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

December 20

Overtone singing vs throat singing

Overtone singing is, according to our article, often wrongly called "throat singing". However, throat singing does not redirect to the former, but to Inuit throat singing. That article says it is "also known (and commonly confused) under the generic term overtone singing", but the only difference it describes is that it's sung by a duet of women. Given that there are all kinds of overtone singing ensembles (especially with modern composers discovering it), I don't see this as a big enough difference to call it a "confusion". Or is there really a difference that I'm not aware of? — Sebastian 08:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I will assume the articles changed since you posted this question... The article on overtone singing states that throat singing is incorrectly used to describe unconstricted overtone singing. I've personally never heard it referred to that way. I've heard unconstrained overtone singing. Why would I have heard that before? I have had a few nasty accidents - hit by a bus, fell off a cliff, went through a speeding car - and if I attempt to hold a singing note loudly, I often produce two notes. I've been told that it is due to damage to my throat causing two sections of the vocal chords to vibrate at different rates. I also know about throat singing because I can do throat singing. Therefore, I understand what the constrained part means. When singing, you open your jaw to increase the air pocket in your mouth. Then, you close your lips into a circle - not as small as whistling. By closing your lips, you constrain the air so the vibrations reflect from the lips, back through the mouth. If you get the right tone, you will hit a point that the vibrations going back and forth create at least one overtone. I can usually do three tones easily (I practice out of boredom when I have to drive long distances). So - I hope all this cleared up a bit that unconstrained overtone singing produces more than one note in the vocal chords. Throat singing (aka overtone singing) produces more than one note through sound-wave interference inside the mouth. -- kainaw™ 04:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing with your rich experience! If I understand you correctly, "constrained overtone singing" is constraint by the lips. However, the article seems to use the term "constricted" referring to a constriction of the larynx. Maybe it is always either one or the other, and there's no such thing as "unconstrained/unconstricted overtone singing"? I'm not sure how your experience fits into this; I can't imagine how different sections of the vocal chords could vibrate at different frequencies, any more than a violin string could. (There is a nice illustration at de:Stimmlippe.) BTW, the way you describe reminds me of the way vowels are created (See Mol, H. (1970). "Fundamentals of Phonetics: II. Acoustical Models Generating the Formants of the Vowel Phonemes". (Den Haag, Mouton & Co.)). Another interesting link in this context is this: http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/medicine/2000/m.p.de.vries/thesis.pdf. — Sebastian 02:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The vocal folds are not like a single violin string. Kainaw probably has some sort of damage that perhaps shortens or tightens one of the folds so that it can't vibrate in synch with the other one. Also, what Kainaw describes sounds more like modern "western overtone" singing than true throat-singing. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right, of course: They're not the same, since strings can vibrate freely. But at least I can't imagine how this could work. I should better have compared it with a double-reed mouthpiece (another topic that is not well covered). If anyone has one handy, it would be interesting to see how it sounds if you tie reeds of different tightness together. (The single-reed mouthpiece can be seen as the extreme case, with one reed being infinitely tight. The fact that neither produces two frequencies led me to intuitively assume that you won't get them at all, but I now realize that the these two borderline cases could just be degenerated.) — Sebastian 00:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Some constriction of the larynx is a key feature of traditional throat-singing styles such as are found all over Siberia. Some of these styles do not emphasize the creation of a melody using overtones. The overtones are instead an embellishment or ornamentation. I don't know enough about Inuit throat-singing to comment. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitions are not made any easier when the professionals in the field have not apparently created a clear distinction between the different styles around the world. Take for example in Ted Levin's (with Valentina Suzukei) most recent book on Tuvan throatsinging "Where Rivers and Mountains Sing" in the preface, "In throat-singing, a single vocalist can simultaneously produce two distinct pitches by selectively amplifying harmonics naturally present in the voice." This is a clear description of overtone singing, yet the Tuvan throatsinging sounds quite different from modern overtone singing due to the addition of the larynx constriction. Levin's description is excusable though since he's an ethnomusicologist, not a phonologist. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct. The experts seem to confuse more than they clarify. I think it is just because there are so many ways to make extra noises. Overtone singing by causing sound to echo back and forth inside the mouth is easy - anyone can do that. I can make a two tones - not really an overtone - due to vocal chord damage at sometime in my past. I'm sure some people can train their throat to do the same without damage. I've heard people who could vibrate the uvula to make a buzzing noise. I've tried and sometimes I've got it to buzz. It makes me gag though, so I can't do it very long. I went to see some Mongolians perform who could get their rib cage to vibrate, making a low rumbling sound. You can touch their sides and feel it vibrating - it feels weird. It is possible to make whistling noises through the nose as well. So, what do you call someone who can do one or two of the above? A throat singer? I think it is just a general term since nobody wants to be referred to as an overtone singer with a nose whistle and a rib vibration. -- kainaw™ 12:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your replies! We currently have the article "Overtone singing" and the "category:Throat singing". Should we rename one of them so that the names are the same? — Sebastian 00:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thomas More quote

It appears that Gustav Mahler once attributed an aphorism, "tradition is the passing on of the fire, not the worship of the ashes" as based on Thomas More. Strangely, I fail to find the original quote. The attribution to More is invariably in German language sources[1] that seem to just take Mahler's attribution for granted. Benjamin Franklin appears to have said something similar, about "guarding the ashes" and "rekindling the embers", but again, vexingly, the English language "quote" is only found on German language websites[2] I even fail to find a decent source for Mahler's aphorism. here the Mahler quote is even translated back into English, but with no other "source" other than simply "Gustav Mahler".

The only thing I could find was a quote by Sir John Denham who in 1647 prefaced a translation of Il Pastor Fido by Giovanni Battista Guarini with

A new and nobler way thou dost pursue

To make translations, and translators too;

They but preserve the ashes, thou the flame,

True to his sense, but truer to his fame.

So, is there a genuine quote by Thomas More this is all based on, and is there really a Franklin and a Mahler version? --dab (𒁳) 12:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol chronology

A Christmas Carol was published in 1843. It makes no mention of how old Scrooge is, only that he and Marley had been partners for many years, and that Marley had been dead for several years before the story opens. In the "Ghost of Christmas Past" episode, Scrooge was a young man at Fezziwig's. Would it be right to assume that the Fezziwig episode takes place in the early 1820s, at the latest? Could we therefore infer that the Christmas celebration that takes place at Fezziwig's was a common occurrence in the 1820s? There was a recent discussion about when the Christmas celebrations as we know them began, but it seems that at least some sort of celebration was taking place in parts of England at least in the 1820s. The illustrations by John Leech show mistletoe and possibly holly being used as decorations (though no Christmas tree as of yet), thus leading me to assume that such decoration was reasonably common. Dickens's audience in 1843 would surely have thought it odd if he was writing about celebrations which they themselves were not celebrating some 20 years before their time. Am I right in this analysis? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

One prob with that analysis is that it assumes that either such celebrations did not happen at all on a given date or happened everywhere. It's possible that tradition could have started in the author's home town of Portsmouth and only slowly spread to the rest of England. Therefore, he might have written about such things before they were commonplace. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I did say in parts of England.  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fair to take the illustrations as indicative of Christmas practices of the date they were drawn (1843), but less so for the putative date illustrated (1820). I don't think an anachronistic illustration or two would have bothered Dickens's readers at all. The drawings were meant for a contemporary audience rather than as a historical document; I think if it's important for you to know how Christmas celebrations changed between 1820 and 1843, you'll have to look at documents from both times. - Nunh-huh 19:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Give a read to The New Monthly Magazine and Literary Journal, London, 1821, p105 which describes the history and practice of celebrating Christmas. It included in times before the writing the appointing of a "Lord of Misrule" and which said the Christmas celebration in early days had taken much from Saturnalia, including candles, torches, and boughs and laurels suspended, and presents exchanged. The same magazine from 1822 [3] p641 talked of the yule log, evergreens decking the windows, boisterous sport, heavy dance, and the "smoking board." Sounds right Fezziwickian. The celebration was said to be more festive in the country than in London, with merchants allowing less drunkenness and gluttony. Plum puddings, mince pies, the wassail bowl, mistletoe and turkeys are mentioned, but it says Christmas festivities in 1822 London was less raucous and festive than formerly. The public singing of carols on Christmas was more seen in the country than in the city. It is noted that in America traditional revelry was still common. Looking back from 1849, Chamber's Information for the People (London, 1849), p447 describes Christmas celebrations then and in the past: Formerly the house was decked with greens, large candles were lit, there was a yule log, folks sat around drinking beer. People went carolling from house to house, thern there was a midnight church service. On Christmas day there was a feast, and social distinctions were ignored. The article says little about 1840's customs.See also "A gossip about Merry Christmas by Bell, from 1850 [4] which distinguishes the "Christmas of the Rich" from the "Christmas of the Poor.".Edison (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all. Edison, those are great reads. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Geffrye Museum in London does a good job each year of decorating its rooms in appropriate Xmas garb -- appropriate to the middle class English interior from c. 1600 to the present. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion of parts of this on BBC Radio 3 yesterday (Sun 21 Dec). One of the points I recall was that in Sketches by Boz in 1836, there is an account of grandpa singing a song at Christmas, but no mention of carols; but by the time of A Christmas Carol in 1843, Dickens apparently expected his readers to be familiar with carol-singing.

Nativity scene ideas + queries

Help! Christmas is almost here...and I would like some ideas for a Nativity scene. I have a few of my own, and this time I want to make it as authentic as possible.

1. Would a stable 2,000 years ago be made of wood or some other material?
2. Was the place where Jesus was born far away from town, or close to the city?
3. What was the geography of Bethlehem back them (too many houses in all the pics I see, can't discern properly). Is it a sandy or rocky place?
4. What would have been the fauna like? (Jerusalem mentions that it would have been forested—but there are no sources)
5. Water sources back then for a stable would have been rivers or wells? (I read there would have been a lot of wadis in the region)

I know the timeline... just have 4 days with me to implement a scene but I want to bag the first prize. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Church of the Nativity may be useful. Nativity scenes are usually a literal stable, as in Luke's Gospel, but there were equally ancient traditions that said he was born in a cave, which is what the church in Bethlehem shows (that's also how it was depicted in the huge Nativity scene at the Catholic church I went to as a kid). It's close to Jerusalem, I assume it's like a suburb today, and back then it was maybe a few hours walking distance (close enough to see in the distance, surely). It's not sandy there, it's in the Judean Mountains. I'm not sure about the rest. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks like I'll have to abandon using sand. Any clues on the stable material? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not merely a cave as an alternative, but Matthew's Gospel specifies a house, Joseph and Mary being residents of Bethlehem, not Nazareth. One often finds nativity scenes including an ox and a donkey based up the Protevangelion of James. B00P (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't forge to include a caganer.  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nativity of Jesus has some information on the location. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've heard it proposed that it was a cave being used as a stable by the inn owner — this being what I've grown up hearing as "maybe what it was like". If this were really it, you'll have trouble, as I don't expect you really feel like digging yourself a cave. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

do people have the right to lie on their resume?

I'm surprised Googling this question ("do people have the right to lie on their resume") didn't turn up anything relevant. I'm not asking for legal advice, just curious: if someone reasons "my right to work trumps my company's right to know the truth about me" and just lies outright on their resume, is that like, fraud, like when a company lies in advertising? I'm not asking for legal advice, I'm just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.90.7 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You can lie all you want, but don't expect to be there much longer after they find out. See job fraud, and for a recent example Ali Kordan. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think "You can lie all you want" is true on many jurisdictions - if someone lies on a resume and gains a job as a result, they've gained monies by dint of a fraud, which is a crime in most places ("gaining money by deception", etc.). Although such a lier is very unlikely to be prosecuted, its' not impossible that they are 87.114.130.249 (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, of course there's no right to lie on your resume. Of course, many people do so and never get caught, but if they eventually do get caught, and if the lie is material to their qualifications for the job, they can be fired for having done so - even years before. Of course, the specifics vary with local law, which you aren't asking about, but the general principle holds most places: If the employer has a right to ask you a question (i.e., the question is material to your qualifications), and you lie when you answer it, kiss your paycheck goodbye. On the other hand, if they don't have a right to ask you a question, and they ask it anyway, it's likely the lie can't be used against you [5] - Nunh-huh 21:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There's lies and there's ways of presenting things. You may choose to keep quiet about some bad things, you may wish to shout about good things. The "hobbies" section of a CV probably doesn't want to say "I drink beer and watch TV every evening and weekends", even if that is what you do. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to say that maybe the question could have been phrased "Is lying on a resume ever justified?", in which case I'd say it depends on what you mean by lying, and it would also depend on your personal circumstances and your personal moral code. Withholding all the truth can sometimes have the effect of misleading people into thinking something that just isn't true. If you choose words deliberately intended to create that misleading impression, even if you don't overtly claim something that's not true, some would say that's a form of lying, and would be judged by whatever their position is on lying generally. If you had no intent to create that misleading impression, but that's the impression they got anyway, then that's not lying, but you might have a communication issue to consider. If you claim to have a degree from Harvard when you have no such degree, that's obviously blatant and overt lying, and as others have said, you run a risk of being exposed and your name blackened. As to the general question "do I have a right to lie", that's one for the philosophers, not the Reference Desk. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not legal advice, but in many cases misrepresenting information (i.e. lying) for the purpose of gaining something of value (in this case, a pay check) generally falls under the legal definition of fraud, and as such many employers will terminate you with extreme prejudice should such fraud be exposed. See George O'Leary who was hired by Notre Dame to coach their football team, and was fired 5 days later for lying on his resume... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, they won't actually kill you, which is what "terminate with extreme prejudice" is usually taken to mean.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally does that phrase (like some other well-known bits of spy jargon) come from Le Carré? —Tamfang (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

to follow on from a point raised earlier, there are some questions that you can lie about. In the UK at least (and i imagine in most developed countries, although the US may be different), companies are only allowed to ask very specific questions regarding your criminal record (do you have any unspent criminal convictions). If they ask a more general question (have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence), assuming a given amount of time has elapsed since your conviction, you are allowed to lie quite legitmately. I would imagine the same principle works in order to comply with discrimination legislation. Its now for example no longer advisable to put your date of birth on your CV, as it puts your perspective employer in a difficult position vis-a-vis age discrimination. I would guess that if you were asked and you took 10 years off your age, i tihnk that would be Ok, should the truth ever become known. (Ok, that was a crap example, but the same thing works with less obvious things -religion for example)82.22.4.63 (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i've been drinking.. you wouldn't put those things on your CV anyway... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.4.63 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Some convictions are never spent on this regard; those convicted of sexual crimes must always disclose that for relevant jobs (and many jobs that don't seem relevant two). 87.114.130.249 (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In the UK the relevant legislation is Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The period before a conviction is considered spent under the act depends on both the original sentence, and the age of the offender at that time. Convictions resulting in a prison sentence of over two-and-a-half years are never spent. Certain occupations are exempt from the legislation. DuncanHill (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

a lot of you have mentioned being fired, but none of you have mentioned having to give back your paychecks. Can anyone think of an example of this? I think if you lie and work for 5 days, or 5 weeks, or 5 months, or 5 years, you can be fired once you're found out, but you don't have to give any of your pay back -- EVER. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.3.252 (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a rather cavalier attitude to the workplace in general and to your own reputation in particular. If you are charged with fraud for your deception (an unlikely, but possible, outcome), you could be fined, and in that way some or all of your paycheque might be recalled for all practical purposes. The principal consequence is much more likely to be that you have considerable difficulty finding another paycheque as your tarnished reputation precedes you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You say you are not looking for legal advice, but it seems you would not be satisfied until someone came out and said "yes, the maximum penalty is that you'll get locked up and fined $1 million", which, by the way, is possible depending on your jurisdiction. The following is not legal advice but general observations about the general law in common law jurisdictions, which may in fact be quite different from the actual law in your jurisdiction.

Basically, your contract of employment is a contract like any other. Lying on your resume to obtain employment is fraud. As a matter of contract, if the fraud is fundamental enough, the contract is void ab initio ("from the start"), you would in principle have to give back all your pay cheques, but of course the employer would need to make an account for the work you actually did.

Fraud is, of course, also a crime in many jurisdictions, and the prison sentence or fine you will receive will vary depending on the severity of your offence and the laws in your jurisdiction. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And of course if the reason they realised you were a fraud was because of your utter incompetence you may not only have to pay back your wages but they could probably sue you for additional damages for whatever harm you cause the company as a result of that incompetence. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Extension School

Do any of the other Ivy league schools have programs simmilar to the Harvard Extension School? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.98.202 (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly the same, but I know Cornell, as a private institution, also runs 4 colleges which are considered part of the public State University of New York (SUNY) system. See Statutory college for more information. Columbia University School of General Studies seems to be about the exact same thing as the Harvard Extension School. The other Ivy League schools (Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, Princeton, and Yale) do not appear to run similar "open admissions" or "public" programs. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

December 21

Why dont those people who "talk to the dead" get put to the test?

Where are the regulatory agencies when you need them? Why dont they send someone undercover to one of thier shows to look around and ask them some hard questions? Other people that sell products get tested rigorously, why not these guys!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk • contribs) 01:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Consumer products like drugs and food get tested and such because if something goes wrong, they could kill you. Going to a psychic doesn't have a likelihood of killing or injuring you. And if you're willing to believe it, why shouldn't they be allowed to take your money? Dismas|^(talk) 03:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you might also be interested in the articles on James Randi and James Randi Educational Foundation which has offered a one million dollar prize for anyone who can prove paranormal claims. Last I heard, nobody had even agreed to be tested. Dismas|^(talk) 03:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

People who get taken in by psychic scams probably deserve to lose their money anyway. Unfortunately such charlatans do harm society however by creating an irrational, unscientific culture awash with superstition and fallacious thinking. --S.dedalus (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do people looking for hope and answers deserve to lose their money? Does ignorance and being gullible translate into moral failing? What about being elderly (the aged are the primary targets of scammers)? I don't think anyone "deserves" to lose their money when someone is pretending to provide them with some sort of service but is really conning them. Personally I think even the question of whether someone who gambles "deserves" to lose their money because they are ignorant of basic laws of probability is dubious. There are relatively limited scenarios when people really "deserve" to be duped. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly there are a few poor souls who, for one reason or another, are not responsible for their behavior, such as the senile. However, all adults capable of rational thought and investigation are perfectly able to do the tiny bit of research necessary to expose these frauds. It would be foolish to invest money in ANYTHING without doing research first. Getting burned is simply how you learn that you did something really dumb. Hopefully next time these people will be more skeptical. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing the moral aspect, let's just look at whether it's good for society for such people to be duped. One could argue that when people who can't think logically lose their money, and thus power and influence, to some scam, that this is good for society in that it removes such people from the pool of powerful and influential people who run the nation. It is hoped that this will lead to rational policies, as opposed to the current irrational policies. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

To put it another way: some drugs work, while others do not. It is thus imperative that regulatory bodies determine which drugs work, so people don't end up buying the ones that do not. Since no medium is capable of maing good on their claims, there would be nothing for a regulatory body to do. Algebraist 09:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The OP might want to check out this video in which Bruno asks a psychic to ask the late Gianni Versace what Bruno should do with his hair. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually in the UK there are regulations that limit the claims that mediums (media?) are allowed to make. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, in the "good old days", policemen actively shutdown tarot card readers and psychic mediums who set up commercial facilities, and prosecuted them as frauds. Regrettably, these days seem to be completely over in the U.S., but in the UK the "Fraudulent Mediums Act" (which required proof of intent to defraud, and resulted in only 10 prosecutions in 20 years) was replaced in mid-2008 by the new "Consumer Protection Regulations" which apparently makes mediums at least issue disclaimers [6]. - Nunh-huh 16:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is an excellent question. Isn't this fraud? If I am a mechanic and I tell you that I fixed your car and I don't, isn't that illegal? How is this any different? 67.184.14.87 (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably because you can scientifically test the mechanics work. Does the car run? Have new parts been fitted? If I take an oil sample, is it clear rather than than fouled? Psychic phenomena are not yet scientifically testable. Exxolon (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretensions to psychic ability are eminently testable. - Nunh-huh 21:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is why these people rarely make testable predictions. They don't say "you will do well in your career", but "if you work hard you will do well in your career". It's worthless but the punters should have realised that before they paid anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The smart ones certify that they are "for entertainment purposes only" (nudge-nudge-wink-wink). The rest tend to be small community folks who don't draw much attention outside their clientelle. I do recall a news story a few years ago of a woman being pulled into her child's school and accused of abusing her own child... and it turns out, the accusation came from a teacher who was "advised" by a psychic that the child was being abused. I don't think the teacher or the psychic got punished for that one, which boggles my mind. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to sue in some jurisdictions; Uri Geller was sued in Israel by a customer of one of his demonstrations of psychic power: the litigant was awarded money by a judge who felt Geller had lied about possessing psychic powers (see Uri Geller#Litigation).

The English Witchcraft Act (1735) punished people who pretended to have contact with evil spirits; this was replaced by the Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951; that was repealed in 2008 but there have been plans to replace it by allowing mediums, faith healers, etc to be prosecuted for making false claims if they charge money, making them conform to EU consumer rights directives[7]. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The date of Christmas

Why do we celebrate Christmas on different dates when we are all Christians?

I know that some use the Old calendar and some use the New calendar,but what interests me is which one is correct and why isnt it possible for both sides to get to an agreement?

So basiclly my question is which calendar is right and which side moved away from the original religios interpretation?

Thank you.

87.116.154.181 (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a different date; it's still December 25 in the Julian calendar, but for anyone using the Gregorian calendar, it's January 7. I guess they've both moved away from the original interpretation, which was that CHrist was born in March or May, or that his birthday was unimportant. December 25 just happens to be a Roman festival day, co-opted by the Christians. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you have Julian and Gregorian confused, Adam. It's 25 December in the Gregorian calendar (that's the one most of the world uses); it's also 25 December in the Julian calendar, but the Gregorian equivalent of that date is 7 January because the Gregorian is currently 13 days ahead of the Julian. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Right...that's what I meant to say. What I wrote is much different from what I thought I wrote! Adam Bishop (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

---

In any case, the majority of Christians whose denominations traditionally used the Julian calendar have shifted the observance of non-Easter-related holy days to the Gregorian calendar (or to the "Revised Julian calendar", which is the same as the Gregorian calendar until 2800 A.D., and was actually mainly a way of effectively adopting the Gregorian calendar while still loudly refusing to recognize the authority of the Pope), and this has left a relatively smaller number of "Old Calendarists" (the one big hold out is Russian Orthodoxy). The observance of Easter-related holy days is a different matter -- all Orthodox denominations still use the Julian calendar calculations for the dat of Easter. Of course, the Gregorian reform was not too relevant to those churches (such as the Ethiopian etc.) which never used the Julian calendar in the first place... AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

---

there's actually a conspiracy-theory answer: pagans used to celebrate the winter solstice around this date, so early christians "coopted" these pagan celebrations into Christmas (ie arbitrarily selected Jesus's birhtday to fall on these celebrations) 79.122.3.252 (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Especially since, by Biblical description, Jesus was likely born in late Spring or early Summer, so the date is arbitrarily chosen by the church anyway. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. In my country we celebrate Christams on January 7th and I know that many other countries like Russia,Greece,Romania,Bulgaria and other celebrate it on 7th as well.

My question was really why cant the churches make an agreement so that we all celebrate it on the same day? Because its very strange to me that we are all christians and we all celebrate the same thing,but we do it on different dates?!?

When did the different dates of Christmas celebration started? And is there any intention that there will be an agreement during our lifetime?

87.116.154.181 (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Except that, as a Christian, Christ's birth is not what saved you from sin. It was his death. For nearly all of Christian history, Christmas was a relatively minor celebration, and Easter was the big deal. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

See Nativity of Jesus#Date of birth. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of "The Honorable"

Is it proper or standard to affix the prefix "The Honorable" before the names of U.S. Marshals? Neutrality^talk 06:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No. B00P (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, indeed, but make sure you're not confusing them with U.S. magistrates, where it would be appropriate. --Sean 13:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

small jewish rules

is there a name for small jewish rules? such as (from the hannukah article): "the purpose of the extra light is to adhere to the prohibition, specified in the Talmud (Tracate Shabbat 21b–23a), against using the Hanukkah lights for anything other than publicizing and meditating on the Hanukkah story."

what is the weirdest of these rules? (realize this is subjective, but what are some of the strangest of these to people not familiar with them). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.3.252 (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

See Halakha. As for weird... there are a lot of weird ones. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

613 mitzvot, or if you want to single out one, a perennial favorite is Shaatnez -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

See The Year of Living Biblically, in which a modern secular New York journalist tries to do what it says on the tin. He tries to be a better person through the big ones (thou shalt not covet etc.) but also tries to get into the mindset by discovering the little ones and following them too (no fruit from young trees, no mixed-fibre clothing). BrainyBabe (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone identify this painting for me?

I'm trying to get any information I can on this picture:

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k241/agochar/GnosticSoul.jpg

It is on the cover of Stephan Hoeller's Gnosticism. One thing I'm wondering about in particular: I have seen color versions of this and black and white versions; does anyone know about coloration, whether or not the color was a later addition?

Thanks in advance, if it doesn't get answered here it just doesn't get answered! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.98.10 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see our article Flammarion woodcut. It says that the print was colourised by a local (from my point of abode) 10 years ago. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy of entities in Greek mythology

Were Titans, Zeus and co, and their parents and grandparents (respectively) all the same "species", e.g. Titans (as the only named "type")? If not, what separates them? I realise this is fictional, but the Greeks were quite rational, right? They considered the world in terms of logic, and applied reasoning, surely?

