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.
Name of the company that holds all stocks traded in the United States?
I remember reading this article linking to a company that happens to hold all stocks exchanged in the United States. It's not a .gov I don't think, but it did indeed exist. The purpose seems to be to just change 'ownership' of the stocks, without actually moving them anywhere. I can't find the name of this company, or anything referencing it, anymore. --TIB (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are clearinghouses and exchanges that coordinate the sale and purchase of stocks; but I am not sure that there is a single entity which "owns" all stocks in the U.S. What you are describing is essentially how a stock exchange works, but there is not now (nor has there ever been) a single monolithic exchange that has controlled every single public stock trade in America. --Jayron32.talk.contribs02:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is what you mean (and a quick search proved useless unfortnuately) but I seem to recall there being a person/group/firm that specifically bought 1 unit of stock in every firm traded in the main stock-exchanges. I can't recall any more details, but perhaps that is what the OP means? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The people that run index funds probably do something much like that. (There are ways of approximating an index with fewer trades and fewer stocks [so reducing transaction costs], but I imagine some do it the old fashioned way.) --Tango (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question undoubtedly refers to Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, aka The Depository Trust Company. DTCC is the owner of record of most publicly traded securities in the U.S. As the OP suggests, the purpose is to ease changes of ownership. DTCC records on its books that shares are beneficially owned by broker-dealers and banks, which in turn maintain books showing beneficial ownership of shares by their customers. As NByz mentions, you can get a physical certificate if you prefer (or, for uncertificated securities, have yourself recorded as the owner of record), but banks and broker-dealers usually charge a fee for this service (typically $25 - $35, the last time I checked). In any case, it is usually advisable to maintain ownership through DTCC. John M Baker (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you serve in the army or any other war services during WWII?
If the answer to the above is yes, than please share your expeirence with me! I am wanting to know first person if possible.... I am very interested in history, ecepcially WWII and want to know as much as i can about it.
What was its intended purpose, was the force used disproportionate to its intended purpose, and were reasonable precautions taken to minimize unnecessary civilian casualties and "collateral damage"? The article you link to answers none of those questions... AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I just feel that they go to extremes to find injustice. This is a case where you need to start with "why was the station bombed"? Instead, our article and Amnesty's article start from "civilians were killed." -- kainaw™16:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they seem to ignore the "end justifies the means" argument of killing a few civilians to prevents the deaths of many more. If that radio station was broadcasting calls for genocide against minorities, then bombing it could save thousands of lives. In Rwanda, such broadcasts led to the genocide of perhaps a million civilians. It's a shame we didn't bomb that radio station. StuRat (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if they were pushing for genocide. That is my complaint. Our article should explain why it was bombed - surely because of something they were broadcasting - and then go on to explain why it is considered controversial. -- kainaw™17:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rightly, the Rome Statute has nothing to say about "the end justifies the means". A crime is a crime, although no doubt a balance of harm argument could be submitted in mitigation. Xn4 (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't allow for "the end justifies the means", then all parties in all wars are guilty of war crimes. I suppose a pacifist can take such a position, but it seems quite absurd to bring people up on charges when they are trying to save lives by their actions. StuRat (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That really doesn't follow. Killing people in war isn't unlawful, it's only particular kinds of killing (and some other activities) which can amount to war crimes. There are valid philosophical and moral arguments for every kind of armed aggression being morally wrong, but the European systems of law are much more about order than about morality. The criminal law, depending for its application on evidence and facts, is much less interested in motivations (what goes on inside people's heads) than it is in actions. Once you concede that laws won't apply if people believe "the end justifies the means", the whole rule of law breaks down. Xn4 (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not always, and (when it does) only for a time. Laws go on existing during a war, unless they are specifically suspended (which international laws can't be). And when the war is over, criminal prosecutions may need to follow. Xn4 (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect that the individuals responsible (the generals in charge) would be charged if an actual war crime had been committed, like if NATO had decided to bomb occupied schools until Serbia gave up. StuRat (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting development, as the ways you can punish corporations are by imposing fines on them, withdrawing their licences, limiting their activities, or (ultimately) by winding them up, all of which in most cases will penalize employees and/or shareholders who have no part in any criminal activity. But whether you can prosecute a corporation or not, aren't crimes committed by people? Xn4 (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If General Ripper instructs Battery "C" of the 2nd Brigade to bombard map coordinates (76.2, 113.8) with high explosive, and there's a refugee camp at that location, has a crime been committed, and if so, by who? --Carnildo (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General Ripper would be asked, during a trial, why he chose that target, and documentation of what was believed to be at that location would be brought in as evidence. If he did know it was a refuge camp, and had no valid military reason for bombing it, I suspect he would be found guilty. StuRat (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Corporations are juridical persons,not natural persons,so those crimes are commited by them as a whole,by legal persons. While NATO leaders are actual,natural persons,so its hardly the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.154.181 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is the same thing. It's the difference between prosecuting Corporation X and prosecuting the actual, natural persons on the board. You could try NATO, or try the individual persons representing the NATO council. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite07:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William Anders quote
A quote by astronaut William Anders regarding the photograph Earthrise, can be found in many places. However, I am unable to find the exact quote, as there appear to be many variations. I'm wondering if there is an "official" quote released by NASA that can be confirmed. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the quote there. It looks like you found a NASA page that uses the image in question to illustrate a different quote. For comparison, the quote that I am looking for can be found in the links I provided above and on my user page as a caption. The problem is, I am looking for a definitive version of the quote, and I can't find it. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, now I have four versions! Collect them all! :) Actually, that YouTube link helps, because it makes me think he must have talked about this a lot, which explains all the different quotes. Thanks, I suppose you can close this because it should be obvious now that there probably isn't a definitive version. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well... he probably wasn't the easiest guy to get along with, at least. Clearly, he had some notions of intellectual and moral superiority, which rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. On the other hand, he was a really smart guy, and he demolished certain preconceived and wrong-headed notions a lot of people had, which was probably a benefit to society... but that doesn't mean he couldn't be a jerk as well. I guess it comes down to what you think of as a jerk, which I admit is kind of dodging the question, but from what I can tell, he didn't go around trying to hurt people or intimidate them, or doing what he wanted at the expense of others, which strike me as the kind of qualities jerks generally have. But on the other hand, he clearly wasn't afraid to offend. Personally, I wouldn't call him a jerk, but I wouldn't argue with anyone who did. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was an apologist for some of the most violent and tyrannical regimes of the 20th century. I happen to like reading him, though. A line from Swift comes to me: "Sometimes I read a book with pleasure, and detest the author." Antandrus (talk)21:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say he had tremendous personal qualities, including physical courage, a willingness to help the underdog, disdain for material wealth, and a wicked sense of humor! Rhinoracer (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Walworth Road Baptists: still active?
Religion: Walworth Road Baptist Church in London, and Walworth Road Baptist Road Missionary Society. Church apparently closed in 1971. Perhaps reopened later?? Walworth Road Baptist Road Missionary Society apparently still continued until at least 2003??Japansking (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My girlfriend is currently doing a statistical essay on casualty rates in the British Army during WWI in theatres other than the Western Front - specifically the Dardenelles, Egypt, Messoptamia and the like. I'm struggling to find any academic books (Terraine and the like) which explore the activities of the British Army on those fronts, and was wondering if anyone could help me hunt some down. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin has a great deal of information about the British activities in those regions during WWI. --Omidinist (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of ages of popes doesn't answer directly, but does say the average age upon election has crawled up from 63 to 65. It notes one guy was 54 when he was elected. I am going to bet you think 54 is old, so the answer to your question is probably "yes". Tempshill (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yeah - resolved, thanks for the quick answer!
(ec)Pope John Paul II was 58 when he was elected, which is (comparatively) very young. He was very energetic, too - in addition to visiting a huge number of countries, he reportedly ran shirtless on the roof of the Vatican every morning. 87.113.74.22 (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would the resistance be "stiffer" if the Pope were female, shirtless, young, and attractive? The legendary Pope Joan probably kept her shirt on, at least in public. Edison (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite always. The youngest pope whose age we know was John XII, who was eighteen when he was elected. However, there's uncertainty about Benedict IX, who was probably in his late teens but may have been as young as eleven or twelve. Xn4 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The heads of most large organisations are middle-aged or older. It takes a long time to work your way up through the ranks. Also, since being pope is usually a job for life, you don't want to risk giving it to someone with too much life left to live! --Tango (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read once that an Italian proverb, equivalent to "once in a blue moon," says "every death of a pope." From Gregory XVI in 1831 through Pius XII, who died in 1958, the average was over 16 years.` John XXIII helped reduce that with his four years, as did John Paul I in his one-month reign. --- OtherDave (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16 years isn't too bad - if you appoint at 18 year old, there's a good chance they'll be pope for 60 years! Remember, the pope is elected by cardinals, who are usually pretty old themselves - given that they probably wouldn't mind a chance to be pope, they probably don't want to elect someone that's almost certain to outlive them. --Tango (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
107 commuted death sentences
Capital punishment in California notes that California v. Anderson, the decision that invalidated the death penalty in California in 1972, commuted the death sentences of 107 inmates who were on Death Row. Can anyone point me to a list of the names of the people whose sentences were commuted? I'm trying to find out what happened to the Griffin from Griffin v. California in order to update the article, and have not succeeded. If his sentence was commuted, at least that's one piece of data I can use. Thanks in advance - Tempshill (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, his sentence must have been commuted. Aaron Mitchell was the last person executed in Californa, in 1967, until the barbarism was resumed in 1992. (Unless Griffin died before 1972.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆05:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you write a speech outline in First person on the person who you have to be?
So you want to write a speech where you are Annie Oakley talking about you (who is Annie Oakley?)? Write it as if you are the character. So instead of "Annie was born in a cabin..." say "I was born in a cabin..." - or am I misunderstanding the question? ny156uk (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about Oakley in particular, but read up about her, know your facts; also, if you can, find some of her quirks of speech / mannerisms, and imitate them. Also think about how well your audience know the character: are they going to know when you're just making facts up as you go along? If they're not, feel free to dramatise her life (if it needs to be!). - Jarry1250(t, c)13:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This Google book search produced a biography with many direct quotes attributed to Annie. They may help you get that voice you're looking for. You might also pick a point in her life (the height of her career, say, or a time late in life) and frame the talk as if given at that time. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
82.120's statement is far too general to be even remotely valid. It is, however, true (see the abstract here) that a pleasure derived from music shows up as activity in the same brain areas as a pleasure induced by any other "euphoria-inducing stimuli, such as food, sex, and drugs of abuse". Caveat emptor. --Dr Dima (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could try Daniel Levitin's book This is Your Brain on Music. The New York Times called it "a layperson's guide to the emerging neuroscience of music." Levitin heads the Laboratory for Music Perception, Cognition and Expertise at McGill University in Montreal. --- OtherDave (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
why does my economics book put the price as a Y axis when the quantity is a function of it?
all the text talks about quantity supplied, demanded, tickets sold, etc etc all as a function of the price. Then they turn around and make price the y axis! This point is brought home in a graph that's a bit like a parabola, because the quantity goes up with price, then after a certain price back down -- but because price is on the Y-axis, what would be a normal parabola isn't even a function! (It has two Y's for the same X-point).
so then is this NOT the usual practice? here as an example I sketched. seriously! the accompanying text is : "Figure 13-6 The INDIVUDUAL'S SUPLY OF LABOR. The diagrams [I reproduced only the second - the first just goes up and up] show two possible types of labor supply curves. In Figure 13-6a the labor supply curve slopes upward. The indivudal works more the higehr the real wage. The labor supply curve in Figure 13-6b is called a backward-bending supply curve. As the wage rises, a stage is reached where the individual decides to work less; he decides to use some of the higher income made possible by the higer real wage to consume leisure rather than work. [the lowest point, at the bottom-left of the curve] in each diagram is the wage at which the individual will begin to participate in the labor force. If the wage is below that level, the individual is out of the labor force; for any higher wage, the person is participating".
