Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 26

Now for something my friend and I disagree on...

1. Is Singapore a developed or developing country?

2. Is Singapore an Anglosphere country? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.13.2 (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely a High income economy (see also Developed_country#Definition). The English language plays a prominent role, but it would seem to lack many of the requisite features of political culture to be a core member of the Anglosphere... AnonMoos (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes to both: developed and Anglosphere, in light of the legal and (formal) political system. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Singapore is very Asian. Call us Anglosphere, is disrespect our Asian culture. If Singapore is Anglosphere, why the racist Americans hate our lack of human rights? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.121.36.232 (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you trolling on Wikipedia ? --12.50.77.163 (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it's (a) developed, and (b), well takes some further analysis. First Singapore does speak English, unless I have forgotten incorrectly. Then, of course, it is in the Asia Pacific region, but Australia is also there, and I think it is considered anglosphere. So yes t o both, unless English isn't an important language there. As some sort of disclaimer: I mainly know about the Czech Republic, the US, Hong Kong, and how bad I feel China is. Vltava 68 (talk contribs) 02:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Anglosphere" doesn't just mean that the use of the English language is important (that would be "Anglophony"...). AnonMoos (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Did Enoch Really Die ?

• Was reading the article Entering heaven alive ...

• What are the traditional Jewish/Christian views about Enoch's life and death ? Did they really teach that he ascended the firmament without reaching the end of his life ?

69.157.231.5 (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You could start with the source given in the article, the Jewish Encyclopedia's article on Enoch. The Catholic Encyclopedia is less useful here but see Book of Henoch and Henoch. Wikipedia itself has lots of info, Enoch (ancestor of Noah) and, since he is also a prophet of Islam, Islamic view of Enoch. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The operative assumption here is expressed in "really".--Wetman (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Enoch Powell is actually dead, as you may see from the article.--ChokinBako (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but who the *** ever mentioned Enoch Powell? This is about the biblical character Enoch, after whom that late right honourable gentleman and all the other Enochs were named. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mandatory sarcasm reminder... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's good to know that what constitutes sarcasm differs so hugely from person to person.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Pity, I was awaiting an interesting factoid on Enoch Powell's longevity. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Obscure mythological question

I recently read an article about a particular mythological being that I can not find again. Unfortunately the specifics of this particular myth elude my memory at this time. A description of the being is as follows:

An angel like being, body of silver and covered in razor sharp mouths from head to toe. Her voice causes insanity to all who hear it. She may be considered an embodiment of chaos and destruction.

Any information about this would be appreciated.209.82.167.78 (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That´s no way to talk about my mythological exwife, Number 209. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to ask, Cookatoo. Why did you marry her in the first place? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Your honour, "her voice caused insanity in all who hear it" - and I quote here the evidence of witness Number 209 - must be deemed to be sufficient reason for my heinous marital crime Down Under. If my paranoid observations are correct, I am currently serving time in an institution for the criminally insane, anyway. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC).

I'm pretty familiar with mythology, but I don't recognize that description at all. The two most similar (in terms of symbolism, not physical description) I can think of are Medusa (her voice didn't make you go insane, but her face petrified you, literally) and Kali. Kali is probably the closest you're gonna get. Belisarius (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No voices, but the physical description is reminiscent of the Shrike. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Cockatoo, how DARE you speak about me like that! Just because you never mowed the lawn, never put the garbage out, spent my house keeping on the horses, came home drunk every Friday, didn't help Shavaun and Josh and Liam and Cody and Dakota and Kane and Corella and Stevie and Savanna and Huntley and Shelley-Lea with their homework, just because all you ever think about is yourself, you think you can post horrible comments like that on a public board? Do you realise how much you owe in maintenance? Why don't you ever answer your mobile? Have you moved interstate, or what? And where were you, all that time you were supposed to be working overtime? I could have you lockd up! All that time I spent having your kids and pressing your shirts etc etc etc etc Amandajm (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sagacity

Hi What is the sagacity? Please, describe it for me completely and explain clearly. (Sageman84 (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC))

See sagacity. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

English professors and felonies

can a person with more than one felony be an english professor?Demonphish (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. But it very much depends in the university and the nature of the felonies. Each university has different hiring practices, so its difficult to give a general answer. Rockpocket 17:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Judging by your terminology, I guess you are in the US, is that correct? I'm not familiar with US law, but in the UK we have the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act which prevents offences being held against you after a certain amount of time. There are certain professions that are exempt, but I don't think a university lecturer would be one (since you aren't working with children - a school teacher is certainly exempt, but uni students are generally over 18). --Tango (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Mandatory "Hey, we can't give legal advice" reminder. The answer is yes, that time you got busted smoking weed will come back to haunt you. However, as to how badly it can come back to haunt you, it entirely depends on the job you are applying for. Since there are thousands of Universities in the English speaking world, answering this question with any certainty is impossible. Contact the people to with you are applying for a job, and see what they say. I mean, if having a felony on your record is going to sink you anyways, you might as well know up front before you go through the entire hiring process and then find out you can't have the job. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Appointment is also generally up to universities. Nothing prevents a university from hiring a felon as a professor if they think it would be a good idea. Many places might consider that getting arrested at an anti-war protest enhanced rather than detracted from their credentials. Universities also frequntly hire as professors those who were imprisoned for political crimes in their home countries. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In the U.S. even an unrepentant domestic terrorist can become a professor. Edison (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Unconvicted, mind you. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if universities did felony background checks on professorial hires. You're more likely to get checked applying for a job at a liquor store than a university. That isn't to say one shouldn't necessarily disclose such information if you think it might come up and be embarrassing for the university. But one could plausibly argue against disclosure too, if the felony wasn't relevant to university education. If you got busted for pot as a teenager or stole someone's car radio or was selling drugs briefly as part of your up-from-the-streets story—not relevant, most likely. If you were a rapist—probably worth letting someone know. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Flag

Which country's flag is this? Thanks in advance [1] 81.140.78.90 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No country has this flag. It may belong to some organisation. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A google image search for orange flag failed to bring up anything similar, so Jack is clearly right. I tried to get the context in which the flag had appeared, but the site http://nations.jm-innovations.com did not allow viewing of anything but the flags (yes, plural). There were images with names starting at 1.png and continuing to 91.png. I didn't check out every one of them, many were well known national flags, while others, such as the one you linked, to seemed more fanciful. A whois search on the domain name will give you contact information of the owner, so if you're really interested, you might try emailing that person. Btw, how did you come across the image in the first place? --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's the flag of the Nagano Prefecture, Japan. There's a version of it in Wikimedia Commons here, and it's in the "solid flags" list there too. Booglamay (talk) - 23:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As in a number of other Japanese flags, the design is based on the first kana in the name: ナ. —Tamfang (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

See, I just thought they really, really liked basketball. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A Google site search [2] currently finds 184 pages at the domain. I haven't found where or whether the Nagano flag is used. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for solving that one for me :D 81.140.78.90 (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Diwali and Durga Puja

Why Bengali Hindus in India and Bangladesh don't celebrate Diwali? Is it because of the some ethnic group issues or is it they think it's important to celebrate Durga Puja? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.56 (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bengali Hindu festival

Besides Durga Puja, what are other Hindu festivals do Hindus in West Bengal and Bangladesh consider as totally Bengali? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.56 (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

October 27

Michel Suleiman iftar party

Is this true that Lebanese President hosted an iftar party and how many politicians, both old and new, were there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.228 (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there were lots of iftar banquets in September; it's kind of confusing sorting out when they were. I Googled Michel Suleiman iftar banquet and came up with a bunch of news stories. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

US Presidential elections

For US Presidential elections ... does anyone know the following information ... or where it can be found? What was the "closest" election in terms of electoral votes (for example, 269 to 269, or 270 to 268, or whatever)? That is, who won by the narrowest margin? Also, the widest margin? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

See List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I would have thought that the deletionists would have gotten to a list such as that one. Dismas|^(talk) 08:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a very encyclopedic, verifiable and referenceable list. No reason to delete a list like that. Lists which are deletion fodder are often random juxtapositions like "Villains who are left handed and bald" or things full of original research, or with ill-defined criteria for membership. Edison (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Longest lived minister

Who is the longest lived Minister in the UK - or Secretary in the USA? Paul Austin (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if there were a ready-made list of the longest-lived UK ministers, but if you confine your search to Prime Ministers, this list tells us that Jim Callaghan was the longest-lived. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Manny Shinwell holds the record in the UK. He lived to the grand old age of 101 and served, among other positions, as Ministry of Fuel and Power and Minister of Defence. Currently the only MP who lived to an older age was Theodore Cooke Taylor (102), but he was never a Minister. Assuming he survives the next couple of weeks, Bert Hazell will overtake Shinwell too, but he never served in Government either [3]). Rockpocket 06:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Data for the USA is a bit tricker to track down. If, by "Secretary", you include Vice Presidents, then it might be John Nance Garner, who lived for a few weeks shy of 99. I can't find anyone older. If you only include Secretaries of the United States Cabinet with a dept, it might be William B. Saxbe who was Attorney General under Nixon and Ford. He is 92 years, 125 days and counting. Can't confirm these though. Rockpocket 07:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The longest-lived secretary on the Political Graveyard site is Earl Butz, secretary of agriculture under Nixon and Ford, who lived to 98. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper endorsement party switches in the United States presidential elections

I was looking at Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2008 and wondered where we can find historical data about the proportion of newspaper endorsements switching parties by circulation. Does anywhere archive that? 69.228.211.27 (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Military Strategies in Feudal Japan

What were the military strategies in feudal Japan, especially with samurai armies in battle? Thanks in advance, 220.244.108.114 (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There's The Book of Five Rings... AnonMoos (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Six Story Types

I heard from a teacher that there is a theory about there only being six basic types of plot lines/stories in the world, once you boil down the story. What are they? Is there an article on this? 203.188.92.70 (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

See this and this for a start. I'm sure Wikipedia has an article about this somewhere, but I'm not finding the magic search terms at the moment. Deor (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We have an article The_Thirty-Six_Dramatic_Situations... AnonMoos (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This rant on the topic seems like a pretty fair assessment, to me. AndyJones (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The questioner is likely referring something by Plato. I never studied that stuff in detail, but I remember reading an excerpt in which Plato describes the "Hero Story". Of course, my memory isn't that great, so it probably wasn't Plato and probably wasn't the Hero Story - but that is what I remember. -- kainaw™ 02:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I had a professor who cleverly boiled it down to two story types in passing when introducing a new book (he was a very quotable professor): "There are really only two stories in the world: a stranger comes to town, and a man goes on a journey. This is a story about a stranger coming to town." --Shaggorama (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds kind of like Vladimir Propp or Aarne-Thompson classification.130.160.138.254 (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Religion - Buddhism

Your scholarship on Buddhism is extremely poor and is generally written by and controlled by those who want the western pseudo scientific Christian point of view to prevail.

