman empire is considered to have fallen 350 years before Charlemagne; I don't think he ever made it to Byzantium, which was no country for old men. OtherDave (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Web/blogs on insurance industry to assist in assignments
Dear Rossi, Xn4 and net friends, this is in continuation of my August 1st querry. Let me repeat the question briefly here: i have completed 75% of my assignment on insurance industry. the topic/focus of the assignment is: 'external treats to insurance industry'. i need inflation, interest rates, demography datas, etc. So, please recommend me any web sight, blogs, etc. who can help/ guide me in completing my assignments. Free sites will be highly welcome. Awaiting ur reply. Bye, bye. signed: kvees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.168.166 (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which country are you particularly interested in? The www.economist.com website has all sorts of technical data for many nations. Interest rates is more tough but you would be best trying the treasury website for the country you are interested in. e.g. the uk is www.hm-treasury.gov.uk . You can find demographic information for the UK at www.statistics.gov.uk along with a wide array of informaiton. I suspect for other countries there will be similar sites. If you want information on these things then wikipedia is your friend - Inflation, Interest rate and Demography of the United Kingdom. Suffice to say beyond getting into technical information about the changes that are occurring i suspect you are being asked to explain how these things may influence the insurance industry?
A simple consideration would be...Inflation can erode the risk of an insurance firm's protection business, but can reduce their returns on investment markets (if you are insured for 100k over 20 years and die in year 3 it will cost the insurance firm more - due to inflation - than if you died in year 18 - of course this must be counterbalanced with the fact that most insurance firms offer fixed premiums and so the money received in earlier years is liable to be 'worth more' than in later years)... Demographics - the make-up of a nation will alter the way the profit-management department will price the risk, it will also alter how the industry develops products and what type of market they aim at. An ageing population will attract (perhaps) more equity-release products, funeral-payment policies, whole of life plans, critical illness policies etc. The demographics of a country and the way it changes also alter the way underwriting is assessed and how risks are determined for price-setting purposes. There's a million other things that could be theorised as having an influence and i'm sure my very limited theories are full of flaws but hope they provide useful in some way. ny156uk (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia
Does anybody know anything about the force of Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia? Especially was their intruduction a one sided move by Russia on the request by South Ossetians or are they internationally recognized? What's the UN position on the issue of Russian peace keepers in South Ossetia? Mieciu K (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They have a UN SC mandate and acting under CIS umbrella (these are international CIS forces, in equal proportiona Russian, Ossetian and Georgian). But after the Georgian attack, Russia moved some additional Russian forces into Ossetia to help the peacekeepers.--Dojarca (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you mention which exactly UN SC council resolution support Russian troops placement in South Ossetia and what is their mandate according to the UN? Mieciu K (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a very large amount of cultural interaction between the Arab people and the (other) people of Africa. How much of this involved slavery is difficult to determine. The Aksumite Empire did take slaves and did conquer part of Arabia but it is not clear how much slavery was involved. -Arch dude (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I find Kierkegaard's quote in which he predicts the advent of television? I believe he discusses the notion that it drives people mad. Any help is appreciated. Eduard Gherkin (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is: "Suppose someone invented an instrument, a convenient little talking tube which, say, could be heard over the whole land . . . I wonder if the police would not forbid it, fearing that the whole country would become mentally deranged if it were used." Eduard Gherkin (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems an odd thing to say. Could you give the context? Or at least a reference? I'm intrigued as to what he could possibly have been discussing that prompted such a thought. 79.66.38.215 (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for a start, the odds of winning in roulette are less than 50% - there is a house advantage because of the zero (and double-zero on some tables). Secondly, the stock exchange (or financial markets in general) isn't really like a casino. In a casino, the return is almost instant, in finance you have to wait a while before you get your money. That changes things, since it introduces an opportunity cost. That means an investment which had an expected value of breaking even would be a bad investment, since you could do better by just putting the money in the bank. Investments are compared with the risk-free interest rate, the greater the risk, the greater the expected return needs to be more than the risk-free rate (see risk premium). An investment with a similar risk to roulette (you lose everything 50% or the time and you win 50% of the time - ignoring house advantage), would need to have a pretty large risk premium to make it worthwhile - I'm not sure exactly how large. I don't know if there are any such investments (they could easily be constructed, though) - I'm not sure many people would want them, the risk is too great. --Tango (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bet placed on a roulette is a zero sum game, either you win and the casino loses, or vice-versa. This is not the case with the stock-market where (assuming continuous growth) a person can buy at a lower price, sell at a higher, then the next person buys and sells at a higher price and so on and so on. Additionally with firms paying dividends the share-price need make no change, but the individual can obtain profits on their stock simply by holding the stock long enough to receive sufficient return from dividend-payments that their investment increased in value while the stock-price stayed stable. Here's an article on it: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/061902.asp and http://www.fool.com/news/foth/2000/foth000912.htm. ny156uk (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Making summaries, abstracts and indexes as a profession
The word is derived from Sodom and Gomorrah, which would be a few centuries BC. But to suggest that was the first time anyone did it would be a bit ludicrous. There's no reason to believe that this hasn't always been part of the human experience, so the first instance wouldn't be recorded. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Homosexuality in animals is very common, but we don't seem to have much information about actual anal penetration among animals, assuming that's what you mean by sodomy. Homosexuality in animals does mention anal penetration among bison, giraffes, and polecats. A Google search for "primate anal penetration" turns up some hits I haven't looked into yet... but if it turns out that bonobos and chimpanzees do it, then I'd say there's a good chance we've been doing it since before we were even human. (In fact, I'd say this question might be better suited for the science desk.) --Allen (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the involved practices are certainly old and likely do predate homo sapiens, only humans seem to have a history of adding moral values, and I think the question can fit the Humanities desk. Unlike anal sex, oral sex, or zoophilia, the term "sodomy" is not a descriptive but a normative word referring to practices deemed sexually and morally deviant within a certain social codex. I'm re-interpreting the question as "when did a legal or belief system first codify certain non-reproductive sexual practices as socially sanctionable?". While we don't know the answer to this question either, one of the oldest documents seems to be "I.20" in The Code of the Assura, c. 1075 BCE: " If a man have intercourse with his brother-in-arms, they shall turn him into a eunuch." See also the article on sodomy laws. ---Sluzzelintalk14:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, this question is not restricted to homosexuality. Some men and women get into this activity too, and probably always have. -- JackofOz (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it was the oldest codex I found condemning any kind of non-procreative sexual practice (or the implication thereof). Examples I found which outlaw certain practices regardless of gender difference or sameness (such as the famous Buggery Act 1533, but older religious laws too) all looked more recent. ---Sluzzelintalk15:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you define "sodomy" simply as anal intercourse, then, as others have said, it almost certainly predates Homo sapiens. If you define it as a culturally stigmatized sex act or acts, then it dates to the beginning of cultural stigmatization of nonreproductive sex acts, which probably occurred among Homo sapiens. However, this, too, was almost certainly prehistoric. Even if the oldest surviving document condemning homosexuality dates to 1075 BCE, there were very likely similar older documents that did not survive and older prohibitions before the invention of writing. One of the most basic dimensions of human culture is the control of sexuality, and this almost certainly extends back before the invention of writing. The prohibition of homosexuality has been shown as a feature of many cultures structured by patriarchal kinship relations. It so happens that the ancient Hebrews had such a culture. The original condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah is probably a story that was probably passed on through oral tradition for centuries before it was written down as part of the Jewish scripture. This prohibition influenced the subsequent evolution of Christianity. Very likely its origin in oral form predates 1075 BCE, and very likely earlier patriarchal kin societies condemned homosexual relations thousands of years earlier still. That said, based on anthropological evidence, hunting and foraging societies do not seem to have developed strong patriarchal structures or to prohibit homosexual or nonprocreative sex acts. Homophobia (and the prohibition of "sodomy") seems to occur only in agricultural and especially pastoral societies in which patriarchal control of women and wealth, and its transmission from father to son, requires mandatory heterosexuality. So, the origins of "sodomy" as a prohibited activity could well lie in the Neolithic period, in which case it is no more than about 10,000 years old. Marco polo (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though it should be noted that yes, the Old Testament condemns homosexuality, but it also condemns about a billion other things as well. A huge component of the book, in fact, is all of the many things you can't do or God will do horrible, horrible things to you. (And it's worth noting that there is nothing in the actual OT that says Sodom and Gomorrach had an unusual amount of homosexuals in them. If I recall the only reference to homosexuality is that a number of men offer to rape some angels who they think are men. Homosexuality is not cited as the overall reason for smiting the cities. And let's remember that one of the "good guys" in that story ends up impregnating his two virgin daughters with no ill effect. I'm just saying, is all. The Bible isn't exactly straightforward in its advice for sexual behavior.) I'm not sure, though, word-for-word, if homosexuality gets as much attention even in the OT as many other issues. (And most of the NT is about totally unrelated topics, like the importance of charity, which somehow get lost in the "holier-than-thou" political arena.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
August 10
Even further nudity question
What I meant by "un-stimulating" in my previous question is actually only that I find the sight of male genitals unattractive. I'm comfortable with the rest of the male body (heck, with what men wear on public beaches and swimming pools, I'd have to be). So when I look at a nude man, I tend to focus on the face or the chest instead. It's not such a big problem that I'd actually have to make an effort not to look at them. It's nothing to do with anti-gay sentiment or cultural standards, quite the opposite. It's purely aesthetic.
Speaking in context of people who have no problem going around nude in mixed company in social situations, is this common for men? What about women? JIP | Talk08:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make you feel any better to know that you are pretty normal, in that a lot of people think a lot like you, while also not being necessarily typical, in that you are probably smarter and more curious than many people? Or are you really looking for people to discuss how they feel about nudity? I thought you'd already got the answer that these things are extremely culturally variable and that where there is a culture of people being nude in mixed company, people don't tend to have a problem with it in the culturally appropriate setting. 79.66.38.215 (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey JIP, methinks you need some original research at a nudist camp or such. Anything less is just hearsay, and mind you keep your clipboard from obscuring your body -- it's illegal to be covered. ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no nudist camps in Finland. There are only two (well, in practice three) nudist beaches. They are mainly only populated on a select few weekends in summertime, otherwise they are only visited by a handful of stray single men or perhaps a stray family. I have been to one or two events in all three of them but found it too awkward to go around asking people how they feel about being nude and seeing other people nude. JIP | Talk18:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who admits to finding the subject matter unattractive, you do seem to be surprisingly persistent in bringing up the subject. Is there another motive for this? DOR (HK) (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. JIP, honestly, I don't think there's a satisfactory and decisive answer for you. Some people have issues with this kind of stuff, others do not. In large part, it's a cultural issue; people who are used to this kind of stuff and who are often in company where people take their clothes off aren't likely to have problems with it. The answers are going to be pretty different depending on whether you're asking this from the members of an old school hippie colony or a bunch of strictly moralistic Puritans, regardless of whether they're men or women... to pick a couple of obvious examples.