As you can see, the way they talk makes it crystal clear that the number of hours supplied is a function of the price. In fact, if you cock your head to the right and flip it, it looks like a real parabola -- it looks like this. That would actually be a function, and it's how they TALK about the graph. So why don't they PRINT it that way? Thank you!
and today? Would that chart be printed like this or like this today? Thank you!
In economics prices are always on the y-axis and quantities on the x. I think it's partly down to history, and partly down to economists thinking of price and quantity as being codependent. See this for example. 79.70.236.172 (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I could just take a moment to say that a parabola on its side is still a parabola, and still a function. Instead of y=x2 it is x=y2 or, if you prefer, y=x½
Maths is nice like that. 79.66.105.133 (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is from An Introduction to Postitive Economics, Seventh ed. by Richard G. Lipsey:
"Readers trained in other disciplines often wonder why economists plot demand curves with price on the vertical axis. The normal convention is to put the independent variable on the X axis and the dependent variable on the Y axis. This convention calls for price to be plotted on the horizontal axis and quantity on the vertical axis.
"The axis reversal - now enshrined by nearly a century of usage - arose as follows. The analysis of the competitive market that we use today stems from Leon Walras, in whose theory quantity was the dependent variable. Graphical analysis in economics, however, was popularized by Alfred Marshall, in whose theory price was the dependent variable. Economists continue to use Walras' theory and Marshall's graphical representation and thus draw the diagram with the independent and dependent variables reversed - to the everlasting confusion of readers trained in other disciplines. In virtually every other graph in economics the axes are labelled conventionally, with the dependent variable on the vertical axis."
Note that you could technically see it either way: price is a function of quantity in the sense that a storm might wipe out your crop of bananas (which happened a few years back in Australia) and that would affect the quantity produced, which would inevitably cause prices to rise (they quadrupled in that example). Growers not affected by the storms simply cashed in on the higher prices, understandably, so the price was a function of quantity in that case, and had little to do with the specific decisions of farmers. It's been emotional (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the extract above!! I was about going mad. I'm really glad I took the time to come back and look at the responses. Thanks again for typing all that out. 82.120.227.157 (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the banks keep their money as entries in a ledger. Just like you keep your checkbook at home so that you know how much money you have in the bank, the bank does the same, except on a computer, and in a REALLY big checkbook. But otherwise, most (probably 90% or higher) transactions involve moving a number from the "our money" column to the "your money" column in some really huge computer spreadsheet. The actual use of real currency is pretty small in terms of overall financial dealings. --Jayron32.talk.contribs12:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they can if they want, but that would be fraud. I suppose it all comes under the term of "creative accountancy", but it is illegal and would no doubt be found out at some point, either by accountants, officials or your average Joe trying to withdraw money that doesn't exist. With the larger banks, it would be a phenomenally large conspiracy to hide. - Jarry1250(t, c)13:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the same thing that stops a company from making up earnings to pump up their stock price, so they can sell some off, say, oops, those weren't our earnings, and be left with free money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The corporations are audited. Are the banks audited in the same way? No. Because of Bank Secrecy laws, that state transactions less than $10,000 is protected with privacy laws. And what about the banks that don't trade in Stock Exchanges? They don't need to be audited? Whats to stop this "Private Bank" to wire to other banks using Swift? --33rogers (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, banks do make up new money. It's called fractional-reserve banking, and I believe that most if not all countries do it nowadays. Each country's central bank monitors the commercial banks to make sure that they don't make more money than the rules allow. This system works fine as long as everybody doesn't try to take out their deposits at the same time, causing a bank run. --Heron (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the bank could add extra money to their ledger, they couldn't actually do anything with it - whoever they were transferring it to (presumably another bank) would want something more than just their word that they had reduced the ledger by the right amount. I think the central bank handles such transactions (well, at the end of each day, anyway, the banks just keep track of who owes who what until then) - banks have deposits at the central bank and those deposits are what get moved around. --Tango (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it depends on whether you deposited cash or your deposit was processed as an EFT or check. Cash is added to the cash the bank pays out to people making a cash withdrawal. The amounts are recorded in the legders mentioned above. Bank offices keep a certain amount of cash "on hand" in their vaults. If they expect many people to withdraw money as cash on a certain day (e.g. before a holiday) they will ask their head office for a resupply. If they have more cash than they think they need they will send some off to their head office. The head office transfers cash to/from the central bank (They have an account there just like your checking account). An EFT or check will be booked in the ledger, too, but the bank will quickly turn around and invest that amount. They will either loan it to another bank, buy foreign currencyor buy a financial instrument. There are a couple of issues with this: Some of these investments will get them their money back the next day, but some are fixed for a certain period. If everyone wants their deposits back, but the investment the bank made will only repay the money in say a month, the bank will have to go and borrow money elsewhere. They can also lose the money they have invested, if e.g. an exchange rate fluctuates wildly, the inflation rate of the currency they invested in drops sharply or the other bank they loaned money to went broke. One of the investments that caused all the troubles recently were mortgage swaps. The banks bought and sold the mortgages on their books. When the original borrowers couldn't pay the mortgage rates and defaulted, the banks lost money. (Or people who buy bank stocks were afraid the bank would lose money and sold all their stock, if no one wants to buy it the price drops and the bank isn't considered to be worth as much as it used to be.) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking for legal advice, but I'm interested a to whether the coats of arms of former monarchs are still in copyright, and whether this depends on use. Normally, I'd assume that they weren't due to the time scales involved, but where the government's involved there may be an exemption? - Jarry1250(t, c)12:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In traditional European-style heraldry, a coat of arms is actually specified by the textual blazon, and many alternative artistic depictions based on the same blazon may be acceptable as a rendering of a single coat of arms -- and if you create from scratch a new artistic rendition of the blazon, then you generally will hold the copyright on your personal rendition. However, non-copyright restrictions on the use of such emblems may still apply (see Commons:Template:Insignia). AnonMoos (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. Normally, I would expect that most depictions of blazons are not copyright of the arms-bearer, I was wondering if there were any exceptions for the Royal Coat of Arms - not bringing it into disrepute, that sort of thing. - Jarry1250(t, c)13:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There may be strong restrictions on the use of Coats of Arms, Royal and other. These would have nothing to do with copyright, but various other laws regarding titles, peerages etc. It would also vary between countries, since the rules may in many cases be quite ancient and based on tradition rather than reason. I don't know anything about these laws, and can't really point to any source that might help, but I believe it to be noteworthy that including "copyright" in searches could throw you well off track. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was using copyright in a figurative sense meaning the restriction placed on it based on the author or otherwise. You're quite right in suggesting that the term probably doesn't cover it, because copyright terms are usually fixed based on subject matter etc. - Jarry1250(t, c)19:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trademark is a better analogy: you must not display someone else's coat of arms (even if you created the image yourself) in such a way as to suggest that it is yours. —Tamfang (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone other than the Royal Family themselves would go as far as suggesting the Royal Coats of Arms were their own, what I'm interested in are the special restrictions that are placed on the royal coat of arms over and above normal protection. I've emailed the government (direct.gov anyway) on this. - Jarry1250(t, c)19:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing to do with copyright, which (as we know) runs out. A coat of arms is heritable and can last for ever, and all are protected by law. It's a very arcane area of law, and very few owners of arms any more go to the expense of defending their ownership, so in effect the protection has broken down. No doubt proceedings can still be threatened. See Court of Chivalry, a court which is still in existence but which (according to our article) was last convened in 1954.
The Royal Arms are specifically protected in the UK (and in some other realms of the crown) by various acts of parliament. I think one of them may have a title like "Unauthorized Documents Act". The effect is that you need the permission of the monarch, or the government, to make any use of the Royal Arms, and I rather think all versions, past and present, are protected. See also Royal warrant. Xn4 (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A related issue (in the UK) is the Royal Warrant - only manufacturers and suppliers who have been specifically authorised to do so can display a royal coat of arms on their products with the words "by appointment" - it is reserved for those companies who supply the royal family and have been granted permission. Exxolon (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that using the Coat of arms on a commercial product in order to suggest that it somehow endorsed by the monarch is illegal (UKIP were prosecuted for the passport covers they sold), but I was more wondering about books on heraldry, that sort of thing, in which the Royal coats of arms regularly make an appearance, and the copyright permission of the artist / photographer are the only ones given. - Jarry1250(t, c)10:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Books are very different. The first purpose of the protection of arms (viz., of coats of arms), is simply to stop people from bearing arms, that is, from carrying them in person, especially when they are someone else's arms. From this developed the need to prevent the display of arms, for instance, on a building or a carriage, which unless stopped would suggest a connexion between the building (or the business in it), or the carriage, or whatever, and the owner of the arms. And of course, that is just the purpose the holders of royal warrants use the Royal Arms for today.