It is true that there is significant merit in this view but as in all culturally dominated point of views the western pseudo scientific Christian has many weaknesses.

As the Dalai Lama leads the most significant generally recognized Buddhist leadership in the world, you should make significant effort in an outreach to him for scholarship in getting an adequate Buddhist representation in Wikipedia.

Truth is very important and requires significant effort to overcome those who use power politics so that their erroneous point of view will dominate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.87.78 (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point of view. If you believe you can improve an article (with verifiable, reliable sources) then go ahead. In future, however, you're probably best off directing article-related queries to the respective article's talk page (there's a "discussion" tab at the top of the article page). Booglamay (talk) - 14:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Alaskan Independence Party

I read the article but it didn't have quite the information I wanted: In Alaska, is this party generally considered mainstream or fringe? 137.151.174.176 (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Today it's not a very radical party, as they don't even advocate secession anymore. In 1992, 2004, and 2008 they've supported the Constitution Party candidate for president. It's the state's third largest party behind Republican and Democrat. Grsz^Review! 16:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's true. Let's face it, the Democrats and Republicans wouldn't recognize themselves in their beginnings either. Wrad (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Alaska is not a seperate country. so, there cannot be a independence day for alaska. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.115.79 (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Wrad (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

True, but what's your point? No-one mentioned an independence day for Alaska... --Tango (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

So when are you going to have the party if there's no day for it?  :-) --LarryMac | Talk 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

See Alaska Day :) Wrad (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Mary Jesus's mother or wife?

Is there any proof for the same saying this is the truth and not vice-versa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.115.79 (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you getting confused between the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene? There is a theory that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife (or at least, lover). --Tango (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The article Mary Magdalene makes clear that there is no historical or scriptural authority for this belief. There are a lot of Marys in the Gospels: Mary of Cleopas, Mary (mother of James and John), as well as the 2 previously mentioned. But there's no proof that Jesus married anybody (it is highly unlikely that any documentary evidence would have survived), and no mention of a wife in the Bible.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There is also a theory that Jesus never existed.--Radh (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes. When answering questions about a specific religion I find it's usually best to just assume that religion is correct, however unlikely that may be. --Tango (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if Jesus wasn't the Son, he still may have existed, with a mother Mary and a wife Mary. Grsz^Review! 18:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Buuuuuuut none of us can possibly know either way, and the Ref Desk is not for debates. --Masamage ♫ 18:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The question was a perfectly appropriate one. The Bible says that Jesus' mother was named Mary, and that two of his followers or friends were named Mary (the Magdelene, and the sister of Lazarus). Mary Magdelene is mentioned during his ministry in Luke 8:1-3. She is mentioned during the crucifixion in Mark 15:40,Matthew 27:56, and John 19:25, which mentions a third Mary, Jesus' aunt, the wife of Clopas. After the crucifixion she is mentioned in Mark 15:47 in the same passage as Mary, his mother. Matthew 27:61 mentions Mary Magdelene and "the other Mary. Matthew 28:1 mentions Mary Magdelene and "the other Mary." Mark 16:1 mentions Mary Magdelene and "Mary the mother of James." At the resurrection Mary Magdelene is mentioned in John 20:1, Mark 16:9, John 20:18. She was the first witness to the risen Jesus and told the other disciples. She is also mentioned in Luke 24, along with "Mary the mother of James." The Gospel writers gave prominent mention to Mary Magdelene. Edison (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the original question was appropriate; I just meant the spinoff. (Also, it's interesting stuff! Good summary.) --Masamage ♫ 23:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

:) --Sean 13:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The same label could be added to most biographies and autobiographies, and many historical works. Edison (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Magic 60 for US Senate filibuster

There is recent talk of the US Democrats having 60 seats in the Senate. This is called the "magic 60", as it will make the Democrats filibuster-proof. I think I am missing something in this concept. This is my understanding ... please tell me where my thinking is astray. The Republicans would need 60 votes to invoke cloture on a Democratic filibuster. Anything short of 60 Republican votes would fail in ending the filibuster. Thus, if the Republicans have only 59 Senate seats, they cannot guarantee the ability to vote down (through cloture) a Democratic filibuster. If the Republicans had only 59 seats, the Democrats would have 41 seats. (Let's simply assume no Independent Senators for now.) Thus, if the Democrats have 41 seats, doesn't that number make them filibuster-proof from the Republicans? What am I missing here? Why is the number 60 "magic" ... and not the number 41? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

It's the other way around. If the Democrats have 60, they can prevent Republican filibusters. If it is 59/41, no party can be guaranteed to end a filibuster by the other. But if the Democrats have 60 they can invoke cloture without any Republican votes. Grsz^Review! 19:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And in case it's not clear, the filibuster is a delaying tactic used by the minority party. The Dems are effectively certain to have a majority, and should they control both houses of Congress as well as the Presidency, then the filibuster is one of the few refuges the Republicans would retain. An all-Democrat government doesn't need filibusters; they're free to pursue whatever legislation the party line will handle. So it's not that you've calculated 41 incorrectly, it's that you've calculated for a different scenario (specifically, that the Republicans' "magic number" is 41). — Lomn 19:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This also assumes that no Democratic senator crosses party lines on a particular cloture vote which can't be assured. Rmhermen (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Or any of a number of other oddities. Grsz^Review! 20:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What an entirely appropriate term. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The filibuster is a peculiar weapon -- in the 1960s, you actually had to speak continuously. Strom Thurmond holds the record, I believe, for longest continuous speaking (to oppose civil rights legislation). Nowadays, they're not as inclined to wear themselves out, and the threat of a filibuster may be a bark-worse-than-bite phenomenon. Neither party, of course, wants to give up the right to block proposed legislation of which it disapproves. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

October 28

Coporate Social Responsiblity

Hello, I am looking for ways to solve corporate social responsibility, especially when it comes to the environment. I am aware that this problem is extremely hard to solve, but does anyone have any ideas?

Thanks, Julio

Pitchforks and torches come to mind. Or put another way: make sure there are strong disincentives to corporations not being socially responsible. Also, I think I understand what you're getting at, but I'd discard your premise that there are "no real solutions to this problem." 38.112.225.84 (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• The effect of corporations on their environment is referred to as an externality. The gist of it is that in the process of maximizing their own profits, businesses can sometimes pollute to the point of harming the overall economy. There are a number of possible solutions to the problem, the most common being Pigovian taxes. --Explodicle (T/C) 01:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Cap and Trade system is another. The way to cancel out an externality is to internalize it so that the "producer pays" or the "decision-maker bears the cost." You can do this either by making them buy scarce credits or by instituting a tax that approximates the social cost of the action. In this way, regular people and corporations won't pursue actions that are inefficient in terms of their fully-loaded "costs". And you don't need excessive Government, NGO or private citizen oversight.

In order to do this, you have to overcome the ever-present "special interests" and other people who will use various weaker economic laws to show why they shouldn't have to pay. Ignore these people, but recognize that they are acting in their own best interests. If incentives are correct, acting in one's own best interest is one of the most powerful forces humanity can wield!NByz (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for everyone who has replied. I really appreciate all of your input. Does anyone else have any other ideas?

Julio

Shareholder activism? —D. Monack ^talk 17:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading about Ecological modernization. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Aid for Microsoft in Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008?

I heard somewhere that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 benefited Microsoft, by way of tax breaks or bailout or something. Does anyone know of a source where I can verify the direct effect the bailout has on Microsoft? --Explodicle (T/C) 01:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How does a share dividend make shareholders better off?

I've never understood this. I understand that from an accounting point of view, it decreases retained earnings, and increases shareholders' equity. So what? Market Cap ends up being the same because of earnings dilution. If I'm an investor, I still have the same claims to earnings. I just have more units of a less valuable asset.

Also, Share dividends are taxed in Canada. Making this seemingly useless action actually yield a negative result!

A google search for "What's the point of a stock dividend?" introduces some ideas.

Some of the given answers seem to be:

It gives the investor choice (he or she can sell the extra stock or keep it). My Question: But, unless the stockholder had a VERY small position in the stock (like 10 shares or less) wouldn't the stockholder be able to make the same net change in her overall position by selling the same percentage of their existing position? Either way there would be transaction costs (unlike a cash dividend).

It gives the investor access to a larger future dividend (assuming DPS is maintained) My Question: Couldn't this be accomplished by simply increasing the dividend yield/payments?

It may be used by companies when liquid cash is in short supply My Question: If liquidity is in short supply just suspend the dividend or - if you think it's worth it from the psychological point of view - pay a little more to access short term credit and keep the dividend flowing. If I was invested in a company that had paid dividends for years, and they all of a sudden replaced a regular dividend with a share dividend, I would be mighty suspicious. NByz (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A stock dividend is somewhat akin to an interest payment on a bond: a fee, paid by the user of the capital to the owner of the capital, for the use of the capital. Dividends, of course, are not mandatory and in some sectors have fallen out of favor because of tax treatment. Other options would be to purchase shares on the open market, thereby driving up the value; or to issue additional shares to those who already own a piece of the company (a share split).

From the share owners’ perspective, money held as retained earnings has little meaning. From the directors’ perspective, large cash holdings may make the company a take-over target. Market capitalization, one of the stock analysts’ favorite measures, means nothing to the owner or director, unless it puts the company into a different class of investment targets. Money distributed as dividends, or in the form of additional shares (a split) may be taxable under either general income or capital gains. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm talking about a "Share Dividend". There's a small section on them in the Dividend article. They are when the company issues shares (usually in amounts similar to what a reasonable regular dividend yield would be, although if you think about it, from the investor's point of view, a 2-for-1 stock split is just a 100% share dividend) to the company's existing share-holders in lieu of a real dividend. It doesn't affect market cap or assets. (As near as I can tell) All it does is makes an accounting entry reducing retained earnings and increasing equity (or 'contributed capital' probably, I'm not exactly sure, but it moves it from one category of equity to another, unlike a share split which only increases the number of shares outstanding) and increases the float of shares outstanding. Because each share represents a smaller claim on earnings (dilution), prices adjust downward to exact cancel any change in market cap.