Saying that your preference to avoid looking at male genitalia is "purely aesthetic" strikes me as kind of unlikely, though; there's nothing inherently unaesthetic about a penis. You're making a value judgment based on personal preference, which is probably at least in part shaped by the cultures you're influenced by -- the Finnish overall culture, the family culture you were brought up in, the culture prevalent in your work and social circles, etc. And that's fine, it's what all of us do; it's not as if you're mistreating anyone because of it. But this topic really seems to be bothering or fascinating you quite a bit for reasons that are kind of unclear to me... and probably none of my business, for that matter. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carriage 1920 Circa
I observed a 1920 Circa in a museum and noticed the religious art. I am curious as to the artist He signed as D. Carlos Quinto. It could have been Di Carlos Quinto. The side panels of the Circa also titled each painting Battaglia, Rinhto Prigioniero, Trionfo, and Giostra. Then also had the following Daneu Palermo via stable #182, #732 These Circas were from Sicily and Southern Italy.
As for the titles, the first one means Battle ("Battaglia"), and the third and fourth mean Triumph ("Trionfo") and Jousting ("Giostra" can mean carousel too, but I doubt this is the case here). I'm not sure about the second one ("Rinhto Prigioniero"); "prigoniero" means prisoner or captive, but "Rinhto" must be misspelled. Perhaps "rinato"? In this case it would mean Reborn Prisoner or Reborn Captive.
The "via Stabile" is a street in Palermo, and Daneu is a palermitano surname (there is also a "via Antonio Daneu" in Palermo). I found a reference to a family Daneu running an antiquities shop at the "via Stabile" in the early 20th century - the Swiss artist Karl Peterli worked there for a while (and painted Sicilian Carts. reference in German). ---Sluzzelintalk18:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually "Rimasto", though typographically more distant from "Rinhto", sounds more likely in this context. "Rimasto Prigoniero" could be translated as Taken Prisoner or Held Captive. ---Sluzzelintalk22:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
has a binding contract been formed between New-Wheels Ltd and Easyclean for the sale of the van at £12,000.
New-Wheels Ltd (‘New-Wheels’) based in Penarth is in the business of selling and leasing cars and vans on a national scale, they also supply local businesses with good ‘one-off’ sale deals. Easyclean is a new small business operating an office cleaning service in the Cardiff area.
New-Wheels wrote to Easyclean at their offices in Splott offering to sell a white van for £12,000. On receiving New-Wheels’ offer, Easyclean telephoned New-Wheels in order to accept. New-Wheels however said that they wanted notice in writing of the acceptance from Easyclean. New-Wheels said that if Easyclean got the written acceptance to New-Wheels by 11.00 am the next day (Wednesday) they would go ahead with the sale at £12,000.
Easyclean wrote and posted a letter of acceptance immediately at 12.00 noon on the Tuesday. It was received by New-Wheels at 10.00a.m. on Wednesday morning.
In the meantime however another company had approached New-wheels offering to buy their entire stock of white vans on very favourable terms and New-Wheels decided to withdraw their offer to Easyclean. They wrote to Easyclean withdrawing the offer by post at 5pm on Tuesday. The letter of withdrawal arrived at Easyclean’s offices at 10.30am on Wednesday morning and was read by the office manager —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.173.214.102 (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it is homework. The answer in this case is, there are plenty more white vans out there - do not waste your money on a solicitor :) --15:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Note that Afrikaners are mainly of Dutch descent but are also descended from French, Flemish, and German settlers. So the Dutch are probably the largest single component of white South Africans' ancestry but may not constitute a majority of white South Africans' ancestors. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Historical Occupation
I have found an occupation listed on a 1790 Pennsylvania census: flourmert. I have been unable to find out exactly what a flourmert was. I would appreciate any help you can give. Thank you 66.162.122.179 (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But a lovely word, and amazingly has no Google hits! (Well, lovely when pronounced French-ish. Pretty ugly when pronounced English-ish.) We should make it mean something. -jpgordon∇∆∇∆22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth II and the british and predecessor royal familiy
Can anyone direct me to any copyleft (public domain) media (specifically videos) related to Elizabeth II, the British royal family and the history of the monarchy in Britain and its predecessor kingdoms? Thanks v much. --217.227.99.165 (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Wikisource version of Hamlet and the article on King Claudius use the word stabbed. From Claudius's article "Hamlet finally extracts his revenge and slays the king by stabbing him and forcing him to drink the very poison that had been intended for him." Paragon1232121:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the source:
Hamlet: The point!--envenom'd too! Then, venom, to thy work.
Stabs KING CLAUDIUS
All: Treason! treason!
King Claudius: O, yet defend me, friends; I am but hurt.
Hamlet: Here, thou incestuous, murderous, damned Dane, Drink off this potion. Is thy union here? Follow my mother.
from the play as written, we see that Hamlet stabs Claudius with a poisoned (envenom'd) knife. We also see that he at least tries to also force Claudius to drink poison, but since there is no explicit stage direction ("Drinks"), whether or not this actually occurs prior to Claudius' death is at the discretiom of the director. -Arch dude (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A sword, not a knife. Read the scene. It's a foil in the dialogue and a rapier in the stage directions; from what the foil article says about "modern" foils, I guess "rapier" would be the term today. --Anonymous, 03:28 UTC, August 11, 2008.
And as Adam McNaughtan put it in his incomparable Oor Hamlet,
...Then Hamlet's mammy drank the wine an' as her face turned blue
Hamlet said, I quite believe the king's a baddie noo
Incestuous, treacherous, damned Dane, he said, to be precise
An' made up for hesitatin' by killin' Claudius twice
Cos' he stabbed him wi' the sword, forced the wine between his lips
He said, The rest is silence - that was, Hamlet had his chips
They fired a volley o'er him that shook the topmost rafters
An' Fortinbras, knee-deep in Danes, lived happy ever after...
I'm pretty sure she died of cancer AFTER the date listed on my computers Wikipedia "encyclopedia" (May 19, 1994). Maybe check with a historian or family member, I'm a scientist; this date just struck me as wrong by a couple of years. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.196.194 (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in statistics of violent crime, but I can't find anything comprehensive. An analysis of murder rates (wars excluded) in US or in Europe (or in any given European country) over as long a historical period as possible would be great. Ideally, since about 500 bc to the present. If statistics of things like kidnapping, rape and armed robbery were to be included that'd be even better. I've already looked at Wiki articles, but they weren't really helpful. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.54.224 (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you'd find this but a few words of warning if you do: Recording methods and social/legal practices will greatly alter these figures via history - as will the change in population. E.g. In order to claim on insurance for theft it is common for an insurance firm to request a crime-number/incident-number, so this is likely to increase the 'recording' of crimes that have a 'claim-worthy' value. If your car is stolen then it is very likely you will report it - however if someone comes and steals your handbag from your house and there was only $20 and a few little things in it, you may be liable to not report it because of the hassle/effort involved. Whilst that's a simple example it's important to remember that different factors across history will be at play as to whether crimes are A) report and B) recorded so any comparison of figures over a period of time like this must consider what else may be influencing the figures. I think I remember the UK government changing crime-recording in the 1990s and instantly dropped one form of crime by about 50% simply by changing the definition for including that crime. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. and U.K. didn't even conduct basic population censuses until ca. 1800, and I would be surprised if systematic crime statistics go back much further than the early 20th century or late 19th. Researchers attempting to estimate historical crime rates are mainly dependent on surviving court records, but such documents have been subject to many vagaries of selective preservation and recording. I doubt whether there's very much usable comparable data from even 500 years ago (forget 500 BC!)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crime statistics from 500 BC? You've got to be kidding. They don't exist. Hell if you can find decent, reliable, and most importantly, comparable crime statistics from pre-18th century I'd consider that miraculous. Another way of saying this is: if you really want to write a "history of violence" you're going to have to find ways to approach the topic that don't rely on good statistics. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to look into something like Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage by Steven LeBlanc, War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage by Lawrence Keeley, Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South by Richard Nisbett is specialized but good, or even something like Homicide by Margo Wilson and Martin Daly.--droptone (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies everybody. Alright, I may not be able to get something accurate and precise, but there should still be a way to make meaningful estimates. I, for instance, walk the streets at night without any worries. If a number of contemporary historians of a given period all write that walking city streets at night will certainly lead to being kidnapped or killed, some conclusions can be drawn from that. I'm just wondering if people are becoming more violent or less violent. If people have been MANY TIMES more violent or MANY TIMES more peace-loving and law-abiding, then I think it should be possible to determine that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.54.224 (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What flag/symbol is this?
I'm sorry if this is terribly vague, but I'm just curious as to what country/organization has a flag/symbol containing a yellow star on a blue background? Thanks, and sorry for being so vague, I've been wondering this for like a week. Kenjibeast (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could be one of several, though the two Jack mentions are the only ones I can think of that are exactly like you describe - certainly no current nationaal flag has simply a gold star on blue. The first one that springs to mind is the old flag of the Democratic Republic of Congo, which had one large yellow star and several smaller ones on a blue background. Several other countries have a gold star on blue as part of their design (Namibia, Tuvalu, Ethiopia, Malaysia). Palau has a gold sun on blue, as does Kazakhstan, and the Commonwealth of Nations has a gold globe with 53 rays on blue. You could also try checking the entries under "Star (yellow) here, How many points had the star - five? If you don't get any better answer here, contact me on my user talk page in a few days and I'll ask on Flags of the world (of which I'm a member). Grutness...wha?07:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After the US Senate, I'm rewriting the US State article on the French Wikipedia and I have few questions :
Is there a difference between The Union and The United States of America ? For example is the Union is only the Union of the 50 States and the USA the 50 States + District of Columbia + Territories ?
Is Puerto Rico as a 51th State is a current affair or not really ?
Is a state (or a territory) can constitutionaly quit the Union (without a second Secession War ! ) ?
"The Union" is not used anymore. It was used to refer to the states that didn't secede during the Civil War. "The United States" is a bit ambiguous, but it generally means the entire country (50 states+DC+Territories). If you just want the states, just say "the 50 states".