A book is merely a book. It gives information and in itself asserts no right to bear arms. A use of that kind is nothing to do with copyright law, which is essentially about preventing people from copying intellectual property. It's hard to see any reason why a coat of arms could not also have the protection of copyright law, but I've never seen any assertion of that kind, and (in any event) copyright law is a rather temporary protection. Armigerous people, and corporations who own arms, are usually modestly or immodestly proud of them and like people to know about them. What is objectionable is not the copying of arms but the misuse of them. Xn4 (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recent specific artistic renderings of a coat of arms would of course be under copyright protection in each case, but this wouldn't block other people from coming up with their own new renderings of the same arms, and renderings which were made a long time ago would have expired copyrights. If a symbol is defined such that only one particular specific artistic rendering of it is acceptable, then such a symbol is more like a corporate logo than a coat of arms in the traditional sense... AnonMoos (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Walpole's Castle of Otranto
I am having a hard time understanding the prophecy in the book. Who has grown too large? And what was the purpose of the giant hands and limbs, were those Alphonso's? 169.229.75.140 (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may depend on where you are, but a few years ago they were traded on all major financial markets. Call your usual broker. Iraq does at least have oil, but if I were you I should get advice before plunging too deeply. Xn4 (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No answer, but some additional info. The Radio Rosary program had certainly begun before 1959 when George Carlin was age 22 and nearly fired as a DJ for ending the program when it ran overtime (Cushing called the station, saying "I'd like to speak to the young man that turned off the holy word of God"). It was apparently broadcast on Boston's WEZE for 15 minutes from 6:45 until 7 p.m. So, if Cushing was a cardinal when he started the program, it would have been in 1958; however he could have started it earlier if he was only an archbishop at the time. - Nunh-huh06:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now can anyone tell me... when was this map made, who made it, and is there a place I can get a proper translation into English of the text at the bottom of the map? Is it notable enough for a Wikipedia article, or are its creator(s) notable enough for one?--Emerald Continent (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are a series of similar maps as well, possibly by the same artists, that you can find by searching the text at the top of this map in Google. I have got the high-resolution versions of all of them if people need them for reference.--Emerald Continent (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information is there on the map. Humoristische Karte von Europa im Jahre 1914, that's "Humorous map of Europe in the Year 1914". The publishers are "Leutert & Schneidewind Kunstanstalt, Dresden", and it's by K. Lehmann-Dumont. It's a First World War map dating from (you guessed it) 1914. The curious presence of Japan in the North Atlantic is explained in the legend: "Japan was drawn into the European theatre of war by England and snarls furiously in the direction of Germany, baring carnivorous teeth". Xn4 (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what the top part translates to, word-for-word. I can't fluently speak French or German, but these two languages I can definitely understand some entire sentences of without too much work. Also, I realise that it's a map portraying Europe in 1914, but does that guarantee that it was actually drawn in 1914? The 'propaganda' factor may serve as evidence towards it being made at that date, but there isn't a date given of when it was made, just a date of what it depicts.--Emerald Continent (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only hit at Google books for K. Lehmann-Dumont seems to be this, which is about this very map and confirms the date as 1914. Lehmann-Dumont has seven hits, two of them for "Lehmann-Dumont, K." (Anfang 20. Jh.), which means early 20th century, which suggests that very little is known about Lehmann-Dumont, so he or she doesn't seem to be terribly notable, unless of course it's a nom-de-plume. Xn4 (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Stadtarchiv Hildesheim displayed the poster in an exhibition on war proclamations/announcements titled "Helft uns siegen!" (Roemer-und-Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim). The specifications in this pdf-file are: "Political poster, 36 x 49.4 cm, design: K. Lehmann-Dumont (1914), print: color lithography or offset printing, printer: Sächsiche Verlagsanstalt GmbH, Dresden." I found a partial translation here, but haven't checked it. For some more propaganda, how about: "Belgium, whose people shows itself to be a poisonous toad, has already been skewered on the German fixing pin in order to be incorporated into the German collection.". ---Sluzzelintalk08:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm reluctant to call it propaganda, it has at least some wit and charm. See Sardinia depicted as a tin of sardines, the Indian snake wrapped around the British bulldog, and the Irishman with a bottle of beer in one hand and a pair of shears in the other as he prepares to cut the chain binding him to Great Britain. It clearly does belong to the early part of the Great War, before it turned so nasty. It's a relic of the ancien régime. Xn4 (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well done in finding that online translation. It's more or less all right, but slightly off-beam on a few points. For instance, grimmig isn't "grimly", it's "furiously". Xn4 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's the Grand Duchess Feodora, the second wife he married in 1910, the daughter of Prince Frederick John of Saxe-Meiningen, not to be confused with Feodora of Saxe-Meiningen (1879-1945), a grand-daughter of Queen Victoria, or with Feodora of Saxe-Meiningen (1839-1872). Xn4 (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there are of course Children, who still believe in Santa Clause and stuff like that. Also, there are some people who have a willful suspension of disbelief; in the same way that some people become invested emotionally in their favorite TV show characters, there are others for whom wrestling serves the same purpose. No one really believes that Lost is real, but people still earnestly "believe" in the internal consistancy and "realness" of the "Lost universe". Likewise with wrestling. An it should be noted that, while scripted in terms of the outcomes of the matches, the endeavor still requires the wrestlers to be in peak physical condition. It may not be "real" but its still not something "I" could do with any skill. --Jayron32.talk.contribs12:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Lisa Simpson compared it to ballet: whilst it's scripted, no-one doubts that a great deal of work still goes into it. (Your point entirely!) - Jarry1250(t, c)14:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i used to believe it was real till i was about 15. i watched it on TV on a Sat afternoon. No one said it was fixed. How would i know?--GreenSpigot (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from a country without professional "wrestling" and my first encounter was zapping into a TV match from USA as a grown up. For about a minute I was amazed what was happening in this apparent sporting event. It took a couple of minutes before I became convinced it had to be staged. Now I'm amazed this type of show is being produced like that and is so popular. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I watched loads of wrestling up until my early teens (I was also one of those kids who tried what they'd seen on TV at home/in the schoolyard, FWIW - back then, I wanted to be a pro wrestler when I grew up). At the time, I believed that whilst the storylines were just (over)acting, the fights themselves were real. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call professional wrestling "match fixing". You'll never find a bookie who will give you a line on a WWE match! It's "fake" in the sense that it is scripted, but its not like they are trying to make you believe that it is real in the same way that "real sports" like actual competitive wrestling is! --Jayron32.talk.contribs05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This question was asked a few days ago, maybe at Misc. The general consensus was that while there's nothing legally holding an atheist back from running, he or she would be unlikely to be nominated by a major party, at least in today's cultural climate. So no, they would not be considered viable. T-T-Teeth(t-t-talk)14:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make the point that "could" looks to the future rather than the past or the immediate present, and we can't really be sure what the future holds on such questions.
An interesting comparison: more electors in the US believe in God (and think religious belief matters from a political point of view) than in the UK, where we've had atheists in leading positions without people here much noticing or caring. Michael Foot, for instance, led the British Labour Party into the general election of 1983, and the reason Labour lost seems to have had nothing to do with his being an atheist. Ken Livingstone had some big victories as Mayor of London, and it was the upsurge in support for the Conservative party and its charismatic candidate which brought him down, not religion. There are quite a few basic similarities between the UK and the US, and it must be at least possible that the future will see more convergence between them on this point. So I should say that even if an atheist couldn't be a viable presidential candidate in the US now (which I don't know enough to be sure about), it's probably better to answer the question "perhaps", rather than "no". Xn4 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does require very little to "sway" public perception of characteristic X (where X may stand for atheism / homosexuality / and, needless to say, skin pigmentation). It simply requires a respected and integer public figure to state (without much ado), "...and as to certain rumours, fellow Americans, ´No, I do not believe in God´", Period.
Up until last year nobody thought an African-American would ever have a serious shot at the Presidency, much less a better one than a white woman, who didn't have much of a shot either. And look where we are. It's easy to come up with polls that say, "we're not ready," but a lot of it depends on the spirit of the moment and the nature of the candidate in question. Most Americans two years ago almost certainly wouldn't have been inclined to vote for a Black man, but in the personage of Obama they see something more complicated than just that. One can scarcely imagine a vehement, anti-religion style of atheist getting a major nomination, but one who knew how to make alliances and draw attention to other issues, especially in times of perceived national crisis, probably could make it work (in the same way that Obama did—it really is inconceivable that he would have won if the US was feeling comfortable with the status quo). The issue with relying on historical statistics regarding politics is that the sample size is too low—for as long as I've been aware of politics we have been continuously told how "unprecedented" certain things are (gaining of seats in a mid-term election by an incumbent president's party, for example), but in the end this sort of fact-mongering has the same quality of sports score-keeping, and very little to do with the dynamics of actual political change, if that makes any sense. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me, 98.217.14.211, but if Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM feels an atheist presidential candidate in the US would need to say something frank about not believing in God, then for me that underlines the different way the British and Americans approach such matters. Here in the UK (I'm thinking, perhaps, of the mainland), people don't expect politicians to talk about their religion or lack of it, and it seems odd when they do. Of course, our head of government is effectively chosen by whatever majority can be put together in the House of Commons, after general elections in which the perception of the political parties' leaders is only one of the issues, and hardly ever the biggest one. Here, indeed, most Green Party voters have not the slightest idea who the leader of the Green Party is, despite the recent election. Xn4 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When discussing politics and religion with Americans -- yeah, I like to stick body parts into wood chippers, too! -- I often say this right off the bat to kind of illustrate our cultural differences so they have a point of reference: here in Finland, no serious politician really talks about God except in the most abstract or personal sense, and even then, pretty much only if they're asked about it. We actually have a political party that's Christian by definition, and even they don't do it. Nobody with even the tiniest hope of an actual political career would ever present an argument against or for anything based on God's will, unless the matter at hand was strictly religious -- and even then it would be done very carefully, because that's easily considered crackpot talk over here. I mean, you can talk about traditional family values, for example, or even traditional Christian values, and that's one thing. And you can say that you have faith, and that's completely cool. But if you can't back up your argument with facts, or at least convincing rhetoric, and resort to "because God says so", you're a joke. Even when we passed the law on registered partnership, which is essentially gay marriage except by name, the Christian political opposition to it was based on traditions and what marriage means and all that crap. It wasn't about whether homosexuality is a sin -- sure, that was pretty much the underlying message, but if you say it, you come across like a crazy person... and an asshole to boot, really. It would take a really exceptional individual to be able to succeed with that kind of talk.
So, the American political rhetoric often seems bizarre and disturbing to a lot of people over here, because religion plays such a big part of it. And it's not like most Finns aren't Christian -- according to the CIA World Factbook, that's about 85% of the population, which is actually a higher percentage than in the United States. But religious fervor doesn't go over well with most people over here, and it certainly wouldn't be something the political parties here would want their members to express. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One factor that has escaped attention in this discussion is how much of a stranglehold churches have on social activities in the States. Particularly in rural areas church activities are pretty much the only game in town. It's an existing organizational structure that christian candidates can exploit. An atheist would have to either win over each individual to chose him instead of what their organization told them they should choose or the other choice would have to so royally annoy the Christians that they would refuse to campaign for him/her. For an atheist to create a network that rivals that of the established church organization would be a tall order. But lots of things have happened that no one thought possible before. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Former US Senator Mike Gravel is an atheist.[4] He ran as a long-shot in the Dem primaries in the most recent election, though he did very poorly. I think in his heyday in the 1970's, he was actually considered a serious presidential prospect because of his stand against Nixon. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble pinning down the identity of one of the divine characters from Neil Gaiman's novel American Gods. He's described as clean cut and generally nondescript, and every mundane character in the novel forgets him/his features/the content of their conversations with him immediately after turning away from him (other divine characters don't seem to have this problem). He seems to be a god of commerce, or chance/gambling. A question about his identity has already been posted on the novel's talk page, with replies stating that Gaiman has not and is unlikely to answer the question himself. I'm hoping my dear, sweet refdesk editors can shine some light on this subject, as to whether the god is grounded in some actual mythology or wholly fabricated. Thanks, T-T-Teeth(t-t-talk)14:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been ages since I read American Gods, and I don't remember that character at all. But lets give it a shot: when you say "God of commerce" and/or "God of chance/gambling", the knee-jerk reaction is always going to be Hermes or Mercury (it should be noted that theres a bunch of other religions that have similar figures, but they're essentially just variations of the same character). He'd generally fit your physical description (young, clean cut, attractive man), but I don't really know what to make of the strange "curse" you describe. Hermes was something of a trickster though, and that seems to be a useful trick to be able to do if you're a trickster (not being remembered, that is). And we all know how much Gaiman loves the tricksters! The entire damn book is brimming with Anansi and Loki and their ilk! He even makes Odin into a trickster, which, you know, he wasn't!
Also, the way you describe it, he reminds me slightly of Cassandra and her curse, but I think that's just me making strange connections in my head.
Can you give us any more information on him? Perhaps even a small excerpt? And are you sure he's one of the "old gods" and not one of those new-fangled gods that pops up throughout the novel? Belisarius (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge of the novel in question, but jumping on Belisarius's explanation, I might imagine that the "forgetting after turning away from him" might be an allusion to Hermes as psychopomp and bringer of dreams, which are usually forgotten afterwards. - Nunh-huh17:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the American Gods there are several instances at which Shadow instantly forgets, or thinks he has forgotten, whatever he just saw or heard. I can't quite figure out which instance you are talking about, though. Where in the book does it happen? I have a paperback edition of AG at home, so I'll look it up. By the way, showing Shadow forgetting things is probably just Neil Gaiman's way to emphasize Shadow's humanity. I vaguely remember Roger Zelazny using the same method to emphasize Sam's humanity in the Lord of Light; or maybe I'm just conflating the two novels :( .... Anyway, please give us (RefDesk) the context and we'll figure it out. All the best, --Dr Dima (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of my housemates is borrowing the book, so until he comes home I won't have an excerpt for you, but from memory, there are three separate passages that emphasize the "curse" so to speak. First, Shadow drives several divine characters: Kali, the king of the elves from Norse mythology and our mystery man from the House of the Rock to a restaurant for a interfaith summit and finds that after turning away from the man after speaking with him, he can't remember what the man looks like, or what had been said, only that the man was there and that there had been a conversation. Later in the book, Gaiman describes the mystery man wandering Las Vegas, first in the counting room of a major casino (this is where I picked up the god of gambling idea), then at a bar...in both instances his presence barely registers with the mundane humans there. Further, he gives a waitress at the bar specific instructions on how she can quickly, effortlessly come into a small mountain of cash, and later she has only the vague idea that after her shift she should go to this certain location as a lark. In that passage he's described IIRC as nudging probability towards this desired reality (more weight in the chance/gambling pile). Doctor, in this instance, it's likely that Shadow's ability to remember the man at all is Gaiman's subtle hint that he's actually Baldur, or some other Norse god/demigod. But that's an interesting note about Zelany...I'll check it out. Thanks s'more, T-T-Teeth(t-t-talk)01:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rats and double rats, he was described in the novel as the king of the dwarfs, I just couldn't remember how to spell Alviss, because Shadow kept calling him Elvis...T-T-Teeth(t-t-talk)01:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, T-T-Teeth, I have good news and bad news. Good news is that I have found the passage you are talking about. The bad news is that I couldn't figure out who it was with Shadow, Kali, and "Elvis" in the car... Now, seriously, I really like Belisarius' idea that it was Hermes (not Mercury, but specifically Hermes). What worries me is that he carried none of the standard attributes of Hermes. Another possibility is that he is simply a deity Neil Gaiman has come up with, as a sort of "invisible pink unicorn" construct. Here is what I mean: in the American Gods universe, the deities that are forgotten cease to exist. If no-one can remember the-deity-sitting-next-to-Alviss, how come the-deity-sitting-next-to-Alviss still exists?! So he must be both memorable and forgotten; both pink and invisible. Hope this helps. --Dr Dima (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and BTW I really don't think Shadow is Baldr. I think he is one of the more human sons of Odin. Baldr could not have possibly done what Shadow did. Loki metaphorically pictures Shadow as Baldr in the "sharpened mistletoe twig" speech, but that is more a confession of a persistent hatred and lack of remorse on Loki's part than a hint to Shadow's identity. If Neil Gaiman wanted to give us a hint, I'd rather he gave us a more subtle one. --Dr Dima (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just by a hair, Algebraist, just by a hair. Doctor, during the scene with the carousel in the House of the Rock (just before the car ride) I think Gaiman includes a description of the mystery god in his divine form, along with Anansi and Odin, etc. If you have a moment to dig that up I'd appreciate it. Hermes is a great suggestion, him being mercurial and all, but there's so much iconography associated with him...anyway, Thanks. T-T-Teeth(t-t-talk)13:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'[In the back were Alviss] and another man, in a dark suit, who Shadow could not remember. He had stood beside the man as he got into the car, had opened and closed the door for him, and was unable to remember anything about him. He turned around in the driver's seat and looked at him, carefully noting his face, his hair, his clothes, making certain he would know him if he met him again, and turned back to start the car, to find that the man had slipped from his mind. An impression of wealth was left behind, but nothing more.'