Just so no one thinks DOR was off his rocker when he responded about stock dividends, the original question did refer to these, and not share dividends. GreatManTheory (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I changed "stock" to "share" in my OPNByz (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I may be explaining one or all parts of it wrong because I really don't understand why this action would be useful.NByz (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure... The article says "if" it involves new shares, so presumably some companies issue existing shares as a dividend, perhaps by combining it with a share buyback scheme. That would serve to redistribute the shares among fewer people, but I'm not sure of the benefit of that (it could be done via the secondary market anyway). If they are new shares, then perhaps it is done for the same purpose as a stock split, to keep the share price at a reasonable level to improve liquidity - issuing a 10% share dividend every year, rather than a 2:1 stock split every 7 or 8 years, might be more efficient some how. --Tango (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure of the benefits but this article (http://moneyterms.co.uk/scrip-issue/) is a starting point for an understanding and also http://www.finance-glossary.com/terms/scrip-issue.htm?id=1284&PopupMode=false 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That first article offered a little. It says that "by reducing retained earnings, management is showing confidence that they won't have to use that retained earnings account to pay dividends in the future." Although, I think, if a company wants to pay a dividend, it doesn't need to have a retained earnings account at all. It could just liquidate an asset and pay out the dividend using cash, and reducing contributed capital on the equity side.

Something I did think of while I was sleeping last night was that if a company has two classes of shares, issuing a share dividend on one class, but not the other is a way of increasing claims to ownership on that class. Although I would imagine that a well-thought-out original registration would restrict an action like that.NByz (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Canadian and American human appearances

What are the natural hair colour and natural eye colour of Canadians and Americans girls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.120 (talk) 03:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

American and Canadian are nationalities, while hair and eye color are genetic traits. There's no particular relationship between nationality and hair or eye color; you'll find Americans and Canadians have every human eye and hair color. And you'll find that boys and girls don't differ in these traits. - Nunh-huh 03:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are strong associative corrolations between some nationalities and hair and eye colour. Specifically most African countries and black hair/brown eyes and Scotland and Ireland and red hair/blue eyes. But its not the nationality the causes the preponderance of a particular hair/eye colour, its the fact that those countries have a significantly high proportion of people from particular ethnic backgrounds. Its the enrichment of certain genetic variants in different ethnic backgounds that result in the enrichment of certain pigentation types.

That all said, with Canada and the US being in the New World, there are many different ethnicities that make up their populations. Unless you mean Native American and Native Canadian, in which case I would hazard a guess that the "natural" eye and hair colours tend to be dark. Rockpocket 07:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Also the questioner didn't specify age. Some people are born with blond hair which slowly darkens over several years to brown or almost black. Some people are born with blue eyes that shade to green or hazel later. And, of course, grey hair or no hair at all becomes more common with increasing age; although either condition sometimes affects quite young people as well. Rmhermen (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Girl" would usually refer to a child (it's used more generally, of course). --Tango (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is 76.64? I'm wondering how anyone with Intertubes access would be unaware of the range of North American pigmentations. Do I overestimate the degree to which the rest of the world is exposed to NA entertainers? —Tamfang (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

hehe. Toronto. Saintrain (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

On one side of the US-Canada border, the men are uniformly tall, intelligent, honest, kind and generous; and the women are all beautiful, smart, friendly, cheerful and sincere. On the other side of the border, the opposite is true, but no one can remember which is which. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the reference. South = Good / North = Bad.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

men sexual behaviour

Hi, i'm a married woman,age 34. and hope you can help me with this. my husband and me have a very good relation emotional and sexual and love each other so much, but he likes to watch born pics and films and most the times musterbates with them, he know's that i know about this and we talked about it. But i need to know if this is normal...and if it is a need that man feels he need it and have to do it??? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rannouda (talk • contribs) 11:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

While we can't give actual medical advice, I can say if you meant to put a "p" instead of a "b" in "born," then it's a potential problem, as addiction to that stuff is very common. His satisfaction should be with you.

Thankfully, he is comfortable telling you about it; in fact, it may be that he is glad you know so he has some level of accountability. So, he may even know it's a problem; or, if he doesn't, he still has a great amount of trust in you; you can feel good about that part.

So, I'd recommend that the two of you talk with a counselor about it to help him to focus on feeling satisfaction with you instead of with those pics, just so it doesn't grow into a more serious problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.221 (talk) 11:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, with the standard "we don't give advice here"; most relational-therapist-type-people would state that the standards of behavior exist only within the relationship; what is normal and allowable for one couple is not for others. If it doesn't bother you, his masturbation isn't a problem. It certainly doesn't bother me any... However, if the situation does bother you, and is creating tension within the relationship, it is probably something that needs to be worked out. It isn't about the masturbation per se, its about the context in the relationship. If he spent lots of time watching football and ignoring you, and that was a source of tension, or if he spent lots of time out drinking with his buddies, and that was a source of tension, it would be equally a problem. Again, if this is a problem, see a therapist of some sort. But it isn't about masturbation, its about the context within your relationship... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP said : "as addiction to that stuff is very common."

This is a pretty bold statement. Does it have any sort of scientific consensus behind it? Do you have a cite? It also needs quantification. (A 'lot' of people run over by cars, but no one would advise that people should stop crossing the street.) APL (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me a few days to find a cite, but I do know that the pleasure chemicals (A form of dopamine) is released when doing such acts. After enough repeated action, the law of diminishing returns will kick in and your body will continually crave that chemical. This can carry over to other aspects of life until you are completely consumed by the desire to receive this chemical. Look into Ted Bundy's case if you want a documented example of forementioned information.

The ACTUAL English "Throne"

I'm not asking about the symbolic English "Throne" that belongs to Elizabeth II and that her son Charles is heir to, that we tend to refer to as a sort of synonym for the Monarchy.

I'm asking here about the actual, physical, CHAIR.

Does it even exist? I'm pretty sure it does, just as I'm quite sure I've actually seen on TV the actual, physical CROWN of England, the actual, physical HEADGEAR worn by the Queen on several extremely significant ceremonial occasions (such as her "Coronation").

But as for the PHYSICAL Throne, where is it located and what does it look like?

Can anyone lead me to an article or a site containing either a picture and/or location, frequency and/or occasions for which this byfar most famous, yet seldom if ever seen, single CHAIR on the entire planet is ever sat upon?

Does it even exist?

(And just in case anyone actually knows, is it anywhere near as comfy as a "La-Z-Boy" recliner?) :-) 70.52.63.36 (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The British monarchs are crowned on King Edward's Chair. There are other thrones (in Parliament, in various castles and palaces) but they don't seem to have names. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just an aside, the asker of the original question may be interested in our article on Synecdoche as a tangentally related topic... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, but Adam, are you saying that with the possible exception of King Edward's Chair, there is no singular physical "Throne of England", but rather several "Thrones of England" in different locations? Are you basically saying that the "Throne of England" refers not to a single specific chair, but rather in a more symbolic sense to any chair the Queen happens to be sitting upon when performing extraordinarily ceremonial acts? Though less likely because a crown is far more portable, is the same possibly true of the so-called "Crown of England"? 70.52.63.36 (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The British Monarch owns and uses several crowns. The Imperial State Crown seems to be the most commonly used. See Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom and Honours of Scotland. Algebraist 13:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the Windsors have a better throne than did Archie Bunker: [4] , [5] (the "throne" is enshrined at the Smithsonian [6]) , (or Elvis: [7]. Edison (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is probably a throne at St. James's Palace which could be considered the main one, since that's where the Royal Court is officially based. I don't think the Queen sits in it very often, if at all, though. --Tango (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a throne in the Canadian House of Commons where she sits if she happens to be there (otherwise occupied by the Governor General or the Speaker), and I assume the same is true of other Commonwealth Parliaments. So, yeah, you could say "The Throne" is wherever she is sitting at the moment. It used to be the case, in the middle ages, that there was no official royal court or even an official capital, it was wherever the king happened to be, and this is similar. (I would describe it as peripatetic but that article is about something else.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a throne in the British House of Lords as well from which the Queen gives the Queen's speech. According to Court of St. James's, the court officially moves with the Queen, even though it is based at St. James's, so it is basically the same as you describe for the middle ages. --Tango (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just couldn't help it when I read Adam's words: "So, yeah, you could say "The Throne" is wherever she is sitting at the moment." No disrespect to her majesty, but does every "seat" she sits upon qualify as a "throne"? :-) I'm only asking because personally, I have THREE of such ceramic "thrones" in my house alone! Sorry for being silly, I just couldn't help myself. 70.52.63.36 (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

:) And in case you hadn't picked up the various subtle clues people have been throwing, England hasn't had a separate monarch from the rest of the UK for a few centuries! She holds the British throne and wears the British crown. "The Queen of England" is such a common phrase that it's easy not to realise, but she's the Queen of Britain (and some other places). 79.66.86.162 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually she's the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and she holds a United Kingdom throne and wears a United Kingdom crown. But that country is informally known as "Britain". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is informally known as the "Queen of England". Interestingly, I've never heard of her referred to as the "Queen of Britain".

What exactly is this "United Kingdom" Crown and "United Kingdom" throne you're speaking of? All I'm now aware of is King Edward's chair and the Imperial State Crown. 70.52.63.36 (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got what we call a throne in the little room down the hall.--89.168.224.110 (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hazara People

What are the natural hair colour, skin colour and eye colour of Hazara people of Afghanistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.22 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See Hazara people for more information on this subject. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Afro-Desi

Could there be such thing as Afro-Desi people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.75.22 (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You asked this before...sure, there could be, if people of African ancestry living in south Asia began to consider themselves desi. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Or if the des in question is in Africa? —Tamfang (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Could there be Afro-Lucys to go with the Afro-Desi s? Sure there could! Edison (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about people of Indian origin living in Africa, have a look at Non-resident Indian and Person of Indian Origin, Indian South Africans, Indians in Uganda, Indians in Kenya and Template:NRI-PIO for people of Indian origin in other African countries. --132.206.124.125 (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Zanzibar in particluar has a long history of Indian residents. See Indians in Tanzania. Rmhermen (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

U.S. between WW1 and the Cold War

How did the U.S. emerge as a global super power- economically, culturally, and most importantly politically after the end of WW1 through the beginning of the Cold War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.222.32 (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This wouldn't be an essay assignment, would it? --Tango (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is an essay question.