Technically, yes. I believe planning is underway for a self-determination referendum. Everywhere but Puerto Rico, however, most people don't care. It's only really a huge issue in Puerto Rico.
Probably. A state legislature could probably just un-ratify the Constitution. You may want to read up on the page on the US Civil War. It wasn't their secession that made the Union declare war per se, it was their support of slavery and the attack on Fort Sumter. Paragon1232115:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per #1, the term "Union" is used in a few funny contexts—namely those relating to admission to statehood and the question of secession. It is generally synonymous with USA. I don't think it has a formal definition though. It comes into play in the Constitution quite a lot as a synonym for the USA.
Per #2, I think Paragon's assessment is accurate. I've read a few things on it here and there in national reportage but it isn't really a major issue for most people in the mainland USA.
Per #3, we have an article on Secession in the United States, which seems to imply that it's not really clear whether a state can actually secede on its own volition. The US Constitution says nothing about secession, only admission. A post-Civil War Supreme Court case (Texas v. White) says that states don't have the ability to leave the Union, if that helps any. In any case, the Constitution is silent on the issue—which makes it pretty ambiguous (could either mean that no such right exists, or that the unstated right is vested in the hands of the states, per the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; but I'm no Constitutional scholar). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Texas has the explicit right to secede. The U.S. government agreed to this right as a pre-condition of Texas joining the United States. Wikiant (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TCY, thanks for your attention to detail in improving the French Wikipedia's coverage of American government! My answers:
I agree with Paragon12321 that the term "the Union" is not common in contemporary use. Most Americans would understand it as referring to the victorious side in the American Civil War, which is how the term is used in that article. ("In the war's first year, the Union assumed control of the border states and established a naval blockade as both sides massed armies and resources.")
In Puerto Rico there is a substantial body of opinion favoring statehood. In the U.S., the major political parties have expressed support for the idea if the people of Puerto Rico choose it. I suspect, however, that if Puerto Rico ever actually applied for statehood, the matter would be much more contentious. Both parties would try to figure out who would gain a political advantage. For example, if the Republicans thought that Puerto Rico would tend to vote Democratic in Presidential and Congressional elections, then the Republican Party would probably oppose statehood. (The people of the District of Columbia still have no voting representation in Congress for precisely this reason.)
I disagree with Paragon12321 about secession. Any state's or region's attempt to secede would generate intense hostility from the rest of the country. The article I cited, American Civil War, says that the war "restored the Union by settling the issues of nullification and secession ." There would be general agreement that a state does not have the right to secede, in keeping with the Supreme Court decision cited by the anonymous user. Incidentally, I think that Wikiant is mistaken about Texas. I know of no basis for saying that Texas has a right to secede. According to Texas Annexation#Borders and new states, there is a provision for new states to be formed out of the territory of Texas; that may be what Wikiant is thinking of. JamesMLanetc18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as unions of states have been formed, dissolved, or modified in other continents, in principle I do not see why it would be impossible for any state to ever leave the USA. If a foreign power had the military and economic power needed, and all that was needed was a legal blessing for a state to leave the US and become a sovereign state, or to become part of a different union, it should be possible if the state itself, by legislative action or a plebescite voted that it wished to leave the US, then the U.S. House and Senate and President assented to it. It is more the military and economic power of the U.S. which prevents secession, than any inherent legal barrier. The incentive might be monetary payment, or it might be a peace treaty under which an occupying power agreed to leave the U.S. after a military defeat. Edison (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While "The Union" may not be in common usage, there is one place where it is commonly used, in the title of "The State of the Union" address. Clearly there it refers to the whole of the United States. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the phrase "State of the Union" in this context comes directly from the Constitution, so it's not so surprising for it to reflect an outdated usage. --Anonymous, 04:49 UTC, August 12, 2008.
re:Texas secession. Texas has the same right to secede as any other state. That is, it can secede with the permission of Congress, something Congress has never permitted. —D. Monacktalk23:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed various theories concerning secession in law school. Clearly, the South argued that a state could secede. The Union asserted a state could not. Both arguments sound valid, divorced from political realism. The Civil War decided the issue. Great weight is given precedent, tradition and custom in the United States law. I cannot believe that any state would be permitted to leave. The Confederacy was a plebescite of a kind. Puerto Rico becoming a state is very charged where I live. I want to see the votes from Democratic senators for statehood when their white constituents make their feelings known. Another factor is economic strength. I don't know enough about P.R. to venture that guess.
I'm a constitutional buff, reading theory books and biographies of the founders. My current read is Alexander Hamilton. When one reads their private letters and newspaper articles of the time, their was no clear consensus on how the U.S. government would work. There was theory and that was all. Actual administration of the federal government defined constitutional precedent. Not even George Washington believes it would work in the long run. Practice and custom are probably important as text in declaring a right.75Janice (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Straight Dope did a well referenced article on question 3. [5] It seems to suggest that the courts have ruled that a state may leave the union by agreement of the other states. (But joining the union is otherwise binding.) APL (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all this answers. The article is beeing improving. One little more question if I may :
I've read that a State could not sign an international agreement or join an international organization, only the USA can. For example, Louisiana and Maine which were interresting in the Francophonie organization (as Canadian provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick do it) could not join a such international organization. TCY (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the Straight Dope well-referenced. There must be many law review and periodical articles on this question. I imagine that historical journals have covered it also. My law library subscription has lapsed. I would rather rely upon a specialty journal or an academic legal journal, such as Harvard Law Review.75Janice (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I really meant only that the article had about two dozen references. However, now that you mention it, one of those references is a decision that covers that exact topic by the United States Supreme Court. I'll admit I'm certainly no lawyer, but that seems reasonably authoritative. APL (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
exas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) is not an easy skim. Apparently, it raises the issues of whether bonds issued by Texas after secession and during early Reconstruction, were issued by a State and , therefore, the Court could hear the case under original jurisdiction. I want to return to read it carefully. 75Janice (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Circles of Hell
Did the idea of Hell having concentric circles, tiers, or levels for different sins originate with the Divine Comedy, or does it appear in any older works? 68.123.238.140 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any definite predecessor but Lucifer was cast to the depths of hell and God was thought to be up above all the crystal spheres so I guess it was a reasonable extension. By the way have you noticed his hypersphere structure with God and Satan at opposite poles? Though I'm no sure what to do about the three spheres of God in that picture :-) Some of the translations can be rather plodding and others are good, I don't want to spam so just look for one with lots of people recommending it on Amazon. Dmcq (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry crystal spheres seems to go to some D&D game,try Almagest instead. Dmcq (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading a book about the Cairo Geniza and it mentions how a certain collection of Geniza papers held in the Municipal Library in Frankfort on Main was destroyed during WWII. Was this building bombed by allied forces? Are there any books or journal papers that describe the events leading up to and after this possible bombing? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few days ago, I was thinking about myself, my father, and my grandfather. My grandfather is a Winter War veteran, but my father was only born after the war. In an interview, my grandfather said that in the war, he had killed "enemies, not humans". By this, I understand, he meant that it was nothing personal - he just killed them because he had been ordered to do so, and otherwise they would have killed him. But it suddenly struck me that that was over 60 years ago. Since then, Finland has been at peace. So, I came to wonder - what are the circumstances where one person can kill another entirely legally? I could only come up with war and capital punishment. Finland hasn't been at war for six decades and capital punishment has, to my knowledge, not been use in the entire history of independent Finland (in peacetime, I mean). Are there any other cases?
I realise how writing this sounds. Rest assured, I have no plans of killing anyone. This is merely out of academic (and somewhat morbid) curiosity. JIP | Talk20:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most obvious case is self defence. It may depend on jurisdiction, but usually you're allowed to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself and others. Under some extreme circumstances, deadly force may be considered reasonable. --Tango (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recently heard on a Science Channel program that some people have been acquitted of murder on the basis that the prefrontal_cortex in their brain had not developed correctly, usually from a head injury as a young child. While the damage doesn't necessarily cause psycosis or insanity, it can limit their control over emotions and lead to actions without sufficient consideration.--El aprendelenguas (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that even if you are "acquitted of murder" for psychological reasons you aren't likely to just walk out. You're likely to be sentenced to a psychiatric hospital or prison. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth pointing out that El aprendelenguas's example might partially miss the point of the original question. There is a significant difference between what is legal and what somebody can't be held responsible for or can get away with. The acts are illegal regardless of if one particular individual can be sentenced in courts as responsible for them./Coffeeshivers (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It will depend greatly on juridiction. Historically people could be declared outlaw and their killing would be legal.[6] More recently escaped/fleeing felons could be killed (may still be true in some places). Of course, the police have more situations were killing would be legal. Rmhermen (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under what circumstances would it be legal for a police officer to kill someone but not legal for someone else to do it? Doesn't a police officer killing someone come under the same self defence laws as anyone else? --Tango (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion of ways someone might avoid punishment for murder are slightly off the mark. The original question is what are the circumstances where one person can kill another entirely legally?Justifiable homicide would be a way of avoiding punishment, but I'm not convinced that is the same as legally killing someone. Euthanasia, on the other hand, if it is legal within the jurisdiction would be a way of legally killing someone. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Finland, it's very rare for someone to be able to kill another person under any circumstances without getting in trouble for it, except by unforeseeable accident or in pretty extreme cases of self-defense. Even cops have to have pretty strong justification just to draw their weapons, never mind firing them with the intent to kill. In the instance of self-defense, you might get off the hook for killing someone if the guy was really trying to kill you, but it can get pretty iffy. This is made pretty clear in the Penal Code of Finland, Chapter 4, Section 4, "Self-defense":
"(1) An act that is necessary to defend against an ongoing or imminent unlawful attack is lawful as self-defence, unless the act manifestly exceeds what in an overall assessment is to be deemed justifiable, taking into account the nature and strength of the attack, the identity of the defender and the attacker and the other circumstances.
"(2) However, if the defence exceeds the limits of self-defence (excessive self-defence), the offender is exempt from criminal liability if the circumstances were such that the offender could not reasonably have been expected to have acted otherwise, taking into account the dangerousness and sudden nature of the attack and the situation also otherwise."