By the way, it's not just the man himself who has this effect. Shadow is also unable to recall Wednesday's explanations of who and what the man is. Algebraist17:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm rather baffled by this. Hermes/Mercury still to me seems to be the most likely suspect because of the "impression of wealth" part. If one interprets this strange effect not so much as a "curse" but more as a "trick" (he doesn't want people to remember him), that could also fit the profile. But I can't think of any deity that is mentioned having this particular attribute, either as a curse or as a trick.
There is one other possibility though. What if the passage is a reference to Herostratus? Herostratus was a young man who burnt down the Temple of Artemis in order to become famous. Seeing as this was his goal, the Greeks realized that using traditional punishments would be useless, as he wanted them, he desired the infamy. Instead, they tried to erase his name from history, make him a nonperson (the exact opposite of what he wanted). Obviously, they failed miserably, since it's now 2350 years later and there's a Wikipedia article about him (this is still a topic of some controversy, lots of people do horrible crimes to become famous and there's often a debate on the suitability of the media reporting the name of the perpetrator in those cases. The Virginia Tech shootings is a good example).
It's seems feasible that this is what Gaiman is referring to, a man who is cursed to be forgotten from history (although one should note that Herostratus is in no way a god, which would sort-of run counter to the idea of the book). But if that is the case, he's missing the point of the story. The point isn't that some people get their names wiped out of history, the point is that it is virtually impossible to do so. Herostratus wasn't forgotten. Internet users might know this as the Streisand effect.
Another thing I thought about was that maybe Gaiman is playing with our minds. The whole point of this character is that he is instantly forgotten, so if this was a real god, obviously we wouldn't know who it is, because we (as humans) wouldn't be able to remember him! A sort-of "Men in Black"-thing, you know? Sneaky bastard! Belisarius (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The description rings a bell although I've never read American Gods. You might want to check Good Omens. If there's nothing in there then Terry Pratchett used the same device in one of his novels/characters. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many buy to let and commercial mortgages are written under Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA) legislation.
As a debt adviser I have encountered situations where people can lose their homes without a court process as a result of the mortgage on the property they occupy being LPA rather than Administration of Justice Act 1970(AJA)where repossession can only take place after a court hearing.
The position seems anomalous. In the case of a commercial lease, I understand that repossession of the premises that are used by the lessee as a residence as well for business (e.g. a pub) must include a court hearing.
My own view is that legislation is required to ensure that repossession of owner occupied premises must include a court hearing, even where the mortgage is LPA.
Firstly, you may not get responses here since you seem to be asking for opinions rather than facts, and ref-deskers aren't keen to offer those.
The question doesn't ring true to me. I'm certainly not aware of any repossessions without a hearing. Also the question seems to imagine two types of mortgage: one under LPA and one under AJA: but that surely can't be right. AJA isn't even a property-law statute. AndyJones (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
January 26
crosses and crucifixes use in religion
How do I find out which religions use crosses and or crucifixes? I sell wholesale fashion jewelry and would like to approch churches and such organizations to offer crucifix jewelry as fundraisers etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.207.83 (talk) 08:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the only ones that would count for commercial purposes in most areas would be Christianity and the various subdivisions, spin-offs, and significant direct influences of Christianity. The only completely non-Christian religion which currently makes prominent public symbolic use of a cross symbol is Scientology, as far as I'm aware -- though of course, if you tried to sell jewelry of Scientology symbols, you might find yourself being sued for copyright or trademark infringement... AnonMoos (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would count that among the "spin-offs and significant direct influences of Christianity"... In any case, a plain inverted Latin Cross is also a perfectly legitimate traditional Christian symbol in some contexts (as seen in the linked article).AnonMoos (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Anglican/Protestant sects of Christianity use crosses, whereas Roman Catholics and Orthodox sects use crucifixes (ie. a cross with a body on it). I may be wrong, however! --TammyMoet (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My college professor explained that the Reformation abandoned crucifxes and substituted crosses as an indication of God's utter triumph.
That article has problems, since the only sources it cites seem to be connected with the Da Vinci Code / Holy Grail bloodline / mystic secrets of the Knights Templar fringe junk (cleaned up the article a little). The groups you mention are as likely to use a sun wheel as a cross, I think... AnonMoos (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few years ago it was popular to wear crosses merely as a fashion statement. Cher and Madonna are examples. I even purchased some. They were available for sale in fashion jewelry in the better department stores.75Janice (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)75Janice[reply]
I started out looking for information about Champroux as a locale in France or other francophone country in Europe. This led me to Stade Robert Champroux in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire, but nothing about any individual with that surname, or even an eponymous "Robert Champroux" (though I realize the stadium might be named after two individuals with surnames Robert and Champroux.) Any ideas? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only relevant link I could find is here: it states that Robert Champroux was a French expatriate in Côte d'Ivoire in the 1950s and helped to establish the first boxing club in Abidjan. He was likely active in promoting other sports, hence his name given to one of the city's larger stadiums. There is no information as to what he was doing in the (future) country at the time. --Xuxl (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I just cant see why this site is allowed to exist. To me it just seems to be a place that glorifies, encourages and promotes malicious, cheap, slanderous and anti-social behaviour. The site very much presents itself as a site where if you have discovered that someone has slandered you on there, your apparently just suppose to accept it, deal with it and not cry about it like a butt-hurt baby (that’s the automated message I got from them when I tried to delete such a biography about me). This just speaks very large volumes about their mentality level in my opinion. Don’t they realise that they are promoting both a playground and den for slanderers to do their worst?, is there a line that gets drawn on there?, wheres it gonna end?, is it acceptable on their to make a biography about somebody where you can accuse them of being a paedophile ect with no substantiated proof?.
How do they know that the persons relatives, friends and work colleagues wont get to see such profiles? (especially if they appear as a search result on google), because shock horror!!!!, people from the real world do in actual fact use the internet world. We know full well that damaging slander like that can get you up before a judge in court in real life, so why is the internet being allowed to grant a loophole for this?. And for those that just say “oh its all just humour”, or “its meant to be a satirical site, don’t take it so seriously”, sorry, but I don’t call malicious, cheap and slanderous cyber bullying as humour. And whats funny is, neither do they, when they are the ones that are the ones actually on the receiving end of it. Why is this site not outlawed???. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bokken12345 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For every liberty we are afforded there are some downsides. Freedom of Speech is an important liberty and if we start drawing lines then where do we stop? E.D is all about satire and parody as well as being shocking. You also have to remember that your opinion, although you may share it with others, is simply that, your opinion. I guess you will have to either broaden your shoulders or check if you have any actual legal recourse. Or, two wrongs don't make a right, but they often make you feel a lot better, go be bold on U.D. Lanfear's Bane | t12:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never looked at that before. It's a little bit funny, I'm afraid, however jejune it is. "Obama", for instance, redirects to the article "Black Jesus". I guess if there was an article about a non-celebrity living person that was obviously maliciously libellous, that person could win a suit against them, but here in the Good Ole U Ess of A we don't muzzle the bigmouth jerks, we let them expose themselves for what they are and laugh at them in our turn. That's better than the alternative, which starts to look pretty distopian real quick. Those Founding Fathers didn't do too bad, considering. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the theory that people have to "blow off steam" occasionally, as the writers of such stuff do, to prevent them from doing real damage, say by vandalizing Wikipedia in force. Since it's obvious to everyone that that site isn't about truth, nobody takes it very seriously and thus no harm is done. StuRat (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, putting aside the sarcasm, i did state in my OP that my concern in it was, what if relatives friends or loved ones get to see it? (which believe it or not are part of our real lives). If i was the only person (other than them) who got to see it, i wouldent give a monkeys uncle about it then. I can make myself not read such things on the internet, but i cant make other people not read it Bokken12345 (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully your loved ones understand the satirical content of the site and can shouldn't hold the content of a humor website against you. If they do, maybe you need new loved ones Livewireo (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Note to RefDesk regs: feel free to remove this if you think that I've crossed the 'No Legal Advice' line) I'm not particularly familiar with ED (and I am certainly not a lawyer!) but AFAIK, under US law (see Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act), only the user(s) who first posted the offending content to the site would be legally culpable for it. If real-world identifying personal details were posted along with allegations of being a paedo (or whatever they've said about you), then as Sean alludes, you might have a cause to at least consider taking things further. I've never heard of anyone successfully suing for libel over comments made about an online pseudonym, however (TBH, I'd imagine that it would be laughed out of court). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Haneke: does anyone know the case on which The Seventh Continent/Die Siebente Kontinent is based?
Haneke has suggested several times in interview that he based this film on the case of a family discovered dead in their home on 17.1.1989. He refers to reading about the case in the magazine, 'Stern', and carries a reference to the case at the end of the film. Does anyone know anything about this case? It may have happened in Linz, Austria (where Haneke says the film is set, but not shot), but google searches have so proved fruitless. I don't have access to 'Stern' at present. Haneke also says that what was unusual about the case was the family's destruction of their home and belongings, rather than the act of collective suicide. Can anyone comment on how accurate a description of Austrian suicide rates this is? Many thanks for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vleb (talk • contribs) 14:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your German source seems to be somewhat muddled. First of all, it's Der siebente Kontinent. German does not only assign gender to things, the article also changes following certain grammatical rules: der Kontinent, die Kontinente, auf dem Kontinent, den Kontinent betreffend, das Kontinentalgefuege. (One of my bugaboos with the German language.) For googling also try "Der 7. Kontinent". According to these source the film was released in 1989 [5], [6] It's rather unlikely the film was published in the same year the incident was reported. The "Stern" archive is unfortunately "pay per view" for older issues. The incident predates proliferation of the internet in Austria, so no promising ghits came up. It was also Haneke's first movie for cinema, so information on it is rather scant. Although we also have Austrian refdeskers here you might have better luck finding someone who remembers that news item at the German ref desk [7] Good luck. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WhooPS: The OÖ Nachrichten (OÖ = Upper Austria, the province of which Linz is the capital) has an archive from 1986. I checked the years 1986 to 1989 without finding a suitable report. If nothing else, this nauseating research indicates that collective murder / suicide is not infrequent. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Palin's husband was referred to as the "First Dude" and he is not alone. Since it's not an official title, it's really a question of what people choose to use. "First Gentleman" is the common sobriquet, but it's by no means formal. SDY (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to that: since there hasn't been any female presidents, we can't be 100% of what we would call the husband (it's not like it's written into the constitution or anything), but there has been a number of female governors, and their husbands are almost always called the First Gentleman (of the state). Todd Palin being the exception, but you know... that's Alaska :) Belisarius (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer.