I am not from America and I am having trouble finishing my essay for my modern American history class. Its for the study guide. Don't worry my final is over a month away so I am hoping someone can help me to know more about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.222.32 (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Try starting from the premise that the Second World War stimulated the U.S. economy tremendously while the circumstances of the war allowed that economy to remain sheltered from direct attack by the Axis powers. The rest of the world was shattered after the war and looked to American industry to produce the objects they needed. Being the only country to have an A-Bomb after the war certainly contributed to political influence. --12.50.77.163 (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The atomic bomb actually had very little political effect in the postwar period. The US had of course hoped it would make the Russians more willing to bargain but it quickly became clear that such was not the case. In the brief period where the US had a monopoly on the bomb they found it paradoxically harder, not easier, to really negotiate with the Soviets, who were determined not to look cowed by the Americans (and dismissed the idea that the atomic bomb was a real political force—while at the same time accelerating their own bomb program). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a specific topic yet? Modern American History is a very wide topic, spanning several hundred years. American history gives a wide overview, which might help you narrow in on a subject. jeffjon (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is in regard to the previous question, I think - I've merged the sections. --Tango (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Some historians would say that the U.S. emerged as a global power in the 1890s, when its overall population and level of economic and industrial development made it hard to ignore in any calculations of potential military strength, and there was a more assertive/expansionist political mood in its international relations. The Spanish–American War, the negotiations of the Treaty of Portsmouth conducted between Russia and Japan under the supervision of Teddy Roosevelt, and the White Fleet tour of 1908 set the seal on the U.S.'s arrival as a major power (though at that time, Americans generally had very little desire to intervene outside of America's sphere of the Western hemisphere, Liberia, and Pacific islands). AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Putting it simply, WW2 is what made America a super-power. They were just getting over the Great Depression, and had huge unemployment and issues with trade deficits and what-not. The industrial mobilization - building armaments for the war - is what turned America into a country that could mass-produce on a huge scale, and this sorted out the unemployment problem (as did drafting soldiers and sending them off to be killed) as well as sorting out trade problems. America suffered no aerial bombardments an no invasions, unlike the European powers, and therefore had no need to rebuild and start again from scratch after the war, so they could continue from the economic success that they enjoyed from WW2. --ChokinBako (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And put another way: Europe was economically devastated by WW2. So was Russia. So was everybody, basically. Except the USA, which came out of the WWII with a far more robust economy than it had entered it with. (Even without the Great Depression as that early benchmark, the US came out doing better than it had been doing before.) Yes, you can trace the beginnings of America as a world power back a bit earlier, but it was certainly no superpower before then. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the last two above: context is everything. America in the 1920s had some of the factors necessary to be a superpower, but (a) there was no driving need to dominate; and (b) there were other contenders at least as powerful. After WWII, the other candidates were exhausted or conquered, and the competition with the Soviet Union provided the necessary impetus. The international institutions created in the late 1940s and early 1950s – the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs in particular – were designed to not only rebuild peace and prosperity but also to define the power arrangements among the world’s leading nations.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

US Export Control intent

After attending a work seminar about export controls (from the US), I have a question about a seeming inconsistency that I still don't understand:

Fact 1: US Law prohibits us to cooperate in any way with a boycott, such as the Arab League boycott of Israel. For example, if a Libyan company requested certification that none of the goods we sold them were of Israeli origin, we are prohibited from complying with their request.

Fact 2: There are countries which we can not ship some or all items to, including Cuba, Iran, South Korea, etc.

What's the motivation behind the anti-boycott legislation? It's not simply a case-by-case basis, but it seems to me to conflict with our export control laws. In basic terms, we aren't allowed to do business with certain countries, but we're aren't allowed to refuse to do business with any country at all. What's the difference that I can't see? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffjon (talk • contribs) 17:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable on this subject, but maybe the federal anti-boycott law is designed to prevent other levels of government from instituting a boycott without the approval of the federal congress. For example, it may prevent the president from issuing a boycott as an executive order. Or, more likely, specific states may want to pass legislation restricting trade of a good that the state happens to export a lot of. This would stop the individual states from being able to craft foreign policy.NByz (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Although, on the executive level, that would clash with the Trading with the Enemy Act, so it's probably more for the states.NByz (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It may also have to do with the idea that it prevents non-governmental groups, such as private companies, from acting ex-officio as only the government itself should. US companies should not be made to officially comply with the sanctions imposed by other nations, Any official recognition of a boycott by a third-party country could be seen as potentially running against the general foreign policy of the United States. Basically, if Libya wants to boycott Isreal, that's their business. However, the should not be able to coerce U.S. based companies to participate, and U.S. based companies should not feel compelled to comply with such boycotts, especially where such actions run counter to the Government's own stated policy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

---

There's no real inconsistency; the anti-boycott law basically prevents someone in the U.S. from promising someone outside the U.S. not to buy from Israel in future. It's partly an ass-covering clause for U.S. corporations, since if Arab companies ask them to sign a contract promising not to buy from Israel, the U.S. corporations can point to the law, and say that regretfully they're legally forbidden to sign such a contract. It's not any kind of broad anti-boycott measure in general (people are perfectly free to spontaneously decide who they don't want to buy from), but is designed to prevent U.S. companies from participating as 3rd parties in other countries' boycotts. By contrast, U.S. trade bans are usually direct (preventing people in the U.S. from trading with certain specified other countries), not 3rd-party... AnonMoos (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What is a person?

A ballot proposition currently at issue in Colorado would add the following definition to the state constitution: "The terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization." This proposition is another move by Pro-life forces to bring about an end to legal abortions. The article on Person discusses the person/non-person debate and includes the statement that "The Vatican has recently been advancing a human exceptionalist understanding of personhood theory, while other communities, such as Christian Evangelicals in the U.S. have sometimes rejected the personhood theory as biased against human exceptionalism." Can someone clarify for the me the nature of this apparent lack of theological / philosophical agreement between the Vatican and Evangelicals, who otherwise seem to be united in their opposition to abortion? --Halcatalyst (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Its because they use religious views and not evidence/reason/science to deduct a proper answer, thus their answers are generally just made up and will of course be different, even if they have the same 'point of view'.--Dacium (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As person of faith I object to Dacium's overt "religion-bashing". Unfortunately I'm not a Christian so I'm not qualified to provide a more direct response to your question. 70.52.63.36 (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC

Don't worry about Davium. He's not using evidence/reason/science to decide what he things about religion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Human exceptionalism means that you see humans as different from all other animals. Not just different in the way that horses are different from mice, but exceptionally different. Christians say "in God's image" but many atheists also believe in human exceptionalism. The Catholics think that the soul is formed at conception. Perhaps this is too animalistic for some Protestant Christians. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As a person of logic, I object to 70.52.63.36 characterizing Dacium's comment as "religion-bashing." DOR (HK) (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see a notion of personhood that was actually "deducted" from evidence, reason, and science, instead of having been "made up". Haven't seen one yet. Which is not surprising, as the concept of "person" is something of a fiction. As to the OP, I think the sentence quoted can be read as saying that the Catholic church and evangelical Christians are mostly in agreement here, just as one might expect: the CC has a theory of human exceptionalism, and evangelicals reject some other theory because it is biased against the Catholic theory or a very similar one of their own. Or it could mean something else. The sentence is pretty confusing, and the paragraph containing it is unclear as well. It should be rewritten by someone who knows the theology and underlying philosophy. I do know that at least some evangelicals share the Catholic idea that the moment of fertilization is when the soul comes into being. I think this goes all the way to Aristotle (who else?) and his theory of form and matter, but I am not an expert. (And I do not mean to bash Aristotle, a reasonable man of science whose theory had nothing to do with Christian theology and who, it might be expected, would not have considered using the pill to be murder, even if he was against abortion, as he may have been.) Anyway, the article is in dire need of expert help and stylistic revision.--Rallette (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by why you thought that parenthesis was necessary. Not as in "Was that really necessary?" chiding someone, but as in really why you felt Aristotle needed defending, why you thought your previous statement might be taken as bashing him, why he would not consider the pill murder (?), how he was actually a reasonable man of science, what this has to do with anything. Actually, that's probably too long, sorry. But I am intrigued by the thought processes that went into adding that. 79.66.86.162 (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought I would point out that English common law, adopted by the American states, holds that a tort cannot be committed unless the fetus has quickened, kicked. This has been the rule for centuries.00:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)00:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)00:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)~75Janice

Massacre of Glencoe - the song

Does the famous song "Massacre of Glencoe" (Jim McLean) have a Wikipedia article? Thanks in advance. --87.114.45.173 (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an entry, diabolically entitled Massacre of Glencoe. No wonder you could not find it. Oops, misread the question. Sorry! There does not seem to be an article on the song.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nor on Jim McLean, at least with that spelling. —Tamfang (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Five minutes of fame... in 1700

Are there any instances of what would later become the "five minutes of fame" phenomenon in the 1700s in England, when the press was starting to get some clout? You know, something happens to a nobody, the event becomes a touchstone for some political movement, and the person is suddenly and briefly famous. Wrad (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The closest thing I've ever heard to your quote of "five minutes of fame" is the far more recent notion coined by Andy Warhol referring to 15 minutes of fame. Perhaps you may be confusing Warhol's saying with some other. 70.52.63.36 (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Capt. Jenkins certainly got his little moment in the spotlight, helping to launch the War of Jenkins' Ear... AnonMoos (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Were there any plumbers in 1700? They seem to be good at getting 15 minutes of fame today. Edison (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Selkirk was a relative nobody before his ante litteram robinsoniad. But he's still pretty famous, so he fails that test.--Rallette (talk) 10:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mary Tofts is a good example of someone grabbing their fifteen minutes in the early 18th century. Warofdreams talk 17:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

October 29

Statue on the Zeil in Frankfurt Germany

I recently took a trip to Europe and took a picture of this statue located on Zeil in downtown Frankfurt, Germany. I would love to know the name of it! Any help would be appreciated. This is a link to a picture of the statue.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2149/2155356410_33b3603a9e.jpg?v=1200433263 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.229.125 (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's "David and Goliath" ("David und Goliath" in German) by Richard Hess. With Google image searches I found more images [8][9][10][11] with no name but enough info to then find [12] and finally [13]. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Chair not allowed to vote?

Is it common that the chair of a meeting should not be allowed to vote? In at least two student associations I know of, the chair is not allowed to vote and is not allowed to chair if they have an interest in the topic being discussed. Why? How can the chair influence decisions? ----Seans Potato Business 09:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The chair of a meeting has a lot of power to influence a vote. One who even inadvertently misuses that power is a menace. They should take great care that they solicit opinions properly. They should very clearly say of any of their contributions whether it is purely personal or on the spot or whatever. Being a good chair is a skill an perhaps also requires some talent. Otherwise very much less than optimal things are done. Their not voting except as a decider is a very good idea as it emphasises that they should act neutrally. Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In my past experience of student affairs, it was not at all common, but perhaps I am out of date? Surely, a casting vote should always be within the rules, so that you can break a deadlock?

On your statement "the chair is... not allowed to chair if they have an interest in the topic", do you mean a financial interest? That may generally be a good idea, but even with financial interests you sometimes find that everyone in the room has the same interest in a discussion, so a rule like that needs to be carefully written. Strawless (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In some bodies, the chair isn't allowed a casting vote and a tied vote always fails. --Tango (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Always 4 years between US elections?