In practice, this means that if someone is "just" kicking the shit out of you, you can't shoot them: you really need to believe and have reason to believe that they're trying to kill you for that to be an appropriate response. As the qualifiers ("nature and strength of the attack, the identity of the defender and the attacker and other circumstances") indicate, how that situation is actually interpreted by the court can vary quite a bit. This is something that has seen a lot of debate over the years, for reasons that are probably obvious; there have been plenty of cases where the court has decided that someone has committed excessive self-defense by injuring an assaillant. But that's Finland. For a bit of context, I should probably add that that a pretty small fraction of violent crime here is committed with guns, so the assumption that a situation where a single trigger pull essentially makes the difference between life and death is very unusual is not as unreasonable as it would be in a society that has a lot of handguns floating around. (Of course, Finland actually has a lot of guns per capita, but those are mostly hunting weapons and the like.) Anyway, many other countries take a very different view of the whole thing. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think if someone was kicking the shit out of you and your only weapon was a gun, and you weren't strong enough to fight them off by hand, shooting them would be justifiable as it's the only way to stop the attack. What's reasonable depends very much on the situation, as the statute explicitly states. Whether or not shooting to kill is justifiable, rather than just shooting to disable is another matter - it's quite difficult to reliably shoot someone without killing them, so it probably would be. --Tango (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can think that, certainly, and I'm not saying that I have a moral disagreement with you, but the fact is that over here that kind of thinking may well lead to a conviction. Shooting an unarmed opponent, even one who's assaulting you? More often than not, that'll get really problematic, especially if you don't have a lot of actual damage to show for the assault -- that is to say, if you pull out your gun and fire before you're disarmed or hurt too badly to defend yourself. So what's an assault victim to do? It's not an easy situation, and the temptation for the court to look at the whole thing with the benefit of hindsight probably doesn't help things. In general, guns are not considered to be acceptable weapons for self-defense over here -- and actually, it's very difficult, if not downright impossible, to get a license for a gun for self-defense purposes over here, and a permit to actually carry the weapon in public is equally difficult to obtain unless you're working a job that expressly requires a license -- such as a police officer. If you're a target shooter, getting a permit isn't that hard (though getting one for a gun that's heavier than a .22 is), but even so, if you end up using that gun for self-defense, chances are you're boned -- especially if the incident takes place outside your home.
Not that I'm saying that you'd end up in serious trouble under all circumstances, you understand, but the courts aren't very lenient on this kind of stuff. Of course, if you're seriously assaulted in your home, and other defenses prove ineffective, and the guy is screaming that he's going to kill you, and you go and get your gun out of your proper storage, and there are witnesses to the event, you're probably going to come out perfectly okay, even if you do shoot the guy. But that's getting to be pretty convoluted.
To put this stuff in some kind of context, consider this: a couple of years back there was a case here where a cop shot in the line of duty at an escaping burglar -- a repeat offender who was using amphetamine at the time -- who rammed one security guard's car and two police cars repeatedly with his own car and was generally acting like a pretty dangerous bastard. The cop hit (but didn't kill) the guy and was charged with misconduct and causing a grossly negligent bodily injury. I can't find a reference for how that actually turned out, but if a police officer who claims that he was defending himself -- with other cops and a security guard as witnesses -- gets in this kind of trouble, you can probably figure out that a civilian isn't likely to get off the hook just like that.
I'm not necessarily complaining about this, I should probably stress; it's just the way things are. Certainly, when faced with ideas like "if someone enters your home without permission, you can cap his ass", it feels pretty barbaric. I don't so much have a moral objection to that as a societal one, you know? Of course, that's what growing up in Finland can do to you; violence involving firearms is pretty rare (though not exactly unheard of, unfortunately) over here, and I'd like to keep it that way. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that laws about use of deadly force for self-defense vary widely with jurisdiction. In the US, for example, in some states you cannot use deadly force unless you have exhausted all other means of escape, fighting back, etc.; in other states (cough cough, Texas), you can apparently shoot someone who is stealing from your neighbor even if they don't threaten you at all. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WWII and the theft of a priceless chest
I'm sorry I keep on posting questions about WWII, but I remember watching a show on the history channel that dealt with American G.I.'s getting in trouble for taking spoils of war. One story I found particular interesting was about a G.I. who stole a priceless gem-encrusted chest from the family castle of German royalty. He held onto the chest for decades until his death. His brother and sister tried to sell the chest, but were caught.
I didn't see the show, but I'm reminded of the Quedlinburg treasure stolen by a serviceman named Meador; it was stashed in Whitewright, Texas, where Wikipedia has some brief notes. The story deserves an article of its own. --Wetman (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what I was referring to. I guess I got the "family castle" idea from another story on the same show. When allied forces occupied said castle, two lieutenants stole some of the royal family's priceless jewelry.
The history of japan provididng unconditional aid to developing nations. in addition, the conditions which determine how this aid is provided, the quality of emergency and non emergency aid. japan's say on the phenomena of "aid maintaining poverty". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.233.209 (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is it you need help with? You've mentioned Japan and aid to foreign countries: history, conditions on which it is provided, and its quality. Are you asking what is their stance on aid. I'm sorry, but I have to ask you to be more specific in what we can do for you.84.13.79.246 (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When did the monarch and the crown become separate? If Britain became republican, who would get the Crown property (Buckingham Palace etc...)? The head of the Winsor family? The government?--217.227.68.196 (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article The Crown may be of help. I suspect that Crown Property would pass to the state (as the Crown could be said to be an embodiment of the State), and the personal property of the monarch (e.g. Balmoral Castle) would be retained by the current head of the House of Windsor. The Crown Estates would be another problem - the revenues from them were granted to the government in exchange for the Civil List allowances for the Royal Family. The estates of the Duchy of Cornwall are the inalienable property of the Duke of Cornwall. Of course, all this is speculation, and it would ultimately depend on the constitutional settlement adopted to effect such a change. DuncanHill (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But then the abolition of the monarchy does not always mean the abolition of the nobility. The crown estate scenario is certainly interesting. --Cameron*18:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was very little differentiation between the government's assets and income vs. the monarch's individual personal property and income until about 1760 (the date alluded to, but not specifically mentioned, in the Crown Estates article...). AnonMoos (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to do anything more than guess. The law doesn't say what to do in the case of abolishing the monarchy, for obvious reasons, so it would all have to be worked out at the time. My guess would be pretty much what DuncanHill said: The Crown Estates, etc, go to the state, the monarch's personal property stays with the ex-monarch. I expect the Duchy of Cornwall would go to the state as well, and the Prince of Wales would keep his private properties. I expect the civil list would continue for a time, perhaps until the death of the current Monarch, possible with some small portion continuing to other current members of the Royal Family until their deaths. --Tango (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not. The Queen of Canada could carry on irrespective of the republican actions of that small island off the coast of Europe. (Mind you, we might have to find a place for her to live.) - EronTalk04:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Practically speaking, the Parliament can give (or not give) the person-who-was-Monarch as much or as little as Parliament wants. I'm not a UK constitutional scholar, but as I understand the current legal fiction under which the UK operates, the Monarch rules via the divine right of kings, and being the generous, benevolent monarch that s/he is, grants his/her subjects the (permanent, irrevocable) right to rule themselves. Eliminating the monarchy would thus be equivalent to a (peaceful) revolution, whether or not it would count as one in the history books. My guess is it would likely run along the lines of what was suggested: property belonging to Monarch-as-position goes to the state, property of the person-who-happens-to-be-monarch remains with the person. However, besides public outcry, they're really nothing stopping Parliament from claiming everything and leaving the Royal Family with nothing but the clothes on their back and a nice pension. Really, as long as they got support from the populous (and the police/military), they could even seize everything, abrogate the nobility, decapitate the Windsors, and install Gordon Brown as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. What they actually will do is whatever the electorate will stomach best (which may be leaving the Monarchy in place). -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The divine right of kings is history now, 128.104. The queen does not rule, but reign. She is strictly controlled by the Parliament and the government, with little personal discretion. She has the right to be consulted and to warn, but ultimately the Prime Minister tells her what the government is doing and planning, and if she doesn't like it and her warnings fall on deaf ears there's nothing she can do about it. The speech she reads at the opening of parliament about what her government will be doing in the coming term is written by the government, and it's crucial that she not only read it (rather than memorising it), but be seen to be reading words that are not of her own personal authorship. Although other members of the royal family cannot marry without her consent, she herself cannot marry (or divorce) without the parliament's consent. She cannot even abdicate without the parliament's consent. But she does have the right to make babies, including the next monarch, without anyone's else's involvement, apart from her husband. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'm no UK constitutional scholar. Reading up on it, it seems that the divine right of kings was dumped for Parliamentary sovereignty sometime between the 16th century and 18th century. (According to Monarchy of the United Kingdom, however, it seems that technically the Sovereign is part of Parliament.) I guess I was a little mislead by the term "Sovereign", which implies that they are the one from whom all law-making ability flows. (Reading up on it, it appears that at least some lip-service is given to this thought. - All UK laws (including, presumably the one which would effect the dissolution of the Monarchy) require Royal Assent. Although Royal Assent is, by constitutional convention, almost always granted, it is listed in our article as a reserve power "a power that may be exercised by the head of state without the approval of another branch of the government." While technically the Sovereign has final say in all things, actually acting on it likely, as mentioned in Royal Prerogative, "would precipitate a constitutional crisis".) At any rate, when there's a monarch to be ousting, pesky things like laws seldomget in the way (for more, see Abolished monarchy). -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. The Queen is part of the Parliament of every Commonwealth country, and no law can come into effect without Royal Assent (whether by the monarch personally or a Governor-General acting on her behalf). If she or a G-G said they were thinking of refusing assent to a bill, they would be instructed to sign it by the relevant PM; that's ordered, not just strongly recommended. This part of the system is convoluted and apparently pointless; bills require her assent, but essentially she has no power to refuse to give that assent. The only recent case I'm aware of in a constitutional monarchy was when Baudouin I of Belgium could not, due to his religious scruples, bring himself to sign a bill making abortion legal in Belgium; the solution was to pass a law deeming him incapable of reigning for a day, which he was more than happy to sign. The abortion bill was assented to by other hands, and the next day Baudouin resumed his reign. All nice and tidy. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found this on a piece of paper on the ground...when possiblilty becomes definitive (noticeable) it moves from firstness to secondness... any ideas on a source or meaning? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.78.155.86 (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does a Muslim who owns a pet, a cat for instance, have an obligation to ensure that the animal is only fed Halal food when under his or her care? --84.69.38.231 (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What an interesting question. I did some looking around and discovered that halal pet food definitely exists (it's mentioned here as being on display at a trade fair) and Muslim contributors to some online forums argue that pet food must be halal, because otherwise it cannot be handled and brought into a Muslim home. This extract, however, seems to indicate that it's a matter of preference and that pets in a halal-observant home may be fed anything. The keeping of dogs as pets appears to be frowned on in Islam (the Prophet Muhammad is quoted as saying "Whoever keeps a dog save for hunting or for guarding crops or cattle will lose one large measure (qirat) of his reward each day") and there's an interesting report on official attitutes to cat and dog ownership in Saudi Arabia here [7]. Looks like the answer is "depends on your interpretation". Karenjc22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nazi photo manipulation?