I've read through the articles for Twelve_Olympians and Titans.--Rixxin 20:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The creation/foundation myths (i.e. what came before Zeus, etc.) are actually something of a mess in Greek mythology, but insofar as there was a quasi-standard accepted account, it was probably Hesiod's Theogony. You might be interested in the semi-classic book "The Greeks and the Irrational" by E.R. Dodds (there seems to be no Wikipedia article which refers to it). -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"... the Greeks were quite rational, right?"
Well, not entirely from our point of view. To begin with, their notion of what things could breed and produce viable and non-sterile offspring - almost the definition of what a species is - was, shall we say, peculiar. (cf Minotaur and Leda) Now since Zeus had children with female Titans (eg Apollo, Artemis, Hermes), then their Gods and the Titans were the same species, essentially just different generations. On the other hand, Zeus also sired Dionysus and Heracles upon human women. (He got around.)
On the whole, though, I'd say, "Yes."
— B00P (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It also depends on which Greeks. There are attempts to rationalize the stories (like Hesiod, or Apollodorus), but educated Greeks (like, most of the Greeks whose names you know) didn't really believe that stuff. They usually believed in some sort of supernatural divine forces, but they didn't literally believe in the myths. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that Greek mythology included a rather noted case of assexual reproduction. I think trying to find some sort of Linnean consistancy to understanding a complex mythology like this isn't all that feasible. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

Why do (neo)nazis deny the holocaust? If they hate Jews they should be happy that it happened... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.238.59 (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. As long as the Holocaust is a known historical fact, Nazism and Neo-nazism are very unlikely to be considered acceptable political positions. These people want legitimacy, but first they have to "prove" that the Holocaust didn't happen. Exxolon (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just playing Devil's Advocate here for a moment. They would argue, quite correctly, that the burden of proof lies on those who claim it did happen, and that there needs to be substantial and incontrovertible evidence of it happening. Most of the world considers the evidence to be overwhelmingly abundant (although I, like the vast majority of others, have never personally gone to the primary sources, but I am prepared to accept the word of those who claim to have done so, because there are so many of them.) However, some people know it happened but just deny it, for whatever perverse reasons they might have. A small percentage of people are genuinely not convinced by the evidence they've seen, but they're in the same group as those who genuinely believe the Earth is flat. Nevertheless, they're entitled to their opinions (even if, in some countries, they're not entitled to express them.) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

the same reason the political left wants to establish that 911 was committed by Bush and friends: the WHOLE US POPULAQTION opposed the war on Iraq, just as THE WHOLE US POPULATION opposes America invading Iran right now. As long as Bush could suppress democracy just by saying "look, we are invading Iran now" boo! boo! 90% disapproval ratings. boo! boo! "... because let us never forget September the 11th"... that's why we deny it. (I think). Guantano bay is "justified" by 911, so if you can deny 911 was caused by terrorists... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.163.211 (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the juvenile rant above... The holocaust is seen by some people (particularly those who don't like Jews) as a "badge of honor" for the Jews. They get to claim a special status for being the target of great persecution. When I was in Germany, there was a big argument about the right to discuss the holocaust. I believe that the final ruling came down to state that nobody could legally question the existence of the holocaust and any appearance of nazism would be considered a hate crime - very much limiting any freedom of expression. (Someone who knows what the laws actually are should correct my interpretation.) So, neonazis can nullify all of that by finding a way to claim that the Jews just made up the holocaust in order to falsely get their current "preferred" status which has allowed many things - including the creation of Israel with extensive financial and monetary backing from other countries. There are those who are not so deluded that they seriously believe that the holocaust didn't exist, but still argue against it. They claim that the holocaust wasn't as bad as the stories claim it was. Also, they point out that Jews were not the only people killed in the holocaust, but that a huge Jewish conspiracy has worked to eliminate all proof of anyone else so the Jews could keep it all to themselves. If it were me, I'd stop fighting such a dumb argument and point out that the genocidal wars are continuing and must be stopped regardless of who is involved, nazi or Jew. -- kainaw™ 00:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously not everyone who disagrees with the policies of Israel is a Holocaust denier or anti-Semitic (despite what some Zionists claim). Also—look—there are people who claim that we never went to the moon, that 9/11 was the work of federal agents using controlled explosives, that HIV/AIDS doesn’t actually exist. There seems to be a portion of the population that is just perpetually in denial about really obvious historical things. Holocaust denial, though linked to anti-Semitism, is really just another crackpot conspiracy theory. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There are some interesting historical details here. Initially there were some NS groups that essentially defended the Holocaust (albeit perhaps not in explict terms) immediately after WWII, and later catched up with holocaust denial. We should note here that Holocaust denial isn't just about complete denial of all atrocities during WWII, many 'deniers' will simple reduce the numbers of casualities (stating that concentration camps had 100 000s of victims, not millions), to make the Nazi war crimes smaller in comparison to say the Great Terror. What's the point? Enabling far-right nationalism to re-enter the political arena on the same terms as other political tendencies. --Soman (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty straightforward—as one neo-Nazi group put it, ""The real purpose of holocaust revisionism is to make National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again." --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's way too simplistic. Yes that's one reason why some may do it, but there's plenty of other reasons most of which have already been discussed. Many of them are genuinely deluded and so genuinely believe in their claims and are not simply saying them to further their political goals. Nil Einne (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Having spent a decent amount of time reading the so-insane-it's-funny Vanguard News Network website, I'd also add that the notion of a powerful international Jewish conspiracy seems important to a lot of white supremacists. The (American) neo-Nazi view of the world seems to be that white people are kept in a state of willing subjugation by the mind control voodoo those horned Jews transmit through the media which they, of course, control all of. Sort of like They Live with Jewish people instead of aliens. The neo-Nazi is, therefore, the enlightened, informed minority who has reclaimed his values and is fighting the good fight against oppression, debasement, and impurity. This underdog aspect is important to a lot of social and political movements; people like identifying themselves with the underdog, but, moreover, when they're convinced they are the underdog (ie, "Hey, whitey! Don't you know you're getting scammed?"), they get angry. Now, if it's crucial for neo-Nazis to get white people angry about oppression by "international Jewry," it's crucial for them to paint Jews as a formidable enemy, protected, at the very least, by wealth and influence. The fact that Hitler managed to liquidate much of the Jewish population of Europe in less then ten years with minimal difficulty, and was only stopped from completing the job by the turning tides of war, does not really say much for the international Jewish conspiracy. Instead, knowledge of the dehumanizing experience of the concentration camps tends to have the reverse effect of humanizing persecuted Jews in the minds of gentiles, and turning Jews, undeniably, into underdogs. Sure, that's not a problem for the confirmed white supremacist who's desensitized to such things, but as others have stated, neo-Nazis want legitimacy; they want to broaden their movement. It's easier to convince people that the Holocaust didn't happen than it is to convince them that Schindler's List is a good-time romp through politics done right. But, and perhaps more importantly, convincing people that the Holocaust didn't happen only confirms the existence of an international Jewish conspiracy, one which rewrites history to play on our sympathies and bring us further under its control. Uh-oh, RaHoWa, time to kick ass and chew bubble gum. For some reason people are often desperate to believe conspiracy theories (Michael Shermer? Care to chime in?), so the value of a good, consistent Jewish conspiracy myth far outweighs the value of gloating over the Holocaust. --Fullobeans (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

December 22

Origins of the Barca family name

While reading Herodotos, I find quite a few references to the "City of Barca" which was (probably) located in what is now Al-Marj in Libya, near Banghazi. It's reasonable to speculate that Hannibal Barca's ancestors were connected with this city, but Herodotos was writing long before Hannibal's time, or I'm sure the old boy would have digressed for a while.

The only references to the origin of the surname "Barca" (or Barcas) is that it derives from the Semitic root for "lightning" (BRQ) or "Blessed" (BRK).

Is there any scholarship on this name?

Thanks Runtape (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

We have articles on Barca and the Barcid family, if that helps. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I had seen those articles; neither of them addresses the question of the relationship between the city and the family name. Runtape (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the burden of proof that there is any relationship at all is on you. If you have some evidence that there is a relationship, put it in the articles; otherwise it is empty speculation which has no place in an encyclopedia. --ColinFine (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

ColinFine, I thought this was a "reference desk" forum, where I could get information about existing scholarship on a particular subject. I'm not trying to prove anything, and I'm certainly not trying to add "empty speculation" to the encyclopedia. If you don't know the answer to my question, then don't try to provide one. But I don't understand your apparently peevish tone in the non-answer that you provided. I apologise if I have misunderstood the function of the reference desk. Runtape (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Negative Interest Rate Guaranteed Investment Certificate

Hello. What happens to the GIC interest rates when the rate that the bank pays your savings account becomes negative (i.e. you pay the bank interest out of your paycheque)? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be moving my money, for a start. I've known almost-no-interest accounts, where the charges for operating the account are higher than the interest paid, but I have never heard of an account where the interest "paid" is negative. Why would anyone leave money in such an account? Under the mattress, or in my sock drawer, are both better deals. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Because if the bank is robbed, you don't lose all your money. If you leave objects in a bank safe-deposit box, you pay a fee for that, don't you? Well, a negative-interest bank account could be seen as the same thing. And yes, they have existed in some places in the past. --Anonymous, 09:35 UTC, December 22, 2008.

I'd be really pleased to see a ref to a bank that has paid negative interest "in some places in the past." I understand about effective negative rates, but not actual ones. As for safety-deposit boxes, the bank is not using the money in the box to make money for itself, which is the reason for paying interest to depositors. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As an unregistered user posting from a text-only connection, I can't post working external links here, but here's one result from a Google search on "negative interest": everything2.com / index.pl?node_id=1375475 Note the parts about Switzerland and Japan. --Anonymous, 19:30 UTC, December 22, 2008.

A person in the Revolutionary War

Who is a semi-famous in the American Revolution who really influenced the outcome of the war or greatly contributed to its success or really impacted it in some way? I'm looking to research some figure other than Washington, Franklin, etc, the usual suspects. I need to find somebody who isn't too anonymous that I can't research on but that history generally disregards his/her importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.142.63 (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I like Henry Knox. He was at the Boston Massacre. His march from Ticonderoga was worthy of a Hannibal and broke the British at Boston. He founded the Springfield Armory. He got Washington over the Delaware. He played very good second fiddle, so to speak, and the average schoolboy might just guess that the Fort is named after him, but that's about it. --Milkbreath (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Knox is a good one to meet the OPs requirements, expecially since he was, like, 26 years old on Independence Day, and thus really young as well. Other possibilities:

• Ethan Allen. Everyone knows he led the Green Mountain Boys. What he, or the Green Mountain Boys, did, however, is largely unknown by most casual history students.
• Tadeusz Kościuszko, who was a genuine hero in both Poland and America, and the tallest mountain in Australia Mount Kosciuszko is named after him.
• Benedict Arnold. OK, so everyone knows he was a traitor, but he was fast on his way to being the hero of the Revolution. He's a facinating character study, and well worth the work to research his life, both before and after his treason.
• John Burgoyne. Sometimes, someone is MORE important for being incompetant as his opponents are for being good. The Saratoga campaign was an unmitigated failure, and Burgoyne's ineptitude and poor generalship, both in terms of strategy and tactics, helped lead to the first major defeat of an entire British fighting force, as well as convincing France that, since American victory was feasible, it would be in their interests to join the war.

Hope this gives you some choices... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My favorite is the Francis Marion ("The Swamp Fox"), a master of military intelligence and asymmetric warfare. Next favorite is Henry Lee III ("Light-Horse Harry"), the father of Robert E. Lee. Neutrality^talk 07:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and John Paul Jones. The naval aspect of the Revolutionary War is all too often ignored. If you like sailors, Abraham Whipple was fascinating: A privateer before the war, he was actually a prisoner of war before being paroled and returning to the farm. Neutrality^talk 07:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Haym Solomon - a Polish Jew who played a great role in the Revolution despite the fact that he had arrived in New York as late as 1775 and died at age 45. He used his fortune to bankroll the Patriots, and was an American spy - captured by the British twice, he once escaping after being sentenced to death. Neutrality^talk 07:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Good choices above. There are dozens to chose from, really. My pick would be Joseph Warren, but there's also General Steuben, Nathanael Greene, John Hancock (everyone knows his name, but they don't remember what he did other than on 4 July 1776), John Glover, John Dickinson, etc. There are a lot of Brits to choose from too, if your project allows for that approach. Arguably the most important Brit during the war was someone few now remember by name: George Germain. See also Category:Women in the American Revolution and Category:Native Americans in the American Revolution. It might be fun to do a report on someone like Margaret Gage. —Kevin Myers 15:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

How about some of the instigators of the war ? To start, there's Thomas Paine, famous for his pamphlet "Common Sense", and Patrick Henry, famous for "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!". StuRat (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a guy who was the U.S representative in Holland , a friend of John Adams and probably a friend of Benjamin Franklin, commissioned by the Continental Congress, who helped in obtaining loans for the fledgling U.S. from Holland I'm not sure he has an article in Wikipedia, and I can't recall his name at present, but he was an unacclaimed individual who our early leaders said was very important in the American Revolution.He was very helpful to John Adams. circa 1780 in Holland. Edison (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Laurens? The only American ever to be held in the Tower of London. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The guy I'm thinking of was not Laurens. He was European, a merchant, and fluent in several languages. I recall researching him and finding several references when there was a brief article up for speedy deletion many months ago, but I do not recall if I fixed the article. Edison (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. It took no little search to find the man I referred to. It was Charles Dumas, friend and pre-war correspondant of Benjamin Franklin [8], Swiss journalist based in Holland, and secret American operative designated by the Continental Congress. See [9] , [10] , [11]. In 1775 Dumas devised the first U.S. diplomatic cipher [12]. Appointed U.S. agent at The Hague 1776 [13]. Dumas was Charge d'Affaires in the Netherlands while Adams was at London [14], [15]. He does not have a Wikipedia article. Should he? Edison (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It certainly seems so, if more than passing references to him can be found. The only biographical sketch of him that I could find is this two page account, which, when combined with the references above, is a reasonable start. —Kevin Myers 07:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I found him listed in Who Was Who in the American Revolution, and so re-created the stub (and I mean stub) Charles W. F. Dumas. —Kevin Myers 08:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Why were Hoovervilles tolerated?

Today, police are sent into similar encampments, the occupants are displaced, the structures (such as they are) are dismantled, and the contents taken to the dump.

So why is the response different today than 75 years ago?

As our Hooverville article states, "Authorities did not officially recognize these Hoovervilles and occasionally removed the occupants for technically trespassing on private lands, but they were frequently tolerated out of necessity." Gwinva (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason is that you can only dismantle them if the population in such places is small. When they get to Great Depression proportions, authorities risk starting a revolution by doing such things. Zimbabwe is a current example where they go ahead and destroy them anyway, even though a large proportion of the nation lives their. This process is destroying the economy of the country, as the black and gray markets which thrived in such areas were the primary economic engine of Zimbabwe. StuRat (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. There are legal questions, and then there are the pragmatic questions. Lets say that you are a police force of a few hundred people. Do you want to deal with a crowd of 5000 when you ask them to "move along". Bad idea, and even if you get them to move, its bad PR. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I searched newspapers from 1929 through the early FDR years. There were articles about "hobo camps" where "Wandering Willies" made their home, which might be the camp of 8 or 16 unemployed men. There might be a knifing, or someone found dead from homemade alcohol, and the local police would arrest them for vagrancy and close down the camp. Weeks later, it might be inhabited again. There was not the widespread burning them out or destruction by the forces of law or even local landowner vigilantes reported. Then there were "Hoovervilles" which got sympathetic treatment from the 1932 papers, which noted the presence in misery of hundreds of unemployed families. There seemed even less argument for destroying the camps and sending the inhabitants elsewhere. Edison (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

See Bonus Army. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Parker-Bowles

Was his first marriage annulled? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This: [16] says it was. --Leif edling (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

EC and spam blacklist problem. I can't seem to find a RS on this. Of the non RS, some say yes http://www. freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1345608/posts?page=9#9 (spam blacklist)[17], some say no [18] [19] Nil Einne (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Zero sum in world economy?

Is the sum total of all financial transactions in the world a part of a zero sum system? Is there any scope for wealth being "created", or is it all just changing hands? If wealth is being created, what exactly is the economic source of it? In the current scenario of global economic downturn, there must be some people who have gained from it, as the wealth everybody is losing must be going somewhere. --Leif edling (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

careful, you're only asking about currency, not wealth. see money supply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.179.199 (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am asking about wealth, actually. So, from this above answer, do I consider that all the brouhaha is only about there being a lack of "currency" and not that thousands of investors are actually losing chunks of their wealth out there? My main question is that if wealth can't be destroyed or created (as in a zero sum scenario), where is all the dough going? If someone is losing, someone must be gaining. --Leif edling (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a zero sum system. Wealth can be absolutely totally and completely created or destroyed. Even currency can be created or destroyed though there are more rules about that. Dmcq (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

In terms of destroyed, a recent science desk question comes to mind. If we destroy the entire world (ignoring the imposibility of that) most would agree we have destroyed most of the world's wealth Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The article on wealth has a section on it being non zero-sum but some people treat it as zero-sum for short periods. Dmcq (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

A good example of trying to understand this point is the Great Depression. It's ludicrous to suggest that what happened in the early 30s was some sort of zero-sum game, obviously the entire world got a lot poorer (regardless of how you define wealth). It's not like there was a small group of people that became unimaginably wealthy by stealing all the resources of everyone else. Some people might have gotten richer (not many, though), but there's no chance in hell that it even came close to compensating for the number of people who became poor. Same thing with the current recession we have, a whole lot of rich people have lost a whole lot of money, but it's not like it's been moved elsewhere. It's just gone. Belisarius (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that many jobs on the modern world simply "move money around", there are some which still produce wealth. Agriculture is one, where the intrinsic value of the food produced is (at least in a good year) far more than the money put into producing it. Manufacturing is another, where the intrinsic value of the items produced exceeds the money put into producing it. Mining and energy production are other examples.

Services are more questionable, with some producing wealth, and some just moving it around. I'd ask "Is the world better off after this service has been performed ?". Garbage collection is a good example where the answer is clearly yes, the world is better off if the garbage is collected and disposed of properly. The gambling industry is an example where the answer is clearly no, the only wealth collected by casinos, winners, and governments (in the form of taxes) all comes from the losers, so no wealth was created. Many other service industries sometimes produce wealth, and sometimes don't. A good teacher can increase wealth indirectly by helping to produce productive workers. If a doctor fixes up a person so they again become a productive worker, that can create wealth indirectly. On the other hand, if a doc keeps people alive indefinitely in a coma, that doesn't create wealth at all. For lawyers, it would appear that lawsuits only move money from one person to another, but they do have the potential to reduce the destruction of wealth by people who would otherwise kill each other or destroy each other's property if they couldn't settle things in court. Similarly, police and firefighters don't create wealth, but can prevent the destruction of wealth. The military, if used to deter attacks, can do the same. StuRat (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think lawsuits simply prevent people from harming each other. They also (ideally) help ensure contracts work (without the legal means and presuming the other party is unwilling or unable to take matters into my own hands there's little recourse other then to be more careful next time) and people who may be producing little (fraudsters etc) don't get to hoard wealth while those who may make more lose it etc etc. In other words they help to prevent the destruction of wealth and help to protect the creation of wealth (the same can be said of the police and firefighters obviously.) The legal system in a certain country may be out of control but that doesn't mean lawyers are worthless. And of course lawyers also help the police and help ensure the police are doing their jobs properly. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. It also occured to me that for creation of wealth, maybe we could also take mining of minerals which are exchanged for money as a means of cerating it, or rather digging it out! --Leif edling (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Services don't simply "move money around." In fact, the only function that simply moves money around is the government's taxing and spending. When you think you have identified money moving around, look on the other side of the equation and ask what value is received by the person who is giving up the money. Wikiant (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say all services just move money around, only some, like gambling. Do all the losers feel they've gotten their money's worth there ? I also gave some cases where this can be true of other services, like if someone brain-dead must be kept alive by doctors due to the law. Would the family paying for this feel they are getting their money's worth ?

Also, if taxes are properly used, they can create the necessary conditions for the creation and preservation of wealth. Education, roads, airports, police, firefighters, etc., all need to be supported by taxes to work well. If we just take a look at one area, there were volunteer fire departments before the professional (tax supported) fire fighting services were created, and a lot of wealth was destroyed, that could have been saved, because the volunteers weren't as effective. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't consider gambling exactly a "productive" industry, one should note that it is considered entertainment rather than investment. Ideally the losers were exhilarated by the prospect of maybe winning money and enjoyed playing the game. Even if casino advertising certainly doesn't stress that difference if you look at it closely they are actually more honest about why they take your money than a stock broker. If you invest money in a company you are betting on company making money and either paying a dividend (interest) or generating an increase in their stock price (resale value). You base that expectation on past performance and projections presented to you. If they don't (as we are currently being shown) you are no better off than someone who bet on a losing horse. You don't even get the satisfaction of having done a good deed you'd get if you had given the money to charity or the entertainment of having spent time playing a game. "Owning a part of the company" is a myth, because if there is neither dividend nor resale value then the "value" of the company is usually also not there anymore. And guess what the CEO of a company would tell you if you went and told them you were unhappy with the way they run the company.76.97.245.5 (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Subcarpathian elections in the 1920s

When editing Autonomous Agrarian Union, I have encountered to sources giving identical electoral results for two separate elections, http://zakarpattia.net/zakarpatska-ukrajina/historie/ceskoslovensko.html says that the party got 21,161 votes in the 1923 municipal election, whilst http://granik.org/history/index.php?s_id=39&&c_id=52&&m_id=793 says the party got 21,161 votes in the 1924 parliamentary election (Subcarpathia didn't elect MPs in Czechoslovak National Assembly until 1924). Neither ref is perfectly WP:RS, but which is correct? Is there any good, RS, reference to the election results of 1924 parliamentary polls in Subcarpathia? --Soman (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible the election was in 1923 but the elected people didn't take office until 1924 ? (That's how it works in the US, as we need to allow the "lame ducks" time to haul all their bribes out of town before the next batch of corrupt politicians arrives.) StuRat (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No, this doesn't appear to be the cause of confusion. http://zakarpattia.net/zakarpatska-ukrajina/historie/ceskoslovensko.html mentions two separate elections, 1923 municipal polls and 1924 parliamentary polls, but identifies the result 21,161 votes for AZS as the 1923 municipal polls and gives no results for parliamentary election. One of the links gives the wrong info, the question is which one? --Soman (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Afghanis as Desi?