It seems that there are always 4 years between each US presidential election. In the UK, the prime minister can call an election at any time during his term in office (I notice that this can be done, and recently was, in Canada too). Can that happen, and has it ever happened, in the US? WAYB (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are always 4 years between US presidential elections. No, the president cannot call for an election. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is set forth in Article Two of the United States Constitution. Dismas|^(talk) 12:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Although it does not say that the Vice President shall serve the full term as President in case of vacancy; the Framers might have expected/intended a special election in such cases, or simply not thought about it. As it happened, the question didn't arise for 52 years. I wonder whether it was debated in 1841. —Tamfang (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Twelfth Amendment changed the field of such a debate. —Tamfang (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Primarily difference between a Westminster system and a presidential system. Grsz^Review! 13:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, part of the complaints about the "Westminster" system that led to the writing of the U.S. Constitution was that (especially in the 18th century) it largely depended on the whim of the Monarch as to when to call election, and that the Monarch (executive) could also dismiss Parliament whenever. The U.S. system was based on the idea that regular elections would lead to increased accountability to the people. It was also based on the ideas of seperation of powers, and on checks and balances and other principles which are entirely absent in the Westminster system. The Federalist papers, written by the framers of the U.S. Constitution, are an excellent discussion as to why the U.S. government was created as it was. It gives all the details and justifications for every aspect of what would become the American system of government. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that there aren't 4 years between elections in the U.S. The "Federal" elections run every two years; Presidential elections run at every-other election cycle. State and local elections may or may not run at the same time as Federal elections, it is up to the smaller jurisdictions as to how they organize themselves. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Where annual election ends, tyranny begins" was a phrase often quoted by Founding Fathers of the US, although in writing the Constitution they decided that Federal elections every two years were more practical. (Many state officials, including governors, continued to be elected annually, although this changed over time.) The point of course was that elections should be regular, and that the executive should have no power to alter this. —Kevin Myers 21:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a debate now in Canada over whether to switch to "fixed" election dates. The Canadian federal government did so, but recently, the ruling party declared that Parliament wasn't working and called a new election, essentially ignoring the fixed-election law. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that there’s nothing about this at Canadian House of Commons#Elections or Parliament of Canada#Term. I wonder what could explain this. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There is some discussion of it at Canadian federal election, 2008, Jack. In reality, yes, the government did ignore their own new law before it could ever be implemented, but obviously they can't really fix an election date when they are not legally the head of government. The Prime Minister could advise the Governor General to call an election on February 19 every four years but it was not enshrined in the constitution like it is in the US. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Fixed election dates in Canada#Parliament of Canada tells us: "In effect, the "fixed-date" law changed only the maximum duration of a Parliament, by ensuring that it ends no later than October in its fourth calendar year after commencement, but the law leaves the possibility of an earlier end unaffected". I'd interpret that to mean that, unless the parliament is dissoved earlier, the election will be held every fourth year in October. It's interesting that it's portrayed as Canada having a fixed election date when it very clearly is not necessarily fixed at all, as this election showed. I don't see what happened recently as a case of "ignoring the fixed-election law", but one of exercising the suite of perfectly legal constitutional options available to the government and the Governor General. If any law had been broken, I'd bet some legal action would have been taken by now. Australia has a similar law. It's not framed in terms of a specific month, but in terms of a maximum duration of a parliament, counted from the day it first sits following a general election. Unless the parliament is dissolved sooner, it "expires through effluxion of time" 3 years after it first sits. This is usually described as "three-year terms", but the truth is that only one of our 42 parliaments has ever gone the full 3 years, and that was back in 1910. It's more accurate to describe it as "maximum three-year terms". -- JackofOz (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the stated purpose of the "fixed election dates" law was to eliminate the advantage the ruling party has through its ability to control the time of the election. So while the Conservatives' decision was constitutional, it was against the spirit of the fixed election dates law. There is really no way to have truly fixed election dates in a Westminster system. Even if the ruling party were prevented from asking the governor-general to dissolve Parliament, all of the members of the ruling party could simply resign, forcing the governor-general to call an election to get a quorum. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How large are the Canadian quorums (quora?). In Australia it's 25% for the Senate and 20% for the House of Representatives. If it were simply a matter of government members resigning en masse, wouldn't this simply hand government to the opposition, by virtue of the fact that they now control the numbers in the House of Commons? And wouldn't they hold a bunch of by-elections to replace the members who resigned, rather than a general election? No, I don't think it has to do with quorums. Resignations of one or more members would not normally be a legitimate reason to hold a general election, particularly if this were not one of the exceptional circumstances that could require the holding of an election on a date other than that otherwise fixed by law. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right -- quorum in the House of Commons is only 20 members. But I remember reading something to the effect of the majority party would always be able to basically force the governor-general to dissolve parliament -- perhaps by withholding supply against its own government or refusing to pass any legislation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This has shades of the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, where Gough Whitlam's Labor government was unable to get its supply bills through the Senate. The Liberal opposition led by Malcolm Fraser kept on stalling, demanding that the PM call an election, which he kept on refusing to do, on the principle that a government that has the numbers in the lower house is entitled to be given the funds to implement the legislative program on which its mandate was based. It went on for 3 months, from August to 11 November. To break the impasse, the Governor-General Sir John Kerr sacked the Whitlam government even though it commanded a sizeable majority in the lower house, and installed Fraser as Prime Minister on the understanding that he get the supply bills passed and immediately advise a general election. He did both of these things, and the parliament was dissolved later that day. Fraser remained caretaker PM throughout the election period even though the Labor-dominated House had expressed lack of confidence in his government, and the Liberals won by a record margin. Hypothetically, a government could refuse to pass its own supply bills - for what possible reason, I cannot imagine - but that would place them in the same position as Whitlam was in Australia, and with the precedent set by Kerr, the Canadian Governor General might take similar action. But this is so hypothetical as to be unimagineable. Why would a government want to go to the polls before it had to, or before it would normally even be permitted to? I can imagine an opposition trying to force such a circumstance, but not a government. I can also imagine a PM who'd taken over from a PM who resigned or died mid-term, and who wanted a mandate in his own right, wanting an election earlier than it might otherwise have been called, but voting against his government's own supply bills would certainly not be the way to go about it. The electorate would likely take the view that if the government was prepared to vote itself down, why should they do otherwise? If it were a case of government members being so disaffected by the direction their Prime Minister was taking the country as to not want to be associated with the governing party any more, they'd much more likely resign from the party and sit as independents, or even cross to the opposition party, and if there were sufficient numbers of such members, the government would fall, but an election would not necessarily eventuate. We've had this occur in Australia: in 1941, 2 independents who supported the UAP/Country Party coalition government switched their support to the Labor Party, and the government changed, but there was no election. The next election was not till 1943. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Good discussions above. I do see one hole: travel time. At the time the rules were determined in the US, regular elections allowed people to plan their travel (horseback). Calling a snap election could very easily be timed to catch people far from their place of voting, or unable to receive news in a timely fashion. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wearing motorcycle helmets inside shops (UK)

Frequently you see the signs saying the wearing of full face motorcycle helmets is prohibited inside shops/stores/petrol stations in the UK, but is there an applicable law that applies or is it a shop by shop internal rule? Nanonic (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Internal rule. Wearing a helmet obscures the face, frustrates CCTV, worries staff concerned that they might be targeted by robbers &c. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Many petrol stations (gas stations for you USA types) won't activate the pump until you remove your helmet so your face is caught on CCTV (in case you ride away without paying). Exxolon (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also the risk that they may actually be serving the body of a coltan alloy T-888 (with wireless head-body interface) when the helmet stays on [14] Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The daily lives of people in history

Are there any Wikipedia articles where I can read about the daily lives of "average" people in history -- slaves, laborors, merchants, soldiers, etc. in Roman times, the Middle Ages, and even in more recent history? I've been browsing some of the Portals but I'm not finding the correct articles. Thank you, in advance! 157.127.124.15 (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

For the Middle Ages you could try Medieval household and check out the navigation box at the bottom for more articles. Rome is better-represented here, try Culture of ancient Rome and the associated box with more articles. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(I was the original poster, I just wasn't logged in). Thanks Adam -- those articles are pretty close to what I was looking for. I'm reading a book right now by James J. O'Donnell, The Ruin of the Roman Empire (HarperCollins: 2008), and just finished another, Drink: A Cultural History of Alcohol (Gotham: 2008), which both give some greater detail into the daily lives, cares, worries, etc. of persons throughout history. I will see if I can work some of these details into the appropriate Wikipedia pages, and I will look into their sources for even more. Thanks again. Sarcasticninja (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Culture of ancient Rome is very good. I'm hoping to discover more detail somewhere, but the 'Customs and daily life' section is what I wanted to see. Sarcasticninja (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to read social history. Just search under social history in WP and elsewhere. --Omidinist (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That definitely helps to point me in the correct direction. Thanks Omidinist! Sarcasticninja (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Veyne edited A History of Private Life in several volumes, available in paperback. Fernand Braudel's Civilization and Capitalism and The Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II are filled with details drawn from private life, as they reflect larger political and economic trends. Some of the best social history I've ever read. --Wetman (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You might also look at this book Daily Life in Medieval times. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a wonderful classic book called The diary of a nobody I can't recall the author but it's very good and that is basically a great account of everyday life of a 'nobody' in victorian times. Can't see how it would've been exciting to read at the time but these days it's a fascinating insight into daily life. An area you might be interested in is Mass observation which was a social-research program in the UK (and perhaps beyond?) that offered an insight into everyday life. I suspect similar types of studies may exist for further back in history. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Diary of a Nobody was by George Grossmith. I know all about Mass Observation but I didn't mention it because it's not directly relevant to the original question. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Lilith Fact or fiction?

As of to date, I am sitting and pondering the entire misconception of others, as to read the Bible and develope some twisted concept that there was another wife for Adam before that of Eve.

What is not to understand? It is simple to grasp the concept that Adam and Eve were the first to be crated in the form of man by that of GOD. People are taking a myth, a fable a story and doing their best to disprove that the Bible is the truth, and that God is a telling tales. So my question is simple ( 1 ) Is there a Lilith in connection to Adam? ( 2 ) Where is she mentioned in the dead sea scrolls, as per the home page of Lilith it states " Lilith mentioned in dead sea scrolls. "

Maybe to explain to thoes who do not quite understand, how simple it is is thus: When God is implimenting the creation of Adam and Eve, in eariler passages of Genesis, God is simply stateing Hey I am making man in my own image, He knew He was gonna make man and woman as God knows all, and knew He was gonna make both, this does not by any means say God created Lilith for Adam as his first wife. Also in biblical days, as people wrote what they were told, they wrote in the the foremat of future context, and that of present context which can explain the theroy of double creations. They both were refering to the same creation of Adam and eve.