Seems like I often read about how the Nazis and Soviets edited historical photos to remove people who had fallen out of favor. Of course, it's common knowledge that this was regularly done in Stalinist Russia, but I haven't actually found any specific examples of it being done in Nazi Germany. Were photos actually manipulated to remove, say, Ernst Röhm or Rudolf Hess in later years, or do people just say this because it seems like the kind of thing Nazis would do?—Chowbok☠23:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the 1865 US Civil War Generals photo, note that not only is a general added in one photo, but the 2 photos are different, being a stereo pair. This is apparent in the lateral displacement of the boot of the general seated in the center, and the post visible in one photo. I can combine them stereoscopically without gadgets, so it is quite apparent. The extra general was added to one of the stereo pair. They also tweaked the background when the man was added to the photo.Edison (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, OK. But it's still the Soviets who did it hand-over-fist. (In part, no doubt, because the state survived much longer and did helpful things like put out new histories of its own revolution again and again.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
August 13
Assam and Maulana bhasani
Recently, I read a book in Bengali language that Maulana Bhasani went to Assam. Why did he go there? I read Bengali language but don't understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.110 (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Banglapedia, Maulana Bhasani "moved to Ghaghara in Assam in the late 1930s to defend the interests of Bangali settlers there. He made his debut as a leader at Bhasan Char on the Brahmaputra where he constructed an embankment with the co-operation of the Bangali settlers, thereby saving the peasants from the scourge of annual inundation." Dostioffski (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What was the "travel-bureau" mentioned in Jack Kerouac's "On the Road"?
In "On the Road," Jack Kerouac mentions "travel-bureau cars." I've gathered it involves some sort of ride-sharing arrangement in the late 40s (when "On the Road" was set), but I haven't been able to locate any details about the program, either on Widipedia or elsewhere on the internet. What was it? Who ran it? How did it work? Thanks. --Aplnkr (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kerouac himself writes "The travel bureau is where you go for share-the-gas-rides, legal in the West." (quoted from this Hitchhiking site) We have articles on Carsharing, Carpool, and our article on Hitchhiking mentions similar services in Belgium and the Netherlands under Hitchhiking centres, but I found no article on this particular American institution of the late 1940s or early 1950s. ---Sluzzelintalk14:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions about him. First, how did he see all the killings he is associated with in his own mind? Do you think he was conciously killing people to save his own skin from assassinaton or uprising, or did he genuinely believe he was doing the morally just thing?
Secondly, in the pact he had with Nazi germany to divide up Poland between him, might this have been a clever ploy to give time to build up the Soviet army, and also give some space btwen Russia and the Nazis so that a war with them would be fought off Russian soil?
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely", as they say. And Stalin might not have so desperately needed time to rebuild the Soviet army if he hadn't previously disrupted and demoralized it with extensive purges.... AnonMoos (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A number of historians have written about the motives and psychology of Stalin, but I don't think there is a universally agreed upon conclusion. However, one of the more in-depth theories can be found in the following book: Robert Tucker (1992). Stalin In Power. WW Norton. ISBN 0393308693. --Delirium (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The treaty with Germany may have been a clever ploy (I doubt it), but the eventual war resulted in more than 20,000,000 Soviet deaths, more than half of them civilians. that's more than 20 times the combined total for the United Kingdom and the United States. Russians remember, as they should, the Great Patriotic War, but they also sometimes had blocking battalions such as NKVD troops to their rear to forcibly re-educate deserters. Here's a review of Montefiore's Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, which suggests in the reviewer's opinion "ample evidence of (Stalin's) unwillingness to believe a steady stream of intelligence, Soviet as well as Western, that his Nazi partner was about to attack him". — OtherDave (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a view that the feudal (?) sense absolute power over life and death held by a suzerain was a mindset in Russian history long before Stalin. Something that Solzhenitsin for example, didn't acknowledge but those on the receiving end, such as the Poles, did. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rite of Spring Groups
I've read that in the Rite of Spring by Igor Stravinsky that the 5 bassoons it is scored for represent what would be the five village elders. First off is this true. Secondly, if so, do otehr instrument groups symbolize other people in a pagan village setting? Thanks, schyler (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Stravinsky would have agreed that any instrument represents any character in that simple sense. For one thing, Le Sacre is a ballet; the characters are already dancing on stage - to assign them distinct instruments wasn't Stravinsky's style, which was always transparent, yet never obvious. It is true that the four bars titled Le sage ("the sage"), or Adoration de la terre ("Adoration of the Earth") in older scores, feature bassoons prominently (and tenderly and beautifully), but the fifth bassoon (the counterbassoon) is grouped with basses and timpani, and the bassoon plays a very different part in the Introduction for instance, where it can be heard as the first voice of a newborn spring, followed and accompanied by twittering flutes, clarinets bubbling up, and other wind creatures more. The Rite of Spring was first written as a piano score and orchestrated later; I doubt very much that Stravinsky consistently assigned instruments to characters throughout this composition. (But I have no negative reference saying "the bassoons don't represent the village elders" and I don't doubt that you read it). ---Sluzzelintalk00:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do american politicians (eg Condoleeza Rice) hate russia so much? Is it the same for everybody. Is there anything that americans find pleasing in russia?77.86.119.155 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you have heard of the Cold War? Most of the world has had rather strained relations with Russia over the course of the last 100 years. Things got a little better when the Cold War ended but with the rise of Putin many have seen it going back to its old ways—autocratic, aggressive, etc. And of course there are always pleasing aspects of any place, no matter how much one dislikes their government. Russian literature, for example, is particularly well-liked around the world, especially in America. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I could note, before some other nitpicker does, that strained relationships with Russia go back even before the Cold War for many countries. I just picked an aspect of that which is still in recent memory for many people. There's nobody alive currently who harbors direct resentment of Catherine the Great, for example.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some seem to hate, not dislike - is there a benefit for focusing on negative aspects. Is my appraisal of 'hate' past the mark?
(West) Germany and Japan were basically re-made by the US in the years after WWII, in the face of a shared Communist threat. Nothing like that happened in Russia. They stayed the threat, and the feeling that they were the thread did nothing but increase. As for resentment towards Germany and Japan, though—there was still plenty of it in the US through the 1960s or so, and there is no doubt still plenty of it in their nearer neighbors. But those governments have changed significantly since their time of terror. With Russia, things seemed to change... and then also stay the same. Putin isn't just some new kid on the block; he was the head of the KGB! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
During the Cold War, Americans were taught to fear the Soviet Union, widely known as Russia, as a nation that might destroy us with nuclear bombs and that repressed both the Russian people and neighboring peoples under Russian domination. Villains in American films from the 1950s and 1960s often had Russian accents. Older Americans retain those fears, and they are probably passed on to some extent even to younger Americans. That said, I think that, while most Americans are fearful or wary of the Russian government, Americans are open to friendship with Russian individuals and the Russian people. In schools and universities, millions of Americans read and admire Russian literature (usually in translation), and there is a great respect and admiration for other Russian art, including music and dance. I think that some Americans may even feel a affinity for Russia as another nation of wide-open spaces and great possibilities. Marco polo (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question assumes as fact that Condoleezza Rice hates Russia, which is at least debatable. Rice is probably as well informed about Russia and the former Soviet Union as any American and for that reason is more likely to see a more nuanced picture. As for the mythical average American, a combination of cold-war myopia in the U.S., and the USSR's paranoid distrust of its own citizens, meant that most Americans have more chance of meeting someone from Singapore, New Zealand, or Korea than they do someone from Russia. Given how difficult it can be to understand the neighbors (the people next door, or in the case of the U.S., the mythical average Canadian),the barriers of culture, history, language, and political system post formidable obstacles.
I've always liked the analogy (might have been Robert Massie's) that the Russians are the Texans of Europe. (That's meant as both an explanation and a compliment. If it confuses you, send me an email.) — OtherDave (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"that most Americans have more chance of meeting someone from Singapore, New Zealand, or Korea than they do someone from Russia." With 750,000 to 1,000,000 Russians living in the U.S. and a total of 3 million claiming to be Russian Americans, I don't think it is all that hard to meet one. Rmhermen (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both above, I saw Ms Rice on TV and she disturbed me so much I had to ask this question. I'm used to politics and not particularily sensitive; for example I've seen many times George Bush saying 'russia must do this', or 'russia must do that', or 'were not very happy with russia' etc or even Reagen with his 'evil empire' speach - none of which bothered me - but today I what I saw really disturbed me. Perhaps I'm just scared of black women.? Thanks anyway...87.102.35.13 (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to make your own judgments. I would point out the technicality that Rice has never been elected to (nor run for) any office, so she's not really a politician. And after her service in the Bush administration, I think I'd have an equal chance of getting elected. (Ain't nobody out campaigning for Henry Kissinger, either.) P.S.: I took the liberty of giving the question more than a question mark. OtherDave (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Americans who read history are fond of the partnership with the USSR fighting against fascists in World War 2, and we admire the Russian culture of music and literature (and vodka). Americans were amazed and delighted when the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991. I saw it coming, having read about the Amana Colonies getting rid of communism in the 1930's after 200 years of practicing it, because it led to too many drones who believed in "to each according to his wants" without contributing "from each according to his means." Gorbachev and Yeltsin moved Russia to democracy. Then Putin , of the KGB, clamped down on dissent and took control of the news media, and bullied former soviet republics which had become democracies. Americans become skeptical when Russia of 2008 acts in Georgia (country) like the Soviet Union of 1956 did in Hungary or the Soviet Union of 1968 did in Czechoslovakia, or the Soviet Union of 1979 did in Afghanistan. Edison (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the Russian Federation and the Soviet Union is the same country. I'm even less certain that these conflicts were started by an attack that took the lives of several thousand Russian/Soviet citizens (or "Russian passport holders in Ossetia" as the BBC calls them). A closer parallel would be Pearl Harbour. Even the British gov channel at last admitted today that "the US and UK at least have chosen to represent this as Russian aggression, yet it was Georgia that attacked with a rocket barrage which by its nature was indiscriminate".[8]
The CNN still shows the ruins of Tskhinval with a commentary that it's a Georgian town ruined by those bloody ruskies. In this particular conflict, some Russian media (e.g., Ekho Moskvy) presented both sides of the story more or less even-handedly, while the West stuck to the Cold War-type propaganda. For some reason there was not a single western journalist in Ossetia. They all went to Georgia, representing their opinions and airing interviews with the mad prez on an hourly basis.