In your article "Desi", you said the term refers to a person of South Asian heritage, from either India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka or Afghanistan. How Afghani people are "Desi"? Yes, it is true they the same clothing as their Pakistani counterparts, their languages Pashto and Baloch is also spoken in Pakistan, but none of their cuisine dishes are related India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. If I don't understand it, please make me understand. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.241 (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm? I'm pretty sure most Sri Lankan cuisine is quite different from most Pakistani cuisine. For that matter India is very large with quite a number of cultures. North Indian cuisine can be generally quite different from South Indian cuisine. You might want to read our article on Indian cuisine. I'm not familiar with Afghan cuisine but it wouldn't surprise me if at least parts of it (e.g. those on Pashtun areas) are more similar to e.g. some parts of Pakistani cuisine (e.g. ditto) then the same parts of Pakistani cuisine is to e.g. Sri Lankan cuisine. I also read from Bangladeshi cuisine that beef is a staple part, something obviously not the case for many Hindu's in India and many vegetarians in India and Sri Lanka. P.S. If you read the article carefully, you'd find it's predominantly a word used by some South Asians to refer to themselves. Therefore what matters to these people is surely their ethnic and cultural identity which for some is similar enough that they consider themselves all South Asians or Desis. The fact that the word usually refers to food for some other people and that Afghani food doesn't seem to be what one would consider 'desi food' is of little relevance and in any case, the same could probably be said about a lot of South Asian food. Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Desi" might be more used of these people than by them. I must say I'd never come across this word before, but I have a Sri Lankan partner and we spent a month there last year. My experience is that Sri Lankans are very proud of their Lankan-ness, no matter whether they're Singhalese, Burgher, Tamil or expatriates like Arthur C. Clarke (most Tamil Sri Lankans are perfectly happy with the status quo and don't want a separate state). They absolutely hate it when they're confused with people from other south Asian countries, particularly India, just as New Zealanders hate it when someone assumes they're Australian. We're sometimes collectively referred to as "Australasians" in this part of the world, but we never, never refer to ourselves this way. When it comes to cuisine, though, although all the south Asian countries have their individual specialties, there are sufficient similarities to make a grouping reasonable. You'll find curry, for example, in all these countries. Not that you don't find curry elsewhere, but this region is where the dish originated. I've seen restaurants offering "South Asian cuisine", but I've never seen "Desi cuisine". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the OP is basically correct. I doubt that Afgans would refer to themselves as Desi. This is a label of identity based on shared cultural heritage, which takes in Punjab and Sind in Pakistan but not the arid plateaus in the west of the country, which like Afganistan have stronger cultural connections to Iran and Central Asia than to the Indo-Gangetic Plain, which is the cultural heartland of South Asia. Afghanistan is often included in western definitions of South Asia because the British aimed for it to be part of their Indian sphere of influence, unlike other parts of Central Asia, which were in the Russian sphere. However, its culture (from cuisine to patterns of agriculture to language) has closer links to the north and west than to the east. Marco polo (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think your supporting my point albeit in a different way. I have no idea whether Afghans refer to themselves as Desi but it seems unlikely to me that the word would be equally likely to apply to all Pakistani's but to no Afghans. Cultural and ethnic divisions (and similarities) often trumph national ones particularly for those who emigrated before those national distinctions even existed. The OP seemed to me to think that all Pakistanis would be equally comfortable with being Desi along with Sri Lankans, but no Afghans, which seems unlikely to me. Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment on how likely it is for an Afghan or Sri Lankan to refer to themselves as desi but I don't know if you're right about "might be more used of these people than by them". While I haven't encountered the word that much, when I have it appears to have been from people who would describe themselves as desi and a search for desi should show a lot of sites and references, most of them seem to be from people who would call themselves desi e.g. [20] and not by people calling others desi. To be frank, it seems a somewhat odd choice to me, people are far more likely to take a word from their language to refer to another people then to take some word from the other's peoples language never used by the people themselves. If there is any word used to refer to South Asians collectively it's more like to be Indian (regardless of origin) or some other more offensive word and not desi. Also in general terms, I would say most first generation immigrants consider their country of origin of great importance and a matter of pride. However it usually takes on less importance to second and third generation ones. This is likely particularly the case in the past where the state of technology (both in terms of communication and transport) etc meant there was far less opportunity to stay in contact with ones country of origin and the lower number of immigrants combined with lower inclusiveness of society meant that people tended to try to fit in rather then maintain a cultural identity. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In terms of cuisine, I think your missing the point. (I wrote a very long reply but lost it when some scissors fell on my keyboard. IE7 never again!) Obviously South Asian cuisine shares enough similarities that the term isn't meangingless. However as with so many things, it's a bit silly to try and divide it into precise groups. At the borders its too fuzzy. It's quite likely that some parts of Pakistani cuisine is more similar to some parts of Afghan cuisine then it is to Sri Lankan cuisine. And Afghan cuisine does include curries. (This reminds me of race, where genetically we can see, that the precise borders some people like to pretend are there are not.) So to say no Afghan cuisine is not a part of South Asian cuisine but all Pakistani cuisine is, is silly unless we're thinking of a meaningless arbitary geo-political seperation which doesn't make sense for cuisine. In any case, what people think of as South Asian cuisine in the Western world is often quite different from the cuisine of South Asia (nothing unique about this of course) although South Asian cuisine in the Western world does influence the cuisine of South Asia. P.S. As for your point about curries, I would also like to nitpick there. The word curry originated from India, likely old Tamil and curries spread to the Western world largely from India. But older Middle Eastern dishes apparently have similarities to what we now identify as curry [21] which hardly surprises me. (There are some books about the origina of corry that I've seen mentioned which I've never read which may be of interest) I'm not trying to say that Indian curries shouldn't be thought of as an Indian invention but rather so should Thai curries be consider Thai or for that matter other cuisine with a long tradition. There is sufficient cross-cultural influence that it's meaningless to try and say this dish is truly and solely an invention of X but this Y dish isn't because it has influeces from X because X surely has influences too. (Except for Pavlova which is a truly remarkable Kiwi invention with absolutely no influence from Australia or anywhere else.) In any case, what we consider to be representative of X nowadays is often quite different from what would have been X centurites ago (it's remarkable when we think that as far as we known chillies only came in to the so called 'old world' slightly over 500 years ago yet are now so pervasive.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Searching for an infamous NHL player and coach

Dear Sir/Madam,

I tried searching on Google but it was ultimately unfruitful. I belive that I read this in a book on Google Books.

The player's father murdered the employees of a CBC station because they were diffusing another game than one involving the Toronto Maple Leafs, where his son was making his first appearance in the NHL. The son subsequently had a rather short career and died of a drug-related accident.

The coach was infamous for finding loopholes in the league's rulebook. He once used a forward instead of a goalie during a shootout because it was more effective, and once sent an infinite number of men on the ice because before the rule was altered, only one penalty could be attributed. I believe he was also one of the first to popularise the use of video recordings in professional ice hockey.

Sincerely, Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I am directly familiar with an actual NHL coach who murdered CBC employees, but if you want to read about a truly bizzare hockey incident, the story of Mike Danton is at least as weird (if not stranger) than the story you recount above. Sports Illustrated: [22] did a series of articles about him. Its an interesting read. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

On the "too many men on the ice" thing, that behavior does not seem to make sense. As soon as the referee notices that there are too many men, play will be stopped as soon as any of them touches the puck. So if the coach was willing to take a penalty, he could put the whole team of about 20 men on the ice, but so what? They wouldn't be able to score. --Anonymous, 19:40 UTC, December 22, 2008.

Roger Nielson did that. He was also the first to use videotape to analyse previous games. I have no idea what player the question is referring to, though; John Kordic was a Leafs player who died of a drug overdose, but I have never heard a story about CBC employees being killed. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. He was trying to get play repeatedly stopped, not to score. I suppose the ref could give a delay-of-game penalty in addition, but that would also be a nullity in that situation. Thanks. --Anonymous, 06:22 UTC, December 23, 2008.

Roger Neilson was the coach I was searching for. Thanks.

As for the player, I finally found out that it was Brian Spencer's father. He did not murder CBC employees as I first thought, but he actually held them at gunpoint and was subsequently killed in a firefight with the RCMP. Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Rest periods of work

Quick question about employment in the united kingdom.

I am working 1330-2200 tomorrow evening, then 0900-1800 the next day. I am aware that workers are entitled to 11 hours rest period between shifts, but does this include the time it takes to travel to and from work, as taking this into account, by the time I leave work and get home it will be around 2300 hours, and I will have to get up at 0630 hours the following day to get to work for 0900.

Is there such an allowance for travel or not? 92.3.53.98 (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

We're not allowed to give legal advice here. Having said that, I don't think travel time is taken into account in working hours regulations in the UK. You need to ask your trade union about this one. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's one of the reasons why dormitory suburbs develop. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Most employers in countries such as the UK do not tell workers whether to live next to the factory or to live an hours travel or 2 hours travel away. Employees who live near the workplace might resent special consideration such as longer rest periods between work periods being given to those who live farther away. Edison (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If wealth can be destroyed, isn't its creation largely illusory?

e.g. the trillions of dollars of wealth recently lost in the housing and stock markets.

When those markets rose, was the wealth created real or was it an illusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomerpdx (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent question, in my opinion. I've been wondering about that myself.Bus stop (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

You must be clear about what you mean by wealth. In a real sense, wealth is a function of the subjective value you place on things you own. For example, suppose you have a plot of land that, to you, is worth $100,000 (that is, you would not be willing to sell it for less than $100,000 but would be willing to sell if for $100,001 or more). Suppose that, today, the market value of the plot (the value *other people* place on your land) is $90,000 and tomorrow the value drops (for reasons unrelated to the plot itself) to $80,000. According to the accountants, you have lost $10,000 in wealth. But, according to the economists, you have lost no wealth -- yesterday you had a plot that you valued at $100,000 and today you have a plot that you value at $100,000. Wikiant (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Speculation is the cause of illusory wealth, or the representation (and mass hysteria) of significant wealth associated with a product or service that has no real value. Such as the speculation involved in dot com companies that offered nothing more real than actual stores. This kind of temporary wealth is an illusion, and a bust or crash is inevitable because it is not sustainable. This most recent slip is associated with inflated real estate prices far beyond what they were actually worth. This kind of wealth is illusory for those who expect to get paid and don't, and those who receive lots of payment but see it disappear, and perhaps face fines and criminal charges for illegal practices. --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's better to think of wealth as transitory rather than illusory. Depending on how your welth is distributed, and when you use it on what, will affect how it works for you. For example, let's say that you "cashed out" at the peak of the stock market, and put all of your cash you got from that transaction into a simple, insured, savings account. In that case, the wealth you made on the "rise" of the stock market is still just as useful to you today as the day the market started to tank. The money was made during the "bubble" but it is "real wealth" under the OP's definition because it is still availible to spend.

Another way to think of this. Lets say you own stock ONLY in a really secure companies that isn't going away any time soon, like say Disney or Pepsi or something like that. Let's say that your stock portfolio has tanked in the past year, losing 1/2 of its value. What do you do? Your brain says "sell my shares" in an attempt to avoid further losses. However, most financial advisors would recommend that you buy more shares. Assuming you don't need the cash right now, you should always increase your buying on the way down. Why? It has to do with the difference between "price" and "value". If you are certain beyond all reasonable doubt that the company you are buying into will survive the current economic downturn, then its price is being depressed because of the general market trends, and not because the company is mismanaged or poorly run or anything like that. In that case, you should look at the stock as being at a bargain; it is currently priced below its value, meaning that in a few years, when the price rebounds, you will make MUCH more money than if you did nothing (i.e. hold and wait) or if you actually sold the shares of the stable company. What does all of this mean per the bubble? Well, during the bubble, prices were MORE than the value of the company, meaning that you were paying a premium for your shares. Assuming you sold at the right time, you would have actually made real wealth which you could be spending right now. Or, if you expected the company to last forever, then "buying on the way down" will increase your stake in a company you expect to be around for a long time in the future, thus increasing your wealth in the future in exchange for temporarily having less cash on hand today. However, you still own something of value (shares of a good company) even if its price is too low. Riding the wave of the difference between price and value is how people make GOBS of cash in the stock market; and as long as you can wait out a low point like we are in right now, you can easily make a lot of money off of this downturn...

The problem becomes when you overspend, i.e. buy more in stocks than you can afford to keep tied up for long periods of time. If you are foolishly counting on stock returns to pay for day to day living expenses, then you are probably screwed... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's interesting that both of you guys first mentioned the "wealth lost" in dollar (or money) terms. Money is an instrument of savings, yes, but inflation ensures that it's not a very common one. If you chose any unit of measurement other than money (say loaves of bread... hear me out) and used that as your unit of account, you'd find that a lot more "loaves of bread"-worth of wealth was being saved in other things: hard assets, claims to land, claims to ownership of companies (stocks) or debt (bonds) etc. (even 'bank deposits' are just a kind of credit; they're not money in it's pure form). Then I suppose you'd think about how silly it was to measure things in terms of loaves of bread... (as I am right now, of course...) If bread didn't depreciate (go bad), though, in many ways it would be much better for us to pay for these assets with loaves of bread, and then hope to be able to sell them to someone else for more loaves in the future. Bread provides us with a pretty obvious consumption service - money can, at best, be used to light a cigar. But anyway: when prices of these "savings instruments" change in terms of "loaves of bread you're willing to give up for claims to future loaves of bread", it lets us think very rationally about how people's changing tastes, the scarcity of bread, or a change in the social discount (how much stuff people generally are willing to give up now for stuff tomorrow) would affect the number of "loaves of bread" we'd give up for any of those assets: at what rate we'll exchange bread now for bread tomorrow. If we were starving, that rate (this is the "interest rate") would probably be pretty high. This is no different for money. Except the service we get from money isn't nutrition. It's liquidity. Money helps us liquidly convert one asset (savings, consumption or otherwise) to another; despite having no inherent value, it's pretty great that money is generally accepted as valuable for this purpose. I guess my meandering point is, when we say "wealth is lost" (because of a 'stock market crash') it's best not to think of it in terms of money, but rather in terms of the "relative prices" between a general 'consumption' asset, representing consumption now and a savings asset, representing consumption tomorrow. And the best part is, if your life circumstances haven't changed in the last year, it means that chances are that "willingness to trade-off consumption now for consumption tomorrow" ratio hasn't changed for you this year! If you're using an "asset allocation investment approach" (where you switch your portfolio between a majority of fixed income assets as you approach slowdowns, and a majority equity assets when approaching a period of growth), a period of low interest rates (remember, interest rates aren't reflected in Bond prices (low rate = high price), they're also reflected in the interest rate used to discount stock earnings to present value!!) means that stocks should appear especially attractive to you! Just like Jayron says! Buy when the "implied market rate of return" is greater than the rate at which you're willing to trade off present consumption for future, and sell when it's lower. Hmmm... this is starting to sound like investment advice... 24.68.54.11 (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As to the original question and connecting the two; when you bake a loaf wealth is created - if you then throw it in the dustbin wealth is destroyed. There's nothing illusionary about that. Dmcq (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

One way of thinking about wealth is to think about it as a physicist would think about energy. Energy cannot, technically, be destroyed—ever. It's always there. It can, however, be converted into less useful forms, and it can be converted into forms that disperse it in a way that it cannot be recovered from as useful work. The second law of thermodynamics could easily be translated into economic terms: there are more ways to spend money than there are ways to earn it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Women and university

When (in which year) were women in Europe first able to attend university and graduate as B.A./B.Sc. etc.? Are there any countries where they still cannot even nowadays? I checked in Female education, but cannot see this information (perhaps I am overlooking it?). Thanks for info., cheers, Alex --AlexSuricata (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I imagine that first a woman attended pretending to be a man, then later women were allowed at one university in one particularly "feminine" field, like nursing, then the number of universities and programs at each were slowly expanded. I doubt if any European nations currently prohibit women from attending universities, as even Turkey seems too advanced for that. However, some universities may be male only, still. StuRat (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the actual sequence, at least in Great Britain, was that, in the mid-1800s, women's colleges were founded, and during the 1870s, they began to be admitted to formerly all-male universities. While other Western European countries may not have had women's colleges, women apparently began gaining admission to universities in a similar 1870s-1880s time range. Interestingly, the United States seems to have been a couple of decades ahead of Europe in this area. Marco polo (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the first place in Britain where women could get a somewhat "official" degree was Girton College (which was heavily satrized by Gilbert and Sullivan). AnonMoos (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

In Ian McEwan's Atonement, Cecilia attends Girton and passes with third-class honours, but cannot actually graduate from the University of Cambridge. This was in the 1930s. By this time women were graduating from other universities in the UK. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You might also be interested in mixed-sex education. According to that article, the first university in the UK to confer degrees upon women was the University of London, in 1878. This book says the first European college to admit women was the University of Zurich, in 1865. Denmark was 1875, Belgium was 1883, the Netherlands 1884, and Greece 1895, and Spain and Norway hopped on the wagon at some point before this publication in 1903. This book says that women in France were, theoretically, able to attend University after 1880, but were not prepared during secondary school for the university entrance exams. German and Austrian universities apparently did not admit women until the 20th century, which presumably also covers all of what was Austria-Hungary; there appear to have been exceptions, though, in some universities and departments. In Russia, women could attend lectures beginning in 1869 (although policies were changed from time to time), but could not receive degrees until 1911.

At least one woman in Spain, Doña María Isidra Quintina de Guzmán y de la Cerda, managed to get a doctorate in 1785, and a woman was awarded a medical in Prussia in 1754, but these don't appear to have been routine occurences. According to that last link, women (notably Trotula of Salerno) were studying and teaching medicine as far back as the 11th century, but were increasingly barred from universities in the centuries that followed.

It looks like the US was indeed ahead the curve on this one: the first co-ed universities in the US were Franklin College, which was coed upon its inception in 1787 (but soon closed its doors due to financial problems), and Oberlin College, which began admitting women in 1837. Oberlin appears to have initially offered only a restricted "ladies course," but Antioch College began admitting women on equal terms with men in 1852, and a slew of public and private universities followed suit in the 1860s. Now I guess I should add all that to the Wikipedia article.... --Fullobeans (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There may be examples predating all of the above. According to Female education and Madrasah#Female education there was some definite female involvement in education including the ability to earn degrees (ijazah), and otherwise participation in what could probably be accurately called universities during the Islamic Golden Age. Limited yes, and not without controversy in some instances but definitely there was some. The oldest continuously operating university is University of Al-Karaouine and arose out of a mosque constructed by a female and the second oldest Al-Azhar University was named after Mohammed's daughter. While neither of these were in Europe, it seems possible that this extended to Islamic regions of Europe at the time like at Al-Andalus. According to Madrasah, Daw al-lami has a volume mentioning 1075 female scholars, it wouldn't surprise me if a few were in Europe and had degrees. Sadly whatever the case this early influence didn't continue in many cases either in Europe or many other areas which remained Muslim dominated. Of course presuming you aren't referring exclusively to degrees it's possible there was female involvement in earlier institutions of higher learning in Europe. Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As late as 1897, the (male) undergraduates of Cambridge rioted to prevent women being granted degrees. Newnham College gives the history here, including the iconic photograph of a woman hung in effigy, mounted on a bicycle, symbolising the New Woman they found so threatening. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Lebanese Political Parties

Which Lebanese Political Parties gets the support from the following communities: a)Shi'a Muslims? b)Sunni Muslims? c)Maronite Christians? d)Druzes? And which political parties are rivals to each other: a)Maronite Christians vs. Maronite Christians b)Sunni Muslims vs. Sunni Muslims c)Shi'a Muslims vs. Shi'a Muslims d)Sunni Muslims vs. Shi'a Muslims e)Druze vs. Druze —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.244 (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response below. Marco polo (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Lebanese Political Parties II

Which political parties are Pro-Syrian and Which are Anti-Syrian? a)Pro-Syrian Sunni b)Anti-Syrian Sunni c)Pro-Syrian Maronite Christian d)Anti-Syrian Maronite Christian e)Pro-Syrian Druze f)Anti-Syrian Druze g)Anti-Syrian Shi'a Muslim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.244 (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see our article Politics of Lebanon. Then go to our List of political parties in Lebanon. In this list, you will find links to our articles on the major political parties of Lebanon. Read through our article on each of these parties. You will find most of the information you want. If you need further help, please let us know. Marco polo (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

December 23

Bangladeshi Pro- and Anti-Pakistani, -Indian, -Bangladeshi

Which political parties and its members are: a)Pro-Pakistani b)Anti-Pakistani c)Pro-Indian d)Anti-Indian e)Pro-Bangladeshi g)Pro-Pakistani Muslim h)Anti-Pakistani Muslim i)Pro-Indian Muslim j)Anti-Indian Muslim l)Pro-Indian Hindu m)Anti-Indian Hindu(who supports Bangladesh Nationalist Party) n)Anti-Pakistani Hindu o)Pro-Indian Buddhist p)Anti-Indian Buddhist q)Pro-Pakistani Buddhist r)Anti-Pakistani Buddhist s)Pro-Indian Christian t)Anti-Indian Christian u)Pro-Pakistani Christian v)Anti-Pakistani Christian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.244 (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see our article Politics of Bangladesh. Then go to our List of political parties in Bangladesh. In this list, you will find links to our articles on the major political parties of Lebanon. Read through our article on each of these parties. You will find most of the information you want. If you need further help, please let us know. Marco polo (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Very few in Bangladesh are "pro-Pakistani" except for the Biharis. For many Bangladeshis, to call them either "anti-Indian" or "pro-Indian" would probably be rather simplistic... AnonMoos (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Indigenous people

Which Indigenous people of Bangladesh follow Hinduism, Christianity and Buddhism? a)Santali b)Garo c)Mundari d)Rajbanshi e)Kurukh(Kurux) f)Oraon Sadri g)Kok Borok h)Mru i)Mizo j)Meitei k)Bishnupriya l)Trippera or Tripuri m)Assamese n)Arakanese o)Khumi Chin p)Burmese q)Sylheti r)Chakma s)Bhaya t)Rajbongshi u)War Language v)Hakha-chin w)Hajong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.244 (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We have articles on many of these ethnic groups. Please look up our articles, most of which will discuss the religion of each ethnic group. For example, our article on the Kurukh or Oraon people has a discussion of their religion. If we do not have an article on one of these groups, or if the article fails to give information on the group's religion, let us know and we will do our best to help you find more information on that group. Marco polo (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is Social Security not transferred to some countries?

The U.S. Social Security Administration won't pay retirees who live in Vietnam, Cambodia, or in some of the former Soviet states. What is the rationale behind that rule? AxelBoldt (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Most countries have a general rule that social security will not be paid to people who reside permanantly overseas. However, many countried have reciprocal social security agreements where each country agrees to pay to recipients who have qualified in another country. Those countries probably don't have a reciprocal agreement with the US. I know this is the case with Australia (where I live) and it is likely similar in the US. --Jabberwalkee (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I believe the issue of reciprocal agreements cannot be the full answer though: the (rather small) list of countries with reciprocal agreements with the U.S. is given here, yet Social Security will also be paid to Americans retiring in almost all other countries. The publication states "Social Security restrictions prohibit sending payments to individuals in Cambodia, Vietnam or areas that were in the former Soviet Union" but doesn't give the rationale. AxelBoldt (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This site states that Cambodia adopted its first social security law only in 2002; maybe that's a factor? The link you posted suggests that you can get exceptions in places like Cambodia (if you're willing to go to the embassy to get your check), but not in North Korea or Cuba (which don't have American embassies). --- OtherDave (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

If I were to make a bootsplash theme for Splashy based on Windows Vista images and make it publicly available under the GNU license (though explicitly stating the rights to the images are reserved to Microsoft and therefore not included under the GNU license) would this be a violation of any law? TIA, Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 06:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We can't give legal advice and your question is likely impossible to answer without knowing where you live. However it's meaningless to claim something is under a GPL/GFDL license (what GNU license specifically are you talking about?) when it's clearly not. Neither license allows such exceptions. It is unlikely your theme would be accepted in any site which requires freely licensed content since your content is clearly not freely licensed. In general terms, using Microsoft's copyrighted content without their permission may fall foul of the law which some exceptions, e.g. those used in accordance to fair use in the US which is unlikely to be the case here. Even if it doesn't violate the law, Microsoft could probably still ask you to remove the content and/or sue you for copyright violation. Suffice to say it's unlikely to be a goold idea to do whatever you are trying to do. Nil Einne (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am in the U.S. The site to which I would be submitting this content does not require freely licensed material. I saw a theme there based on OS X. This made me assume that perhaps this was acceptable. However, would this be a violation of copyright? I would use their images, yes, but I would state in the documentation provided with the theme I create that these images are copyrighted by Microsoft and are not public domain. Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 06:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I can only talk in general terms but yes, generally speaking creating a theme using content from Microsoft and then distributing that theme would be violating Microsoft's copyright. If you create a theme similar to that used in Microsoft's products but without actually using any of their content it can get more tricky I believe. Note that saying you don't own the copyright, Microsoft does, doesn't actually change matters much since you need Microsoft's permission to re-distribute their copyrighted works which it is unlikely you have or can secure. You may be interested in an actual legal case Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporationas well as the general concept of Look and feel. Although in this case Microsoft won, bear in mind the key issues here were they had a license and they weren't simply copying Apple's content. See also Aqua (user interface) which has mention of various threats Apple has made and [23]. Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

At the core of copyright in the U.S. is the right to control the display and duplication of the work in question, including so-called derivative works. Disney may not yet have created an image of Mickey Mouse as part of the Borg, but since they have the copyright on Mickey, Borg Mickey would likely be a derivative work. So too with Microsoft (in my non-lawyer, non-legal opinion) when it comes to images based on those in Windows Vista -- or, for that matter, Microsoft Bob. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Using "human rights" to justify racism and religious discrimination

I know that Americans care a lot about free speech and human rights and I think that is good. But I find some Americans are racist (I am Asian) because of human rights. They think that because Asians are more conservative and care less about human rights, we are inferior to Americans. They only see the bad sides about Asian cultures (lack human rights) and do not see the good sides (look at all the ancient Chinese inventions). For example, look at Wikipedia's article on Asian values, saying that it is "to justify authoritarian regimes in Asia". In the same way, many Americans hate Muslims because they think about the lack of human rights in Muslim culture, but never think about the good sides. Is there a word or phrase for this kind of racism and religious discrimination? Any websites where I can do more research about it? --59.189.61.144 (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a website but if you read books by Geert Hofstede you will find an interesting discussion on the differences in attitudes between societies to human rights, and whether they are construed as individualistic or group-based. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You could probably boil that all down to xenocentrism and xenophobia. If you had this conversation with The Average American, he would probably say, "Sure, you invented fireworks, but then you ran over that guy with a tank." If you pressed him on the issue, he would then admit that he knew nothing else about China, since he had recently discovered that crab rangoon is not an authentic Chinese dish. And the rest of Asia? There's Vietnam (that horrible war), South Korea (that other horrible war), North Korea (where bad people go when they die), Thailand (rampant prostitution), Cambodia (The Killing Fields), Japan (kamikaze and bukkake), and all those other countries that are either names on a map or too far west to be "really" Asian. Most Americans are simply not well-traveled internationally and do not have a nuanced knowledge of world cultures and history. Only major events and catastrophic social problems in other countries make it into the evening news, and only the most strikingly "foreign" actually stick in the minds of viewers. So to many Americans, much of the outside world can be classified as either dismal and impoverished or violent and threatening.