10-28-2008 C.T.Minner

Have you tried the article on Lilith? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to read our article on Documentary hypothesis, which discusses the "JEPD theory" and is a fairly straightforward and rather scholarly approach to explaining the apparent contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (such as, why is the entire creation story told twice, and why don't the two stories match up in terms of timeline and details?). The basic idea is that the information in the Pentatauch (the first 5 books of the bible) were compiled from 4 different sources, and cobbled together into a single narrative from creation through the Moses story. The contradictions between the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, which is the basis for the "Lilith" tradition, can be more conveniently understood if one assumes that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 were written by completely different authors, and only put together later. The JEPD theory is not without its detractors, but it has widespread acceptance from both non-believing biblical scholars, and believers as well. I have an NIV Study Bible which, while it does not endorse JEPD, does discuss it and does not explicitly discount it either. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Lilith doesn't appear in either story in Genesis and a possible origin for the Lilith story may lie in trying to read the double account as a single story, not in the contradictions between the accounts. Rmhermen (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I was making; thanks for making it more clear. The contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is explained in some traditions to mean that God created two women, the first (Lilith) equal to Adam, and the second (Eve) to be subservient to Adam. Since Lilith disappears from the story, and Eve is who persists, it is her relationship to Adam that God prefers (or so the Tradition goes. Not that I agree with that interpretation). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Some folk, and they have been numerous through Christian history, claim to have a direct line to the thoughts of God: "Hey I am making man in my own image, He knew He was gonna make man and woman as God knows all, and knew He was gonna make both..." Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, can only report the texts and describe the historical interpretations of those texts.--Wetman (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Volkswagen

I'm not sure that I understand what really caused the strange behaviour of the Volkswagen shares on the stock market in the past few days. Can someone explain this? User:Krator (t c) 17:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

One explanation is here. I won't pretend to understand all the details, but it sounds like a classic short squeeze. --LarryMac | Talk 17:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Porsche now owns about 75% of Volkswagen Stocks and the German state Lower Saxony owns another 20%. Since there are now only 5% of stocks on the market and accessible, trading with these stocks is frequent and frentic. There is high demand for these stocks, and as there are only very few available, prices started to soar.

The FT article pointed out by LarryMac says,

hedge funds, rushing to cover short positions, were forced to buy stock from a shrinking pool of shares in free float.

That it is accurate but only part of the story. The extreme demand/supply mismatch that drove up the price of VW ordinary shares (or common stock), so that at one point it had the highest market cap of any company in the world, also came from two other groups.

Besides the short sellers, there were the option writers with whom Porsche had long ago agreed on call options giving Porsche the right to buy VW stock at a pre-determined price. Porsche was starting to exercise those options, and some of the option writers did not actually own VW stock so they had to buy it in order to make good on their promises. (These were not simple call options; details are sketchy and Porsche is very secretive about them.)

The third force driving up the price of VW common stock were investment funds tracking the DAX (Germany's 30 biggest public companies). By their own statutes they are bound to mirror the relative weight of companies in the DAX, so when VW went up to account for 27 percent of the DAX the index funds had to scramble to buy VW at almost any price.

Those three factors taken together amounted to a perfect storm for some people, who got caught out in the cold.

One aspect that I have not seen mentioned in the media is whether or not this puts a damper on recommendations to invest in index-tracking funds. There seems to be an inherent flaw here, and the comforting thought that you could "invest and forget" in an index fund while saving on management fees may be less well-founded than previously thought.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, contrary to what someone wrote above, Porsche does not actually hold 75% of VW stock yet, though it is their stated intention to achieve this in 2009. If I remember right, a few days ago they owned a little over 40% of VW and held options to a little over 30%. THis last figure will have declined somewhat in recent days as they gave back some of their options in order to, as they said, take some of the upward pressure off VW's share price.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

tag British news presenter and politicians are wearing at the moment

What kind of pin or tag are British news presenter and politicians wearing since 27 October? (it is red, green, and black tag in the shape of an apple) Is there a Wikipedia article about it?

I'm guessing you're referring to the Remembrance Day poppy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If you ever wondered what the pretty nurse selling poppies on a tray in Penny Lane was about, that's it... AnonMoos (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen some Australian politicians wearing them recently, and I have to wonder why they're wearing them so early. Remembrance Day is 11 November, still 12 days away, and it's a single day, not a season like "the Christmas-New Year season". A couple of days early is ok, but up to 3 weeks early is like having office Christmas parties in early November, or selling hot cross buns in late December. It's fine to remember the fallen throughout the year, not just on one day of the year, but the wearing of poppies so far removed from the day set aside for that commemoration seems almost disrespectful. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's like Christmas (and Halloween), people start doing things for it earlier every year... I'd say poppys should be worn for at most a week prior to the 11th, more than that is silly. --Tango (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the reference desk was about facts. Richard Avery (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Because the Royal British Legion launched their annual campaign a few days ago? I'd have thought most people get their poppy from the first place they see them when they have a free moment and some change, and wear them once they've bought them. Although politicians probably put more thought in... I wonder what's up with the larger, more Canadian-style poppies I've seen a few people wearing (in the UK). Are they symbolic of something in particular, or are they just more ostentatious? As in "I remember harder than you do", which doesn't really seem the point. 79.66.86.162 (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

October 30

the lords prayer

What is the difference between the catholoic and protistant version of the lords prayer? The end part before THINE IS THE KINGDOM THE POWER THE GLORY FOR EVER AND EVER AMEN.

see the article on the Lord's Prayer Rmhermen (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Have you seen Lord's Prayer? There you will find a discussion of the various versions in use. Note that it appears in two gospels: Matthew and Luke. Luke omits the doxology, a form often used within the Catholic liturgy. Note that Catholic mass often uses the Latin version (Pater noster). Gwinva (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Latin version has not been in regular use since the 1960s. --Nricardo (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Willian McGonagall

Did McGonagall write deliberately in the way he did? I looked up the external links in his article page and they offered different views. Is there any general consensus in the literary community?Leif edling (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If there were different views expressed then probably there isn't a consensus. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I considered it possible that the particular listed external links are varied in their opinions but the literary community sees the matter only in a certain light. That is why I asked the question on the humanities r.d. in the hope that someone aware of McGonagall's work and life may answer my question.Leif edling (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's really hard to be that bad that long, on purpose. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The key seems to be that he discovered his own greatness and thought, when you're on a good thing, flog it to flitters. I can't think of the name but early Australia had a tuneless female self-designed opera singer with heaps of confidence and personal wealth that made her career possible – people crammed her concerts to laugh themselves silly and there was a play about her a couple of years ago. What was her name? Julia Rossi (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Florence Foster Jenkins? She was American, though. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's it! I was out on the country part. Thanks AdamB Julia Rossi (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Asian to White Racial Transformation

Is there a true story of an oriental who was living in a western country, and he or she changed himself or herself into a white-looking person by having a racial surgery transformation?? Is there an asian to a white transformation story? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence that was a potential WP:BLP problem. Its absence does not change the question or make it less comprehensible, except to underscore that the OP is interested only in Asian-to-white surgical transformations, and not, for example, in possible black-to-white changes. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Every year hundreds of thousands of oriental people have surgery to 'westernize' their eyes. I don't believe the surgery is referred to as 'racial tranformation surgery', i think they refer to it as Blepharoplasty, which can be cosmetic or required. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds of thousands? Hotcheetos (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What I am asking is has there ever an asian who had transformed himself or herself into a white person by surgery? Please provide with a news article. 72.136.111.205 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you STFW? – What would qualify as "into a white person"? Does an eyelid job suffice? How about a coat of white paint? —Tamfang (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A coat of white paint is not surgery. I believe the OP is looking for an instance of an asian who had surgery with the intent of looking like a white person. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Fred Korematsu is a famous example, though his attempt at passing was apparently unsuccessful. —Kevin Myers 13:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Abraham killing an Idolator

When I was in jewish school way back in the mid 70's,one of the rabbis related a story about how one day as Abraham was strolling thru a town of like minded folks, maybe relatives, he came upon a a guy worshipping an idol and promptly slew him; i guess this story was to relay just how vigorous a faith must be in order to please the lord, but it caused me to reject the whole enterprise outrite. Because this story has had some impact on my Psyche I am intersted to find out if the incident is actually depicted in the Bible, I have tried to find it but can't,have any of you come across this passage and if you have do you know where it is in Genesis?

It's not in there. Sounds apocryphal. Wrad (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It does sound like something being conflated with the story of Abraham smashing Terah's idols. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a close parallel, but would definitely need to be conflated since Abraham doesn't kill anyone in it. Also, that story is not in Genesis. Wrad (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the traditional practices of rabbis is (or at least was) making up stories using biblical and later figures. The stories were not meant to be taken literally but rather to make a point in much the same way as a parable. --Halcatalyst (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that what I know as a Midrash? Steewi (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's what I know as a false statement manipulation technique for the purposes of crowd control. But a Rabbi wouldn't do that, would he? Julia Rossi (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fanfic! —Tamfang (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Lying in polls

What percentage of respondents lie to polling organizations? How many even say the opposite of what they think? How would one be able to answer these questions?

I'm thinking about the Bradley effect. --Halcatalyst (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Methodologically it may not be possible when it comes to actual political voting, assuming that by law the voting is allowed to be done without observation. Thus the two interpretations of the alleged Bradley effect: one that those who responded lied, and another that those who responded self-selected. I don't see any way to even determine which of those is the cause without being able to actually compare to the original ballots, which by law you can't do. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not possible to know what percentage of respondents lie. As the anon stated, you can only compare the respondents to the polls. But, it is not possible to know exactly who the respondents are (since they could lie when responding) or what the respondent's vote was. As an anecdote, I always attempt to figure out if it is a Democrat or Republican running the poll (usually very easy since they start out by asking things like "Can we depend on your support of our next President, Obama, in the upcoming critical election?"). Then, I strongly and emphatically support the opposing party with as many ridiculous or offensive comments as possible. -- kainaw™ 01:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't get the Bradley effect - couldn't it be negated by doing the polls as a secret ballot? --Tango (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The obvious approach to answering a query like this would be ask respondents about other people they know - to get people who will probably given honest answers to tell the truth about the people who lie - but it's going to be difficult to phrase the questions, as many people will have little idea of whether their friends or family might lie to polling organisations. Warofdreams talk 16:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The "1 twin always lies and 1 twin always tells the truth" problem (which I'm assuming is where you got the idea) only works because the twins are assumed to have complete knowledge. A lot of people choose not to discuss politics with friends and family, so people would just guessing how they would vote and could well be wrong. --Tango (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The legal importance of a comma

A friend and myself were having a discussion / argument over the following hypothetical; If someone is notified by a team of solicitors that 'We will be claiming the principal sum interest and court costs.' Would that be taken as legally different to 'We will be claiming the principal sum, interest and court costs', I have argued that the 'principal sum interest' is merely the plaintiff claiming the amount of interest on the principal sum, whereas my partner argued that the ommission of the comma would be overlooked and disregarded. I have heard of 'the million dollar comma' case in the US but have no idea what the legal situation is in the uk.