"The scale of their cynicism causes surprise," Putin said. "It's the ability to cast white as black and black as white which is surprising, the ability to cast the aggressor as the victim and blame the victims for the consequences. Of course, Saddam Hussein ought to have been hanged for destroying several Shiite villages," Putin said. "And the incumbent Georgian leaders who razed ten Ossetian villages at once, who ran elderly people and children with tanks, who burned civilian alive in their sheds — these leaders must be taken under protection."[9] --Ghirla-трёп-13:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Russian Federation and USSR are not the same country. But the fact that Russia has, in the last decade, been running on a course towards autocracy (and concertedly working to undermine Western power in a number of crucial arenas) has definitely influenced the feeling that Russia has been doing more "business as usual". And nobody much trusts Putin's take on things—for good reason. The man is clearly a snake. (Which isn't to say that the current leader of the US is any more trustworthy.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Redent) I will speak to American pop culture's view of Russians. Off the top of my head I can think of 5 stereotypes. Most Russians in American pop culture fit into these groups.
Terrorist Russian. Usually someone that has some gripe that started during the USSR. Sometimes ex-KGB. Totally has a hard-on for the Cold War. Usually they are in command of some breakaway part of the Russian military or selling old Russian arms/missiles/nukes to terrorists.
Evil Businessman Russian. A ruthless businessman that wears big fur coats indoors. Usually in the oil business.
Boozed Russian. Usually drunk 24 hours a day and LOVES Vodka. Will do anything for Vodka. All Russians are drunk ALL THE TIME and love vodka.
Slut Russians. All Russian women are sluts and even more dangerous than the men, according to movies.
Super-military Russian. Basically a compliment. Russians in movies and TV are often portrayed as burly and very competent fighters with nerves of friken steel. See Steven Segal movies.
Also, except for the Boozed Russian sterotype Americans don't REALLY think Russians are like this. They are just good characters in movies because of their access to any weapon the story would need from "old USSR weapons bunkers". Also, Americans think Putin sucks and that Russians are stupid for being duped by him. Beyond that most Americans don't know much about Russia in its current state. Russians are never actually IN Russia in movies. They are always in America or Europe. --mboverload@02:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget The Sopranos, where there were Russian gangsters [10]. One really tough and nearly indestructible guy had been in the "Interior Ministry" meaning paramilitary/secret police, and had "once killed 16 Chechens with his bare hands" [11] , but the American gangster misheard and thought he had been an Interior decorator, and could not figure out why his apartment was so poorly decorated. Edison (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you consult Russophobia for more information. Hollywood has certainly perpetuated the russophobic stereotypes mentioned above, although it has recently found it possible to make room for Hispanic and Chinese good guys (e.g., Antonio Banderas and Jackie Chan). In sharp contrast to these signals of increasing tolerance, you'll be hard pressed to find a good Russian in a Hollywood movie, even though the CIS box-office is increasingly important to studios' bottom lines. --Ghirla-трёп-12:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caroline graduated from Columbia Law School and passed the NY Bar on her first try, which is impressive. I don't know the year. The NY State Bar Examiners may be able to supply it. I would think that it would be in Wikipedia's article.75Janice (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)75Janice75Janice (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
August 14
What legally constitutes a parade?
Thanks to a city ordinance I just can't go around throwing a parade whenever I want one, because -(insert mocking whiny voice here) "I need a per-mit". Please tell me what the legal definition of a parade is so I can figure a way around this unjust draconian law. I figure it's something along the lines of "when 5 or more people moving in unison are playing a trumpet...". That being the case, as long as it's not nighttime, and as long as I'm not blocking traffic, then there's no reason why I (one person) can't legally walk down my street playing a bass drum! And what if I pick up a second person who walks in step directly behind me doing a wavelike motion? Will I get cited then? What is the line where "paradelike" becomes "parade"?--Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you are asking how not to get in trouble for breaking the law, this sounds a lot like legal advice. So we can't really help. - EronTalk00:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in breaking the law, merely getting around it. I realize this skirts around legal advice, that's why I only asked for the definition. And once I know what that definition is, believe me, I'll have no trouble finding a loophole! Can't fight city hall, huh? You dont know me very well!... --Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In all likelihood any such definiton will be specific to your municipality. Parades, noise parameters and the like are often controlled by way of city ordinances. Try the web site for your city hall. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My hunch is that your jurisdiction, like the county I live in and the nearby towns, has created its regulations, among other reasons, to manage traffic flow and moderate noise. Your jurisdiction, and some of your fellow citizens, may not find it all that draconian to keep people from walking in the middle of the street rather than on sidewalks, nor to keep people from banging on drums because they happen to have them lying around. Nearby Washington DC (which has a regulation or two on its books), the permit process has allowed everybody from the American Nazi Party to the United Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (not a group with many DC members) to the Million Man March to the annual March for Life to people who like wearing green on St. Patrick's Day to parade. They tend not to want folks tramping in the middle of Fourteenth Street NW at 5 p.m. on a work day, though. OtherDave (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. You haven't even specified what country you live in so there is no chance we can help you. (Don't take this as in invitation to specify precisely where you live because even with that information, it is unlikely any contributor will know about your specific municipality so it is far better if you see a lawyer or look into the law yourself) Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look at it this way. There are good reasons not to let people block the street or create disruptions. But this obviously needs to be balanced with a right for free assembly. Permits are one approach to having an organized, systematic approach to negotiating these different pressures. They no doubt draw the line arbitrarily (which, in the end, is the only way it can be drawn). But the regulations are straightforward in the sense that anyone can look them up and know more or less what to expect. Draconian? Hardly. It's the same fundamental procedure that lies at the heart of any reasonable civic interaction of rights. That's the old inevitable problem: the more rights you have, the poorer things are going to run, because you're going to be negotiating the overlaps every five minutes. The less rights you have, the more Draconian your system, the more swiftly it dashes along a predetermined path, trains-run-on-time style. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also have to do with notability of your cause. People in San Francisco will kick the crap out of protestors in the street if they do a sit in. Blocking their Priuses is NOT ok. Unless they don't completely disagree with the message. If they agree with the cause they will use their Priuses to block “the man”. Prius = liberal swiss army knife. --mboverload@02:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, actually I don't think notability (in the general sense or the Wikipedia sense) has anything to do with it. And I doubt anyone will "kick the crap" out of protesters—they'll just get them arrested. At best. (In fact, I've seen many disruptive protests in the East Bay that weren't with permits. The police tolerated them because they "couldn't do anything about them", as they told me. It is not really in anyone's interest to start knocking in people's heads—especially if you disagree with the protesters. There's no better way to shoot yourself in the foot than to unambiguously cede moral authority.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The legal definition of a parade should be specified either in the "definitions" section of your city code or in the case law. Consult a lawyer or your local law library. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Name of Children's Picture Book
I'm trying to find out the name of a picture book I read as a child during the 1990s. The illustrations were realistic, reminiscent of Jan Brett's style in The Mitten (without any snow). What I recall of the storyline goes like this:
Some children are kidnapped by a troll (or other magical antagonist) away from their mother. The mother goes to find them and arrives at the troll's door to get them back. He insists that her feet are too dirty and that she cut them off before she may enter. She pretends to cut off her feet and walks on her knees (she's wearing a dress) to get in. But the troll has turned all of the children into food and she must guess which child is which food item before she can get them back.
I have a distant, distant ancestor, Joran Persson, who played a small but significant part in a power struggle in Sweden in the mid 1500s. According to records my mother received from a Swedish genealogist years ago, Joran's mother was killed right around the same time as Joran was--allegedly because she had been accused and convicted of witchcraft. I'm not sure this is true, but certainly there would have been political motivation to go after her, I suppose. Our article suggests that she was scheduled to be executed with him and killed herself...perhaps the witchcraft charge is invented history, but of course it may be the charge that would have warranted her execution. My question--were there witch trials in Sweden as early as the 1560s? If so, where would I find records of them? I know that, even if records exist, they're probably in Swedish and in archives not web-accessible, but I thought I'd see what I could get from the good folk at the RD first. Thanks for whatever you can provide! User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.112.40.194 (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks like I never realized there was an article on her at Anna (d.1568). I'm still interested in the question about witch trials, but it looks like there are more answers available on the web than I'd thought. 71.112.40.194 (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the distinct impression that witch trials are a popular myth that there has very little evidence to suggest they ever really occured. Still i'll defer to other's knowledge in this case 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given how potent a brew you can make with ignorance, gullibility, and fanaticism, I'd hesitate to dismiss the notion of witch hunts, though many probably lacked the dubious benefit of a trial. Any number of people have used Exodus 22:18 to justify jailing, abusing, and killing others, usually women. I suspect a few have been killed outside the Judeo-Christian world as well. — OtherDave (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to various Swedish sites, witch trials didn't occur in Sweden until the 17th century. Apparently, nearly 100 people (men and women) were convicted and killed between 1600 and 1650. In 1668 the real inquisitions began and during the next 8 years another 300 people were killed. The last time anyone was killed for witchcraft was in 1704. It therefore seems unlikely that your ancestor would have been killed for witchcraft as early as the mid 1500s. (Tigger) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.116.230 (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am Swedish myself, and have read a lot about witch trials in Sweden. Of course, they are always a lot of rumors about everything. To summarize the subject of Swedish witch trials: The real witch hunt in Sweden took place in the 1670s, between 1668 and 1676, when around 280 (240 confirmed) people were executed convicted for having kidnapped children to Satan. Everyone exept one were decapitated before they were burned. Outside of the period of 1668-1676, witch trials were uncommon in Sweden; almost all of the witch trials that ever occurred in Sweden took place in the 1670s. They were, however, some isolated cases before 1668; the first woman was executed in 1550, some trials were held by the archbishop in 1597, and a series of them were held in Småland and Östergötland in the 1610s. The last person was executed in 1704. As for your question about Anna, not much seems to be known about her case. Tradition and legend has it, that she was convicted for sorcery, which is accepted by historians, but her case seems unclear. They were no other witch trials held in Sweden in the period 1550-1585. My guess is, that the sorcery charge were a quick excuse to get her out of the way; perhaps she was in fact never formally charged, merely killed, and the charge was added later, because of her reputation. Only a guess! --85.226.235.145 (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trading on an American exchange
What would be the best way for a foreigner to buy shares of stock on an American exchange, NYSE in particular? If through the same channels as an American would do, then what would those channels be? —Bromskloss (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so any recommendations on which one I should turn to? One that is cheap (I don't need consultation or any such extra services) and that can be easily dealt with over the Internet. —Bromskloss (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What country are you in? Barclays bank have a pretty decent service, compare many market makers and work to get the price for your trade. You should not look purely at charges - some places offer cheap order-charges but seem to offer much wider bid offer spreads. How many trades are you looking to do a month, what value of the trades? Answers to these questions will affect who represents good value and who does not. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for the answers so far. I'm in Sweden. For the moment, I do not intend to trade much, more like do a one-off transaction, buying into some company and holding it for a long time. —Bromskloss (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to project the concept that King Arthur was Welsh (Cambrian), and to suggest that accepted Dark Age History is a sham; Wikepedia has itself promulgated concepts that follow the orthodox view. Having spent over ten years researching the subject the conclusions counter much of that which Wikepedia has accepted as fact. As I am about to publish my book 'Arthur: A Dark Age Revisited' it is likely that entrenched opinion will take umbrage at such an upstart challenging entrenched concepts, does Wikepedia take a similar entreched standpoint? [email address redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.133.248 (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, it's "Wikipedia" not "Wikepedia"; second, we'll probably only be interested in your book if it receives serious scholarly reviews; third, I don't know who claimed that King Arthur was narrowly Welsh -- he was actually British (the speaker of a "P-Celtic" language, at a time when speakers of P-Celtic were established over a much larger area than Wales). AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I would say that if your book attains a sufficient degree of notability (either through support or controversy), this will most likely result in a description of that support for or controversy caused by your theory in the King Arthur article. You should understand that like many other publications of a comparable nature, Wikipedia is not so much concerned with what is true as it is with what can be proved to be true and/or has been accepted as true. (Which can be problematic at times, to be sure -- personally, I don't think it's one of the areas where Wikipedia is at its smoothest... but there's a reason for it to be like that.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The worm will turn
Where did the term, "the worm will turn", come from and why does it refer to bad people getting payback for dirty deeds.