That being said, there are plenty of intelligent, educated Americans who are horrified by other countries' records on human rights. There are plenty of other countries who are horrified by America's record on human rights. The whole concept behind human rights is that they don't vary from country to country; the idea is that human beings have certain, inherent rights which must be respected, and it is the responsibility of individuals and governments to challenge other individuals and governments to uphold those rights. This is a popular idea worldwide, but it's absolutely crucial to American identity. If there's one sentence of the United States Constitution your average American schoolkid can quote, it's this line from the Bill of Rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." When you've had that concept drilled into your head from childhood, it is, yes, shocking to hear that some people simply don't much value the concept of human rights. Once you're past the initial shock, some would say that the correct course of action is to work at furthering the cause of human rights worldwide, since inventing paper does not, in fact, give China the right to oppress its own citizens. Others would argue that to do so is cultural colonialism. All would probably agree that declaring yourself superior to any given Asian due to your country's supposedly heightened respect for human rights is complete and utter idiocy. And yet people do tend to get pompous when discussing issues like this, and to descend into either unapologetic xenocentrism or exaggerated allophilia after the first few sentences. But suffice to say, if somebody seems like they're just looking for an excuse to be racist, then they're probably just looking for an excuse to be racist. --Fullobeans (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." comes from the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution, as you probably knew but temporarily forgot. —Kevin Myers 14:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

And that's why one should not edit Wikipedia in the wee hours during extended bouts of insomnia. --Fullobeans (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that there is a difference between racism and culturalism. Racism = genetics. That is to say one race is genetically inferior to another. Culture = learned behavior. One can critisize another culture without being a racist. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm an Ugly American (though a naturalized one), so perhaps I can explain our position. I just don't buy the Chinese government's assertions that Asians are somehow different to the rest of the world and don't want political freedom. I think the true racist position would be to give the backward and repressive Chinese government a pass on such self-serving nonsense on the grounds that its citizens just like a boot in their face. It's similar to how many non-Americans like Americans they've met personally, but loathe our government's policies (ahem). --Sean 17:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sean, I'd classfy you as ignorant, rather than ugly. First, I have no idea what you look like. Second, "I just don't buy the Chinese government's assertions that Asians are somehow different to the rest of the world and don't want political freedom." is a statement that bears no relationship to Chinese government policy. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I get the feeling that postmodernism doesn't get enough airing in the US school curriculum. Sentiments - labels - like "the backward and repressive Chinese government" is what generated the original poster's ire in the first place.

All governments have problems, no government is perfect. Yet each government will try its best to justify its actions and present itself as respecting human rights. Labels are dangerous because they de-humanise. The more reasonable attitude that a person who cares for human rights should adopt, is to avoid judgment of the government or people as a whole, but seek to identify problems and then campaign to have those problems resolved.

For example, the United States goes around the world violating other countries' sovereignty on made-up charges and causing death and destruction. Is that better or worse than gunning down your own citizens on public streets with tanks? To me at least, that's hard to say. What we can certainly say is that both are violations of human rights and should be condemned. Is one government more backward and repressive than the other one? Or is it better to repress foreign people than your own citizens? It all depends on your own value paradigm.

It's sometimes important to remember - and difficult to grasp - that most values are cultural and not universally shared, especially on a comparative basis. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm one of those who loath the US government's policies and hope they can get back on track about human rights once Bush is out. They always have been rather hypocritical in international affairs and I can live with that but the last few years have been just horrible as far as any pretense of being the leaders of a western civilization is concerned. Britain at the same time has been slipping into becoming a police state and the only current beacon of human rights is the other countries in the EU. As to China I don't see how inventing printing can in any way offset not having human rights or the plantation of Tibet, the original poster is free to quote any study they find showing why the two are linked and write it up and cite it in a relevant article. Dmcq (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Race of Santa Claus?

In countries where the population is predominantly non-white, is Santa Claus ever described as belonging to the same race as the majority race of that country? So, are there Black Santas, Arabic Santas, Hispanic Santas, Oriental Santas etc.? Or is he always a white man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.67.81 (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know, but in Holland St. Nicholas has a black assistant Zwarte Piet, which has given rise to controversy in recent times. Also, one of the Three Wise Men has been commonly traditionally protrayed as black... AnonMoos (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I just did some Google image searching on your behalf, using the various names for Santa Claus listed at our Santa Claus article. The only thing I learned is that it's awfully hard to guess at somebody's ethnicity when they've got a giant white beard covering most of their face; Arabic and Hispanic Santas would be impossible to differentiate. The Arabic Wikipedia article about the (I think) Egyptian version, Baba Noel, has a picture of an icon of Saint Nicholas, rather than the stylized jolly ol' Santa we're used to. So that may or may not mean that Egyptian Christians stuck with a more literal version of St. Nick. And I've seen black Santas in the US, in the form of both decorations and actual people in Santa suits, but neither seems particularly common. --Fullobeans (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There are black Santas inside the US. You may have to hunt for the or go to shops in predominately black areas, but they exist.--droptone (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Black Santa" was an aboriginal grandfather who organised gifts for outback Aboriginal children in Australia. He received the OAM in 1989 and has since died, but the only link on the internet is a dud and I can't find his name. There's a santa who wears all-black in Belfast, Ireland[24] who stages sit-outs for charity. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sydney "Doc" Cunningham? (Australian aboriginal Santa) ---Sluzzelin talk 12:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Santa Claus in East Asia is certainly a Caucasian man, because he has a curly beard that you are unlikely to find on an old man in those countries (people there would more usually have straight, flowing beards: cf File:Three star gods my ceramic.jpg. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A thin young Palestinian with curly black hair is Santa-in-suit at Bethlehem promoting town safety for tourist reasons as of last night's TV. Like the way some people aren't even trying to make the white wigness convincing. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the mythical Santa is said to be based on St. Nicholas = Nicholas of Myra (now Turkey), black might be just as far off as the pasty-white Nothpole dwelling story Santa Claus. However, I'd like to leave it to the story editors to explain how a black guy ended up that far north. I'm rather critical of the trend to adopt other culture's myths and stories. Would a Native American Hamlet still be Hamlet? Is forgetting e.g. a story describing Kuruk hunting a buffalo and supplanting it with "politically corrected" tales from other cultures really enriching us? Would a white "Porgy and Bess" make sense or be an entirely different story? One might argue that there has always been some adoption of other peoples stories going on throughout history, but whereas in those days the tellers could claim ignorance, these days with information readily available, what's the excuse? Isn't it a rather poor statement to twist the race of an existing icon rather than adding one just as strong from your own racial/cultural background? (Hint to marketing there's a huge gap between removing the easter bunny displays and putting halloween pumpkins up. Go fish there's got to be somewhere with some interesting myth/celebration/event to commercialize.)76.97.245.5 (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Binoculars on the Titanic

I happened to read a line in the Timeline of the sinking of the RMS Titanic that the lookouts in the Crow's nest of the Titanic did not have binoculars. Surprised that a luxury ship such as this did not provide binoculars to the crew, I investigated the source of this information. I got different versions on the pages of the lookouts Frederick Fleet and Reginald Lee - Frederick Fleet said that the binoculars were "misplaced", and Reginald Lee said the binoculars were not "on board". I modified Frederick Fleet to be consistent with the other lookout's article. Later, I found another version in David Blair (mariner) where it says he had "locked out" the binoculars. An external biography of Blair doesn't talk about the locking out theory, but says he had the binoculars "stowed away" in his cabin. Apparently his key has been auctioned as the key that could have prevented the sinking of the ship. Any idea what is the real story behind the binoculars? Jay (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading the White Line auction catalogue that had the key in it, and some of Blair's personal effects. If I remember correctly, he simply forgot he had the key with him when he left the Titanic, and he felt incredibly guilty about it until his death. Skinny87 (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong

It is a commonplace that people hallucinate based on their cultural experiences. So drugs or psychosis can lead someone raised in a Christian culture to believe they are Christ. There's a recognised phenomenon of pilgrims in the Holy Land, often with no history of mental illness, going doolally: Jerusalem syndrome. What about people from other cultures, when they hallucinate? Do Muslims think they are Mohammed, or is that too taboo for even the ill mind? Do Buddhists think they are Buddha? Who are the most popular world leaders in the asylums of 2008? I wonder if there are many Napoleons left. (The question title, by the way, is from the lyrics of "Industrial Disease" by Dire Straits.) BrainyBabe (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really an answer to your question, but the equivalents you offer for Jesus in Islam and Buddhism are not exactly right; a Muslim who thinks himself the messias would have to believe he is the Mahdi, not Mohammed, and there have been many who claimed that they were. And two Buddhists who both think they are Buddha could actually be correct according to that religion - Buddhahood can be attained more than once. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the songwriters read Rokeach's The Three Christs of Ypsilanti? --- OtherDave (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, anyone who thinks they have have become Buddhahood have not, in consequence of thinking such a thing, and are merely deluded. Thus that saying about killing the Buddha. Pfly (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong" - Comment: At most one of them can be right, but most probably both are wrong. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Religious Minority in Pakistan

When it comes to Shi'a Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism, which provinces has the most numbers of the minorities and which language do they speak, besides Urdu? a)Punjab b)Sindh c)Northwest Frontier Province d)Balochistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.52 (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow a multiple choice question on the refdesk! ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Islam in India

a)Besides Urdu, which other languages do they speak in India? b)Which ethnic groups have numbers of Shi'a Islam (Ithna Ash'ari, Ismaili) foolowers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.52 (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know b, but for a we have a very nice little article called Languages of India. Look under the section Official languages for a nice little list (we even have an article on this specific topic). The main languages are Hindi and English, with a few more trailing (like Bengali). Urdu is infact a few pegs down on the list. Belisarius (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Muslims generally speak Urdu rather than Hindi. Both are forms of Hindustani and are mutually intelligible at the level of everyday conversation (less so when it comes to learned discourse). While English is a "main language" of India, relatively few Indians—Hindu or Muslim—speak it at home or outside of certain professional contexts. Besides Urdu, which is spoken by Muslims mainly in northwestern and central India as far south as Mumbai and Hyderabad, Indian Muslims in other parts of India tend to speak the same language as their Hindu compatriots in the same region. For example, Muslims in Bihar tend to speak Magahi, Bhojpuri, or Maithili; Muslims in West Bengal tend to speak Bengali; Muslims in Tamil Nadu tend to speak Tamil, and so on. Marco polo (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we had this question before? We've had dozens of extremely similar ones, at least. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Asian languages

Which language groups do Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Cambodian, Filipino, Laotian, Malaysian, Indonesian, Burmese nd Vietnamese people and their mother language belong to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.12 (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There may be some helpful information at Chinese language, Japanese language, Korean language, Thai language, Cambodian language, Filipino language, Laotian language, Malaysian language, Indonesian language, Burmese language and Vietnamese language. The language family for each language is listed in the infobox at the right side of each page. --Lph (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Where did Depression-era apple sellers get their apples?

There are photos from the Great Depression of men on U.S. city streets selling apples for 5 cents. Where did those men typically obtain the apples? --Lph (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea, but the question sent me looking for prices. On the second-last page of this report from the Census Bureau, I saw that the price for a dozen oranges, 1931-1940, varied between 22 and 39 cents a dozen. (I'm simplifying here, as the stats do.) That's 2 to 3 cents an orange. If you sell an orange for a nickel, you'd be doing well. Apples are grown over a much wider area, so may have been cheaper wholesale. If you sold an apple for a nickel (on the small-luxury principle), you'd be doing even better. You could probably get them from central markets, grocery wholesales, farmers, wholesalers, or a country-dwelling friend or relative. --- OtherDave (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The apples were provided by the International Apple Shippers' Association, which sold them on credit because of an apple surplus in the Pacific Northwest. John M Baker (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The Internatinal Apple Shippers Association was getting 2.4 cents per apple selling in large quantities. I found at Newspaperarchive.com (subscription) a 1936 advertisement from the Albuquerque Journal, Oct 3, 1936, where apples (Delicious, Johnathan, or Rome) were 4 pounds /25 cents. Wikianswers [25] says the average weight of an apple is 5 ounces, implying a cost of about 2 cents per apple. Great markup to sell them for 5 cents each. It was something of an act of charity for the person with a nickel to spare to buy the apple from the guy, but also perhaps a convenience worth the markup. In an October 1930 ad I found "eating and cooking apples" in the Newark Advocate also just under 2 cents each, assuming 5 ounce apples. Some other ads from the late 1930's had them ads at about 1.5 cents each. Note that the rate for labor during the depression got down to 5 cents for an hour. Edison (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

After some research, the sellers discovered that apples grow on trees. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

December 24

Christian leadership formation throughout church history

Does anyone have any information about Christian leadership formation throughout church history? Specifically the periods A.D. 200-300; A.D. 1000-1200; and the Reformation period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.25.62 (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

See History of the Papacy and History of Christianity and History of the Eastern Orthodox Church for some good launching off points. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I should have been more specific. I need information on how the church trained it's leaders (preists, etc.) during the forementioned time periods. In modern times, we have Bible Colleges and Seminaries, but what did they do during those times specifically? 209.161.25.62 (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In the middle ages (so, covering 1000-1200) they had schools, not quite like modern bible colleges and seminaries, but the same sort of idea. Youths attended school in the cathedral or the monastery, where they would learn basic Catholic doctrines and Latin, and perhaps other subjects like mathematics. When they were a little older they would learn the trivium and later the quadrivium. They would learn those at the universities, maybe not as early as 1000, but certainly after 1100. In more advanced studies they would learn theology and canon law. This is, at least, the course of study for someone who wanted to advance far in the church; I'm not sure about regular parish priests. Considering the amount of time the bishop had to spend correcting and retraining his parish priests, a lot of them apparently had only the most basic education. I think they would have simply trained as an apprentice to the existing priest, as in any other medieval profession. (I know there is a lot of information about this, since I know so many people studying it; I'll see what else I can find.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There's obvious biblical evidence for younger leaders being trained by others (for example, Timothy travelling with Paul), so I'd be surprised if this weren't done to an extent during the period you're talking about. Given that Christianity was always either illegal or subject to become illegal throughout most of the area that it covered until the Edict of Milan, I would doubt that anything formal would have been established; it would have been much safer for younger men to be mentored by older. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Puqu

Puqu was established by China in occupied Tibet in 2004 for Tibetean inhabitants. Is Puqu considered an "illegal settlement" by the international community? Chesdovi (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that China sees Tibet as an integral part of their national territory, and not occupied land; and that China also has veto power in the U.N. security council, and thus itself has a hand in determining legality of such settlements, I highly doubt it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The UN Security Council has neither jurisdiction nor competence to determine the legality of an act.

That said, the international community has always recognised Tibet as part of China, whether before or after 1949. All other relevant parties, including the Dalai Lama, regard Tibet as today part of China. If approached from this position, for a country's government to construct a settlement for its own citizens is certainly not illegal at international law per se.

A second assumption in the OP's question is that the settlement was constructed by "China". Tibet has a functioning sub-national government in the form of the government of the Tibet Autonomous Region, which descends directly from the administration of the Dalai Lama in Tibet; the Dalai Lama was its first Chairman.

Whether a settlement constructed by an occupying power is illegal is an open question. The Palestinian territories are widely seen as under military occupation within the meaning of the law of war, and thus, Israel has certain obligations under the 4th Geneva Convention and also under the Hague Convention. Israeli settlements for Israelis in the Palestinian territories are widely regarded as illegal, because they are inconsistent with the requirements of those conventionsl. However, this position is not universally accepted.

A further point of distinction should be noted: Israeli settlements involve 1) the forced removal of Palestinians from their land, and 2) the settlement of people from Israel, the occupying power, into the occupied territories. A Tibetan settlement for Tibetans is not the same.

Ultimately, the laws of war are unlikely to apply because today, none of the major parties in the debate - the Chinese government, the international community, the Dalai Lama - regard Tibet as being under military occupation in the international legal sense. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is migration of non ethnic Tibetians to Tibet although I don't know if Puqu is involved and whether there is actually most government involvement (one of the areas where there's so much propaganda both sides I will take care with all sources). A better comparison would be something like Indonesia's Transmigration program then the Israeli settlements in Palestine. I would note that if Israel were to annex the Palestinian territories in their entirety without the expulsion of Palestinians and with the guarantee of equal rights that situation would probably be less controversial then the current one. They won't though since in that case (former) Palestinians would outnumber Israelis Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Automobiles and Greek architecture

Yes, they're two rather different subjects, but I have two rather different questions about the same picture, shown here to the right.

• I've put this in Commons:Category:Greek Revival architecture, because of its Doric columns. Is this an appropriate classification?
• On the other subject: can someone identify the cars parked in front of the building? Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The yellow sun chariot appears to be a Mini Cooper S, coupe. Happy holidays, Julia Rossi (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a good example of Greek Revival architecture. The architectural style is a late derivative of the Greek Revival school that has conventionally been used for banks in the United States. Clues in your photo suggest that the building pictured dates to 1890-1920, whereas the Greek Revival was a movement of the early to mid-1800s. On the other hand, it would be safe to class this as an example of the broader category neoclassical architecture. Marco polo (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that the blue car is a Pontiac GTO. It's almost certainly a Pontiac, because of the "pointy nose". I'm rubbish at knowing/guessing years though. --LarryMac | Talk 18:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The car gurus might boo, but the blue car looks a lot like a Ford Thunderbird - [26] - to me.76.97.245.5 (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We already had user:Julia Rossi, who is not a car guru but a can-guru. Boohoo. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As indicated above, I'm no guru, but still . . . "Boo." Almost certainly a 1970 GTO. Note, in particlar, the wraparound, squared-off, rear bumper with the cut-out for the brake light. From the searches I've been doing, the 1969 didn't have that type of bumper, and the grill on the 1971 was different. --LarryMac | Talk 19:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Admit my first thought was T-bird, but the grills vary alot and the noses are quite heavy. Does the front chromed bumper match anything? Otherwise everything compares including the lifted line over the rear wheels, space for the logo near the front wheel, the (painted) strip under the doors. So my vote's in for the GTO. Nicely interrelated pic with all that neo-classic design. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Thanks for the input, everyone! I agree that it's an interesting scene, but someone else gets the credit, even though I uploaded it; I found the picture online and got permission from the website owner to upload. Two things:

• Marco: unless you looked at the article about the bank, great guess! The building was built in 1920. Going by your opinion, I've removed it from the Greek Revival category.
• I've placed the picture into Commons:Category:Pontiac GTO and Commons:Category:Mini Cooper S. If discussion continues and concludes that they're not these two cars, please modify the categories. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Patent law book

Can anyone suggest a good book which describes patent law in an interesting manner. I tried reading the MPEP but that's rather drab. Thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Which jurisdiction are you in? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I am in India but I'm interested mainly in US law. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.114.34 (talk) 12:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought Boyle's Shamans, Software, and Spleens was a pretty fun read, and has a lot about how US patent law works in it. It's not a doctrinaire text but in my opinion when it comes to patent (and copyright) law the extreme, borderline cases tell you more than the "run of the mill" cases do. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you 98.217.8.46, I will definitely check that book out. :-) ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The Venetian Court by Charles Harness is a science fiction novel which is very much about patent law (his day job was as a patent lawyer), and is certainly interesting. (As far as I can remember, under a strange set of circumstances the US government has made patent infringement into a capital crime). You would not want to take it as a legal textbook, however! --ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

date of birth of prophet muhammad

what is the true date of birth of prophet muhammed in Islmic (hajeri) calender, 12th of 3rd month of Islameic calender or 9th of 3rd month of islamic calender . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khubab (talk • contribs) 16:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that both the date and the year of his birth are a matter of dispute amongst scholars. Sunni Muslims prefer the 12th Rabi' al-awwal 570 AD, Shia Muslims the 17th Rabi' al-awwal 570 AD. Similar to the arbitrary date of birth assigned to Jesus Christ (which escapes me momentarily), it may be mainly a matter of tradition of differing schools of thought. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Miss Black Virginia USA

I was told that my submission may be deleted - I am not sure why? It said that it seems to be for advertising or promotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseofL (talk • contribs) 16:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The Reference Desk doesn't really deal with reasons for the deletion of articles. We handle factual questions. You might want to try the Help Desk. Marco polo (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

December 25

Subject area: philosophy, reasoning, logic. "in the limit where x goes to y"

I'm wondering if there is theoretical/philosophical understanding/definition of forming a logical argument in which something is logically deduced using a construct like "While most of the time A is equal to B, in the limit as (some feature) x (of A and of B) goes to a value (some limiting value/instance) y, A is not equal to B, so it can not be said absolutely that A is equal to B." If so, what would I look under? I've spent hours searching the web, but only find examples of authors using the construct, and nothing really about the syllogistic aspects of the construct.

In fact the case I'm trying to understand a little better is slightly more complicated than the case outlined above. The real problem is closer to: If A is a necessary condition for C, and B is a necessary condition for C, (and assume (A and B) are sufficient for C), where A is a 'driving force,' and where B is 'means' that requires A to produce C, it is known that in the limit as A goes to 0, C cannot result, so it can not be said that B causes C. These kinds of arguments seem to made without invoking any formality. They're "intuitively obvious." But not everyone understands what is trying to be accomplished by trying to use the construct/logic, and I don't know anywhere on the web where I can send someone for a better understanding. blackcloak (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

As you posed it, it appears to me in somehow too a large generality to fit into a precise category. What is x and what kind of dependence from x have you in mind? An example could help. I assume here you mean x is a time, but I would also distinguish whether "most of the time" just means "a period of time" or "all values y<x". In the first case I'd say that a bifurcation has occurred. It means here that the evolution of A in time, although possibly very regular, is not determined just by x and its states in the past. The second case means discontinuity (of either A or B or both) at the time x, for continuous dependence is what allows you to extend the equality also at the time $x$. --PMajer (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I am indeed trying to find out something about the formalism of logical argument. It is a general subject, but someone must have tried to develop a set of "rules" to avoid obvious pitfalls. While the actual problem involves "invisible" quantities, let me present a simple physical close equivalent. Consider the elementary problem of an ideal spring (no loss of energy) attached to a mass on one end and a force being applied to the other end of the spring (let the mass be on a frictionless table). A force is applied and the mass moves (the result). So what caused the mass to move? My A is the force. My B is the spring. My C is the observation that the mass moves. Some say that B causes C. I argue (after stating that both A and B are necessary conditions, and taken together are a sufficient condition) that because in the limit as A goes to 0, C does not happen. Therefore B is not a sufficient condition for C, so it is improper to say that B causes C. Now I understand that there are a whole lot of issues around the use terms that have unequal "value." I don't want to get back a list of all the errors I've made in formulating a particular problem. My question has to do with a formal process of correctly formulating cause/effect arguments with the "in the limit" construct. Perhaps all I'm looking for is a tutorial on formal ways of stating cause and effect problems. Maybe it's just a matter of finding a description of how to impose strict constraints on what can be identified as a cause and what can be identified as a result. blackcloak (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you mean by "in the limit", but you may be interested in the article on probabilistic causation on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website, [27]. It's been emotional (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in probabilistic forms, so the article did not really help. But, it is by far the best article I've seen on the general subject of cause and effect arguments. It has the level of rigor I'm looking for. Thanks. "In the limit" arguments are made all the time when trying to answer general questions about the result that will occur when something is allowed to happen (a cause)- such as changing the temperature of something. There is usually an implied assumption of linearity (actually, monotonicity) (the effect gets "worse" as the magnitude of the cause continues to change in the initial direction). There may also be an implied assumption that something highly non-linear (e.g. some kind of runaway event) does not happen. If you need a simpler example than the one above, just ask and I'll provide one. blackcloak (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

On what basis is the potential unfairness of Social Security defended?

While Social Security is portrayed as an 'insurance' program, some people believe the program is effectively regressive, especially at lower earnings levels.

Although the payout formula is nominally progressive, payouts for low earners are effectively much less so, and possibly regressive. due to shorter lifespans and lower marriage rates among low earners. For example, some have noted that black men as a group get an especially poor deal from Social Security, since their life expectancy is (or was, at the time such claims originated) only months beyond the age at which they can start collecting full retirement benefits; not to mention their low marriage rates which result in relatively fewer qualified widow(er)s and children to collect survivor benefits.

As a lifetime low earner, I consider my likelihood of surviving to full retirement age dubious. What do advocates of the program say to people like me? It has got to suck to pay in for decades and live on the economic margin and then die with an effective total loss of your 'contributions.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomerpdx (talk • contribs) 06:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Suppose you are 18 in 2008 and get a job earning $20,000 a year. Suppose also that you get a cost of living increase (3%) every year and retire at 66. According to the Social Security Administration's calculations, your monthly SS retirement benefit will be $5,152. Sounds like a lot, *but* if the government had not taken out social security taxes from your paycheck and instead allowed you to invest the money yourself (let's assume you put the money in bonds -- pretty safe -- yielding 7% interest), by the time you retired, your private retirement account would pay you $6,370 per month. That's more than 20% better than SS. It gets worse: As you say, when you die, you lose SS but you would not lose a private retirement account (it goes to your heirs). That makes the private retirement account worth about 140% more than SS. Not done yet: Repeated economic studies indicate that the half of the SS tax paid by employers really comes out of the employee's pay (the employer just reduces the amount he pays the worker by the amount of SS tax the employer has to pay). That means that, if SS tax were eliminated, workers wages would rise by around 7% *in addition* to the 7% workers would no longer have to pay to SS. That makes a private retirement account -- even for lower income workers -- worth around 400% what SS is worth. Wikiant (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there's also the (likely) possibility that Social Security won't exist when your hypothetical wage-earner gets to retirement--the entire system is predicated on low life expectancy and a continually growing workforce, neither of which is currently true. The chance that Social Security could fail or be scaled back raises the 400% expected value of individual retirement accounts even higher (depending on how likely this failure/reduction is within the wage-earner's lifespan). Theoretically if the government actually invested the contributions as described above there would be sufficient funding, but relying on politicians to set aside money for retirement is like relying on foxes to guard the chicken coop. I certainly don't expect to recover one cent I've 'invested' in Social Security, which makes the 14% 'tax' ageist in addition to racist and sexist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.230.33 (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If you do the math, you'll find that social security is an expected net negative for everyone except the *extremely* low income people (i.e., annual income circa $15,000). So, from the start, one can deem it unfair in that the system forces almost everyone to invest in a sub-optimal retirement fund. Social security is also (de facto) discriminatory by race. Because blacks have a lesser expected life span, and because social security benefits cease upon death (unlike private retirement accounts that become the property of the heirs on the death of the retiree), social security ends up transferring wealth from blacks to whites (and, similarly, from men to women). Wikiant (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"Very low income" people (defined as those below 30% of median income) might have an expected net positive return, but people in this group typically have shorter-than-median lifespans, hence the concerns of total loss and negative return. Nominally progressive payouts are of no value to those who die prematurely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomerpdx (talk • contribs) 06:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Another regressive aspect is that poorer people tend to start working at an earlier age. —Tamfang (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Social security also pays out disability income which often far exceeds the amount the person ever paid in. Some of the 3,700 folks who started collecting the first Old Age Insurance payments in February 1940 really made out like bandits, since they had paid in for the minimum period and collected for decades. Ida Fuller only paid in $24.75, but lived to be 100 and collected $22,888. If the program were ever phased out, the truly unfortunate would be those millions who paid in all their working life and did not get a meaningful payout. "Privitizing" by allowing younger workers to invest in private investment accounts rather than their input going to pay out the benefits for the retired, would be such a phaseout. At present, it keeps 40% of Americans over 65 out of poverty. But over the lifetime of the program, the age to collect has been lowered and the payments have been increased, since giving away more money is popular in election years. Edison (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Pulleys first used in the British Isles

When did the concept of complex pulleys begin to become popular in the British Isles? Tiailds (talk) 07:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how you want to define "popular" here. We know that the Greeks and Romans used block and tackle systems on winch cranes and treadmill cranes - see the History of cranes section in our crane (machine) article. So complex pulleys were certainly used in Roman Britain. I don't know whether this technology was widely known in pre-Roman Britain. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Some theories of the building of Stonehenge rely on this technology. Xn4 (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Atheism in American politics

Double-whammy.