Also, why is the time between the President being elected and being inaugurated over 2 months, whereas in Britain usually when the results of the General Election are announced the new PM moves in to No. 10 the day after the election? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.127.189 (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is mostly because elections are a fixed term of four years in the US, and having the inauguration somewhat later is easier and ensures the period is always 4 years exactly, whereas in the UK, a general election can be called anywhere from about six months to 5 years and a month, and so you'd be far closer to having no effective government for the period - there isn't any need for the extra time. In the UK, shadow cabinet members take a more active role with their ruling counterparts in the run up to the general election, particularly if they think they're going to win it, and I'd imagine that's what the two or so months are used for in the US. - Jarry1250(t, c)16:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC with below, answering the second question). The U.S. is a big country, and was even at its founding. The presidential election process is actually quite convoluted and confusing, especially compared to the relatively simply Westminster system at work in the UK. In the U.S., what really happens is that each state must select a group of electors, who then go and convocate in Wahington D.C. and THEY elect the President (not the people directly). So what has to happen is a) The people in the states vote for their choice of President (actually, they vote for electors who are themselves committed to a presidential candidate, though in most states the electors names do not appear on the ballot itself). Thene, the state government must certify the results of the popular vote and appoint the slate of electors who will go to Washington to make the actual vote. Then, the Electoral College Vote must be certified before Congress. In the 21st century, all these steps are a trivial process; we could probably back the innauguration up to before Chirstmas and still have time to get it all done; it probably doesn't take a month. However, back in the day, when people had to get around on horseback, every step took weeks to complete. Also note that the current January 20th deadline is 6 weeks EARLIER than it was originally. Until the 1930's, the innauguration date was March 4th; which is FOUR full months after election day. --Jayron32.talk.contribs18:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - I don't believe the electors have ever been required to actually travel to the capital, it would just require a messenger to be sent. --Tango (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Westminster has a minimum term for Parliament? I didn't know that. —Tamfang (talk)
I don't think it's written down anywhere, but usually if a government fails so soon after getting elected the Queen would give the opposition a chance to put together a minority government. Technically, it's at the Queen's discretion, but I'm not sure how she would decide that (being advised by her ministers, as is usual, wouldn't work too well when they are the failed government). --Tango (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it "First Lady" doesn't actually mean "Wife of the President", it means "Hostess of the White House". Those two usually go together, but there have been unmarried presidents before and someone else served as First Lady. If Hillary Clinton had become president, I doubt Bill would have served as host, so "First Gentleman" might not have been strictly accurate. I would expect the press to use a term like that ("First Husband" is the other option I've heard mentioned). --Tango (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a former president, isn't he is still entitled to be called "Mr. President"? Seems to me that would be the higher and preferred title. - Jmabel | Talk00:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was a common instrument at the time of those paintings, is light enough for one person (or angel) to carry, and has an "uplifting" sound. StuRat (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it was a clever case of commodity placement. Harps don't look so light to me, but it has a wing-themed appearance, so maybe there's something in that (until a keen researcher comes by). Julia Rossi (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read our main article Inuit, and some of its internal links and external references? One thing to bear in mind is when and where. If you are talking about the time before the Inuit were absorbed into modern nation states, that is rather a different matter than now. Likewise, be specific about place: in subsistence times, the ecosystem very much affected the livelihood (i.e. hunting), and now, the country of which they are citizens (e.g. Canada or Denmark) has a similar over-arching impact on people's lives. Good luck!
Depends how young you are and how bad the depression is. What do you think a million dollars will but in 20 years time? 40 years? 60 years? Dmcq (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The probability of your winning a million dollars in a lottery is likely several orders of magnitude greater. Even if you do create a masterpiece, as long as you are alive you can create more thereby increasing the supply and pushing down the price. Hence, your paintings will tend to command the greatest prices after you are dead. Wikiant (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a way of gaming that. What if he created a masterpiece and then broke his hands?
Here's a question : Who is the paying the million dollars to who? Is the money being paid to the artist? Or is the painting being re-sold on secondary market? APL (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a lot of paintings by up-and-coming artists are bought up, since if your paintings are only selling for £2000, you'll need to make a lot of them. You want to be famous first, then start painting (and be very good!). You could of course fake your own death, but a) that would be difficult and b) it would be illegal on grounds of fraud. - Jarry1250(t, c)17:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As our article, various books and websites state, apparently there is some kind of curse linked to the opening of the tomb of Timur. The exact description differs somewhat between sources but generally contains these elements:
The tomb contains an inscription warning whoever disturbs Timur for great suffering. In some versions it isn't an inscription but something Timur said close before his death.
I want to add something about the curse to the Dutch article on Timur, but I'm having trouble verifying most of it. The most important ones are the date, three possibilities are mentioned.. and the text of the inscription, is there even an inscription or was it lost/did it never exist? - Berkoet (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2 is absurd. The German army was planning and moving into position to invade long before that date. You can't launch a major offensive with millions of men at the drop of a hat (or opening of a tomb). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a causality between the two is absurd, but apparently by some weird coincidence the two events actually are only a few days apart. - Berkoet (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was always going to be something connected with it. Pick a random date: 15th June 1978, say, and you find within a week there's an earthquake killing 45 in Greece, and IRA shootout in N. Ireland, and Tito, one of the world's not-the-nicest people, becomes President for Life. Of course, that is ignoring the fact that he was probably more likely to do that because there was a war on, or that both the war and the opening were caused by an increase in technology. Either way, you could make a curse up like that about anything - they do work well at keeping people away.
Well, anyway, I'm afraid to say the exact curseis unlikely to ever be certain, alothough I think the reason you're having trouble finding the exact date was a) that it wasn't well recorded and b) there wasn't an exact date. They seem to have been working through the succession of kings over a fairly long period of time. - Jarry1250(t, c)17:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re the inscription, yes, there are two. I suspect the best sources are in Russian. But anyway, here's a start: this pdf, page 79 refers to the inscriptions on the tomb without actually saying what they are (annoying!), but describing them generally as a semi-mythical geneology and a religious text. The original source (with, I'd hope, the full text of the inscriptions) seems to be a paper by AA Semenov (Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Semenov), called "Inscriptions on the tombs of Timur and of his descendants in the Gur-e Amir" in the journal Epigrafika Vostoka Volume II page 49 (no year given). You might ask at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request page if someone can find that Semenov paper. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your answers, I'll be sure to ask on the WikiProject Resource Exchange (I didn't even know it existed until now). - Berkoet (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure suggests a lot of work that could be done in Wikipedia in that area, huh? Our topic-specific article isn't linked from either of what seemed to me to be the likely starting places, and it doesn't contain this reasonably substantive piece of information. - Jmabel | Talk01:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good French-language article, if someone feels like taking on a translation. I'll read that & find out what I need, but I'm backlogged for translation tasks. - Jmabel | Talk01:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The document providing for the selection of senators was the "Loi du 24 février 1875", the first document on this page containing the constitutional laws of 1875. My French is not strong enough for me to translate the legalistic French of this document reliably, but it certainly spells out the method for selecting senators. Perhaps someone with stronger French can review it and answer your question. This law provided the constitutional basis for the Senate throughout the Third Republic. (The Senate did not exist before 1875.) Since France was a unitary republic, with departements and territoires all subject to the jurisdiction of the central government, the departementes, colonies, and territoires would have been unable to provide for more popular input into the selection of senators, as U.S. states were able to do within the federal structure of the United States. This suggests that the method for selecting senators didn't change during the Third Republic, though I'm not an expert and can't offer assurances. Marco polo (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the main points of the law linked above:
The Senate is comprised of 300 members, 225 elected by the départements and colonies, and 75 elected by the Assemblée nationale (House of Representatives).
Each département elects between 2 and 5 senators, depending on its population. The Belfort Territory (the part of Alsace not lost to Germany in the War of 1870) and overseas departments and colonies elect one senator each.
The départemental senators are chosen by an electoral college composed of local elected officals; they are elected from lists for a 9 year term, renewable by a third every three years.
The Senators elected from the National Assembly are "inamovible" (cannot be removed) except by death or resignation. --Xuxl (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that in all the various legal systems existing in the USA and in Britain, sentencing at a jury trial is done by the judge, not the jury. Algebraist00:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although, the judge can't impose a death sentence (even where allowed by law) without the recommendation of the jury. --Tango (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and also the jury may have a choice of several verdicts, from manslaughter to murder 1, perhaps, with different sentencing ranges available for each. In some jurisdictions, the judge may have very little leeway in sentencing, so the jury will essentially decide the sentence. StuRat (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the jury is not permitted to be told the penalties associated with the verdict, and they are supposed to evaluate guilt without regard to penalties which might be imposed. If it comes to light that a jury has researched or considered the sentences, it could be grounds for a mistrial (though it probably happens all the time, it's not supposed to). - Nunh-huh05:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that they don't know, it's that they are instructed not to take the penalty into account. They may follow or disregard that instruction, of course. -Nunh-huh07:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A jury can include a recommendation for leniency in any guilty verdict. Re: Tango's reply: Fifty states in the US, and each may have different procedures regarding when and how the death penalty may be imposed. With all due respect to Nuhn-huh, a jury knows when it is trying a capital offense (possible death penalty); in fact, one of the questions the prosecutors often ask potential jurors is whether they would be willing to find a defendant guilty, knowing that the death penalty might be assessed. Those who express qualms, or opposition to the death penalty in general, the prosecutor will want to dismiss from the jury. With all due respect to StuRat, the judge still has the final say in most cases (theft, burglary, robbery, etc. etc.), except where there are mandatory sentencing laws (e. g. "Murder 1 with aggravating circumstances: If not death, must get life without parole"). Again, variations from state to state within the US. Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Fifty states in the US, and each may have different procedures regarding when and how the death penalty may be imposed". Many US states don't even have the death penalty; of those that do, only Texas uses it frequently. StuRat (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there are two separate jury findings - really two separate proceedings with the same jury - in death penalty cases: the first decides guilt, while the second (if the defendent is guilty) makes or does not make the recommendation for the death penalty. Guilt is supposed to be evaluated without regard to penalty.With all due respect. - Nunh-huh09:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article on US sentencing, linked to above, the decision that required a jury's recommendation for the death penalty was made by the Supreme Court, so presumably it applies to all states. --Tango (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This might seem like pedantry (Ed: No, really?), but in most jurisdictions the defendant is not found "guilty or innocent", as the OP suggests. The jury or judge can hand down a verdict of guilty or not guilty, the latter taken to mean, not proved guilty under the law of having carried out the crime in question. Finding someone innocent is an entirely different matter. I believe the Scottish legal system has provision for this option. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. The Scottish legal system has an additional verdict of not proven. It is no more possible to find some "innocent" in a Scottish court than it is in England and Wales. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I received a letter from a collection agency saying I owe Bank of America around $9k that my ex husband put on a joint credit card more than 10 years ago (original debt was around $3k). It was never even on my credit report last time I checked. They said they tried to subpoena me, but I was never served and never received any letters from anyone. Now they are saying I have to pay them within 30 days and all that, but isn't there a statue of limitations on debt in California and don't all negative items fall off your credit report after 7 years? I understand it was a joint credit card, but it was my ex husband that used the card and not me.
Agree with above reply, but would like to add that what is or isn't on your credit report has nothing to do with the statute of limitations on collecting a debt. They're two different things. Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor correction: The Statue of Limitations is an award which has been proposed to honour the humble fallibility of our great political leaders.