I've removed your email, as a precaution against spam. I would guess that it's a reference to a worm gear, in the sense of gears turning, and "things moving along", possibly in the sense of "things coming back around". -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A google search on the phrase "worm will turn" plus the word "etymology" provides multiple sources saying that it refers to the creature. It may not be able to hurt you, but if you hurt it, it'll turn to face you. --Anonymous, 18:50 UTC, August 14, 2008.
“
Tread on a worm, it turns, sir! If I turn,
Your fault! 'Tis you'll have forced me!
Who's obliged
To give up life yet try no self-defense?
At all events, I'll run the risk, Eh?
”
Tread on a worm and it will turn is listed in Heywood's Proverbs (1546), meaning the lowest of the low, when ill-used, still feel it.—eric19:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned Shakespeare, who, even if he didn't originate the phrase, surely helped popularize it. It appears in Clifford's first speech to the King in Act II, Scene ii of Henry VI, Part 3:
My gracious liege, this too much lenity
And harmful pity must be laid aside.
To whom do lions cast their gentle looks?
Not to the beast that would usurp their den.
Whose hand is that the forest bear doth lick?
Not his that spoils her young before her face.
Who scapes the lurking serpent's mortal sting?
Not he that sets his foot upon her back.
The smallest worm will turn, being trodden on,
And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood.
I'd suggest that a worm gear cannot be meant here, and that Browning was likely drawing on his memory of Shakespeare in his quotation. But of course Heywood would seem to suggest that the proverb predates the Bard by a generation or more. User:Jwrosenzweig editing as 71.231.197.110 (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Painter Identification
I believe I was in the national gallery of art in Washington DC when I saw a collection of landscape paintings that I liked. In the very center of each one was a very tiny man with a red shirt and blue pants. That is the only real identifying feature of these paintings. Is that enough for anyone to identify who the artist is? -- kainaw™18:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that isn't him (or her). I've been trying to search at the NGA website, but it appears to be impossible to select "show me pictures of your landscape paintings" there. -- kainaw™18:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not telephone the gallery and ask them? You can then talk about where in the building the paintings were, as well as what they looked like. --Anonymous, 18:52 UTC, August 14, 2008.
Absolutely! I use that sequence every year to teach my honors U.S. history students about the Hudson School -- very moving. If Cole isn't who you're looking for, kainaw, I'd suggest looking at some of his stuff anyhow, if you like American landscape painters. :-) User:Jwrosenzweig as 71.231.197.110 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to track it down now by one of the rather unusual landscapes. It was all ice. I figure there aren't many popular landscape paintings of ice. -- kainaw™16:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dark Age History
Gildas in his 'De Excidio et conquista Britannia' proclaimed the site from which Picts attacked as far as 'The Wall', he of course wrote in Latin, then scholars by translation and interpretation gave us the name of the site from which the Picts undertook their journey. The only record of that event is that of Gildas and the accepted location is the Cichican Valley, yet in my researches I have failed to find any author who has placed the Cichican Valley on a modern map. Can Wikepedia determine where Cichican was? Can any readers place the Cichican Valley?I know a man who can!
Brian Williams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.133.248 (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the Korean movie "Chunyang" , the father reminds his son to do the six
exercises of a scholar ,in addition to the preperation for the imperial exam.
What are the six exercises of av scholar and where are they referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.75.94 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could anyone firstly find a complete version of Wole Soyinka's Background and Friezes? It's proving an impossible task. At the same time, if anyone could illuminate me as to the meaning of Jacques d'Odan and which politician this specifically refers to that would be immensely appreciated.
There is no free full text version available online (unless it contains typos regarding the lines I googled). Don't know how you can get around looking for A Shuttle in the Crypt in a library, bookstore, or ordering it online (here, for example). Sorry. ---Sluzzelintalk12:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to determine how close in content the US Series 7, or General Securities Representative Exam is to the Canadian securities course in terms of international recognition. I realize that they are both designed for their home markets, but I'm sure that many developing countries don't have equivalent examinations, and employers would therefore occasionally recognize these courses as useful.
I've been reading up on defence spendings here on Wikipedia and the UK is ranked 3rd in the World by defence spendings, after the United States and France. The US I can understand having a huge budget judging by the size of their armed forces. However, Britain and France's military in terms of vehicles, troops, ships and aircraft is significantly smaller than several of the lower-listed countries (such as Russia and China). I'd like to know where the money is actually spent to in the UK to require such a large budget for what seems like a relatively small armed forces. —CyclonenimT@lk?11:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's exactly huge, the budget for 2005-06 was on 32 billion pounds (~US$55 billion) compared to the USA's US$535 billion. You can find a brief breakdown of where this money went here and the official accounts for 2006-07 here. Nanonic (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may be interested in List of countries by military expenditures & [13]. Remember Russia and China's army are both still relatively low tech compared to the UK & France. And their soldiers wages/upkeep would be a lot less. Also, the figures coming from them might be less reliable given they have a less open style of government than countries like the UK & france Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Especially read the caveats to that list. There are substantial areas of spending (such as veterans' pensions) which the UK considers to be military and other countries (such as Russia) do not. Algebraist12:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The CIA Factbook aparently no longer includes actual calculated-out military spending, but they do give military spending as percent of GDP (In purchasing power) and GDP. It seems not too far a step in synthesis to multiply the figures and calculate the CIA's equivalent total military spending from the latest CIA Factbook. The figures for GDP*MIL spending % of GDP would be US: $561,904,000,000. China: $300,613,000,000. Russia: $81,432,000,000. France: $53,222,000,000. UK: $51,288,000,000. For China, the CIA gives a GDP (in purchasing power) of $6.991E+12, with 4.3% going for military spending. The Wikipedia article uses a report by the Chinese government, which the very newspaper article says it probably a gross underestimate. The actual figures vary somewhat by budget year, but the China figure is grossly low in the Wikipedia article, compared to the CIA estimate, which itself is of course could be questioned. The Jane's publications might also have figures. Edison (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disney aid
My fiance and her 5 year old daughter just got thier visa approved July 7th. I will go there Oct. 30 and bring them to the USA. We have a wedding planned for Feb. 21st, 2009. I want to take them to Disneyworld and then to the beach for a honeymoon Feb 22nd to ? I had to retire on disability 4 years ago, after working for 31 years. Is there any help available to assist me to afford to show my girls a good time and as far as I am concerned, is a MUST experience for thier arrival and happiness in our country, Disneyworld. Paul Streble —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.56.150 (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um it might help if you specify where you live... In any case, you could try approaching local charities, family and friends. Or even your local paper/TV to see if they're interested in doing a story on you Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope things work out for you, but the whole agenda sounds materialistic. My family got along ok without Disneyworld ever being a "MUST experience for happiness," and at someone else's expense no less. Of course, we could have used a bit more happiness. Please post the information if you find someone who will pay for Disneyworld vacations. Edison (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two Olympic Questions
Hello everyone,
I have been enjoying the 2008 Summer Olympics from Beijing, but I do have a few questions. First off, I was wondering if the Falkland Islands or Greenland ever had any athletes in any of the Olympic Games. I understand they do not have an IOC. Would they have to participate under Great Britain and Denmark, respectively? Another question I have is in regard to Handball. I know the United States did not send a delegation in Handball this year. What caused this, and are there plans to revive the team for the 2012 Summer Olympics? Thanks for the help!