Someone more learned in the law can answer this properly, but I too have often noticed the absence of commas in legal documents, actual laws, etc, in sentences where, in any other context, the comma(s) would naturally be found and, indeed, not only would it be considered ungrammatical not to have them, but also, without them the meaning can become unnecessarily ambiguous, as in the very case you're asking about. There was the Roger Casement case in which he was said to have been "hanged by a comma" (see Roger Casement#Capture, trial and execution), so it can sometimes be a matter of life and death. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it's not even just the comma. There was an American case in which a woman was on trial for murdering her baby. It was said that she had confessed in the 911 call. A linguist was called in and it was found that her words "I killed my baby," did not constitute a confession, as it was ambiguous given the context. In fact, the woman had fallen asleep while breastfeeding and smothered it. In her emotion, she called 911 and made the statement. Wrad (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

See also this. (Although the writer there thinks it's not really about the comma, but still.)--Rallette (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• There's a fascinating bit about commas in legal documents in Mark Alder's "Clarity for Lawyers". In the unlikely event that I remember(!!!) I'll post some of his comments back here in the next few days. AndyJones (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

October 31

Enjambment

I can't seem to find the answer to my question anywhere. If you are reciting a poem that has a line that runs into another, should that line break be considered a pause or should the reciter treat it like an extra long line? —User:FuzzyBunnyJihad (talk)

Generally, no pause. Pauses are signified by punctuation, not by the ends of lines. An exception might be in a humorous poem where the enjambment is part of the humor. - Nunh-huh 00:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In prose, pauses are marked by punctuation, and this is true of poetry too. But poetry is more than prose, and it's a very bad idea to read it like mere prose. This is especially true for free verse; poets such as Marvin Bell insist that, when a poem is read aloud, line endings call for a least a brief hesitation. --Halcatalyst (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Worth knowing if you're going to be reading Marvin Bell's poems aloud, but his insistence on a pause is the exception, and certainly not the rule. - Nunh-huh 01:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If the way the poem looks on the page is part of its character, as in some of George Herbert's poems and Wallace Stevens', the hearer should have an unobtrusive sense of the shaping of the line, as it hangs in the air, and where the enjambment falls. Not easily done. --Wetman (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Herbert's "Easter Wings" is a prime exemplar of a poem that's intended to be seen on a page. (I can't think of any of Stevens' poems that depend on that.) The question is about how to read a poem aloud; obviously, it depends on the poem, the reader, and the audience. Reading poetry, aloud or in one's mind, when done well requires both skill and a bit of poetic sensitivity. --Halcatalyst (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality

You know how some humans are gay or lesbian? Is homosexuality found only in humans or do some other animals exhibit this kind of behavior? -- penubag  (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, see homosexual behavior in animals. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the quick reply.  :) -- penubag  (talk) 02:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sierra Leone Civil War

Who were the Vice Presidents of Sierra Leone at the time of the 1992 coup by the Revolutionary United Front. Vice President of Sierra Leone says one, while President Joseph Saidu Momoh's article says another I believe. Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet another US election question

On my friend's absentee ballot, it notes that if she leaves a referendum question blank--it counts as a vote against the referendum. Is this true in all of the states? Why is there not a system in place whereby you can vote for president, senate, etc. but abstain from voting on a referendum?

Thanks!

207.172.71.243 (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems unusual, which state is she in? Its certainly not true of all States, most require a simple majority of "yes" vs. "no" and discount those left blank.

Are you sure your friend is not referring to Arizon Prop 105, which - if passed next week - would essentially institute that system for future referenda in Arizona. See [15] Rockpocket 06:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

she's from Minnesota207.172.71.243 (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Normally in referendums (and elections generally), only formal votes are taken into consideration. That is, votes filled out in accordance with the rules, and where a YES or NO vote is clearly expressed. Informal votes (blank; ambiguous; illegible; crosses or ticks instead of numbers, or vice-versa; not fully completed; etc) are put aside and don't figure in the count. It sounds like they're deeming blank ballots to be formal votes, and against the proposal. This is very unusual. The choices seem to be:

• If you want to be counted as YES, you have to vote YES formally.
• If you want to be counted as NO, you can either vote NO formally, or submit a blank ballot.
• If you want NOT to be counted, you have to mark your ballot paper, but in a way that deliberately makes it an informal vote.

How very odd. It may be an attempt to minimise informal votes and make people think about what they want, but from what you've told us, it seems somewhat undemocratic. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It certainly sounds unusual, but perhaps there is a clue in this article. As noted in the very last paragraph, "The amendment needs to be approved by at least 51 percent. Leaving the question blank is essentially a vote against it." The key word being "essentially." Anything that is not explicitly a yes vote won't count toward the 51%. --LarryMac | Talk 15:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. What they're saying is that they're going to consider the "yes" vote 51% of all votes, not 51% of all votes that give an opinion. It's a way to make sur that supporters of it don't just overwhelm because most people don't care or don't understand it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really make sense. You should be allowed to purposefully not decide; philosophically, you shouldn't be required to have an opinion. One may not be apathetic, they may genuinely want to not vote for whatever reason, and this is not the same as wanting to vote "no". Also, it doesn't make sense that people who don't vote at all aren't counted towards the 50%+1, but those that do vote but leave it blank DO count. That's just plainly illogical... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it makes no sense. In cases where you can expect near 100% turnout (a corporate board meeting, say), it can sometimes make sense to require a majority of the population to support rather than just more supporters that opposes (basically you count an abstention as an opposition), but when you're going to have a large number of people that just don't vote at all (and aren't actively abstaining), then it makes no sense. What they're doing is requiring support from a majority of the people that vote in the presidential election, which is a nonsensical population to be using to determine support for an unrelated resolution. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not that a non-vote is identical to a negative vote, it's that a negative vote is identical to a non-vote. Only positive votes count and they are taking it out of the total population. Again, it's a way to make it so that a bloc of people can't push it through with only 10% of the vote if everybody else just leaves it blank because they don't know or don't care. It's a reasonable check to make sure that a small interested minority doesn't end up making disproportionate policy. On some issues I can imagine that being something you'd want to do, if the issue was important but its importance was not widely understood. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's comparing different populations of votes.

• Some people choose not to vote at all, as is their right. It’s impossible to know how they would have voted had they voted.
• Some people turn up at the voting booth in order to write obscenities or other comments on their ballots, but leave them otherwise unmarked.
• Some vote properly, but still add comments. In some jurisdictions, these ballots are counted as formal, in some as informal. I can see pros and cons for both approaches.
• Some people vote in the election, but don’t have a particular view about the referendum question - or vice-versa – so they leave that ballot paper unmarked. It’s just as impossible to know how they might have voted had they chosen to express a view, as it is to know how the people who didn’t turn up at all might have voted had they turned up. In relation to the referendum, to make a distinction between the people who turned up and did not vote, and those who didn’t turn up at all, seems wrong in principle. That's why the only "population" that has any meaning is the population who lodged formal votes, and formal votes have never in my experience included blank ballots.

The question is: what constitutes a "blank ballot"? If it’s utterly blank, that’s clear cut, and in this scenario it’s counted as a formal NO vote. But if it has a small doodle you did while thinking about how you wanted to vote, is that a blank ballot, or is it added to the pile of informal votes and not considered at all? If your pen wasn’t flowing and you had to scribble on the paper to make it work, is that a blank ballot? If it has some smudge from the ink stain on the side of your hand that got put on while you were filling out the other ballot paper, is that a blank ballot? If it has a deliberately written comment or obscenity, but nothing else, is that a blank ballot? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In cases where they don't want a minority to be making policy (most commonly, tax increases), it's common to include a quorum requirement, ie. 51% of the vote, and at least 20% of the registered voters must cast votes. The irony of quorum requirements is that there are cases where a "no" vote is identical to a "yes" vote. --Carnildo (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there are cases where a quorum is required - that's a percentage of total people eligible to vote, rather than a percentage of people that turn up to the polling booths, which is a big difference. (And yes, turning up to vote "no" can actually cause the vote to pass, that can be resolved by requiring 10% of the total population to vote in favour (and more supports than opposes, obviously), rather than requiring 20% to vote and 50% of those to vote in favour - the total amount of support required is the same, but the amount of opposes doesn't matter (unless it is more than the supports).) --Tango (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

UN

With the growing discontent in the congo, I would like to know, if what happened in Rwanda happens again in say congo, and the UN once again spends its time pussyfooting around instead of acctually doing some thing, can anyone at the UN be held responsible and be sent to the Hague or some thing equivalent? Last time the UN soldiers on the ground were not allowed to do anything (shoot back I mean) this can be seen in movies such as Shooting Dogs or Hotel Rwanda. Was any one at the UN made accountable for this? who will be made accountable next time, as I am sure it will happen again somewhere. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 11:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Read Peacekeeping. It is not for the UN to be held accountable, since they can only act in accordance with whatever treaties, laws and UN resolutions apply. It is lack of international support for the UN, not the UN itself, that may lead to the failure of UN peacekeeping operations. If you want to blame anyone, blame the people doing the shooting, not those who are trying to prevent it. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 12:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly it's important to note that just because the media suggests the UN isn't doing anything, it is incredibly unlikely that behind the scenes they aren't working on trying to improve the situation. International law is pretty much unpredictable, it's highly unlikely the UN would be held responsible in any way, though such failure to resolve issues diminishes its standing and will make people further question its purpose and ability to react. Diplomacy and peace-keeping are incredible complex issues that require much work and thought, the UN is loathe to send troops, and will try everything in its power to not have to 'use' the troops, given the situation there are many more avenues to look down before action may be taken. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly if three quarters of Belgium marched into france with meat cleavers killing anyone and every one, Ban KiMoon would not form a commitee to discuss wether or not they should form a commitee to hold a meeting on wether or not they should have a meeting to decide wether or not to intervene. They woukld just send it troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at articles such as International relations United Nations Diplomacy and areas of study such as (hope there's an article titled it) Conflict resolution. Sending in troops without at least some discussion is extremely unlikely, especially for an organisation that is maintained by many nations, rather than simply being responsible to itself. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Baby slapping

Is is still normal practice for a baby to be slapped to start it breathing? Is there an alternative? I could find nothing about this in the childbirth article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read at least one first aid book that specifically said there was no need to slap a baby to start it breathing - it will breath on its own (breathing is instinctive, even in adults, after all). You may need to clear any gunk from its mouth, but that's about it (unless there are complications, of course). --Tango (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The old joke went "When I was born, I was so ugly the doctor took one look and slapped my parents!" Edison (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Halloween, an adult holiday?