1. What sacred text would an atheist use in inaugurations?

2. What officially atheist politicians have there been in the US federal or state government, who were known publicly to be atheists at the time they held the position? I have a friend who believes there are none. This is outrageously impossible considering the number of politicians who have passed through positions over the years.

99.245.92.47 (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Easy answer to 1: surely nothing. The Constitution says virtually nothing about presidential inaugurations — Calvin Coolidge swore the constitutionally-required oath of office in front of his father, a local official in Vermont, and that by itself was sufficient for him taking office. I'm sure that federal law discusses inaugurations, but I don't think that there is anything that is required, except the oath of office — and surely there's nothing requiring a religious text, for such would blatantly violate the First Amendment. Therefore, the only way you could answer the first question except by saying "He/she wouldn't use one" would be to ask the atheist.

On your second question, I can't tell you for sure, but I'd actually not be surprised if your friend were correct. The USA is much more religious overall than many other developed countries, and I've heard it said that avowed atheism would be a major political liability, as large numbers of religious people would be opposed to an avowed atheist for that reason alone. Look at the place religion plays in American politics, how politicians (especially presidents and presidential candidates) speak of their religion. I remember during the troubles of the Clinton era, how many conservative Christians saw Clinton's religious activities as highly hypocritical (Clinton's admitted actions that were the basis of the Lewinsky scandal really don't accord with the Bible), and thus opposed him for religious reasons. If Clinton's actions received so much flak for religious reasons from those who believed that he wasn't truly a Christian (although never questioning that he was somewhat religious), imagine how much religious opposition any atheist would receive! All this is not to say "no atheist has ever held major elected office", but it's highly unlikely that one has held office who was known publicly to be an atheist at the time s/he held the position. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

List of atheists (politics and law) has a couple of American governors, but no recent ones... Adam Bishop (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That’s got to be one of the best sourced lists we have! --S.dedalus (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how many are there in this list...--PMajer (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Pete Stark, California congressman, atheist. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought my logic was good...apparently the evidence demonstrates that it wasn't good enough. Thanks for coming up with concrete examples! Nyttend (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

At least as far as the popes, I can assure you none. How could someone become pope if they disavowed God? Unlike many liberal Protestant churches, the Catholic Church has never been open to having prominent leaders who challenge its core doctrines, and everybody was professedly Christian during times when the Papacy was being fought over for political reasons. Nyttend (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, no Pope was openly atheist, of course, but as to the inner religious feelings of a Pope, as well as the feelings of any other politician, we may well doubt whether there is any correspondence with what he declares. Note that I say this with the greatest admiration for the men of the Church, beginning with a genius like St.Paul who had the idea of starting the enterprise. They lasted 2000 years, so they know what they do... You ask: How could an atheist become Pope? If I knew the answer, for sure I would try to become Pope myself!--PMajer (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that both politicians and popes can and do sometimes believe otherwise than they openly state (I seriously doubt the faith of the popes of the Pornocracy), but the IP's original question regarded those who are openly atheists: that's why I said "(dis)avowed". Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm an atheist American, though not eligible for the presidency (for two different reasons, in addition to being non-religious!), but I shall answer anyway: I would place my hand on an original copy of the Constitution of the United States of America, which in my view should be the only sacred document for an incoming president. --Sean 00:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Good job Sean; until reading your answer, I thought the IP meant "which sacred text would be read at the ceremony"? It's important to remember (as you plainly do; I'm not criticising you) that placing one's hand on a Bible is only tradition, and "so help me God", always spoken at the end of the oath, is not required by the Constitution. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This question prompted me to research my own state constitution. The Preamble to the North Carolina State Constitution starts with "We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties..." Wait a minute. Grateful to God... for the preservation of... religious liberties. What bible were they reading? I don't remember the bible presenting God as being very accepting of differing views. Oh, wait a minute! Preservation of one particular group's religious liberties! Hmm... this isn't looking good. Let's see what else the state constitution has to say. ARTICLE I (DECLARATION OF RIGHTS) Sec. 19. (Law of the land; equal protection of the laws) states, in part, "No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be subjected to discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin." Okay, no person shall be subjected to discrimination by the state because of religion. Well, then, what am I to make of article VI? ARTICLE VI (SUFFRAGE AND ELIGIBILITY TO OFFICE) Sec. 8. (Disqualifications for office) states, in part, "The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God." It seems that the state constitution ensures equal protection and non-discrimination by the state, unless you're an atheist or belong to a religion that does not recognize the Christian God. I wonder if anyone who has attained public office in North Carolina has ever tried to challenge that? 152.16.16.75 (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As a fellow Tarheel, I encourage you to unbunch your panties! States can put whatever backward-ass stuff they want in their laws and constitutions, but the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, so this kind of stuff doesn't even pass the sniff test. See No religious test clause and Torcaso v. Watkins. --Sean 15:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess the humorous, tongue-in-cheek nature of my previous comment was lost on Sean. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

When was Jesus born?

Jesus wasn't born on Dec 25th right? Or even in December for that matter. Do we know when he was really born? ScienceApe (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't know; the Bible gives no real indication. There's only one exception: I've heard it said that the idea of shepherds watching their flocks by night in the fields would be impossible in the winter, however, so anytime in December would be impossible. I've never seen a scientific study done on when ancient Jewish shepherds would be out in the fields with their flocks, but the idea sounds reasonable enough to me that I believe that Jesus was born in the spring, summer, or autumn. Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

He was born in Bethlehem right? Does it get cold there in December? ScienceApe (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

So I've heard. Interesting, googling bethlehem december weather yields nearly 1.5 million hits, so you're not the only one asking this question. This church website quotes various authorities, including an Israeli meteorologist, to state that the area frosts overnight in December; assuming that they understood reliable sources properly, there's good reason to believe that the weather would be too cold. This website proposes the end of September; I don't have time to read it, so I don't know why they advocate it. Have fun reading the explanation if you feel like it. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see [28] for an explanation of some of the historical difficulties. These difficulties are simplified where there is no belief in the birth or the person, of course. In short, believe what you will; we do not know. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No one knows the time of year for sure, but its fairly certain he was born in 4 BC.--GreenSpigot (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Also Shepherds watching their flocks and wise men is probably also bullshit used to garnish the story.--GreenSpigot (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends which gospel you read. Matthew says he was born in the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC. Luke says he was born at the time of the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria, and that was in AD 6. The two gospel accounts of the Nativity are very different in a number of ways. Just about all they agree on is that he was born in Bethlehem in Judea, the son of Mary and supposed son of Joseph, and grew up in Nazareth in Galilee. --Nicknack009 (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also the Star of Bethlehem, which has proven rich fodder for many scientific types who equate it to a comet, supernova, conjunction of planets or what have you, and have tried dating his birth from that perspective. There's no consensus on the exact date, and there likely never will be. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

December 26

Effect of Iraq war on global economic situation

I'm looking for references that link the recent Iraq war and the US involvement to the current global economic situation. I dont need speculation: just references. Thanks.--GreenSpigot (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Stiglitz, author of The Three Trillion Dollar War, has made some remarks about this: "Because they did very little to stimulate the economy, real stimulation was left to the Fed, which took up the task with unprecedented low-interest rates and liquidity. The war in Iraq made matters worse, because it led to soaring oil prices. With America so dependent on oil imports, we had to spend several hundred billion more to purchase oil—money that otherwise would have been spent on American goods. Normally this would have led to an economic slowdown, as it had in the 1970s. But the Fed met the challenge in the most myopic way imaginable." [29]. DAVID ŠENEK 10:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays! Now lie to your children.

What's the justification of parents to lie to children about the existence of fantasy creatures like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Tooth Fairy? It seems like it's breaking an incredible trust children have of their guardians. --71.158.216.23 (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, bear in mind that parents lie to their children all the time. For example, parents typically tell their children that they are going to keep them safe no matter what or that they'll never leave them, no matter what, even though they obviously can't promise that. These are considered to be perfectly acceptable lies, as they are meant to reassure the child and typically express the parent's sincere desire to take care of the child, and it's hard to fault anyone for saying that. Other examples of lies could be "daddy's too busy to play with you" (when in reality they just feel like doing something else) or "daddy's very tired" (when in reality daddy just came home from the company Christmas party and can't make it up the stairs). And I don't mean to put parents down for this; it's perfectly okay to reassure a child. Full disclosure is not a requirement; it's a family, not a deposition.

Santa Claus is pretty much in a different category, of course, but the point is, it's not like lying about him is such a big deal compared to the network of casual white lies that forms the cornerstone of any family; it's pretty much a drop in the ocean. Still, it can make children happy to think that there's a jolly and friendly guy out there who gives gifts, and it's also a way to control children -- "remember to behave or Santa'll know you've been bad." Or, in the case of the Tooth Fairy, losing teeth can be painful and scary, but if you think there's a friendly and exciting magic guy out there to help you deal with it, that makes it easier to handle. Children do need to learn certain limits and they do need to be manipulated a little bit, because that's a big part of learning certain ground rules about social interaction. (We tell comparable lies all the time: for example, that if you take things from a store without paying for them, you'll get in big trouble. If we were 100% honest, we might say that stealing is morally wrong, but if you take a candy bar when no one is looking and aren't stupid about it and have a bit of luck with you, chances are that you can get away with it, and even if you get caught, the consequences aren't that serious, especially if you're a minor. But that kind of full disclosure is hardly going to be to the child's benefit.)

These fantasy characters are pretty much harmless, and kids grow out of them very quickly -- sure, they may believe in Santa when they're four or five years old, but once they start school, they get the picture. That's a part of growing up. I mean, sure, you can just decide to not deal with this crap at all and tell your kids from the get-go that these are all just stories, and that's fine. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. (Then again, you can go overboard there and also come down hard on imaginary friends and systematically eliminate all sense of wonder from your kids' lives, as some people do. I kind of doubt that kind of honesty makes for happy children.)

And, frankly, compared to people who constantly tell their children -- for example -- that God is always watching and judging them, and He wants them to be heterosexual or they'll go to hell, I'd say that the people who pretend for a couple of years that Santa Claus is real are probably doing okay in terms of morals and ethics. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there are parents who will take their young children to a hell house and tell their kids that everything there WILL happen to them if they get an abortion, or are gay, or think “bad” things, or whatever. Santa clause seems like a pretty benign deception in comparison. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As a parent of a 3 year old, the whole Santa thing seems to slot right into just-now blossoming of imagination and imaginary play. Make-believe is not only fun, but useful for learning how to think about "what if" scenarios, I think. The Christmas season is full of make-believe imagery, Santas, reindeer and sleighs, and so on. When a 3 year old wants to know what all this is about, you could explain how it's all about this fairy tale that is not actually true, or you could tell the fairy tale and nevermind whether it is true or not. There's a period of childhood where the difference between make-believe and reality is not well defined. It takes time for kids to figure out what is imaginary and what it reality, and how thinking and talking about things does or doesn't make them real. And one of the ways kids figure it out is by doing what kids to best-- playing. So as a parent you can "play along" or you can try to teach them not to believe in things that are not true. Personally, I find "playing along" more fun, and suspect it is more helpful in learning about imagination and reality. I find the Santa fairy tale a rather weird thing to play along with, but--calling it a "lie" and a "breaking of trust" makes me wonder whether you have little kids, and if so... don't you ever play make-believe games? Might there not be an elephant in the shed? Don't the toys go to sleep when put in the toybox? Naturally one could go too far and insist on the fairy tales being true. But kids will be exposed to the myth unless locked in a closet. The question is how much to play along with it. I'd argue that for a 3 year old it is just as unhelpful to deny the myth (and try to explain what a myth even is) than it is to insist on it's perfect truth. Better to play with it. That's how kids learn things, by playing. Pfly (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As a little child I was told about Santa and God. Later I learned that Santa, elves, and ghosts were pretend but God was real. I gained a degree of skepticism which has never left, with the grownups not readily able to answer why I should have faith is some supernatural creatures but not others. Never lie to children about Santa and such: find other ways to answer the questions. Edison (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

To follow up on both, especially Pfly's, my family always encouraged it as part of pretending, and gradually led me into the truth about Santa by sharing the notion that I could be Santa just as easily; as the youngest for 10 years, I was always the one who handed out the gifts before we all opened them, for instance. (Helped by the fact I could read really early.) It could be, I supposed, considered PanSantaism. :-)

This is how I was able, when older, to maintain my faith in God while realizing the others were fantasy; as Edison says, there's no way to distinguish if they're just treated as all things one can believe. But, there was something about the notion that I, too, could be Santa that helped me to realize it was more about a concept than about a mythical figure.

I forget when I learned of the real Saint Nicholas who lived what, 1700 years ago? But, it was probably very early, and it was easy, because of the way my family handled things, to think to myself, "Okay, that makes sense that that's how the whole Santa thing started."

So, to answer your question, it is a natural part of pretending, but it's harder to justify if there's not some attempt to say, "This is so fun to play like this." Not in so many words necessarily, but just in one's actions. Even encouraging it in some ways. A good friend of mine has nephews, the younger of whom loves to make up stories. And, they're always saying, "He's got to be a famous writer someday, the way he loves his stories." This kid is growing to realize they are fantasy, but at the same time, it's helping to encourage his mind to expand.Somebody or his brother (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Children have imaginations. Also many news and newspaper organizations will imply that Santa is real (for example, CP 24: "Santa uses first-aid training to save life of man in Hamilton from heart attack"). There are a lot of things that we don't know whether they are real or not, such as UFOs, cryptids, and such, and besides, everyone knows Santa lives in Rovaniemi, Finland, and not the North Pole. ;-) . ~AH1^(TCU) 18:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Pursuing law abroad

Hello. I live in India. I wish to study intellectual property law abroad (U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia or New Zealand). Can you please apprise me of the avenues open to me in this respect, and how I should proceed? Thank you very much. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Some Australian universities run postgraduate programs, and some specialise in intellectual property. This is the general Master of Laws by coursework degree at the University of Sydney. Generally, an undergraduate degree in law is a pre-requisite. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In the United States, intellectual property is covered as an optional part of the regular law school curriculum. American law schools, unlike those in other countries, are graduate schools, and you would need first to obtain a bachelor's college degree. This could be obtained either in the U.S. or in a foreign country, and no particular course of undergraduate study is required, although a background in science or engineering may be a good choice if you plan to specialize in intellectual property. A small number of American law schools also offer an LL.M. (Master of Laws) graduate degree, for those who already have a law degree from either a U.S. or a foreign law school, and some of these may offer specializations in intellectual property law. John M Baker (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

on English

Could anyone tell me the exact role of the word "structural" in the phrase "structural design architecture"? Is it an adverb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.229.46 (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an adjective. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A case could be made for adverb. You could say that "design" is being used as an adjective modifying "architecture", and "structural" is an adverb modifying the adjective "design". Another way of looking at it is that "structural design" is the adjective, and that, within the phrase, "structural" is an adjective modifying the noun "design". I wish I could figure out, though, what the phrase might possibly mean. More context would be helpful. I love questions like this because they reveal the artificial nature of the parts-of-speech classification system, a system I think limits expressiveness if misapplied. We parse to try to make sense of English, but we shouldn't write to please the parsers. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely an adjective. "Structural" is an adjective modifying the noun "design" in the phrase "structural design", which is in turn an adjectival phrase modifying the noun "architect". A "structural design architect" is an architect specialising in structural design. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, but the phrase is not "structural design architect", it's "structural design architecture". (Funny, I had written an entire response based on that same misreading before I looked again.) --Milkbreath (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

on framing a question

Hoe could one frame the question for the answer,"Iam the second child to my parents"? Though it seems to be easy, its analysis is very hectic. I cant tackle this question posed by my friend some four years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.2.229.46 (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Am I my parents' second child ?". However, this question could be complicated by adoptions, abortions, still-born children, deaths, and/or either parent having had children with other people. StuRat (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Or simply "Which one of your parents' children are you?", or even "Are you your parents' first, second or third child?" But I think the answer is a little convoluted; it's not a terribly natural thing to say in response to anything. It's more of a statement than an answer. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Comment dit-on 'je suis le deuxieme enfant de mes parents' en anglais?" 99.245.92.47 (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Among your siblings, where in the birth order do you fall?" --Milkbreath (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Or simply "What's my birth order ?". StuRat (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely it would be "What's your birth order?", Stu. One doesn't normally ask questions of oneself, and then answer oneself. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to replicate the OPs: "I am the second child to my parents ?", which seemed to be asking the question about one's self. Note that this isn't necessarily asked of one's self, though. If adopted, for example, you might very well ask what your birth order is when you meet your biological parents. Oh, and don't call me Shirley. :-) StuRat (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This question really belonged on the Language Desk, but the answer in

general is that English doesn't have a short expression (as some other languages do) to ask for the numerical position of one entry in a sequence -- if we wanted to invent a word for the purpose it would probably be "whichth", but nobody would be able to pronounce it!

For this specific question, the phrase "birth order" is available,

but there isn't a general expression for the concept. You have to fall back on long forms like "What is Moose Jaw's rank among Canadian cities by population?" or "In the sequence of American presidents, what number was Lincoln?" Or if you want to use something shorter, you have to make sure there is enough context that people will get the idea.

--Anonymous, 01:23 UTC, December 27, 2008.

The question would probably be, "Are you the first-born child of your parents?" Answer: "No, I was born second/third/last/etc." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

How do German people feel about actions of Nazi Germany?

Obviously, I know that Germany officially renounces actions of Nazi Germany and I know that Nazism is touchy theme in that area. What I'm asking is how does general public or average German person feels about actions of their country during WW2? For many people I know Hitler is embodiment of pure evil. And while that opinion is highly subjective, at least in my experience its widely spread. How do Germans deal with legacy Nazi Germany left them with. Do they feel that 1933 - 1945 is dark chapter of their history that never should have happened or they accept that Nazism (and by extension, Holocaust), while it has negative connotation, is something that was forced upon them by specific set of circumstances and actions of parties they had no direct control over. It would be great if somebody who is German or lived there for some time could answer this. Once again, I know there are neo-Nazi groups and pro-Nazi people, but I am interested in feeling of general public, not minority. P.S. Just for the record, I'm asking this because somebody told me: "History is written by winners". It kinda stuck in my mind and made me rethink everything I believed for granted. Would we look at Nazism in positive light if Axis powers won? Would we denounce actions of Allies and would we find Holocaust on Allies' side in case Axis won? Melmann^(talk) 16:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you can look at history. Everyone who "won" was not necessarily good from almost any point of view. Cortes for example was a despicable murderer who plundered and razed native American civilizations, but.... he won. He was victorious in his conquests. He was just as bad as Hitler was, but he's not vilified nearly as much. Some would argue that Christopher Columbus was also just as bad, and we have a holiday for him. Yes, winning for your side does change who is "right or wrong" so to speak. ScienceApe (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hitler himself said "The victor will never be asked if he told the truth." Not that that answers your question, of course. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The victors, or those with guns and printing presses, write the history books. In North Korea, history books said that Kim Il-Sung defeated Japan in World War 2 without significant assistance from the Allies. There are also independent thinkers who challenge the "truth" with which students are indoctrinated. Edison (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The article Historiography of World War II says "It is commonly said that history is written by the victors; but the exact opposite occurred in the chronicling of the Eastern Front, particularly in the West. Soviet secrecy and unwillingness to acknowledge events that might discredit the regime lead to them revealing little information, always heavily edited - leaving western historians to rely almost totally on German sources." Sadly the article on the war's historiography is rather too brief to be much help. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

In the 1970s, when I was in the US Air Force stationed in Germany, a friend of mine told me that he had gone to dinner with some German friends. The German family's teenage son was spouting off stuff like, "You Allies destroyed my country", as if it was the Allies' fault that Germany had been damaged. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a good case can be made that much of the Allied bombing of German cities, particularly historic and residential areas, was gratuitous and served no military purpose. See Bombing of Dresden in World War II and our article on Arthur "Bomber" Harris. I don't think that you can make a case that "German people" are responsible for this damage to their country, especially since many of them opposed the Nazis, though perhaps not as energetically as, in retrospect, we might wish. It is understandable that some Germans resent that damage.

That said, I think that the vast majority of Germans deeply regret their country's actions under the Nazis. The post-war generation of Germans undertook a process of Vergangenheitsbewältigung—or coming to terms with the past—that involved an acceptance of their country's responsibility for horrific crimes against humanity. Vergangenheitsbewältigung has been a widespread cultural movement and has had an impact on many aspects of German culture, including school curriculums. Based on my time living in Germany and my acquaintance with many Germans, I think that there is a wide range of feeling about the Nazi past, but I do think that the vast majority of Germans have feelings ranging from regret to shame about that past. Some Germans, especially very old ones who were adults under the Nazis (not many of those left), may have a feeling of grievance about being blamed for acquiescing in Nazi rule and may feel that they were unaware of the extent of its evil and anyway powerless to do anything about it. Some young Germans, whose grandparents were born during or after the war, may question the relevance of the Nazi past to their own lives and wonder why Germans are still "doing penance" for it when other nations are arguably guilty of similar or worse historic crimes, such as the conduct of the slave trade by Portugal, Spain, France, and England; or the maintenance of black slavery and the genocide of Native Americans in the United States. However, the overwhelming majority of Germans would agree that the Nazi regime was bad for the world and bad for Germany and would condemn its actions. Marco polo (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I am German, and I fully agree with Marco's second paragraph. The maxim "Never again!" shaped our curriculum, e.g. by teaching us how to look through manipulation. My impression is that most Germans would agree that National Socialism is Germany's own doing (see also de:Kollektivschuld). The debate is primarily about (1) whether Germany has made up for it and (2) how much individual people could have done to prevent it. Some people point out that Hitler would not have come to power if Germany had not been humiliated in the Treaty of Versailles (but very few point out that that, in turn was a consequence of Germany humiliating France by founding its Second Reich in Versailles, of all places, 48 years earlier. I'm only mentioning this here to illustrate how humiliation and violence form a vicious cycle that is hard to break. However, after the War, Germany and France reconciled, and it makes me happy that someone added the picture commemorating that as a model to Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars.)