Due to obscure circumstances, this plan could not be realised in the last eight years, as the designers repeatedly had to increase the size of the statue to reflect the outstanding limitations of the clear winner of the award. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They can be tried as an adult if a court hearing decides that they had the mental capacity of an adult, to understand the act, the wrongness of it, and its consequences. Otherwise, juvenile. This is US-only, and procedures vary among states. Hope you weren't planning on committing one. Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I would like to read the exact words of the press conference which is linked to from the Helen Thomas article where she had a go at Bush. There's only a short citation in the article, and the reference link to the WH goes into nirvana. I'll refrain from speculating as to possible reasons for this. Can you help? --Ayacop (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Ancient Greek tradition associates the birth of art with a Corinthian maiden who longing to preserve her lover’s shadow traces it on the wall before he departed for war," according to Hrag Vartanian. Anyone know what Wikipedia article covers this myth? Alientraveller (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have rather extensive articles on Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudra, as well as on Varna in general. I am not versed enough in Hindu culture to know or comment on what the relationship between surname and caste is; I suspect that the surnames for each caste are likely to number in the thousands and probably it would be infeasible to list them all here. However, if you read our articles, you may find additional information and/or links to other resources which may help you answer your question. --Jayron32.talk.contribs19:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that the Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaishya/Shudra distinction is varna (a very loose and broad general overall way of classifying castes), while the actual specific groups that govern intermarriage and social status and collective political action are far more numerous than four, and known as jāti? There may not be any very good answer to your questions at the varna level... AnonMoos (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Foreigners campaigning in USA elections: espionage?
I have the impression, especially from The Guardian's Operation County Clark, that foreigners campaigning in elections in the United States of America can be prosecuted for espionage. On the contrary, I have heard several British Labour politicians (who did not seem to have USA citizenship) boasting about campaigning for their Democrat counterparts in the USA. Has anyone ever been so prosecuted? Could there be some clarification please? Cheers. – Kaihsu (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"campaigning"? There's nothing illegal about citizens of foreign countries campaigning for American politicians. They have free speech rights, too. AnyPerson (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are, however, limitations on financial contributions that are allowed to political parties and candidates by foreigners. Perhaps that's what you heard. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Espionage (aka "spying") involves gathering information. I don't see how campaigning in an election could be considered espionage, regardless of who you are. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the world contain any societies, big or small, that are essentially non-sexist and truely equal in terms of rights and treatment of the members of that society? I once heard of some small Asian society existing as such, but I am uncertain of the details or the validity. 75.34.180.97 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say British society is pretty non-sexist these days. I think it ends up being quite a subjective questions - no society is going to treat men and women the same, since there are pretty major differences between the sexes, so you have to decide if those differences make the sexes unequal or not. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're wrong. I don't know much about British society in general, but a quick fact check tells me that in the UK women earn 79% of what men do for the same job and that there's more than four times as many male MPs as female. Not that 125 is bad number, but British society is most certainly not "truly equal" (I could dig up more interesting little factoids, but you get my point).
The fact is that there's not a single country in the world that doesn't contain some amount of sexism. Generally speaking, the Scandinavian countries rank highest when it comes to gender equality (the World Economic Forum puts Norway, Finland, Sweden and Iceland as the top four, with Denmark at seven). Sweden, for instance, is the best country to be a mother in and women account for 47% of the Riksdag (the Swedish parliament), but even they aren't perfect. A wage-gap of only 9% is pretty good, but it's still a wage-gap, not to mention the 79% of Swedish CEOs who happen to be swinging pipe (if it wasn't obvious already, I'm Swedish).
I believe strongly that a gender-equal society is possible, but lets not kid ourselves: we have a long road row to hoe. Feminism is not just a dirty word, it's a struggle worth supporting and fighting for. Belisarius (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, thank you. Now, while we're all here, why would you want to hoe a road, whatever its length? A vegetable plot certainly, or a flower bed, but a road? DuncanHill (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoes aside, so far we've been talking only of gov't and corporate positions. What, if any, restrictions are placed on women in the military of the Eden named Sweden? Surely feminism would have women in combat positions, right? Dismas|(talk)03:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend to sound jingoistic, I apologize if I came off that way. My point was more that even though we've all made some advances, everyone still has a long way to go.
To answer your question, Sweden has mandatory conscription into military training for all men that reach 18 years of age. Today, the "mandatory" part is pretty much only a formality, as most people don't get to go through their military training (funding has been heavily slashed, so if you say "I don't really wanna" to your conscription officer, you get relieved of that particular patriotic duty). Women aren't automatically conscripted, but if a young woman chooses to go through military training, she absolutely can and she would have a high chance of being accepted. There has been some debate about the inherent inequality in the current state of affairs (people are arguing that either we should get rid of the mandatory conscription all together or extending it to include both sexes). Not a lot of debate though, it's not high on the agenda.
As for women assuming combat positions, I have no idea. We haven't been in a war in a while, so the question is essentially theoretical. Women can certainly go through their military training in the position as a soldier, so I imagine that if we were to go to war with someone, they would serve in combat positions.
To get back to my point: I'm not saying that Sweden is some sort of paradise of equality, I'm saying the exact opposite. It might be marginally better here than in other places (a fact we are very proud of, because, really, we don't have much else), but sexism still runs extremely deep. I only used Sweden as an example because that's the country I know best. But we're still guilty of having a sexist society, of not having done enough, just like the rest of the world is. Belisarius (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Dismas there is no restriction on women serving in combat positions (or really any postions) in a number of countries. See History of women in the military for more. The same is of course true in a number of former or current communist countries. Somewhat OT but openly LGBT people are also allowed to serve without problem in a number of countries as well, see Sexual orientation and military service. Point being if you're comparing things to the US, it's probably a bad comparison Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Salary differences are largely explained by women taking time off work to have children - that's a matter of personal preference, not sexism. The remainder can probably be explained by men being more ambitious when it comes to earning money, while women have other goals in life (obviously, this is a generalisation, but we're talking about averages). The number of women in parliament is a meaningless figure unless you compare it to the number of women that want to enter politics - I would guess (although I don't have any statistics to back this up) that more men want to be politicians that women. It is also possible that men make better politicians than women (although how you would measure that fairly, I don't know). Would you consider it sexist that 70% of primary school teachers are female? (As with 95.4% of statistics, that number is made up, but you get the point.) --Tango (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I belive that compared to the past and many other countries today, the countries of northern Europe (Scandanavia, UK, Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium, etc.) have certainly made great moves in the right direction regarding equality.
Re: the 79% of earnings figure, when you account for the higher proportion of female population working limited-hours the difference virtuall disappears. The biggest trouble with your question is equality is not a static thing. Example...If I earn $10m and you earn $10,0000 - should we both pay the same tax amount? If we did that would be 'equal' tax-contribution wise, but unequal because I would pay much less tax (proportionally). If we do it proportionally then is it 'equal' that I pay significantly more than you? Both ways are 'equal' in a sense, and i'm sure most would fall on the side of the second being 'fair' but therein the problem lies. Equality and fairness are very different things. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Men's rights is quite an interesting read in regard to this topic. As a male when I think of sexism I think of an inequality in treatment between males and females, with females coming off worse, but the article addresses some of the perceived(?) inequality suffered by males in comparison to females. Lanfear's Bane | t10:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I skimmed through the article and while it provides some food for though, as I expected it missed a lot of areas as it concentrates on the areas which most 'men's rights' campaigners emphasise (and as such for which it hases sources). Having done an assignment on gender equality a long while back and it being something I've always been interested there is IMHO a lot of other stuff. For example while the wife of a family can often choose to work or to stay at home and raise the kids (depending on the family income) it's still (IMHO) a lot more difficult for a husband who wants to do the same thing both in terms of the support available and in societal expectations and perceptions. Or as I mentioned below, the way the husband of a high profile women is often treated. On the same tangent, while there's often nothing wrong with a female displaying some traits considered 'masculine' a male displaying traits considered 'feminine' tends to have far bigger problems (unless perhaps he's gay). Or the way a male nurse is more likely to raise eyebrows then a female doctor. The article, while arguing over how common domestic violence against males by females is, it doesn't mention the problems male victims of domestic violence are likely to encounter. Similarly, it speaks of rape accusations but doesn't mention the problems male victims of rape have and indeed if the rape is commited by a female, it may not even be classified a rape in a number of jurisdictions. On a related note, there's the way an underage female who sex with a male is likely to be seen as a victim and the male an evil sexual predator whereas the same is far less likely of an underage male and female which often has 'wink, wink, nudge, nudge' acceptance and the male seen as a sort of 'hero' as well as the difference in prosections of such crimes (indeed in some countries the laws are unequal anyway) and in media potrayal of such crimes (there's a few cases in the US where this has been dicussed, e.g. the way some female teacher who was found guilty of raping her male student had media interviews and stuff whereas the same would be very unlikely where the sexes reversed. (Of course this can be seen as unfair to both sexes, indeed in most of the examples I've discussed.) In other words, in terms of men's rights there is IMHO a lot more that tends to be missed. Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the purposes of this discussion, does a hypothetical society where men and women have completely equal rights and privileges count as an "equal society"? Or do equal numbers of men and women need to choose to exercise those rights?
For instance, imagine there was an overall average pay gap, but it was caused entirely by some percentage of women (or men) not pursuing their carears as aggressively, and instead choosing to be "homemakers", mothers, etc.
Alternatively, what if men and women are equally agressive in their carears but women (or men) tend to go into traditionally lower paying jobs? Does that count?
I think you need to define the question more narrowly if you're going to get a meaningful answer. What do you mean by "essentially non-sexist and truely equal"? How would you know it when you saw it? What measurement can we take that would tell us how far from "non-sexist" our society is? APL (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the main question, [11] is a good read IMHO. According to the list, the top 4 are indeed Scandinavian with Sweden coming in top. New Zealand is fifth followed but Phillipines being 6th. As with anything of the sort, the methodology/ranking system is going to be disputed. One of the things I heard is that there is a resonable effect if you have or have had a female leaders for a length of time, one of the reasons NZ has increased. Coming from NZ, I can definitely say that while we do have a decent level of equality, we're far from perfect. To use one example, I've seen lot of things said about Helen Clark the now former PM and her husband which never would have been said about a male PM and his wife, e.g. people questioning and joking about Peter Davis's sexuality, masculinity, and their married life. Indeed Peter Davis probably hasd it lucky in that he at least has a resonable successful career. To a lesser extent I've seen the same with some of our high profile female CEOs (of which we've had a number). Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
January 28
Does 'God' start wars? No opinions please
Is there any evidence to show that nations that believe 'God' is on their side are more likely to engage in warlike acts against other nations? No opinions please.--GreenSpigot (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before I press send I just want to point out that I'm terribly ashamed of myself, because I'm speaking without sources, which is exactly what you asked us not to do (bad Belisarius! No treat for you!). But I want to caution against assuming causation from correlation here. I very much do imagine that countries that are heavily religious goes to war more often than countries that aren't (and would very much appreciate if someone could provide a source to relieve the shame I have brought upon myself and my family), but that doesn't necessarily mean that religion somehow "incites" war. Less religious countries tend to be more liberal and they tend to more often be democracies, and liberal countries and democracies generally tend to go to war less (wow, that's a lot of "tends"). As much is claimed by the democratic peace theory, anyhow. But that doesn't mean necessarily mean that it's the religion that gets people all frenzied and warlike. Greece is much more religious than the UK, but you don't see and Greeks as part of the Iraqi coalition forces. I'm just sayin'. Belisarius (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question was not about religiosity, but rather about believing God to be on one's side. The one does not necessarily imply the other. Algebraist03:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at that, I totally misread the question! Even more shame on my family... I have to go sacrifice a steer or something. Still, I do believe that the concepts are related, and my caution against assuming causation from correlation still stands, I think. Belisarius (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Damn. I make two replies, in one I remember to explicitly exclude that case and the other I don't, so you respond to the latter... typical! --Tango (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good excuse, I suppose! I could, of course, have claimed I was using one of the definitions of religion that requires deism, but that would have been untrue... --Tango (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until the last few decades, pretty much all countries were very religious, as far as I know (although you may wish to exclude Buddhist countries, since they have no god to be on their side), so finding non-religious countries in order to make a comparison may be tricky. If you restrict yourself to just recent history, then there are far too many other factors that will skew your data (not because modern history is particularly different to more distant history, but just because it's a shorter timescale so things can't all average out nicely). --Tango (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but they still think their god is on their side. They aren't particularly likely to take part in any wars that the US is fighting, so that doesn't help answer the OP's question. --Tango (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
name the novel (fantasy trilogy)
name the novel (fantasy trilogy)
It's a fantasy trilogy novel series... I can't seem to remember its name though. I read it like 5 years ago...