Halloween used to be a kid thing. It still is, of course, but it’s also become a big holiday for adults, who for some time have been wearing costumes to work and displaying Halloween decorations outside their homes. Why has this happened? --Halcatalyst (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is this? The US? It isn't celebrated that much in the UK - there's lots targeted at kids, but that's about it in my experience. --Tango (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that my grandmother wore a costume to work when she worked at Tinker AFB in the 50s. She liked to say how much she liked being able to dress up on Halloween while all the Air Force guys had to stay in uniform. So, what is your assumption (that Halloween recently became popular with adults) based on? Personal experience? Most kids don't realize that the adults dress up and go to adult parties, so it isn't surprising for someone to grow up and think that adults using Halloween as an excuse to party is something new. -- kainaw™ 17:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My parents used to dress up and go to adult Halloween parties when I was a kid in the 1980's, so the phenomenon is hardly "new"... 25 years ago, it was just as prevalent. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You really need to say where you are if your comment is going to helpful... --Tango (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

At the time I was living with my parents in a town called Hudson, New Hampshire, located in the south-central part of the state. They frequently went to parties at my mom's brother's house. He lived in a few different places, but the two I remember best were Gloucester, Massachusetts and Lawrence, Massachusetts. They attended these parties every year that I can remember, so that means from at least 1980 (I was born in 1976, but my memory does not stretch back that far), continuing at least until 1994, when I moved out to go to college. I hope that help to provides some context. Sorry my prior posting was so lacking in this regard. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm 27 and from America. My mom never skipped the chance to dress up for Halloween. One year she painted her face yellow and went as Jaundice. Another, she spiked her hair up, sowed underwear and socks to a sweatshirt, and went as Static cling. I'm an adult and I at least paint my face up like a skull whenever I escort my niece and nephew. My older sister dresses up everyonce in a while. So, it's not really a new thing. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Coca-Cola

Does anyone know how much money a 1.5L bottle of Coca-Cola cost in the united states? Gridge (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC).

Hmmm... offhand, I don't recall ever encountering a 1.5L bottle. Naturally, the answer is "it depends", but I can provide some guidance. A 1L bottle, chilled, is generally in the $1.50 - $2 range. A 2L bottle, warm, is generally in the $1 - $1.50 range. The primary question, then, is whether a 1.5L bottle would be chilled or warm. Depending on the answer, I'd put it at either the high end of the 1L or the low end of the 2L. — Lomn 17:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I just came from the convenience store (purchasing a Coke). They don't sell 1L or 1.5L. The choices are 20oz, 2L, and 3L. I bought a 20oz, which is $1.38. -- kainaw™ 17:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

1.5L is what they call "share size" in the UK (I've no idea why), and isn't sold chilled. The other available sizes are 500ml (usually chilled) and 2L (un-chilled). The 500ml bottles cost around 90p-£1, 2L bottles are around £1.60, I've no idea what 1.5L bottles cost, but it's somewhere inbetween. Are you sure the chilled bottles in the US are 1L and not 500ml (or an imperial equivalent)? If so, any idea why they sell larger bottles in the states than elsewhere? (Other countries I've been to have always sold 500ml bottles.) --Tango (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I've seen an actual Coca-Cola 1L bottle -- being a good southern boy, all carbonated syrup drinks are colloquially "cokes" -- but Pepsi-related brands often have larger 1L bottles in the coolers beside the standard 20oz bottles. More dastardly are the attempts to replace the 20oz bottles with the 500mL ones without adjusting price. — Lomn 19:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, per Lomn, the real question is whether refrigeration of 20 oz of soda is really worth such a huge markup. I can usually buy a six-pack of warm 20-oz bottles for less than TWO identical chilled 20-oz bottles. Seriously, cold soda has got to be the biggest racket in the U.S.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant warm bottle. In Israel we pay almost 7 ILS ($2). Thanks guys. Gridge (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC).

As already mentioned, 1.5 L isn't a standard size in the U.S. Some bottling plants use them, but most seem to have the standard sizes of 12-oz can, 16-oz bottle, 20-oz bottle (20 ounces = 590 mL, so its about 0.5 L), 2L bottle. A few make 8-oz cans (at the low end), 24-oz bottles (about 900 mL) , 1L bottles, or 3L bottles (the largest I have seen), but these sizes are rarer than the standards I listed first. I have never encountered a 1.5 liter bottle in the U.S. Remember that the Coca-Cola company (or Pepsico, or generally whatever the brand name is) only manufacture and sell soda syrup, that is concentrated unsweetened flavorings. This syrup is purchased and bottled by "bottling companies" which are usually independently owned and operated franchises and are unaffiliated with the parent company, except as a liscensee of the brand and purchaser of the flavorings. The bottle sizes are somewhat "industry standard", but its largely up to the bottler how they package the product. Given ALL of that, the closest common size in the U.S. is the 2L bottle, which as mentioned generally sells for $1.00-$1.50... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

They used to sell 1.5 liter bottles of Coca Cola and Dr. Pepper (and nothing else) at my local supermarket here in the U.S., until about 2 years ago... AnonMoos (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If your supermarket sold nothing but 1.5 liter bottles of Coca Cola and Dr. Pepper, AnonMoos, I think you would have been well advised to shop elsewhere. Indeed, I can't quite understand how you managed to survive to the present. Deor (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No it sold a wide variety of beverages in various sizes (and continues to do so) -- but only Coca Cola and Dr. Pepper were carried in the 1.5 liter size. AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I just saw 2 liter Coca Cola (warm) at 2 for $1.99 (U.S.). Edison (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

does someone know about this book

i have recently bought a book titled a notebook of medieval history AD323 AD1453 published by oxford university at the clarendon 1917 and wondered if this book was produced on a large scale or just a few because i have searched the web and have found nothing any info on this book would be appreciated thanks dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dav83 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've searched a few online catalogues, including the British Library, and can't find any mention of the book. Does it specify an author? --Tango (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You can get it used from Amazon, and it's in my university library (digitized online, even!), so it doesn't seem particularly rare. The author is Charles Raymond Beazley. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

President

Why isn't Bush part of the presedential election? 124.180.143.48 (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Because McCain wants to distance himself from Bush. As Bush is extremely unpopular among American voters at the moment—his lowest popularity ever, and potentially the most unpopular president in American history. Less than 3 out of 10 Americans are happy with Bush at the moment, by one poll. (The fact that you can get 7 out of 10 Americans to agree on anything political is astounding.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution --Nricardo (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

To expand on Nricardo's oblique reference, the U.S. President is currently limited, by law, to serving no more than 2 full terms, rounded, in office. If a president dies in office more than half-way through his first term his successor may run for election twice. If he dies less than half-way through his term, his successor may only stand for election one more time. Thus, Lyndon Johnson, who took over for after John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963, with less than 2 years remaining in that term, could have stood for re-election in both 1964 and 1968. Being only marginally more popular than Bush is today in 1968, Johnson somewhat wisely declined to seek an additional term. As a counter example, Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981, having only served a few months of his first term, but he survived the attack. Had he died, and George H. W. Bush (the current president's father, and Reagan's VP) taken over as President, Bush Sr. would only have been eligible to run again in 1984, and not in 1988. The two-term limit had been a long tradition in the American Presidency. George Washington, who was under no restrictions not to, declined to run for a third term, because he did not want to see the presidency become an office-for-life. Most presidents, leary of tarnishing Washington's image, and not wanting to display the hubris of "showing up" the revered president, followed his lead and refused to run for a third term, even if they had the popularity to pull it off. The first to even attempt it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who successfully won 4 consecutive elections; though his health was so bad in the 1944 campaign that he died only months after the start of his 4th term in 1945. The 22nd Ammendment, passed congress in 1947, and ratified in 1951, made a law what had been a tradition before Roosevelt... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Did an American soldier ever kill a Russian soldier in the Cold War?

Or vice versa?--208.19.15.207 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite likely. There were Soviet anti-aircraft crews involved in the Vietnam War, the United States provided assistance to Afghanistan during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, probably including military advisors, and there were a number of incidents where units from one side attacked units from the other. Plenty of opportunities for things to happen. --Carnildo (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you consider spies to be soldiers? -- kainaw™ 01:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Many spies were military attaches working at embassies, and thus soldiers. Not all soldiers are spies, not all spies are soldiers, but there is certainly overlap. Some soldiers of country A were spies for country B (and countries D and E, if they were adept enough). Edison (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

In the Korean War, U.S. and Soviet airmen fought each other in MiG Alley. There were certainly casualties on both sides. There may have been casualties among the Soviet ground forces (anti-aircraft batteries, mainly) caused by U.S. attacks as well. Our Korean War article lists 315 Soviet dead, some of whom must have been killed by Americans. There were always rumors of losses on both sides in the submarine "mock wars". Rmhermen (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, and I've come up empty so far on specific examples. Do "friendly fire" incidents count? The Russians accidentally killed Sr. Lt. Sergei Safronov while trying to shoot down Gary Powers in his U-2 in 1960 (his plane had already been shot down, and he parachuted to relative safety). Antandrus (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

During the Cuban Missle Crisis, American pilot Rudolf Anderson's Lockheed U-2 plane was shot down by Soviet anti-aircraft missles while flying a reconaissance mission in the vicinity of Cuba. He died in the attack. At the time it was unclear whether Cuban or Soviet authorities ordered Anderson's plane to be fired upon. There is general agreement now that Soviets were at the time in control of those AA missles, and so he was attacked and killed by intentional action of the Soviet military. That's probably the most famous example of regular US military personel being killed by Soviet personel during the Cold War. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Arguments could be made that JFK was killed by Soviets... Grsz^{11 →Review!} 03:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

November 1

information on law

i m 24,n planning to open an educational society.for which i need a detailed information about the law in india in respect 2 an educational society.I have been through the article given on this site,the information in the article was very brief n not enough to satisfie my requirementRahulseth (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Its probably best to contact a legal representative in the jurisdiction where you intend to open this society. If you contact established societies in that local area, they may be able to put you in contact with the proper authorities who can answer your question more specifically than can a volunteer-written encyclopedia. Cheers! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends on murder?

I was in a conversation recently where the claim was made that our enjoyment of our lifestyles as Americans (this conversation was in the US) depends on the killing of others in other parts of the world. Someone called BS on this point (which seems fair), and the person making the point said they'd have to do some research to get specifics. I'm wondering, is this true? Can a reasonable argument be made that, by enjoying the standard of living we know in the first world, we've got blood on our hands? Thanks in advance for any reasonable opinions on this admittedly controversial point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think its absolutely bogus that our lifestyle is impossible without getting blood on our hands. I don't see any reason why everyone can't live this way. Prosperity does not equal murder. Wrad (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Lack of foresight in government?

I'm trying to make the argument (it's non-partisan) that there's a serious lack of foresight in government, or rather there's foresight but we only act on problems when it's too late. The US economy is a great example. But, are there times in the past when we did have foresight? Like when we proactively improved our infrastructure, invested in future alternative fuels,etc.?