Regarding the bombing of Dresden; it is true that many Germans feel it was gratuitous, but many would still say that it was Germany's fault; we are painfully aware that, when Hitler asked "do you want the total war", masses shouted "yes", and few dared to disagree. — Sebastian 07:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your PS: I don't think that history is distorted to any considerable degree in this case. We are well aware of such atrocities as the genocide of Native Americans, slavery, and the excesses of Executive Order 9066, since these issues are openly discussed in the US and Canada. For the most recent of these, the Japanese American internment, people are encouraged to contribute their personal histories to museums, comparable to how German museums are trying to document the holocaust. We have enough information to be sure that, as bad as it was, it was by no means as bad as the holocaust. — Sebastian 07:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all your responses. You confirmed what I thought. I personally don't blame Germany for anything although I know people who openly dislike Germany for what Nazis did. Sad really, but I think we should just let the past push the subject into history books. On matter of history being written by winners, subject still lies heavily on my mind, but it also pushes me to study history more thoroughly and get multiple sources on any subject. Once again, thanks.--Melmann^(talk) 13:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

census redistricting

Will the redistricting for the house of representatives that follows the 2010 census occur before the 2010 election cycle or after it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.60 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It takes a long time for them to get their data together. Our 2010 United States Census article says, "The results of the 2010 census will determine the number of seats each state receives in the House of Representatives starting with the 2012 elections". --Sean 00:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

United States congressional apportionment has historically been done three years after the census. (I've seen an explicit list, but cannot now find it.) —Tamfang (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

For a 2000 example, see three maps: the presidential elections of 1996, 2000, and 2004. You may remember that the number of electors each state gets is equal to the number of representatives they have in Congress plus 2 (for the senators). As you'll see, each state had the same number of electors in 1996 and 2000, but they changed in 2004. Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

President Abraham Lincoln

Did Lincoln ever own any slaves at anytime in his life? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.230.187 (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so. He did live at one point along a road which slaves would walk along to be sold. Historians believe he would have seen many pass by on that road as a boy. They wonder whether this had an influence on him later on. Wrad (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln was probably never rich enough to own slaves; he came from a relatively poor background, and even as an adult, lived mostly as a starving lawyer (my how times have changed). Slaves were relatively expensive to purchase and to support; not every white person, even in the south, owned them. Probably not even a majority did... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

When Lincoln was nine years old, his family moved from Kentucky, a slave state, to Indiana, where slavery was prohibited at the time. At the age of 21, Lincoln and his family moved to Illinois, which likewise banned slavery. So Lincoln was never really in a position to own a slave. Marco polo (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Slavery wasn't outlawed in Washington D.C. until April 16, 1862, so technically he could have owned slaves while living at the White House. However, given that he was elected as an anti-slavery candidate from an abolitionist party, such a turn of event would have been highly unlikely. -- 75.42.233.82 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The history of slavery in Indiana isn't quite as cut-and-dried as presented above (see the linked article). And Lincoln was in Washington D.C. during 1847-1849 as a Whig. Also, the Republican party of 1860 was not an abolitionist party, if by abolitionist is meant "having an openly-expressed intention to directly interfere with slavery within the slave states". The Republican party platform was very strongly committed to preventing the expansion of slavery into new territories (the main national political issue of the 1854-1860 period -- see Kansas-Nebraska Act or Bleeding Kansas), but recognized that the constitution as it then existed did not give the federal government power to directly intervene in the "domestic affairs" of the individual states. The main Republican ideas were to admit Kansas as a fully free state, prevent slavery from spreading into any other territories, roll back some of the effects of the Dred Scott decision, to withdraw all existing federal government support for the institution of slavery (except in a few limited cases where such support was strictly required by the U.S. constitution), and to "place slavery where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction" (as Lincoln phrased it). Running on an outright abolitionist platform in 1860 would have been a sure guarantee of defeat, as Republican politicians were well aware...

In any case, the answer to the original question is an unequivocal "no" -- Abraham Lincoln did not own any slaves at any time. However, some members of his wife's family did own slaves... AnonMoos (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

---

while not american, i was always told that he did own slaves and thus the emancipation of the slaves by him was rather odd. I always assumed this was common knowlege and true, so maybe a historian can give us a citation either way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Told by whom?? Maybe you're confusing him with Thomas Jefferson or George Washington, both of whom had at least some anti-slavery opinions, but were slave owners during most of their lives...? -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Trademarks and Copyrights

On the internet copyrights eem to take effect instantly. Like on Wikipedia it says the material is released under the Free Documentation License but it doesn't have to through the Library of Congress. But on there site it says that it copyrights are registered. Which one is true? Do I have to go throught the LOC to get my material on the internet copyrighted? And for trademarks, if I want a trademark and I register it, does it cover all industries? --Melab±1 ☎ 22:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Registration of copyrights varies quite a bit by jurisdiction. Generally stuff is copyrighted as soon as you create it, but (for stuff that's really worth nontrivial money) one can still register a copyright with the relevant authority. Trademarks are quite different - you have to apply for them (and many things can't be trademarked) and you can be turned down. Trademarks cover specific sectors of trade, although those sectors are generally very wide indeed. 81.157.237.68 (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

See copyright registration. In brief, registration is not necessary for you to have a copyright, but is desirable if you want to make money because of your copyright. We shouldn't go into this in detail here; we're verging on giving legal advice, which isn't allowed on the reference desks.

--Anonymous, 01:28 UTC, December 27, 2008.

Oh lord, this isn't anything NEAR legal advice. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to register copyrights in any nation that is a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works—which is most of the world. It is a mandatory aspect of the Berne Convention that copyright assignment is automatic and instantaneous.

Trademarks, by contrast, must be registered and maintained, at least in the United States. They do not cover all industries, generally speaking. So the company Orange has trademarked their name and the color orange with regards to telecommunications. That doesn't mean you can't use the word or color orange ever again, but you can't start a telecommunications company with the name "orange" or with a predominantly orange logo. If they don't maintain their registration and prove they are still using it, it can lapse, and someday you could use the name/logo freely again. Make sense? This is basic concept stuff, it is not "legal advice." --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I had the impression that ® means a registered trademark while ™ means a trademark established by usage. (Similarly in most of These United States you can change your name either by usage or by formal process.) —Tamfang (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

see trademark symbol. Rmhermen (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In Berne Convention countries other than the United States, coypright does not generally require registration.

Even in the United States, because of the obligations of the US to accord most favoured nation/national treatment to foreigners, foreign copyright owners are not required to register their copyright.

See also TRIPS.

Outside the United States, there is no requirement to "warn" others of your trademark status. The "R" symbol is used only for registered trade marks, while the "TM" symbol can be used for any trade mark. Some companies may choose to label their registered trademarks "TM" in order to protect their non-registered trade marks. For example, if your packaging carries several marks, only some of which are registered, you may choose to label all of them "TM" so that another person would be unsure which are registered and which are not - and thus would not immediately know which marks they can more easily copy/imitate and which they cannot. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

December 27

Hawaiian Punch

<Question asking for legal advice removed, as per guidelines above> BrainyBabe (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

We recommend that you contact and lawyer and ask them these questions. StuRat (talk) 11:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Christ Church Primary School,Stockport

Hi My name is Charmaine Kenney and I attended Christ Church Primary School,Parsonage Road/Wellington road,Stockport,Cheshire..Unfortunately I have not been able to find any reference for this Church....I was able to find a picture of it, but nothing else and was told to get in touch with St Mary's in Stockport...The only part still standing is the Church....Can you please help me, as to where I could find the info ,I am looking for...Thank You, Charmaine Kenney —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmaine52 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is in England, apparently (I was thinking New Zealand at first based on the Christ Church/Wellington combo). I found an entry for "Stockport Wellington Road County Primary School [Stockport Borough Education Division] [1875-1901] - ref. SL299" at [30]. If that means the school closed in 1901, you'd have to be over 110 to have attended, however. Perhaps the school existed after that but changed names, educational divisions, etc. Can you give us the years you attended ? Also, what info do you want about this school ? A full street address ? Where to access the school records ? Or something else ? StuRat (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I did a Google maps search and found the intersection, but note that it's "Parsonage Street", not Road. That may help further searches. StuRat (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Also note that this appears to be within the Heaton Norris residential area of Stockport. StuRat (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You might want to ask at WikiProject Greater Manchester – they've got a lot of members and may well have someone nearby. – iridescent 03:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whereabouts you're living now Charmaine52, but the Stockport Heritage Library, located on Wellington Road South [31] will probably have tons of information. Good luck! Majorly talk 02:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Shia islam versus Sunni islam

Can you please tell details about whether Shia or Sunni are performing the right Islam as it was meant to be, are Shia's right or Sunni's? or both are right in their own ways? who's more accurate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MKhusro (talk • contribs) 13:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, they both think that they're right. The Shias (spelling?) think that the Shias are right, and the Sunnis think that the Sunnis are right. Personally, I'm not a Muslim, so I don't have an opinion. flaminglawyer^c 16:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Shia are referred to as the Shia or Shiite. Obviously, the only true religion is belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, the factions which say he's covered in parmesan and romano cheese will each fight to the death to defend their own "truth". StuRat (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

See "Sunni-Shia relations". It has a section on the differences. See also the separate articles "Sunni Islam" and "Shia Islam". --Milkbreath (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

---

You know, most major historical "schisms" in Islam have actually occurred over disputes about who has the legitimate right to lead the community of Muslims, and NOT over points of doctrine or ritual (as has been the case in Christianity and Buddhism). There are some differences in belief and practices between Sunnism and Shi`ism, but such differences were subsequent to the original political disputes over the nature of Ali ibn Abi Talib's claims to the Caliphate; the Sunni-Shi`ite split was not really theological in origin, as most Westerners would understand the term "theology". So where Christianity has schisms over "a vowel" (as been said of the homoousianist vs. homoiousianist dispute), Islam has schisms over ancient political power-struggles... AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What country has the easiest prisons?

Narrowly missed a bullet here in the USA. Just as well, I hear max sec can be pretty harsh around here anyways. Lets face it, I'm a criminal. And I've accepted a long time ago that a tiger can't change it's[sic] stripes. So if I'm gonna live outside the law, may as well do my time as easy as possible. So what country can I move to, raise hell, then get pampered in thier generous prison system?I'm Scared (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Norway is the country for you: [32], [33] (in the second video the part about prison starts around 6:00). 194.171.56.13 (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered white collar crime? It's often more lucrative, less personally risky, has a lower conviction rate because the juries get bored and confused, and even if convicted you get to go to relatively luxurious minimum security prisons. That said, if you're committed to your current m.o., I'd go with Austria. --Sean 14:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is why I love Wikipedia. We don't give legal advice, but we are happy to give illegal advice. --Melmann^(talk) 15:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

And when you get to the countries, don't bother learning their language. Just run around in the streets shouting "No comprendo!" Or if someone understands that, ignore them and start saying "No speak-a da Englais!" flaminglawyer^c 16:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Austria seems pretty neat; try the Justice Center Leoben. The US DoJ Bureau of Justice Statistics has detailed info comparing 45 countries[34]. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Greenland's penal system seems (or seemed, back when this article was written) to be the thing for you; it seems serious offenders are binned off to Denmark's proper jails, however (but still that's not exactly Leavenworth). 87.112.25.135 (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

kant and swedenborg

Bertrand Russell claims in The History of Western Philosophy that Emanuel Swedenborg sold four copies of a certain grand theological work (almost certainly the Arcana Celestia, or Heavenly Secrets), one of which just happened to be to Immanuel Kant. I've tried googling, but haven't turned up anything, and Russell wasn't kind or helpful enough to supply his History with comprehensive footnotes, so I'm wondering if anyone out there can verify or debunk this one. Our article on S. acknowledges that Kant did indeed buy the book, but I'm wondering if it's true that it only sold 4 copies when first published. Thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have received letters informing me that not more than four copies have been sold in the space of two months. I communicated this to the Angels. They were surprised... Spiritual Diary 1164

—eric 04:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

see also: White, William M., (1868) "Chapter XIV: Publication of Arcana Celestia" Emanuel Swedenborg: His Life and Writings.—eric 05:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What large US cities have some form of rent control?

I believe New York City has 'rent control', 'vacancy decontrol' and 'rent stabilization', and San Francisco has some type of rent control. Are there any other large cities with rent control of one sort or another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomerpdx (talk • contribs) 18:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Santa Monica and Berkeley (both in California) have at times been notorious for it, though I have no idea what the present state is. —Tamfang (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sunni Schools of thought of Arab World

What is the history of Sunni Muslims in Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Djibouti and Egypt being Hanafi Muslims? What is the history of Sunni Muslims in United Arab Emirates, Somalia and Sudan being Shafi Muslims? What is the history of Sunni Muslims in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Yemen being Hanbali Muslims? What is the history of Sunni Muslims in Mauritania, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia and Algeria being Maliki Muslims? What about Bahrain, Oman and Comoros? What is their Sunni school of thought? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.209 (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The main traditional schools of Sunni thought are listed under Madhhab, though there are others both historical (e.g. Mutazilite) and modern (e.g. Salafi). To answer your question in any depth would require a book (and I suggest that you consult one or more), not a quick Ref Desk reply... AnonMoos (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Civil unions and marriage

Disclaimer: This is a hypothetical situation and not a request for legal advice. I am merely curious.

Jane Doe is a Brit. She "marries" (enters into a civil partnership) with Alice in Britain. After however many years, Jane and Alice split up but don't bother dissolving the civil partnership. Jane moves to another country where no same-sex marriages or equivalents are recognised. She meets John Smith and wants to marry him. Can she legally marry him in that country? Is the marriage legal if she and her "husband" move back to Britain?

-- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 23:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no way to predict how a court would rule in such a situation; likely different courts will rule in different ways, and the situation will remain unresolved until a supreme court rules or legislation is passed. - Nunh-huh 23:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The second marriage would be bigamous in Britain. So - "No". 91.106.44.238 (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that in Australia some people from overseas are required to provide a document from their previous country affirming that they are not married. However, Section 88EA of the Australian Federal Marriage Act 1961 states:

A union solemnised in a foreign country between:

(a) a man and another man; or

(b) a woman and another woman;

must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.

And the crime of bigamy and the relevant qualification provisions only use the word marriage, which is also defined specifically as

"marriage" means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

So I see no reason that such a marriage would be prevented under Australian law. Which is not what you asked, but I think it is a good example. I expect it would not work that way universally, however.--Jabberwalkee (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Books on types of Nationalism

Is there any books on a)Pan-Africanism, b)Pan-Arabism, c)English Nationalism, d)French Nationalism, e)Italian Nationalism, f)German Nationalism, g)Pan-Iranism, h)Greater Somalia, i)Pan-Slavism, j)Pan-Americanism, k)Pan-Asianism, l)Ugric-Finno nationalism, m)Pan-Turkism, n)Pan-European Nationalism o)Bengali Nationalism p)Bangladeshi Nationalism q)Dravidian movement r)Hindu Nationalism s)Buddhist Nationalism t)Assamese Nationalism u)Tamil Nationalism v)Telugu Nationalism w)Malayalam Nationalism x)Marathi Nationalism y)Punjabi Nationalism z)Sikh Nationalism i)Oriya Nationalism ii)Pakistani Nationalism iii)Indian Nationalism iv)Sindhi Nationalism v)Baloch Nationalism vi)Pashto Nationalism vii)Saraiki nationalism viii)Hindko Nationalism ix)Kurdish Nationalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.209 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. - Nunh-huh 23:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

We are not going to just give you a dump of books relating to well over 30 separate topics. You should narrow down your research questions a bit—assuming each of those had only one book on them, that'd still be too many books to read, and some of those have many, many books written about them. You should also think about narrowing it down in terms of time-frame as well—French nationalism in the 18th century? The 19th? The 20th? All very different topics. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You could do worse than looking at the bottom of articles such as a) Pan-Africanism, b) Pan-Arabism, c) English Nationalism, d) French Nationalism, e) Italian Nationalism, f) German Nationalism ... Oops, some red links there; you could also look at what's under Category:Pan movements and Category:Nationalism by country or region (plus Category:Nationalism in general). Not all articles are of the same quality, but most mention or list books and give external links with more resources. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hindu belt in Bangladesh

Is this true that Khulna and Barisal Divisions are called together Hindu Belt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.209 (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be true that someone has called them that, but I only found "Hindi Belt" meaning the Hindi Heartland in India. The article Hinduism in Bangladesh includes a map showing the concentration of Hindus across the country. There are two neighbouring spots of over 50% in the two divisions you mention, but it's not really belt-shaped, most of the right spot actually lies in the Dhaka Division, and there are other areas of equally high concentration in Bangladesh. Note that Sylhet has a higher percentage of Hindus (17.80%) than either Khulna (16.45%) or especially Barisal (11.70%) which actually has the second lowest percentage among the six Divisions of Bangladesh. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

December 28

Tipping the staff for staying over Christmas (UK)

How much is an appropriate amount for N nights, S members of staff and G guests? 91.106.44.238 (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

At what establishment? Algebraist 01:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Relation's private house. 91.106.44.238 (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ask the relation. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Now he is seriously rich. Hence the chef, butler, maid, etc. 91.106.44.238 (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

So? Algebraist 01:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not posh enough to have stayed anywhere with a butler, but I'd wager that it'd be incredibly gauche of you to tip the staff of a private residence. The reason being that the staff are professionals in the private employ of your relation - they aren't "work-a-day stiffs" at an hotel. Trying to tip them might actually be seen as a lessening of their position (possibly). I'd imagine if they were due any extra consideration because of your presence, it would be your relation who would handle paying the bonus. As others have mentioned, talk to him to sort things out. The only instance I can imagine where you might tip the staff directly is if they did something special for you which went above-and-beyond normal hospitality (accommodated special requests from you, ran private errands, etc.). If you are still at the residence, a polite and discrete inquiry to the staff members may reveal what they believe is appropriate compensation. - As mentioned, I'm not very knowledgeable, so take the above with a grain of salt. -- 75.42.233.82 (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have stayed in houses with only one daily maid and another with four indoor permanent staff, on each occasion the hosts have quietly suggested that I leave a tip for the staff.--79.79.187.69 (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Federally owned slaves

A previous question [35] got me thinking: Back when it was legal to do so, did the Office of the U.S. President own slaves? Not the person of the president, mind you (I know that a number of presidents had personal slaves) but the office itself - in the sense of how it's the presidency which "owns" the White House, not the person who is president. I guess the question also could be posed of Congress and, for that matter, the Federal Government in general. Were there any federally owned slaves? -- 75.42.233.82 (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you consider indentured servitude to be equivalent to slavery, then the US military is slavery. Extending on that - if you don't consider indentured servitude to be slavery because it is voluntary, then what do you consider forced servitude created by the draft? -- kainaw™ 02:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

To clarify and to avoid a sidetracked discussion, I was specifically referring to the type of slavery prohibited by the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (and the actual effects of such, not theoretical discussions). Please leave the draft discussion for another day. -- 75.42.233.82 (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(Why is it that Ref Desk personnel seem so eager to side-track discussion with pedantry? Is it a form of preening, showing that one is more clever than others? Or does it represent a simple inability to answer the question as asked? In this case, there is no doubt as to what the original questioner meant, yet somehow the first response is a pedantic inquiry into the definition of "slavery" that takes it to places that no one would expect it to, namely that military service is a form of "slavery", which is total nonsense anyway.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Then, see Confiscation Act of 1861. Any slaves captured by the North became Federal property - which, in my opinion, means that the Federal government "owned slaves" during that time. As for asking for a definition of "slave" - it is important to clarify how MUCH of an answer the questioner wants. -- kainaw™ 02:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the White House Historical Association, the early presidents were expected to hire and pay for their own staff. Several presidents were slaveowners and had slaves working for them in Washington (or, in George Washington's case, in New York and Philadelphia when these were the capital). It seems that the office of the president (as opposed to the individual occupying that office) didn't have a structure for owning slaves as a kind of staff to remain in place from one administration to the next. Even less likely for Congress, though slaves worked on both the White House and the Capitol, often under contracts extended to slaveholders. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

While I have no specific knowledge of American History or the politics of slavery, I would say that unquestionable the answer is yes, because the White House itself was constructed mostly by slaves. That's quite an inheritance for its occupants to carry around, and I think it gives (even more) symbolic weight to the skin-color of the next person to sit behind the desk of the Oval Office. It might be that they hired contractors and the contractors hired the slaves, but I personally think that would be pedantry. The point is, at one point, yes, at one point the federal government did indeed use slave labour. Belisarius (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You've changed the question with your answer, but still made a good point. It seems unlikely that the "Office of the President" ever owned slaves, but yes it's worth remembering that the White House was built in part with slave labor. By the way, Obama is the descendant of American slave owners but not slaves, so the "symbolic weight" of his "skin-color" comes with a large dollop of irony, as history so often does. 71.72.148.80 (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

For the role of slaves in early Washington, see this recent Boston Post article: [36] . However, all of the slaves specifically mentioned in that article seem to have been "leased" to the government, not directly federally owned... AnonMoos (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Marriage à-la-mode

How do we know all the details of the storyline of Hogarth's Marriage à-la-mode? It also seems that our article doesn't completely agree with what the National Gallery says[37]: Where we have "Earl Squanderfield", they have "Earl Squander". — Sebastian 07:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Often engravings of caricatures had a short poem beneath the illustration, providing some commentary and/or explanation; not sure if that was the case when Hogarth's paintings were engraved... AnonMoos (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

william-hogarth.com has the title as The Killing of the Earl Squanderfield, although it doesn't seem to appear on the engraving - see here. It may perhaps be in the list of plates of a book it appeared in. Squanderfield certainly makes better sense as a satirical name for a spendthrift peer. Xn4 (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

sebastokratōr Isaac Komnenos

Does anyone know who was the father and mother of sebastokratōr Isaac Komnenos, a great-nephew of the emperor Manuel I Komnenos, and husband of Anna Angelina and also the father Theodora Angelina. Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically I need his entire geneology.

Did Edward the first's daughter elanor Marry Alphonos III of Spain or not?

If I go the entry for Edward Longshanks, it says Alphonso died before the wedding, but if I go to Alphonso III entry, it says they did marry.

So can anyone provide better proof one way or the other please??

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.45.39.43 (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It was quite challenging to find, but it seems they were never married. [38]. I'm unable to correct the article in question. Can someone do it (and add this source into the two relevant articles? Flamarande (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Third from the right

Can somebody identify the third person from the right (behind Gordon Brown) in this cartoon by The Independent's Dave Brown? Cheers. --AdamSommerton (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Taro Aso. Lantzy ^talk 17:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be the G7/G8 heads of state, and I'd guess the order is Sarkozy-Aso-Merkel-Bush-Medvedev-Brown-Berlusconi, but "male politician with dark hair in suit" is a broad field. Could even be Harper. Matt's talk 17:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I had basically the same order as M.R.Forrester, but with Medvedev at far left and Nicolas Sarkozy as the person the OP was asking about. The coiffure looks more like Sarkozy's to me. Deor (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at the nose... surely the man on the far left is Sarkozy?! Although admittedly he's (not usually on the far left). --Matt's talk 20:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Any one of this lot!

Looking at the date the cartoon relates to the 2008 G-20 Washington summit. The first from the left is Sarkozy (I'm familiar with Brown's caricatures of him) and I'm pretty sure the man between Sarkozy and Merkel is Barroso. --AdamSommerton (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In anime, why do the characters often look more Caucasian (or European or 'white') than typical Japanese people?

Just wondering. This effect is highly prominent throughout anime and related subjects such as manga and hentai.--CretinInsiduous (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain what characteristics you regard as typically Caucasian? To close off one dead end, note that Japanese people have a cultural preference for white skin. It also seems that East Asians do not necessarily regard the epicanthic fold as a key visual difference between themselves and Caucasians: the standard Mandarin insult is "big nose", and there is an anecdotal datum that the same is true in Japan. --Matt's talk 18:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

And the "hair thing" is because most anime and manga faces look basically the same. Ridiculous hair colours (and styles) can help distinguish between characters. 99.245.92.47 (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to know, what we call the art of 'asking a question in such a manner that we'll get a postive/desired reply from the other person'?

Please help me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Subhi.saurabh (talk • contribs) 18:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are thinking of a leading question. Was yours? --Matt's talk 18:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It depends what a positive/desired reply is. Asking a leading question tends to get yes/no answers which is not what you want if you really want is a relationship. Why on earth ask a question if you're not really interested in getting a negative answer? Dmcq (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be obvious by now, bit this art is occasionally called "Wikipedia:Reference desk". --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're thinking of manipulation, a form of social influence. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The art of being a trial lawyer =). See Examination-in-chief, Cross examination, leading questions. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

And then there's Socratic dialogue. —Tamfang (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Penn & Teller's Bullshit! had an episode in season 4, called Numbers , where they talked about ways to word polling questions to intentionally bias the results, and interviewed pollsters hired to do exactly that. StuRat (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You might also try loaded question... there are numerous links from that article which might also provide something relevant. Grutness...wha? 11:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

looking for a good textbook in analytic philosophy

Hi, I'm looking for a beginners' textbook in analytic philosophy that goes into a fair amount of detail, covers historical aspects in moderate but not great depth, and focuses on examples. By examples, I mean the illustration of general concepts and theoretical debates by the use of particular instances, thought experiments, specific puzzles and the like. Does anyone know of anything here? thanks in advance, It's been emotional (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

At university we used John Hospers' An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis as a basic text; it's used on a lot of courses in the UK and US and is highly respected. I don't remember there being a huge amount on historical matters, but it focuses a lot on thought experiments, hypotheticals, etc, as well as using imaginary dialogues to explore issues. Generally I found it interesting and readable. A small caveat (or recommendation) for some people would be that Hospers has long been linked with the US Libertarian Party, and he does take a right-libertarian perspective on some political topics, but generally he's good at setting out both sides of issues (I'm not a Libertarian). For the historical background and a very different political perspective, Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy is a much studied text, though perhaps less what you're looking for (and for fairness, Russell was a socialist and pacifist). You could also look online for reading lists for introductory philosophy courses at universities. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

December 29

Buddhists and Christians Bangladesh

Is Chittagong Division the only division of Bangladesh where there is big concentration of Buddhists and Christians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.233 (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the articles Buddhism in Bangladesh and Christianity in Bangladesh, the short answers seem to be "Yes" for the Buddhists, and "Maybe" for the Christians. In both cases, the numbers are but a small percentage of the whole population. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Arab Christians

Are Maronite Church and Copt Church the only ones that are practice by Arab Christians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.233 (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

See Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians. The short answer is "No". ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many Lutheran Arabs in occupied Palestine. They belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan & the Holy Land. They are most certainly neither Maronites nor Copts. Edison (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

speech

I am trying to recall the specifics of a speech that I believe was given during the Vietnam era. As I remember it, the speaker began by railing against loss of morals, students protesting, etc., and audience members concurred enthusiastically. Then he turned the argument on its head by identifying the author of those words as Adolf Hitler. Who was the speaker, and is the speech online? Lesgles (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like something taken from The Third Wave. Dismas|^(talk) 06:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I somehow thought it was a politician's speech, but it's possible that was it. Lesgles (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The Third Wave was my instinct too, but you might be interested in a similar thing that happened MUCH more recently. Jerry Klein’s 2006 Radio Experiment makes for a fascinating read. The audio of the program is available online, but I haven't listened to it (I generally try and stay away from things that sicken me) Belisarius (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Either of us is v. Either of us are

I searched for both terms using Google and found 40k results for the former and 50k for the latter. So it seems there isn't a clear answer. Which is grammatically proper?