In the first book, there is a family (a mother, a father, twin son and daughter, and a baby) and the book starts off with the family moving within the city into a lower hierarchy region.
(in the fictional universe of the novel, everyone is divided into different social caste status, with each caste represented by different colours)
I don't remember much, but the father takes some kind of an exam to make a living or something, and at the end, the twins do something heroic to save the townspeople.
in the second book, the twins are now teenagers, and an evil and sinister force lures in millions of innocent children and brainwashes them to form a mind controlled army.
It's rather reminiscent of the chinese army in the korean war: in one incident, these children army literally fills a trench with their bodies to get across it. one of the twins' friends gets recruited into the army against his(/her ??) will
and eventually the children manage to save them. (or was all of this in the first book?? i really don't know lol) the army keeps on chanting "Kill! Kill! Kill!"
Also in the second book, the twins run away, and the girl twin disguises as a servant of a princess. the princess is rather lonely, so she really likes her servant and they become close friends.
However, the princess needs to take dancing lessons so that she can dance with a prince in a ball, but she sucks at it. But the twin girl realizes she is quite good at it even though she has never had any dancing lessons before.
So, the girl poses as the princess in the ball, and dances beautifully with the prince. Also, the princess falls in love with the twin brother (she hasn't even met him yet) , just from hearing stories that the twin sister told her.
In the third book, the family and some of the townspeople migrate from their homeland to an unknown paradiseland. during their trip, they encounter an unusual creature or more of a mental parasite that latches onto a particular person and makes them act strange.
for example, when the parasite was inside the father (the leader of the pack) it makes him snappy and aggressive, and when the parasite resides inside the princess (she actually left her kingdom to follow the twins' family) it makes her less shy and kisses the twin brother.
the twin brother has some kind of a psychic ability, and is able to get rid of the parasite (in the princess's case, he kisses her to understand the parasite better, and to drag the parasite out of her)
and in an alongside story arc, there is this round looking hermit that bounces, and it recruits the twin brother as his apprentice or something. the bouncy thing teaches the brother how to do supernatural stuff, including walking on air.
the twin sister lives with her brother and this hermit on a boat. she learns to do stuff on her own just by watching the hermit give lessons to the brother.
near the end of the book, the twin brother must sacrifice himself to save the world or something so he goes to this island where all kinds of strange mythical sorcerers and creatures meet (including the bouncy). but in the end, the bouncy
tells him that it wasn't him that was meant to be sacrificed, it was his sister. He doesn't accept his sister's fate, so he fights with her sister (with mental telekinesis or something) but he realizes she is stronger than him, so the sister sacrifices herself in the end.
In the epilogue, the family and the townspeople have found their paradiseland, the twin sister is dead, but her mind resides inside the brother's head (they had this special mental connection since they were children). the brother is now happily married with the princess from the second/third book and they have children.
I read this series while i was in adelaide, australia. I borrowed it from the children's books section in the marion library centre (park holme). I'm not sure if this is an australian novel or an american or british, or even if it went international.
I know that my description of the series is quite poor, but any help with remembering the name of these novels would be appreciated. Thanks.Johnnyboi7 (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For Korea, the first source i find claims 230,000 were drafted from 1938 on, about 150,000 of whom died. From 1939 on, 140,000 were conscripted as workers in the war zone, 60,000 dying during the war. Further, approximately 2 million were sent to Japan as labourers, 1.44 million of whom returned to Korea after the war, with 600,000 remaining. There were also as many as 100,000 (410,000 according to Wikipedia's article) "comfort women" forced to serve as prostitutes for the armed forces. Another source claims 2.5 million total were conscripted during the war.—eric16:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "enslaved" would be a better word than "recruited/drafted" to describe the relationship, as I doubt if "no" was an answer they could give and survive. I would guess that any who were used by the Army were used as slave labor, not given weapons. StuRat (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of those drafted into the military,the majority of the Formosans, and i think a significant proportion of the Koreans were employed as guards in POW camps.—eric16:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no documents exist that detail the methods involved in the training and indoctrination of Formosan guards. However, Utsumi Aiko of Keisen University, Japan, conducted extensive research on Korean POW guards and found that more than 3,000 young Korean men were "recruited" (that is, press-ganged or otherwise forced to "volunteer") for the prison guard corps. Many of these men feared they would be shipped to Japan as indentured servants if they did not join the corps. Others were perhaps attracted by the high pay rates offered—50 yen per month, a large amount at the time. Those who served in the guard corps were classified as civilian employees rather than members of the military, and many hoped this status would prevent their transfer to the front line and would allow them to be demobilized when their two-year contract was concluded. However, on joining, the new recruits were issued with uniforms, and their basic training was very much military in character, including weapons training. Despite the difference between the promise and the reality of the guard corps, few deserted, possibly because potential deserters were threatened with court-martial.
Conscription in Formosa began September 1942, more than 200,000 total and more than 30,000 were killed. Tanaka, T. (1996). Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II. p. 38. OCLC34651501.—eric16:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for Taiwanese, see our article. And this is the article at Japanese Wiki. En Wiki says 207,183 and ja Wiki says 207,083 which is cleary a typo. You can see if you add 126,750 and 80,433. According to the ja article, the number of the Korean serviceman is 242,341 and 22,182 were dead/mia. Japanese Imperial Army recruited volunteers from 1938 to 1943. 2496 Koreans/Taiwanese applied and 406 passed the test in 1938. See the chart #3. Oda Mari (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recall an english teacher in high school referring a couple of times to a strange form of poetry that consists entirely of gibberish, but flows so smoothly you can't tell unless you pay close attention. Anyone know what she was talking about? Someguy1221 (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the above isn't what was meant, but if not you could look at Sound poetry (often associated with Dada), which comprises entirely meaningless sounds. French Symbolist poetry, e.g. Stéphane Mallarmé, was among the more conventional poetic movements that privileged the sensuous quality of words above their meaning. --11:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltelauridsbrigge (talk • contribs)
You seem to be confusing poetry and verse (the second of those, unfortunately, is a poor stub). In my view, gibberish can't be poetry, although it can be verse. However, as you say "you can't tell unless you pay close attention" I don't think 'gibberish' can be quite the word you want. If by 'gibberish' you mean only something with nonsensical elements which are hard to spot, then that isn't gibberish, and poetry can be like that. Strawless(talk)01:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just recently saw a documentary film about Hemingway which states that he believed that the FBI is going to try to kill him and that few days before his "suicide" he claimed to be followed by the FBI. One of his friends(cant recollect the name) states that when he heard of Hemingways death he thought that "FBI finally got him".
Well,since Hemingway was indeed close to Fidel and its already known that the Kennedy government tryed to kill Fidel,where can I find out more information about Hemingways death and is there a site which reveals the truth about this?
Or is it possible that he just plainly killed himself?
Hemingway tried to commit suicide several times; he had a family history of depression, and a personal history of depression for which he had received shock treatments; his father killed himself by gunshot; his sister Ursula, his brother Leicester, and his granddaughter Margaux all killed themselves. It strains credulity to blame his death on the FBI: he shot himself in the forehead with his own rifle. And the FBI didn't go around killing everyone who knew Fidel Castro: what would be the advantage to that? - Nunh-huh09:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be the FBI anyway, it would be the CIA. They did have some plots to kill folks in Cuba (their success rate was dubious), but I agree that it was very much "in character" for Hemingway. SDY (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The CIA assassinated people to accomplish geopolitical goals, not because they didn't like them. How would assassinating Hemingway accomplish anything worthwhile, like bringing about the downfall of Castro ? StuRat (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it obvious? As we all know from the James Bond documentaries, secret plots for world conquest are a frequently occurring hazard in our times. Hemingway must have been the ringleader of one of these, but in this case, it was one the CIA were able to shut down (by killing the leader) before Bond had to come in and do it by blowing up a whole island or something. Hence they were able to maintain the secrecy, and as far as the public knows, it was just as if the whole thing never happened. There, will that do? --Anonymous source (in an undisclosed location), 22:56 UTC, January 28, 2009.
Does anyone know where to find ratios of skilled/unskilled workers in UK industry types?
I'm looking for the ratio of skilled to unskilled workers employed in UK industry sectors such as 'construction', 'IT', 'mining' etc., and also the same data for the population as a whole. Data for other countries would be welcome as well. Google searches have failed to find me anything, anyone got any ideas? Thanks for any help, LHMike (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of 'skilled' are we talking. In an less economically developed country, 'skilled' means literate, whereas in the UK, practically everyone meets these criteria. Number with a university degree or equivalent? The Office for National Statistics is probably the best place to start. - Jarry1250(t, c)17:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Political Parties based on Arab and African nationalism
I notice that Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Djibouti, Somalia and Comoros are both members of African Union and Arab League. Is there any political party in these nations they on which is based on Pan-Africanism and other based on Pan-Arabism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.118 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well first off, I'm not sure that abstract pan-Africanism has ever really amounted to much in terms of the practical internal domestic politics of African countries (as opposed to Arab states, where Nasserism and Pan-Arabist qawmiyya قومية ideology was a major factor in causing political turbulence during much of the 1950s to 1970s). Second, it's somewhat mysterious as to why Djibouti and Somalia are members of the Arab League at all, considering that there are few Arabs there.
However, friction between Arabs and black Africans has been rather prominent in the recent history of Sudan and Mauritania, and was a strong factor in the mid-20th century History of Zanzibar (until the Africans won there). AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While Morocco is technically a member of the African Union, it has been boycotting the organization for decades, ever since it admitted the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic as a member. To getback to the actual question, Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi has gone back and forth between calling himself a pan-Arabist and a pan-Africanist. In most other North African countries, the Arab identity is much stronger than the African identity, because of ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural factors. Pan-africanism has never really had much popular support in places like Egypt or Algeria, in spite of some official gestures in support of the notion. --Xuxl (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a jurisdiction where escaping from jail is illegal, I would expect that you could still be imprisoned for the escape, even if you are cleared of the original offence - because, even if you weren't guilty of the original offence you were still lawfully imprisoned. So, for example, you were imprisoned for 1 year for shoplifting, but then immediately escaped from prison (and were sentenced to 5 years for escaping), you could still expect to serve those 5 years. Is that right? Are there any real cases were this has happened, and what was the outcome? Thanks LastBusHome (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is (at least in my USA knowledge) correct. An example of a recent case is described at 2008 prison break in Clovis, New Mexico. As stated under the "Criminal Charges" section, two of the inmates who were recaptured are facing more than four additional years in prison for the escape. Incidentally, inmates who helped the escapees, but did not themselves escape, also face a penalty. Many more prison escapes are listed at Prison break; many of these likely will describe the penalties for escapees who are subsequently caught. jeffjon (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there have been any cases where a person was convicted, went to prison, then escaped, and then were definitively cleared of the original crime, like the fictional case in The Fugitive. Being convicted and then found factually innocent is usually grounds for compensation, and I'd like to think that regarding the escape they would either be pardoned, or not prosecuted, or at worst sentenced to "time served" (meaning they still get to go free at once), at least if that the original charge was a serious one. But real life has a way of going differently than what one would like to think. Anyone have a real-life case to cite? --Anonymous, 23:08 UTC, January 28, 2009.