Don't have an IOC? Don't you mean a NOC? As for handball, no idea, are you sure they even qualified? This suggests the women's team didn't even qualify for the Pan-American games[14] and although it says they still have a hope to qualify for the olympics given that the Americas AFAIK are hardly the world leaders in handball (I believe that honour goes to Europe or perhaps Asia) it doesn't bode well for their Olympics qualification hopes Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article mentions some of the problems US's handball governing body faces (evidentally it was decertified by the US NOC 2 years ago) [15] which may partially explain why they US performed so poorly despite winning the Pan American games in 1987. Then again, if you believe the blog post, it's also because Americans are too stupid to understand that sports have different names in different places (evidentally handball means something else in the US, see American handball), the author suggests the sport be renamed (um yeah, rename the sport likely recognised by most of the rest of the world for a country which couldn't even qualify in it for the olympics?). However I wouldn't give much credance to the author, he doesn't even seem to realise that the rest of the world doesn't have a problem with the name. Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The general comment that Americans don't know what handball is, is a bit unfair. Sports that are popular in one area of the US can be near unheard of in another (example neither field hockey nor lacrosse are school sports in the Midwest yet both are popular in New England). Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Americans, "handball" is a game like squash without rackets; "team handball" is what we call the other game. That's not stupid, that's just another US/British English difference. Until the last couple of Olympics, they didn't even show the team handball on TV, so you can understand that most Americans have never seen the sport. I'm sure that if it was as big as basketball in the U.S., the Americans would have a good team. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, this has been annoying me for a while now. I ask this question purely out of curiosity. Why does the United Kingdom compete in the olympics under the name "Great Britain"? It seem absurd. All other countries compete under state names not island names. Another thing I noticed is they actually use the United Kingdom flag. Why is this? Because Great Britain (as an island) never had a flag? Is it too difficult to register under the state's proper name? --Cameron*15:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a guess, but I suspect it's because only the island competes in the Olympics. United Kingdom would include offshore islands. This would answer the above question too. As I said though, only a guess. —CyclonenimT@lk?16:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
United Kingdom would not include Jersey, Guernsey, or the Isle of Man. It would include Northern Ireland, the Shetland Islands, the Orkney Islands, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight. DuncanHill (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And according to Ireland at the Olympics, "Athletes from Northern Ireland can choose to compete for either Ireland or Great Britain, per an agreement between the Olympic Council of Ireland and the British Olympic Association." DuncanHill (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made some comments about this only yesterday at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Australian Olympic attire. I've also long wondered why they use "Great Britain" to refer to a political entity that includes more than Great Britain. (It's a little like calling the Bosnian and Herzegovinian team "Bosnia", the Trinidad and Tobago team "Trinidad", or indeed the Australian team "Tasmania"). The team was called "Great Britain" back in 1896, when the name of the country was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, so it's always been a misnomer. Although sub-demonyms (English, Scottish ...) exist, the general demonym for these people is British. That may help to explain where the name originally came from, although "Britain" would have been a far better choice than "Great Britain". Many NOCs have changed their names, to accommodate mergers with and splits from other countries (Czechoslovakia > Czech Republic and Slovakia), or straight name changes (Ceylon > Sri Lanka). When the UK lost most of the island of Ireland in 1922, or even when they got around to changing the name of their country in 1927 to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that would have been a good time to change the NOC's name to "United Kingdom". It's still not too late. How about it, guys. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a similar thing about .gb vs. .uk as the Internet domain name -- if ISO-3166 was strictly followed, UK internet addresses would end in ".gb". And there was a flag of Great Britain (used before 1801), but it wouldn't be appropriate in the Olympic context... AnonMoos (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the definitive answer to why it is 'Great Britain' and not United Kingdom for the Olympic team goes back to the 1908 London Olympics. Until the 1906 intercalated games, Olympic competitors had been individuals. In 1906 they competed for national teams, and that was also followed in 1908. However, the issue of whether Ireland should have home rule was a very live one in politics and many Irish athletes objected to competing for the United Kingdom. A boycott was threatened, which might also have led to Irish Americans withdrawing in sympathy and the games being rendered uncompetitive. To pacify the Irish and rescue the games, Lord Desborough agreed to call the team 'Great Britain and Ireland' which was accurate in geography. (Despite this, in some sports Ireland entered as a different team to Great Britain)
The same arrangement held at subsequent Olympics until the partition of Ireland, when it was presumably decided that 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland' would be too long and that unionist Ulster athletes would not object to competing for Great Britain. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a lot of sense, Sam, except for the last sentence. The choice of possible names was not limited to 'GB & NI' and 'GB'. Surely they would also have considered 'United Kingdom' as well. If Unionist athletes had no objections to competing for the inaccurate 'Great Britain', they would have been even happier with the accurate 'United Kingdom', which has only one more letter, and a whole 17 letters shorter than 'GB and NI'. OK, the Irish partition happened in 1922 and the country didn't change its name from the 'UK of GB and Ireland' to the 'UK of GB and Northern Ireland' until 1927. In those intervening 5 years, I can understand athletes being very touchy about this, and it was probably better to come up with a workable solution, however technically inaccurate it may have been, than risk jeopardising the 1924 and 1928 Olympics. But all that was a long time ago. The legacy of not correcting that temporary solution is that a huge chunk of the sporting world (or the entire world) thinks there's a country called "Great Britain", which there ain't. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need help finding more references for this article. If anyone could track some down for me or give me some pointers of how I can alter my search terms, in addition to any sites that catalog old news articles, particularly the Oakland Tribune, Richmond Post, Richmond Globe, West County Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner or East Bay Express. I know for sure there will be something concerning the proposed airport and the community opposition to it in the 1970s and also history of the site and it's connection to the Breuner Family.MY♥INchile17:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
technology and its impact on unemployment
Is there any consensus among economists about whether technology will, in the long run, lead to higher unemployment, by simply making people redudant? 202.89.166.179 (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about a consensus but you would need to consider the knowledge economy. The most technologically advance nations in the world are not the ones with the highest unemployment, nor are they the nations with the lowest average-incomes/median incomes. Technology allows for increases in efficiency and in the short-term it will result in job-losses as machines replace people, but in the long-run it will move people into positions where technology isn't able to replace humans... Think about something as technologically advanced as the internet - how many people are employed solely with the purposes of designing, developing, reviewing, maintaining websites? It may be that the internet has eaten into some areas of employment (perhaps bricks and mortar retail - e.g. independent travel agents) but it has created others. Sorry this is 'original research' i'll try find something online about it to link to. ny156uk (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the greatest technological unemployers in our lifetimes was the automatic teller machine. Another was the mobile phone (not many public phones around anymore, few printed phone directory, etc). A third would be the personal computer (just think of all those typing pools fired and adding machines no longer needed.) A source for further reading would be Luddite. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that is short-term unemployment specific to sectors of work/specialisations of work. Technology is disruptive to the employment market - it can quickly make an occupation type obsolete, but that is entirely different to creating, in the long run (as per original question) higher unemployment. ny156uk (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to find the name of something I've heard in psychology class... I remember that you chose six adjectives that you think best describe you (there was a version with good adjectives and bad adjectives) and then invite a lot of other people to do the same about you. Depending on what other people picked based on what you picked, the adjectives would be sorted into four categories. I'd like to do more research on this but, as I've forgot what this is called, I can't look it up. Does anybody know what I'm talking about? Thanks in advance! --216.110.206.253 (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If all you're interested in is maximizing the ratio of expected income to years spent in education, then you would probably do best to get an MBA or professional qualification after your bachelor's degree (instead of a typical academic Master's or PhD). AnonMoos (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the definition. If you define marginal utility of education as the "increased satisfaction from consuming the goods and services purchased with the increased income that resulted from more education" then the usual diminishing marginal returns to income apply as long as you assume that equal increments in amount of education (which needs to be defined) result in equal or decreasing increments in income. This is not necessarily the case. Note also that people with qualifications such as a PhD do not necessarily seek out the most lucrative form of employment.
You could also define the marginal utility of education as "the increased satisfaction gained from knowing/learning more". Or are you perhaps interested in allowing for the utility lost due to time spent at study? I've also seen people use diminishing marginal returns to studying to justify spending less time to prepare for an exam but I'm sure you're not referring to that. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
August 16
Who was Zhongyin (仲尹)?
I am doing some research on early China, and have come across the two characters "zhong" (仲) and "yin" (尹) right next to each other. I am nowhere near a library with the resources to look this up and haven't been able to find it on the web. I am almost positive that this is a name, and would like to know who he was. The source is the Jiaoshi Yilin (焦氏易林) which would have been no later than Warring states, if I remember correctly. The sentence itself is "膳夫仲尹，便我噏聊。“ Thanks in advance!! Jen (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have no idea about the movie, but if you mean half-Arab and half-Black, the answer might be "yes", but if you mean half-Arab but not half-black, then the answer is definitely "no"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When beinb discharged, how would military label field of op. for covert work?
I may never finish this Hogan's Heroes fai fiction idea of mine, but I do need one question answered. If a person served in World War Two, and was in some sort of Intelligence or covert work (not OSS), how would their job ddesignation be listed on their dischrage papers? The reason is, I'm thinking that those who volutneer at Stalag 13 would have this label on their discharge papers, so their families think they weren't prisoners but were just told that. After all, as Hogan says in mys tory, the mliitary can fake anything, even postmarks from Germany when people send letters home.
Generally not in the UK, without additional qualifications or experience. For example, to begin a postgraduate degree at the University of Warwick, one requires "Vordiplom plus 1 year of study/ Fachhochschuldiplomdiplom/ Diplom/ Erstes Staatsexamen/ Magister Artium". At the London School of Economics, "Vordiplom, or the Zwischenpruefung, does not meet the minimum entrance requirement [for postgraduate study], but applicants are eligible to be considered if they have the Vordiplom or the Zwischenpruefung and a third year of substantive study (either the school's general course, or a third year of study in Germany)." [17]Dostioffski (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for the help. The page is obviously just incomplete; i'll add it to my list of "things to do"..
Law question
This (fastcase.com) appears to be an excerpt from a document titled People v. Winley, 432 N.Y.S.2d 429, 105 Misc.2d 474 (N.Y.Sup., 1980). My question is, what is the status of this document? Who is doing the writing, as in "In what is purported to be a first prosecution of its kind in New York State"? Is it Justice Stecher as a Supreme Court judge? 86.44.17.5 (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the quoted phrase is by Justice Stecher himself, not by a court reporter or commentator. By the way, the standard format for citing this decision in legal writing would be: People v. Winley, 105 Misc. 2d 474, 432 N.Y.S.2d 429 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1980). The "N.Y. Co." specifies that the case was heard in New York County, not just somewhere in New York state. JamesMLanetc02:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm re-reading Louisa M.Alcott's "
Eight Cousins" and've finally stopped to find out a question which has long puzzled me and for which I can't seem to find enlightenment on the web. One of the Campbell boys, nicknamed "the Dandy," wears a hair style referred to as a top knot. Only being familiar with women't top knots, I'm having trouble visualizing this hairstyle. I've been searching for images and references online for several days and can't find anything which would explain this style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcsgibson (talk • contribs) 03:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Term White in US Surveys
In US sociology, how often does the term White include so-called white ethnics, ie all non WASP Europeans ? Are WASPs still largely dominant over the ethnics, to the point where White and WASP are still likely held as synonymous, or has that changed ? 69.157.227.243 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to how know many Hun warriors arrived in Europe in the late Roman Times. Are there any Roman records that tells the size of the hunnic tribe in Europe? Sonic99 (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Porn model rape
How often do porn models in US get raped even if intercourse isn't part of their contract? I mean non-consexual sex. Is it common for some member of the shooting crew to rape the model?
![[16]](http://www.gif.gl/program/index.php?t_id=70&sprog=3&music=1&shifter=5){kind=link}
.svg)