59.108.96.242 (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Traditional grammar requires that either take a singular verb: "either of us is", "either of us does", etc.[39] In everyday usage, hence on the internet, one often hears either with a plural verb, but I would avoid it in writing. Lesgles (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you use the phrase either one of us the singular verb comes more naturally. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Compare with "None of us is..." v. "None of us are..." Although I couldn't bring myself to write "None of us are..." I'm afraid it might sometimes get past my lips. Don't, by the way, trust the simple number of google hits to tell you what is good English. For instance, 'disenfranchise' has nearly thirty times as many hits as 'disfranchise', although the second is a far better word and also shorter. Xn4 (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A question about president William Henry Harrison

Can somebody tell me in a few sentences about his inaugural address [40] what does he talking about? 132.66.100.61 (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph in William Henry Harrison#Shortest presidency was added a couple of days back: "The inaugural address itself was a detailed statement of the Whig agenda, essentially a repudiation of Jackson and Van Buren's policies. Harrison promised to re-establish the Bank of the United States and extend its capacity for credit by issuing paper currency (Henry Clay's American System); to defer to the judgment of Congress on legislative matters, with sparing use of his veto power; and to reverse Jackson's "spoils system" of executive patronage, which meant using the power of patronage to create a qualified staff, not to enhance of his own standing in government." Jay (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

How did the US cope in WWII with two fronts and long supply lines?

Fighting at two fronts is a bad idea, which is why the USSR made a non-agression pact with first Germany and then (when that didn't hold) with Japan. That Germany was now fighting on two fronts is seen as a major reason they lost the war. Also, they were held back by long supply lines, as happened to the USSR when it started its own offensive (Operation Bagration) and the western allies in Operation Overlord and especially Market Garden. Having read up on WWII I in the last two weeks, I understand that these are (were?) two major issues in warfare. The above are just some of the major examples.

However, the US fought on two fronts, both across an ocean. So how did the country cope? It deployed far fewer troops than the Germans or the USSR (I believe, although I haven't found any precise figures on this yet). So was it purely material superiority (at sea and/or in the air)? Or are supply lines across oceans easier somehow? Which might also explain how Japan could fight over a 10.000 km wide front. Or is it that the US fought mainly on one front, namely against Japan, which I understand was the case? But that still leaves the long supply lines. Big navy with lots of supply ships? I'm just guessing now. Amrad (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Supplying soldiers over land tends to be more tedious due to the inability to transport quantity with speed. During WWII, nearly everything from food to weapons to men were moved from the U.S. to either European or Pacific theater via Naval transport. The aviation technology level during that period restricted aircraft designed for airlift to just 2,560nm at 173mph cruising speed in the case of the C-46 Commando. The distance between New York, NY and London, England, for example, is 3,016nm making the airlift to the closest theater impossible. Even if the range of the C-46 Commando was extended to 3,100nm (to allow for reserve fuel requirements), the C-46 Commando would only be able to lift roughly 10,000 pounds of cargo as quite generous estimate. On the other hand, the US Navy moved more than 17,000 tons (34,000,000 pounds) of cargo across the sea at a time in the General G. O. Squier class transport ship.

So now that we have the quantity question answered, let me discuss raw production. In the 1940s, it was almost considered scandalous for a woman to work in a factory or nearly anywhere else but the home. After the Attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt roused the nation to a wartime stance, and women answered the call of the factories and foundries while the US Military drafted the men. At the beginning of World War II, the US was under equipped, not well trained, and generally considered a third class military. Do largely to the monsterous production ability demonstrated during the war, the U.S. found itself emerging at the end of the war as a very well equipped, highly trained, technologically advanced, military power like no other the world had ever seen.

To condense these two paragraphs down to a one liner, long supply lines and multiple fronts are never good things in military strategy and tactics. However, the U.S. overcame or mitigated those problems by overwhelming production, transporting in huge quantities, and doing so in a steadfast, relentless manner. Hope that answers the question you had. Operator873 (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To add some details. Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945) will explain some of the problems with supply by ship: Germany's submarine fleet made supply by sea very dangerous, but Allied persistence, improvements in tactics, and some luck (e.g. in codebreaking) kept supplies coming. Scattered through the Invasion of Normandy pages there is quite a lot about the amazing logistical feats involved in supplying the troops (e.g. Mulberry harbour, Operation Pluto). As mentioned above the USA's unrivalled industrial strength (remember it was building many of the vehicles used by the Soviet army too) and a lot of innovation by Allied engineers made possible an incredibly difficult invasion.

Sea transport is still the method favored for heavy cargoes today; those fighting on land in Europe had to depend largely on the railways, which were vulnerable to bombing and sabotage, or by road, which also suffered from destruction of bridges, damage to the road surface, snow, traffic jams, etc. Attempts at air supply were generally last resorts, such as the successful (but costly - 265 German aircraft lost) German efforts at Demyansk Pocket and the failure in the Battle of Stalingrad. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To add to the previous answers: Supply be sea is vastly superior, but only once you have control of the sea and air. The Normandy Invasion, for example, couldn't take place until the German U-boats were effectively neutralized. Similarly, we couldn't take on Japan directly in any meaningful way until the Japanese navy and air force were taken out. Since the Japanese could build runways for planes on islands and harass nearby shipping, this made the "island hopping campaign" necessary, where the Japanese were pushed off of each island and the island was then converted into a US base. StuRat (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be an exceptionally interesting book to write, on the creation of the massive supply system that was needed by WWII. It is exactly the sort of topic I would steer a PhD student interested in WWII towards—I am sure there is a wealth of archival material available and I am sure it was a much more complicated story than the above explanations (which boil down to "they produced a lot"—which we knew, but that does not explain how they worked out the logistics, the transportation, etc., or whether it was a sticking point amongst politicians, the military, what have you, which it surely must have been, given the immense size of it). I can't think of any other war in which the US was geographically stretched so thin while waging such a comprehensive war—and no doubt it necessitated quite a few changes from what they had been managing previously (the scope of WWII is really incomparable to any other previous war, in terms of US involvement). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(Of course, after writing the above, I checked on ProQuest and just this last year there was a dissertation written on the US Army Quartermaster Corps and the development of the WWII logistical system, but anyway, I haven't looked at it.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that the Western European theater was smaller than the Eastern European theater. In the West, troops could be measured I believe in the hundreds of thousands. In the East, troops were measured in the millions. In other words, it was easier for the US to fight a two front war than Germany because it didn't require as many resources. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just jumping in here to say that in olden days User:Clio the Muse would have given a fine scholarly answer to this question. Edison (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think two major points in the US's favor for a two front war are that unlike the other major players in WW2, the US's production base didn't really come under attack (contrast with bombing raids in Germany and Great Britain) which is a fun pretext for this link: Isoroku Yamamoto's sleeping giant quote The other is that the two fronts were almost two halves of a war - Japan and the rise of naval airpower; and Europe with sub warfare and primarily a land war (not to suggest either "half" was exclusively in any domain). If you simply can make more - say, as World_War_II_aircraft_production suggests - well, not to underplay the logistic wonders pulled off, but when you start off with twice of something... also of interest may be Enigma machine - compare and contrast Germans moving materials via trains (kind of predictable, what with those rails) versus the US shipping given directions where subs hunting them were (although it's a substantially more complex subject then I suggest - do you think the German command might've suspected something was up when their subs went months without sinking ships? So the question becomes - how many transports can you redirect without effectively expressing that the jig is up? Information warfare and Information theory don't scream their relevance, perhaps someone with better search-fu can point out the ITheory in WW2 article if it exists. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Having read a bit more about it, it seems that the US wasn't anywhere near the military superpower it is now, which makes the feat more exceptional. I wonder what other country the US would have been comparable to? One of the bigger European counties? For example, more English than US soldiers took part in the invasion of Normandy. Also, a lot of the innovating was done in the UK (such as the breaking of the enigma code), but I assume the US benefited from that too (although the need for secrecy may have been an issue in telling too many people). I suppose the strength of the US was more material and one important reason for that might indeed be that the country had no home front, so the industry could expand unhindered. And the US big, so it had a lot of natural resources. Btw, this might explain the rise of the US as a military superpower after WWII. Once the factories and the whole military infrastructure were in place and undamaged (and no need to rebuild the country), it was very easy to continue in the same vein and come out on top while the other countries were busy ovrecoming the destruction and loss of young lives. (The notion that the USSR was an equal superpower was untrue, but of course it was to the benefit of both, for the one as national pride and for the other to have an enemy.)

Concerning the US having to fight a smaller war in Europe than Germany had to on the eastern front, that is rather my point - Germany collapsed after it had to start fighting on the 'second front' (the western front) as well. (And the same goes for Japan, as you point out.) That suggests that it isn't so much the size of the war on the western front, but the fact that there were now two fronts. And the same goes for the US. Amrad (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Help finding a translated journal article!

I need to read Robert Vivarelli's "Italia liberale e fascismo: Considerazioni su di una recente storia d'Italia" (in Rivista storica italiana 82 (1970) pages 669-703) in English. BASICALLY does anyone know where I would find translated journal articles? I find it so frustrating somebody has used an Italian source in an English journal without providing a place to find a translation 79.78.63.238 (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think there is a translation? This doesn't sound like an article, or a journal, for a general audience, and those who have a professional interest in Italian history are very likely able to read the language. Anyway, his name is Roberto Vivarelli. DAVID ŠENEK 11:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It pertains to the history of fascism which is a global, or at least European, issue. Besides, the citation which pointed me to this article was an English language one by Roberto Vivarelli published by University of Chicago Press...

And I'm not assuming there is a translation, I'm hoping for somebody to show me where I would find such an article if a translation exists. 79.78.63.238 (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I can get you a copy of the original article if you want to try to get it translated on your own. To answer your more general question, there isn't a journal where translated works are published. If the author becomes famous/popular/distinguished enough to warrant an anthology then there may be translations made for the articles that are collected. Otherwise it is up to the scholar in the discipline to either learn the language or have articles translated on their own.--droptone (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Damn, thank-you for that answer. I've since managed to find sufficient information elsewhere and I wouldn't be able to translate it in time anyway, but thank-you for the offer. 79.78.21.241 (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

poem by Michael Longley

Does anyone know in which book (or magazine?) Michael Longley's poem The Civil Servant was (first) published? The text is available on several websites, but I couldn't find any bibliographic source. -- 95.112.183.248 (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is part of the poem 'Wreaths', which was published in his 1979 collection 'The Echo Gate', which has a page listing magazines in which the poems were earlier published. That's all I can discern from Google Books, unfortunately. Algebraist 14:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! -- 95.112.183.248 (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is Jesus also known as "King of the Jews"?

INRI (King of the Jews) was inscribed on the cross on which Jesus Christ was crucified.. Why Jews?? Jews also worship him? Is regarded as a God by Jewish people too? Also was Christ born Jew? Are Judaism and Christaianity related? Didn't Jews reject Christ's newly created religion- Christianity? Then how come Jews were hated by the Christian world in the medieval times? Also were Jews in any way responsible for His crucifixion? Everyone please pardon me, but I am very ignorant about both Judaism and Christianity... a few questions which I may have posed could be totally unrelated and "plain stupid"... sorry again --Sanguine learner ^talk 17:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I won't fault you for asking questions, I will just mention that there's a giant encyclopedia here what covers all of the topics in much more detail than any amount of answering on the Reference Desk can supply. Start with INRI which you linked and go from there; there are literally dozens of articles to study. --LarryMac | Talk 18:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right...I tried reading the articles but they are so complicated and cumbersome...the very idea of going through the articles gives me jitters! Well the problem is I have zero background knowledge about this, however the articles are written as if the reader already knows this and that...the more I read the more I feel confused and get lost midway!--Sanguine learner ^talk 18:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To answer your main question, he isn't, at least not among Episcopalians or any Christian church I know about. I was taught in Sunday School many years ago that the title "King of the Jews" was given him in derision by the Romans torturing him and matched the "crown" of thorns he was forced to wear. His "kingdom" was Heaven, not any place here on Earth, and the Romans (and the Jews, for that matter) misunderstood that. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll also take a stab at a bit more; Jesus did not "create a new religion". He inspired it, perhaps, but most would say it was Saint Paul who did more to create the religion. And yes, it's all very complex and cumbersome, which is one reason why discussion of religion often devolves into argument. --LarryMac | Talk 18:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Easy answer: Jesus himself claimed to be the king of the Jews. Let's begin with Zechariah 9:9 in the Old Testament — know that Christians accept the Jewish holy book, calling it the Old Testament, plus some non-Jewish texts, calling them together the New Testment. Go now to Matthew 21 in the New Testament, written hundreds of years after Zechariah, which talks about Jesus' life and teachings. Matthew 21 has Jesus saying that the Zechariah passage, which spoke of a king of the Jews, was speaking of what he was about to do — in short, Jesus says that the Zechariah passage was calling him the king of the Jews. For one more thing, look at Luke 23:3, also from the New Testament: in this passage, someone asks Jesus if he is the king of the Jews, and he says that the questioner is correct. Nyttend (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)First off, Jesus most definitely was born into a Jewish family. The Christian Old Testament basically is the Jewish Tanakh, the Jewish Bible (composed of the Torah, the Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim). Christians believe that Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophesies of a Jewish messiah, "a future King of Israel from the Davidic line, who will rule the people of united tribes of Israel and herald the Messianic Age". A small number of Jews formed a cult around Jesus-the-messiah, which eventually grew into Christianity (it can be argued that Christianity become a separate religion, as opposed to a branch of Judaism, when they opened up membership to non-Jews). The people who stayed Jews deny the claim that he was the messiah, (as do Muslims, Atheists, and other non-Christians) and are either waiting for the true messiah, or don't think there will be one. (There are complications on that though - see Jews for Jesus.) The New Testament (which Christians believe in, but Jews do not) claims that the Jewish high priests were upset that people were claiming Jesus was the messiah, and had the roman judge Pontius Pilate execute Jesus (the Romans ruled the area at the time. According to our INRI article, INRI was the charge under which he was crucified. Claiming to be King of the Jews was illegal enough at the time for Pilate to have him crucified. If you read John 19:21-22 in the New Testament, you'll see that the some of the Jewish people didn't like INRI, complaining that instead of just "King of the Jews" it should have been "claims to be King of the Jews". As far as medieval Christians not liking Jews, this is true for a web of complex reasons. A major factor was that Jews were wealthy and influential due to usury laws (written by Christians) which prohibited Christians from becoming bankers, but allowed Jews to do so. However, the oft-quoted reason was that medieval Christians blamed the Jews for having Jesus executed. (It sounds like flimsy reasoning because it is.) This is rehashed at length in the antisemitism article. -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(ECx2) I will answer from a non-religious POV:

1) Are Judaism and Christianity related ? Absolutely, in that Christianity is a split off of Judaism. So is Islam, BTW, a few centuries later. All three are sometimes called the "Abrahamic religions", as they all descend from the teachings of Abraham.

2) Was Christ born Jewish ? Yes, and he also lived and died Jewish, as the Christian religion wasn't founded until after his death.

3) Jews also worship him ? Not any more, no. Once the Christian Church was founded in Rome, anyone believing in either the teachings of Christ or those of the Church were called Christians.

4) Is Christ regarded as a God by Jewish people too ? No, but he is thought of as a profit to some Jews and Muslims.

5) Didn't Jews reject Christ's newly created religion- Christianity ? Some did. Others converted, once the Church was established. There was a period, before the Church was founded and after Christ began his teachings, where one could be both Jewish and believe in the teachings of Christ. At that time, Christianity could be considered a sect of Judaism. So, like you can be a Mormon and be Christian, you could be a Christian and be Jewish.

6) Were Jews in any way responsible for His crucifixion ? In a way. The Romans were in control of the area, but allowed the Jews to govern themselves to a limited extent in this period. Some Jews considered Christ's teachings to be blasphemy (going against the word of God), as they do conflict with much of the Old Testament. Thus he was tried and executed. However, that only means that those Jews who arranged for the trial and execution bear responsibility, not the other Jews around at the time and certainly not Jews alive today. Also note that it seemed to be part of God's plan, according to Christianity, for Jesus to be crucified and rise from the dead. So, those few Jews who were responsible were actually fulfilling God's plan.

7) How come Jews were hated by the Christian world in the medieval times ? Not just Jews were hated, so were Muslims and anyone else of a different religion. After Martin Luther (not Martin Luther King), the Protestants and Catholics hated and killed each other. Religion has a tendency to organize collective hatred and murder of "The Other".

8) So, why was Jesus the "King of the Jews" ? Well, he was a Jew, who was considered to figuratively be a king, thus he was the King of the Jews. StuRat (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Islam isn't really a split from Judaism; although it finds its heritage in Judaism, the first Muslims were former polytheists, not Jews. Nyttend (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I consider the heritage to be more important than the former religion of those who converted. Also note that most of those who converted to Christianity were polytheists (AKA "pagans") in Europe. StuRat (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In the first century or two after the birth of Jesus, there were Jews in the Holy Land who considered him to be the Messiah. Christians were just a portion of the worshipping Jews. Some gentiles also considered Jesus to be the Son of God. Edison (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth emphasizing that, in title, the Romans were in charge of a (presumably) subjected land; from this perspective, it's not a large step to compare it to any other nation putting down the local royalty - imagine William Wallace being crucified at the end of Braveheart with "The King of the Scotts," (it's an idea in broad strokes) or Saddam Hussein with "The King of the Iraqis." The message to the people is very clear, and makes modern discussion regarding waterboarding pale in comparison. The Romans wanted to make something very clear - the opportunity cost of dissent with Roman rule was massive, and this what they could and would do to the greatest among the dissenters - how well would the common man fare? Think of it as the counter-insurgency equivalent to an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure. Further, if one is willing to accept Biblical accounts with some historicity, the Jewish history is filled with cycles of a prophet showing up, and the Jews going on a victory-filled rampage that occasionally otherwise removed oppressors from history. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If one is willing to take Bible as historically accurate source (and it seams you are) then what you wrote is completely wrong. Bible says that when Jewish sanhedrin (council of Jewish elders) brought Jesus in front of Pilate under their charges Pilate questioned Jesus and on question (paraphrased, not direct quote) "Are you king of Jews?" Jesus responded "My kingdom is not here on Earth, it is in heaven". Pilate freed him of all charges but since sanhedrin insisted, he gave in on their demands, but not before he publicly "washed his hands" from this man's blood.

It also might be worth noting that Jesus had to flee because of charges of being "King of Jews", but much earlier than his crucifixion, when he was infant. Once again, all of this is valid only if Bible is historically accurate (which I very much doubt, Bible was edited by early Church to present Jesus in light they wanted him to be seen in).Melmann^(talk) 13:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Shriners

If all of you will permit another religious question...I know that the Shriners, an American-based secret society related to the Masons, aren't necessarily Muslims, and probably Muslims members are a tiny minority if there are any. Just curious: does anyone know what Muslims in the USA (or anywhere else that there are both Muslims and Shriners) think of the Shriners? Has any study, news report, etc. ever been done on Muslims-and-Shriners? This was prompted by a discussion on historic sites in the USA, where it appears that of the three "mosques" on the National Register of Historic Places, two are Shriner centers and only one is an actual Muslim mosque. Nyttend (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

See [41]. Wrad (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Strange religious statues

I was in Salvador, Brazil recently and I visited Igreja do Sao Francisco. I believe that is where I saw these statues, but my memory might be off. Anyway, there was a courtyard in the back of the church, and there was a alter-like thing behind metal grating, and inside of that were several candles and small statues and busts. The faces off the statues were obscured by this strange muzzle-like contraption that was strapped both horizontally around the head and vertically, up around the nose and over the back of the head. I'm sorry I can't describe it any better or point one to a picture of what I'm talking about, but it was pretty strange and distinct so I'm wondering if my description rings any bells for anyone...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.74.247.249 (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like Santería or possibly Voodoo. StuRat (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Science fiction short stories

Hello, I am trying to track down two science fiction short stories, have spent ages looking!

1. concerns a manager in a department store in which a replicator suddenly appears, the replicators keep changing the dynamics of marketing but he keeps one step ahead all the time identifying new scarcities

2. astronauts land on a planet and make friends with the primitive natives but when it starts to rain torrentially they discover that the natives turn into plants to see out the flood period

Would be very grateful if you could tell me the titles and authors of these stories if they ring a bell with someone

and would be grateful for a reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.144.59 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC) ((Deleted email address (a)because we don't respond to email addresses, but here and (b) to protect the OP from spam.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Number two sounds like a plot element from Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't get satisfactory answers here, try the Usenet group rec.arts.sf.written (you can post to it through Google Groups if your ISP doesn't have Usenet service). Include YASID ("yet another story ID") in the message header. Few indeed are the stories that the people there won't recognize, often from the scantiest of hints. Deor (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Number one is probably Bruce Sterling's Kiosk, although per the title, it's a street kiosk, not a department store. 128.148.38.26 (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Koran question

Is there any rough equivalent in the Koran to the quote on my userpage? I've looked but I just don't know the book well enough. Wrad (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A few searches for some key words at [42] haven't produced anything relevant - you may have better luck. Exxolon (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you search for hope instead of dream -- which are not dissimilar in that context -- you will find a verse (104) in An,nisa' (النساء) Sura, a little close to that proverb. --Omidinist (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

December 30

Bengali-Burmese Ancient Battles

Did the Bengali people and the Burmese ever fight each other in ancient times? What was the battle called? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bengali people probably did not exist as such in truly "ancient" times. The ancient period in South Asia ended no later than the 13th century. At this time, the Old Bengali language was spoken in Assam and much of Orissa and was still very close to the language of neighboring Bihar. It is unlikely that Bengalis had a strong identity as a separate people at this time. During ancient times, the ancestors of the Bengalis, in the basin of the lower Ganga and Brahmaputra Rivers, were separated from the Bamar or Burmese people by a belt of mountains and forests inhabited by many other peoples, such as the Meitei, Mizo, and Chin, such that the territories ruled by the ancient Burmese never or almost never shared a border with those ruled by the ancestors of the Bengalis. As such, it is unlikely that they fought a battle against each other in ancient times. Marco polo (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Bengalis and the Burmese never fought against each other? Did the Bengalis and the Burmese even fight against each other after the ancient period of South Asia? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is there war?

Even in a perfectly engineered society where all people would have equal property, equal worth, equal desires and would unquestionably obey all thier leader's commands would there still be war? --Mark L. Dowry (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Few would say that a robotically obeying populace is part of a perfectly engineered society; but in any case, Jerry Pournelle would answer "yes" to your question, having published 11 volumes of "There Will Be War". Tempshill (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Unquestioning obedience to a leader makes war more likely, not less. —Tamfang (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a recipe for war everybody having the same. Some people want more and are aggressive, if what they have doesn't match their wants or expectations then they will fight for it. With a single despot like Stalin or Mao wouldn't you have less likelihood of war? I think there would be widespread disaffection and unhappiness in anything like a society with equal property worth{?) and desires, any practical social engineering would cater for and arrange differences. Dmcq (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to note War can be quite a specific technical term. I agree that in the above scenario I would anticipate war to be more likely. I recall it was common to say that the best way to prevent a war between 2 countries was for both of them to open a McDonalds (is it MacDonalds? I can never remember) as there was this saying that no 2 countries that have McDonalds had been 'at war' with one another (I suspect it's not strictly true). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention and Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention. NByz (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

War tends to happen for 3 general reasons (very simplistic, but a reasonable basic model): resources, defense, and status. Unless you can either shift human's desire for resources and status to something non-physical (so that they'd battle for status in say the intellectual pursuits) or remove the human's desire for increased resources and status. I highly doubt you will be able to remove something so ingrained on human nature. War for defense can happen even if there is no real threat, so you'd need to ensure that people have perfect information, perfect rationality (so that the tit-for-tat game theoretic strategy is used or a general disinterest in their safety. I suspect the first is impossible and that the second and third will be either difficult or (more likely) impossible.

The focus on unquestioning obedience toward the leaders is very troublesome. You've now removed the issue of corruption to a small group of people with no mechanism for removal of that group from power. Unless you've grafted on a huge chunk of DNA involved in the behavior of ants, you're going to have problems (although drone ants can kill offspring of the queen that is increasingly unrelated to it).