January 29
Nigerian women
I've been talking to this Nigerian girl I know at work. She's about the same age as me (23). She introduced me to one of her friends who is also from Nigeria and she went to the same school as her in Nigeria at the same time, and she's interested in me very much so in recent weeks, and I'm a white Britsh male. I wouldn't mind trying it on with a black girl, but not to be politically incorrect or anything, but apparently AIDS is rife in Africa; I know it's more so in Southern Africa, but it remains an issue at the back of my mind that I really don't want to bring up. I went out for a drink with her last weekend and went back to her flat and kissed her, but I'm unsure about sex, although she did give me a blowjob without a condom one night... I dunno, it's really plaguing my mind right now.--Nope, try Again (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can't give medical advice, but you might take a look at our article on safe sex. Africans do not have a monopoly on AIDS or any other sexually transmitted disease, and it would be wise to adopt safe practices if you are involved in non-monogamous sexual relationships, regardless of your partner's race. That said, according to our article on AIDS, the prevalence of HIV among Nigerian adults is 2%–5%. This is higher than in any European country, but only slightly higher than in Russia and lower than in many other African countries. Marco polo (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Dr. Phil (I think it is) might say, "how's that working for you?" Seems a good indication, through trial and error, that the idea of dating them for months, then sex after marriage - or at least after knowing them for many months! - would be the way to go, doesn't it?209.244.187.155 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it indicates that at all. There is no reason to believe there is any connection between the sex and the relationships not working out. --Tango (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The areas of Africa with extremely high AIDS rates are mainly in the south and east of the continent (especially in the south). Botswana was kind of a model progressing developing country before AIDS... AnonMoos (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The worst human being ever (pre-Hitler)?
Okay, so if you took a random selection of people in the West and asked them who they considered to be The Worst Human Being Of All Time, Ever (excluding people that they knew personally), I'd hypothesize that the majority of them would answer 'Adolf Hitler'. Some might say that Stalin was worse - but yes, most of them would probably say it was Hitler.
So - supposing I were to travel back in time and ask a random selection of people in the West from 100 (or maybe 200 years) ago whom *they* considered to be Worst Human Being Of All Time, Ever. Whose name would they be most likely to give in reply? In other words, before Hitler's image and exploits were indelibly inked upon the mass consciousness, who was the person that was generally reviled (rightly or wrongly) in public as the absolute nadir of humanity? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd asked people in the West -- i.e. Christians -- more than a couple hundred years ago, before the Enlightenment, as jarring as it is to us in the present day, I think you'd get a large group that would answer Eve, since it was through the woman that sin, suffering, and death came into the world. A secondary group may answer Judas Iscariot, as 84. above suggested, although without Judas, there could have been no Christ dying, therefore no Savior. (See the brilliant Three Versions of Judas by Jorge Luis Borges for an analysis of the full theological consequence of this; it's worth reading -- the story, not our tiny article). Christ sacrificed only his earthly body, but Judas sacrificed everything, even his immortal soul, so that mankind could be saved. (Didn't think of that, did you?) Antandrus (talk)02:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the responses are on who the responders think should be regarded as the most evil as of the 1900s. Would the average person walking around in 1909 (in the glow of the recent Cubs world championship no doubt) know about Elizabeth Bathory or Vlad Tepes? The OP is asking for a name that would be as ready to the lips of the people of that time as Hitler is to ours. This is a question that has a chance of a good answer, rather than speculation, as someone well-versed in the media and literature of that time might be able to come up with someone. I don't know where you would find it in academia though, as it is kind of a popular culture question. Maybe quiz a social historian? TresÁrboles (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like some of the above commentators I'd go with Judas. He's the one right in the center of the Ninth Circle of Dante's Hell. Some medieval writers also really had a bee in their bonnet about Emperor Julian and, now that I think about it, perhaps that is because he was essentially guilty of the same thing as Judas. He was baptized and intimately familiar with Christianity and then he turned against it. That really got their goat. Haukur (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For me, it's Joseph Stalin: we can call him "pre-Hitler" as he came to power first, and his reign of terror lasted a lot longer. If we overlook the OP's "pre-Hitler" qualification (a bit arbitrary, perhaps?) then Pol Pot should be added to the list of nominations. Xn4 (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stalin is more or less a contemporary of Hitler, though he did get off to a quicker start and could arguably be called "first." Pol Pot is clearly later. SDY (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one 18th century view: "Among the detestable villains that in any period of the world have disgraced the name of man, it is impossible to find a greater than Moses, if this account be true." - Thomas Paine[13] Interesting that even a non-Christian at the time would come up with a Biblical character as the answer to this question. I think that tends to confirm our hunch that the Bible is the right place to look. Haukur (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's much the same as the rhetoric the English-speaking Protestants of the 17th and 18th centuries aimed at Popery and all its diabolic machinations. They were sadly tempestuous when it came to the leaders of other religions, in those days. Xn4 (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted criminals like Gilles de Rais and Jack the Ripper might be in with a chance (other criminals like Dick Turpin and many pirates might have had more popular sympathy). Random use of Google books for the late 19th century gives a few references for the Zulu leader Shaka, known for his brutality and his opposition to the British Empire. Madhi Muhammad Ahmad would have been similarly unpopular in the British Empire at a similar time. With the popularity of classics and histories of ancient Rome, Nero and Caligula would be bywords for villainy. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for a book I had when I was quite young (<5), so probably late 80s. I think it was a book with three short stories in, the first of which featured two boys playing in the front garden of a terraced house. They hear a fire-engine approach (I loved fire engines at that age), and it pulls up outside one of the boys' homes down the road – to cut a long story short, his mother has caused a chip pan fire. Second story is VERY vague, something to do with a derelict building (I can only picture the illustrations) which is being torn down; the whole side wall is gone. As for the third story, I can't remember anything – perhaps there were only two?
I've just translated both articles United States Supreme Court building and Supreme Court Police on the French Wikipedia but I remarked a date mismatch :
The court naturally has its own web site, at www.supremecourt.gov, and a page about the building says it was completed in 1935. I've fixed the Supreme Court Police article. --Anonymous, 07:40 & 07:45 UTC, January 29, 2009.
How many people did Hitler kill personally?
Did he ever actually kill anyone with his own hands (or gun) while he was Fuhrer? I guess that he might've shot some enemy soldiers in WWI. --84.69.145.92 (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was wrong. According to Blondi, Hitler ordered a doctor to kill his dog. And it wasn't just one dog. Blondi's 4 puppies were killed, along with Eva Braun's two dogs and the doctor's dog. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly hard to imagine Hitler ever getting his hands dirty once he had people to do it for him; that would rule out everything post ~1925 (apart from the bunker incidient, obviously). - Jarry1250(t, c)18:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many nonwhite minority heads of government have there been?
A similar question was asked earlier, but most of those people mentioned there are not correct answers for my particular question. I am looking for people of a minority group (so not just black as in the earlier question), but also nonwhite (as there are many examples, due to 19th century European imperialism). I already knew about Alberto Fujimori. The jury is still out on Toussaint Louverture as there is a question if whites were the majority in Haiti at the time. The only other person I can think of is Mahendra Chaudhry, the Indo-Fijian prime minister of Fiji who was deposed in a coup a year later. And now of course, the newest member of this elite club. (I have to say... Chaudhry, deposed in coup; Fujimori, in jail in Peru; Obama better keep on his toes!) TresÁrboles (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question is unclear as to whether it refers to racial or ethnic groups, so I don't know if what follows is relevant. Burundi and Rwanda have both had Tutsi heads of government (Paul Kagame in Rwanda, Louis Rwagasore in Burundi) despite both countries being around 85% Hutu. I imagine many other African countries made up of different ethnic groups will have had similar situations. For example, Ethiopia was traditionally ruled by the Christian Amhara people who made up about 1/4 of the population, Haile Selassie was of this group; I can't find much on Mengistu Haile Mariam's ethnic background but he is described as looking different to most Ethiopians. Under the constitution of Lebanon, the president is always a Maronite Christian, despite the nation now having a Muslim majority (you can argue about whether Maronite Christians are white). --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that many countries have no majority population, whereby all individuals (including politicians) are from minorities. Also, how to define ethnic/racial groups differ widely in different countries. --Soman (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely yes: If you want a precise answer, TresÁrboles, you should start by explaining what you mean with "white people". Are you referring to the degrees of skin pigmentation by individuals (and if so, how do you consider the Ainu people); or do you mean someone completely descendant only from dwellers in Europe (put like that, an empty set), or what? JoergenB (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dilbert
I'm looking for a strip from Dilbert. Where is it from and where can I find it? I's is a picture of Dilbert in his cubicle with a wastebin, and the text is: "This is my magic box. I put my work there, and by morning, it's gone." prefix:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.241.207.221 (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some Googling found a text page (possibly copyright violation and no images) where a conversation included "it's a magic cylinder. I put my work in there and by morning it's gone". PrimeHunter (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure calling any person something he doesn't call himself should be thought of as insulting; and even then one should be careful in the terms one uses. Groups of people often have terms used internally amongst themselves which are highly insulting when used by outsiders. You're best off using whatever term a person prefers to be called by you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs14:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know if Arabs call themselves "desert's people", so I still don't know if it is offending. I have never heard it, but it doesn't mean that they don't it. Mr.K.(talk)17:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase was actually usually "sons of the Desert"; I don't know if it's really insulting, but it's more associated with Rudolph Valentino Sheik movies and Lawrence of Arabia than with the contemporary usage of any recent decade... There's also a 1933 movie by that name: Sons of the Desert (film).
By the way, you should be aware that a significant proportion of Arabs are urban dwellers, who may have never seen a camel outside a zoo, and the majority of whose ancestors in 631 A.D. were probably Monophysite Hellenized Syriac-speaking or Coptic-speaking settled inhabitants of the Byzantine or Persian empires (not Arabic-speaking nomads or bedouin), and who may not particularly consider themselves to be "sons of the desert"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STARVATION
Hi Everybody,
Does anybody know the stages and effects on the body of starvation? I presume that death will eventually occur when the heart fails.
Where did the Half-Breeds and Stalwarts (factions of the Republican Party in late 19th cent) get their names? For some reason, I can't find this information anywhere. - Hargrimm | Θ15:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From The Nation (N.Y.) XXXII, page 415: "The epithet ‘Stalwart’ as applied to a class of politicians was first used by Mr. Blaine in 1877 to designate those Republicans who were unwilling to give up hostility and distrust of the South as a political motive." That Mr. Blaine was undoubtedly James G. Blaine. It seems ironical.
The OED says only that "Half-breed" was "applied in derision to certain Republicans of New York who in 1881 wavered in their party allegiance", without saying who first applied it. The implication of the name is clear enough, meaning that they were only half Republican in ideology. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you pronounce Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, likely first openly gay PM of Iceland?
Is the principle "Lex superior derogat legi inferiori" used under this or another name in anglophonic countries?
I've been searching for the juridical expression Lex superior derogat legi inferiori ("a higher law beats lower ones"). There are articles about this principle in the Norwegian wp's; seemingly, the Norwegian Supreme Court explicitly applied it in a number of cases. I found either articles or references in a few other languages, e.g., an Italian article and a short German explanation. The Norwegian items examplify with constitutional rules invalidating (common) law, and the German with federal law invalidating state law ("Landesrecht"), in the Federal German Republic.
Now, I found no reference to this principle in the English wp, neither in List of legal Latin terms, nor in article titles; and a search mainly gave a number of references to Lex Luthor claiming to be superior to Superman... On the other hand, it is common knowledge that similar principles are applied in US jurisdiction, e.g., numerous laws considered void if they contradict statues in the federal constitution (or the appropriate state constitution, for state laws). So, what I'd like to know is if the same or a rather similar principle is invoced under another name in e.g. the US, or if instead a principle named "Lex superior derogat legi inferiori" indeed is invoced in some English-speaking countries, but for some reason no one got around to mention it yet.
Sorry if this sounds complicated; it really boils down to the simple question To what English sibling shall I link the handful of "Lex superior derogat legi inferiori" artticles in other languages?JoergenB (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to take a look at Preemption (law) (which is linked in the "See also" section of the article linked by AnonMoos). But I was under the impression that, in general, interwiki links shouldn't be created unless the linked articles are on exactly the same topic. Deor (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