Basically, I think you will not remove war from the list of behaviors humans take part in. Your best bet is making war so that it is minimally damaging and not undertaken easily.--droptone (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere recently an idea that absolute war with genocide quite possibly has been a major factor in the evolution of human cooperation and the advance of civilization. Not that I advocate war as desirable! Dmcq (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely as long as people have some kind of opinion and will, they will desire power and land and will therefore no doubt at some point... war.91.111.67.44 (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If I may point to Dunbar's number, which I, personally, think may be of interest. It's difficult to wage "war" with a smaller or larger Dunbar number - either you scale it down to bar fights, or you scale it up so that "everyone" is one of "us," making finding a "them" to take "stuff" - status, resources, strategic advantage as above - from rather difficult. I'm not suggesting this is an iron law - plenty of filicide (?) in history - just that another neo-cortical explosion has the advantages of being both fairly likely, and fairly (but not thoroughly) effective. 98.169.163.20 (talk) 14:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen it yet, but a recent episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit! documentary TV show "argues that the idea of utopian world peace is naïve and incompatible with human nature. Also argues that free trade and economic interdependence are the best means to achieve peace." 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd note that one desire that most people have is to have more stuff than the people around them. So if people obeyed their leader unquestionably, the leader is likely to say "give me most of your stuff", and you'll no longer have equal property and worth. (You'll find this is what tends to happen even in situations of unequal wealth distribution - the rich leaders take money from the poor people to make themselves even richer.) I'll also note that you draw a distinction between property and worth. One thing that makes people feel worth more is power over others. In your situation people don't have equal worth, because the leaders have so much more power than their underlings, who obey them unquestionably. The "obey leaders unquestionably" isn't really going to happen with humans, anyway. You'd likely have a small group of people who want more power and money (and always will, regardless of how much they already have), and gang up to take it from others. Certainly, if humans didn't have desire for money or power or sex, who didn't have any unreasonable desires, and were pious creatures who obeyed their intrinsically good leader, there wouldn't be wars, but they wouldn't be humans either - they'd be angels. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Part 1 of Penn & Teller's episode on war and world peace can be viewed here [43]. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Consider the case of North Korea (as far as we can tell): all people have equal property, equal worth, equal desires and unquestionably obey all their leader's commands. While there may not be internal war, there is very high external tension. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Boys leading troops

Tropic Thunder brought to mind the news feature stories from about 7 or 10 years ago about twin brothers, if memory serves, who were in Southeast Asia somewhere, leading a sizable group of armed rebel troops. They were always smoking in the photos, and the legend was that they could not be harmed by bullets, and supposedly the troops were loyal to these two leaders for, partly, that reason. Can anyone point me to who they were? Googling has not helped. Thanks - Tempshill (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Johnny and Luther Htoo. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Tempshill (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Legend has it they were also a gas to work for. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Costs of inactive company

How much costs does an inactive company generate? --88.27.176.105 (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Where? US, UK or rest of the world?--Mr.K. (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Where, it should be noted, is not simply enough classification -- likely a good answer can only be provided on a case-by-case basis (and it's likely that the specific cases don't make the information known). If my home-based freelance web design company goes inactive, I continue to pay a webhost fee (perhaps $10/month) but little else. When Chrysler closes their factories for a month, many high-value costs are not fully mitigated. Other examples likely fall into some sort of middle ground. — Lomn 15:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You're looking at costs, according to jurisdiction, such as auditing the annual accounts and filing such documents with the proper authorities. In many places, this is a smaller cost than actually closing the company, hence the abundence of "shelf companies." DOR (HK) (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ponzi game

Are Ponzi games punished more severely than illegal lotteries?--Mr.K. (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As a Ponzi scheme is fraud, I'd expect so, yes. However, illegal gambling is sometimes punished as a form of tax evasion, which can also have severe penalties. StuRat (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Leni Riefenstahl and slave labor

Leni Riefenstahl is critized for making Nazi propaganda and for using slave labor in at leasts one of her movies. While I understand the former, I'm not sure I agree with the latter. Wouldn't conditions on a movie set be better than a Nazi concentration camp? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The article says: "After the Nuremberg rallies trilogy and Olympia, Riefenstahl began work on the movie she had tried and failed to direct once before, Tiefland. On Hitler's direct order the German government paid her 7 million reichsmarks in compensation. From September 23 until November 13, 1940 she filmed in Krün near Mittenwald. The extras playing Spanish women and farmers were drawn from gypsies (Sinti) detained in a camp at Salzburg-Maxglan who were forced to work with her. Filming at the Babelsberg Studios near Berlin began 18 months later in April 1942 and lasted into summer. This time Sinti and Roma from the Marzahn detention camp near Berlin were compelled to work as extras. A surviving document from camp Marzahn shows a list of 65 inmates who were ordered to serve in the production. 50 stills from the filming in Krün near Mittenwald were later found and from these, surviving prisoners were able to identify 29 camp inmates who worked for Riefenstahl and were then deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau in the first weeks of March 1943 following Himmler's December 1942 decree. To the end of her life, despite overwhelming evidence that stated that concentration camp occupants had been forced to labor unpaid on the movie, Riefenstahl continued to maintain all the film extras survived and that she had met them after the war." It's a matter of opinion whether you regard that as slave labour or not. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 21:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(I'm the OP on a different computer.) I read the article on Leni Riefenstahl and Tiefland (film) and I don't think they address my question. My question isn't about whether you call them slave labor (or whatever term you want to use) it's about the relative conditions on Riefenstahl's movie set versus conditions in a Nazi concentration camp. It seems to me that Riefenstahl (probably unitentionally) might have done them a favor as I cannot imagine that being forced to work on one of her movies would be as bad as being in a camp. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure. This wasn't a fab Hollywood production. These people were still slave labor, still considered less than human by their captors. While Riefenstahl herself may or may not have mistreated them, it's of little doubt that they were mistreated by their Nazi handlers. Consider that while they were used as extras, I'd be shocked if they weren't also used for construction of sets and other physical labor. And, in the end, they went right back to the concentration camps. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Slave labor is slave labor. Do we say that blacks who got to work in the manor house were actually being given a big break because they weren't working in the cotton fields? Do we suggest that those who toiled in the camp had a big break because at least they weren't summarily executed right from the beginning? You can say something is "not as bad" as something else but that doesn't get anywhere close to saying the original thing was "not bad" or was in any way any less unethical. Hey man, I only robbed you of your wallet at gunpoint—at least I didn't crack your skull open too! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Why does the (US) Work Opportunity Credit exclude hires over 40 years of age?

In the US, employers qualify for a Work Opportunity Credit if they hire a person who receives food stamp benefits, and is at least 18 years old but not over 40 years.

Why oh why are hires over 40 excluded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomerpdx (talk • contribs) 21:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My initial reaction to this question is that it might be something to do with preferences to those with young children. You are more likely to have a young child (say under the age of 10) whilst you are younger than 40 than you are to have a young child after this age. I'm not sure of the purpose of this credit (is it padi to the employer or does it get throught to the employee?) but that age restriction seems to fit around what I would consider a 'normal' age for an adult to have children that don't require (near) constant supervision. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to read the legislative history, especially any committee reports, for the Act. I don't have time to do so now.Thomas, the Library of Congress' site, FindLaw, WestLaw and Lexis/Nexis should have the proceedings. 75Janice (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)75Janice

December 31

One state religion and one language nation

A map of the Africa, showing the major religions distributed as of today. Map shows only the religion as a whole excluding denominations or sects of the religions, and is colored by how the religions are distributed not by main religion of country. Where there is overlap, the majority is displayed except for traditional religions practiced in a syncretic fashion.

I know it may sound challenging bu I want to know: a)Which African nation is the only one whose only official language if French and its only state religion is Islam, no Christian presence? b)Which African nation is the only one whose only official language if English and its only state religion is Islam, no Christian presence? c)Which African nation is the only one whose only official language if French and its only state religion is Christianity, no Muslim presence? d)Which African nation is the only one whose only official language if English and its only state religion is Christianity, no Muslim presence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.36 (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no African country whose only official language is French or English that completely lacks a Muslim presence. Marco polo (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to believe that any country in the world has not a single Muslim and/or Christian, so perhaps you should clarify the meaning of "no [religious affiliation] presence". --Sean 01:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the following three pages, List of official languages by state, Christianity by country, Islam in Africa. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Somalia (which however is neither English nor French-speaking) is virtually 100% Muslim. --Soman (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened to movements?

Or playing something in B flat? Back in the classical era they were all like 'Yo, gimme that second movement in B flat', and- it was done. Songs just aren't the same 30 minute epic they were that told a long, sad story. No my hillbilly boyfriend's down at the bar, gettin loaded, goin huntin with the boys country ditties either, now that I think about it.--THE WORLD'S MOST CURIOUS MAN (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

See Dream Theater. I suggest the images and words album as a nice transition between the lame North American pop verse-chorus style and real music. NByz (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's obvious, but it should be noted that I Kissed A Girl is not the 21st Century equivalent of Eine kleine Nachtmusik. I know your question asks what happened to classical music (and the answer for why it declined in popularity is way out of my league) but I think it should be noted that there's long been a tension between musical styles in Western culture. Popular music in the 1700s or 1800s...that is, the music listened to and performed by "average" people...was certainly not symphonic works by the likes of Beethoven. This isn't to say that people of all walks of life can't enjoy the 9th Symphony, nor am I arguing that "classical" music is as popular now as it was then. Clearly "popular" music is now the rage. But a plowhand in the 1700s wouldn't be humming Bach in the fields, or at least it's much more likely he'd be humming To Be A Farmer's Boy or some other peasant song of that style. I'm not well educated on this field, though (I had a professor who was obsessed with working class music in 18th century England), and wish I could find the articles here that would get into it in more detail. User:Jwrosenzweig posting as 71.112.36.50 (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Folk Music would be a good starting point, as others have pointed out pop music now is not the equivilient of what classical music was back then. Looking at folk-songs, traditional music and early music would probably be worthwhile. Consider that back in the day there were no play-back devices so all music that people heard was performed live - that in itself makes it pretty obvious that for the most part the general population weren't listening to classical music which often requires a large orchestra. Bruce Springsteen (if i've got his name spelling correct) did a great album all about classic American folk songs called We Shall Overcome: The Seeger Sessions - it is very good and includes traditional songs such as Old Dan Tucker, Pay Me My Money Down and Froggie Went a Courtin. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well classical music is still there, being played live and broadcast on specialist music stations. Here in the UK we have Classic FM and BBC Radio 3. Young people still learn about it over here. Now my personal take on this is that classic rock is the natural child of classical music: the 30-minute compositions to which you refer bear comparison to the works of Pink Floyd, Yes, and Emerson, Lake and Palmer. This form of popular music fell into disregard following the punk revolution, but it too still has its followers, and the old performers are still touring and can still pull a crowd. If you consider Yes's "Close to the Edge", for example, which filled one side of an old vinyl LP, you will see it is in 5 separate movements. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This probably isn't what the OP is asking about, but I'll talk about it anyway just in case. If a conductor at a rehearsal wants the musicians to turn to the 2nd movement of a piece, he will say "We'll rehearse the 2nd movement now", or something like that. There's no need to specify the key, because it's written in B flat (or whatever key). However, musicians were often required to transpose a piece into any key nominated by the conductor. For example, Beethoven's 5th Symphony in C minor (3 flats) might be required to be played in C sharp minor (4 sharps). This was to be done at sight, reading from the C minor score, without any special preparation or private rehearsal by the individual players. A well-known anecdote is about the pianist Wilhelm Kempff. For his final conservatorium examination, he was required to have memorised Bach's entire Well-Tempered Clavier, which contains 48 Preludes and Fugues in 2 sets of 24, one in each major and minor key in each set. The examiner would nominate one Prelude and Fugue at random, say the one from Book II in G major, and require Kempff to play it immediately and faultlessly, without the music, in various unrelated keys (e.g. D flat major, or F sharp major) that the examiner would also specify. Then the examiner would choose another Prelude and Fugue, and so on. If you couldn't display that level of musicianship, you didn't get through. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RMS Queen Mary crew jobs

Wikipedia's article on the Queen Mary lists a crew of about 1100. How many of these people do you think had duties related to the operation of the ship, and how many tended to the passengers? I have to figure that some of the 1100 were for laundry, meal service, and other duties that were not strictly related to making the ship go, and others worked in engineering and such, but I don't know where the split was. To put the question another way, if the ship were to have sailed with no passengers at all, how many crew would it have needed? gnfnrf (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The division isn't quite clear cut, as some crew (including the captain and officers) had duties of both kinds, while other crew (galley staff, medical and wireless officers, etc.) overlapped somewhat. Comparable ships, such as R. M. S. Titanic, are well documented on numbers. Xn4 (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. List of crew members on board RMS Titanic appears to have a pretty good breakdown, and tells me that about half of the 900 crew of the Titanic were responsible for "hotel" jobs, and half for shipboard jobs. That's probably as good as I'm likely to get. gnfnrf (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

what is the theme of "sredni vashtar", short story of saki?please explain it in simple English.

what is the theme of "Sredni Vashtar", short story of saki?please explain it in simple English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmadhikari (talk • contribs) 07:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a long story. Why not read it here? Xn4 (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It is what it is. Literature is to be interpreted by the reader; there is no right interpretation. Readers who liked this story will also like "Thus I Refute Beelzy" by John Collier. --Milkbreath (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare question

Can you explain Shakespeare question? Some people say that the dramatist and the actor weren't the same person. Is it real that the dramatist lend his name to Francis Bacon, earl Derby and earl Oxford? Please, try to explain as simple as possible because I'm not from an English speaking country. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.77.182.61 (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question begins to answer this. Xn4 (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Consider how difficult it would be to prove something that happened more than 400 years ago in your own country. The short answer is that some people believe that the man named Will, born in Stratford, was not the actual author. Bacon, Derby, and Oxford (among others) have each been suggested as the (main) author of what we think of as Shakespeare's plays. The First Folio, acollection of 36 plays and the only source for about 20 of them, didn't appear until seven years after Will Shakespeare died -- so in one sense we're not sure what was actually written (rather than remembered years later), let alone who did the actual writing. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

common law partner

what is a common law partner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atepau (talk • contribs) 13:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

See Common-law marriage. Algebraist 13:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec): There is an article on common law marriage (and cohabitation), which explains the legal status in various cultures. --62.47.146.243 (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ficher would be a common law partner. Goldstein would be another.  :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.239.144 (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Who are "Ficher" and "Goldstein" and who would be their "common-law partners"? Are these names each one-half of some famous common-law couples I have missed along the way? ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP means these are common names of lawyers, partners in law firms. These are Jewish surnames and lazy antisemitism assumes that lawyers are likely to be Jewish. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No, those are actually among the top names of law partners. I asked someone who a common law partner would be, and she said Ficher is a common one. Goldstein is also a common one. How the fuck is it antisemitism.

OK, just lazy then. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was quite funny. By the way for the original poster if you put "common law partner" into the search box at the left of the page on wikipedia you'd go straight to the common-law marriage article. In thr cases you#d get a list of possibly helpful articles, putting the search terms into google or another search engine can also help. Dmcq (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is very disturbing. I am shocked to see that the question remains. It is patently ridiculous. 75Janice (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)75Janice

Huh? --Nricardo (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

75Janice fell for my trick with the joke, to the point that she completely misses how the OP makes sense -- she still thinks the OP is asking for a common partner at a law firm ("What is a common law partner") -- which she correctly characterizes as patently ridiculous -- not seeing the fact that the OP meant to write "What is a common-law partner", which is a perfectly sensible question. That's what happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.239.144 (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

conservative cartoon on spike tv

what was the conservative cartoon on spike tv? during the 2004 election, the main guy meets Kerry through the weather girl hes dating since the media is liberal or something. --Gary123 (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

British Solomon Islands

Hi! I need the flag of the British Solomon Islands between the years 1970-1976. I tried to look for it here, but I didn't find it. Somebody can help me. Thanks. 93.206.59.73 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This web page has an image of the flag that was used from 1966–1976. Marco polo (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I know, but I need this flag like a file or image in the wikipedia, it's for an article I'm working now. My question is where is it or how can one it uploaded? I have not experience with imagens uploading ;) 93.206.59.73 (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I will confess that I don't know the rules or even the logistics for uploading images. However, this Wikimedia document seems to explain the rules and process. If you get permission from the owners of the website that I linked earlier, you may be able to upload their file to the Wikimedia Commons. If you don't get permission from them, you can probably create a replica of the flag they display using basic graphics software. The image of the flag itself is probably not copyright protected. However, you can probably confirm this or get other help at the Wikipedia Help Desk. Marco polo (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

distribution of birth months in general population?

I'd like a graph like this one but not for a particular group (that link is for OHL and WHL players) but the general population, prefereably in several countries. I'm coming up empty-handed. Is there anything like that online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.239.144 (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

January 1

Irish in Los Angeles

Are there any Irish in Los Angeles? Heegoop, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Algebraist 00:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For example. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

..with such authentic Irish food!? 86.4.182.202 (talk) 08:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is the girl on the cover of the Deftones' album Around the Fur?

Always wanted to know. Never got an answer. Perhaps you can help, Wikipedia?--Possiblereasons (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether her identity is public. In an interview with Revolver, the photographer Rick Kosick said

"They were having this after-hours party with all these chicks hanging out in the Ja***zi " ...

" I just happened to take a photo of a girl at, like 4 o'clock in the morning. I dont even know who she is - she was just a groupie, I think. I just saw her big tits and was like, Damn, I gotta photograph this." ...

"As Kosick remembers it, his subject wasn't too pleased at the time. " She was offended because I was in her personal space"...

" She made some comment about being too close to her boobs. So I took the photo, walked away, and never spoke to her again. I know they found her and got her to sign a release, though. " [44]

I did also see a blog mentioning some old win-a-signed-poster quiz contest where you had to answer nine questions, one of them being the one you asked. I found no answers though. I wouldn't be surprised if the model wished to remain anonymous. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Name of Belgian village

I've posted a query on the Talk page for the Belgian town of Balen, seeking to clarify the identity and location of "Balen-Neet," a WWII-era village, and a possible alternate spelling, "Baelen-Nethe." Input would be appreciated -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like your Balen-Neet is actually closer to something like Balen-sur-Nethe and it simply means 'Old Balen.' Balen-sur-Nethe bears the same Lat/Long that Balen does (N 51° 10' 0" E 5° 9' 0"). In case you are wondering that location locally, maps I've located tend to show it lies nearly due East from Antwerp, Belgium. Hope that helps you out. Operator873 (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's more geographic detail than I'd expected! Is that a French source you cite? —as I'd expect a locale so near Antwerp would be named in Dutch (Flemish). The source document (undated) is monolingual, a Kaart van Eenzelvigheid en inschrijving in de bevolksingsregisters. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

'Old Balen' is not a translation of Balen-Neet, if that is what you meant to say Operator873, Balen-Neet is an old name of the town. It is located near the Grote Nete river, and Balen-sur-Nèthe means Balen-on-the-Nete. The website of the Balen municipality has a short history of the name of the town (here) from Baenle (13th century) to Baelen (15th century), Baelen aan de Nete (18th century), Balen-Neet and the present Balen. "Kaart van Eenzelvigheid en inschrijving in de bevolkingsregisters" means something like "identity card and proof of civil registration". 213.148.236.60 (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does a small country like Denmark wish to remain outside the eurozone?

I can understand the reservations of the United Kingdom as it does have its own ties to its own interests, but if big European countries with much bigger populations than Denmark are content to join the Eurozone, why is it not in the zone? Opting out surely have a detrimental economic effect if big countries like Germany and France and the surrounding nations are content to join.

Also, why will it take so long for the countries in the former Soviet bloc to join the eurozone despite the fact that they've been members of the EU itself for quite a long time? And why do former Soviet bloc countries still lag behind Western Europe even today, twenty years after the fall of communism in Europe?--Possiblereasons (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

As to 1: Denmark conducted a referendum in 2000 in which the populace decided against the introduction of the Euro. The topic is briefly dealt with in the article Denmark and the euro. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

We Swedes also held a referendum about this issue, and rejected it as well. Personally, I always supported changing our currency to the Euro, so I can't speak in great detail to the motivations of the people who voted no (mostly because I think they're nuts, personally). However, as I remember it, most of the opposition to the Euro was based on, well, isolationism, basically. People wanted the Riksbank (our central bank, the oldest in the world, I might add) to set monetary policy, they didn't want to be ruled from Brussels and depend on the actions of the other eurozone countries (Sweden has always been a fairly isolationist country, we don't go to war, ally ourselves with any side in a war, and generally look at international unions with suspicion). I'm also guessing there was some understandable sentimental attachment to the Swedish krona, which you would expect. Belisarius (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Enlargement of the eurozone mentions that in Denmark a new referendum may be held in 2011 and the most recent poll suggested a majority of support for the Euro. However this was before the recent economic crisis and there's no telling how that would affect people's thinkings and in any case polls 3 years before the event aren't necessarily highly reliable. Sweden however doesn't have a majority supporting the Euro yet and no concencrete support for another referendum and indeed it may not happen until there is stable support in the polls. Again how the economic crisis will influence this remains to be seen Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

One man's "isolationism" is another man's "declaration of independence" from foreign power. :) Wrad (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the former Soviet bloc countries, most of them to want to join the Euroe. However many of them haven't fullfiled or are unable to fulfill the requirements. This is discussed in Enlargement of the eurozone on a case by case basis Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The main reason for any country to want to remain outside the euro zone is that joining the euro ends the independence of that country's central bank. That country then has to accept the monetary policy set by the European Central Bank, which it sets to meet the needs of the euro zone as a whole. Since the euro zone is dominated economically by Germany, France, and Italy, and to a lesser extent by Spain and the Netherlands, monetary policy set to address, say, stagnation deflation in Germany, Italy, and France would work to exacerbate asset price inflation in a smaller country. Spain and Ireland suffered from this adverse policy effect for several years, and it generated massive real estate bubbles in both countries that are now painfully deflating. Conversely, if there is a risk of inflation or economic overheating in the dominant economies of the euro zone, smaller economies dealing with an economic downturn could face a policy that would worsen that downturn.

Of course, there are countervailing reasons to join the euro zone nonetheless, but I won't go into those since the questioner wanted to know why Denmark chose to stay out. I will say that one big reason why Danes might have been hesitant to join the euro was that several years ago, the euro was a new currency and a financial experiment, since it was the first major transnational currency in history. Now that the euro has more or less proven not to be a disaster, and having seen a kindred small country (Iceland) damaged because its independent currency was vulnerable to financial trouble, Danes might find the relative security of the euro more appealing.

As for the eastern European members of the EU, the main reason that most have not joined the euro is that they have not yet met the convergence criteria. Marco polo (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that, while geographically stuck to Germany and the rest of continental Europe, Denmark is culturally and historically a Scandinavian country, along with Norway and Sweden (sometimes Finland and Iceland are included). I'd surmise that the surrounding countries that Denmark would most likely follow the lead of are Norway and Sweden, rather than Germany and France, at least culturally. (In fact, prior to WWI, the three countires had fixed exchange rate system with the Scandinavian Monetary Union.) Note that at this point neither Norway or Sweden are part of the Eurozone, and Norway and Iceland aren't even part of the European Union. The major reason Denmark, Sweden and Norway aren't part of the Eurozone/EU is because of referenda where the public have rejected joining. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with Scandinavian culture to hazard a guess at why they're reluctant to join the EU/Eurozone. I will note that we have an article Denmark and the euro, which notes there are upcoming referenda for Denmark to join the eurozone-- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Which continent is Turkey a part of?

I see some maps have it as part of Asia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LocationEurope.png

And some maps show it as part of Europe: http://www.phrasebase.com/images/world_Europe.gif (http://www.phrasebase.com/countries/turkey/)

Which is accurate?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.124.91 (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

By an old convention, the southeastern edge of Europe is defined as the coastline running from the Black Sea along the Bosporus, the Sea of Marmara, and the Dardanelles to the Aegean Sea. By this definition, part of Turkey—East Thrace, including the historic core of Istanbul—belongs to Europe, while the rest—Anatolia—is part of Asia. So the country is part of both continents. Marco polo (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And a number of people reject the Europe/Asia continent split, and consider them part of the single continent of Eurasia. (So to them Turkey is part of Eurasia, with no ambiguity.) -- 128.104.112.113 (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Upazilas of Bangladesh

According to your article "Upazilas of Bangladesh", you wrote at present, there are total of 482 upazilas, but I did the counting of the upazilas and the total number is 467. Go to banglapedia.org for the information on each district of Bangladesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.152 (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Children as domestic servants, marrying in 1880s Ohio

Yep, another of my queries after researching family history; since this involves law and society it goes here. Thanks for indulging these.

Anyway, we're trying to figure out an age for my great-great-grandmother. We know she - youngest of 11 kids - came w/her parents in 1873 to Canton, Ohio. We're pretty sure she's the one listed as a servant in another home in the 1880 census - everything else fits. (ONly one of that last name, which is a common one, etc.)

The confusion lies with her age; her age given means she was born about 1863/4 in the 1880 census, but the list for the boat she came over on says she was born "about 1867." Okay, if the person has to guess and she was smaller, I can understand that one. But, a newspaper article around her death lists her as 42 - which would make her 11 or 12 in the 1880 census. Furthermore, she married in 18883.

So, my question is, first, how common was it for children to be domestic servants in 1880s Ohio? The father had died in 1876 or so, so I can kind of see it. Second, did girls really marry that young in Ohio then? 14 seems normal for ancient times, or even the Middle Ages, but I'm not sure about the 1880s. (Unless, of course, she was pregnant, but her first child was born a year after the marriage. :-)

Funny thing is, the 1900 census seems to to corroborate the 1880 one as far as birthdate; so we *know* that's her, with the other family members as clues.Somebody or his brother (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Doubleday, Mary Hewitt

I am a Civil War reenactor who will be portraying Mary Hewitt Doubleday.  I have not been able to find any information on her.  She was the wife of Abner Doubleday.  This is the only information I have.  
    Doubleday, Mary H.
    Date of Death  03-13-1907
    Buried in Arlington National Cemetary with her husband
    Wife of Abner Doubleday:  CBMG  USA   RTD

 I do know that she was from Baltiomre, MD.

Dotty Schirmer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotty Schirmer (talk • contribs) 20:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC) 

Non-blood cousin terminology?

Hi, I've read the cousin article, but it seems to only talk about blood relationships. What if I have someone who is my mother's sister's husband's sister's daughter? What would that be called? I thought it would be some kind of "cousin", but she is not a blood relative. --71.141.148.143 (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)