Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 13

Native American Names in English

Why do we translate these into English (eg "Sitting Bull" instead of some approximation of "Ta-Tanka I-Yotank")? The convention seems to be limited to Native American Indians- It isn't done with Africans present or historical, Pacific Islanders, Aboriginals or even natives of Latin America. Is this an Indian initiated thing or a European one? It's been bugging me for a while, so, if anyone knows, please comment. Furius (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's largely a European thing. Many Indian names were considered unpronounceable and the colonizers would use a of the name translation instead. The individuals thus entered the history books with translated names, which is why the names are still used today, even if the modern practice is to refer to them as much as possible by their name in their own language. It is not something that is done any more, except for a few exceptions where the translation has become someone's official family name (eg. Billy Two-Rivers, or Mary Two-Axe Early, both of whom would be notable enough to merit a wiki article). It should also be noted that the trend went both ways. Samuel de Champlain's successor as governor of New France was Charles de Montmagny; the Hurons called him "Onontio", a name that was equivalent to "large mountain" in their language (see here: [1]); yhis in turn became the generic name for his successors. --Xuxl (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't read French, we have Onontio. —Kevin Myers 20:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would venture to suggest that another reason (not denying the reason above) is because Native American names are supposed to actually mean something. When Sitting Bull was given that name it was intended to convey something; the English translation does that to an English speaker (to some extent) and the sounds of the native language name don't. We don't translate "Johannes Schmidt" as "John Smith" when talking English because the name is essentially a label - it doesn't mean anything, it just identifies the label. Native names are in theory different. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

But we do routinely translate the given names of monarchs, popes etc into their supposed English equivalents. Well, we used to; perhaps not so much these days. Beatrix of the Netherlands would in days gone by have been called Beatrice, and Margrete II of Denmark would have been called Margaret. (Although Pope John Paul II was never known in the anglosphere as Jan Paweł or Giovanni Paolo - but popes are a special case because they represent not just their country of origin or the Vatican, but Catholics everywhere.) And even some non-monarchs got it to a degree - Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky was often referred to as Peter Tchaikovsky. The French used to call Ludwig van Beethoven "Louis van Beethoven". I've even seen Johann Sebastian Bach referred to as "John Sebastian Bach" in olde-world texts. Etc. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A fairly large number of Native American names are not translated, or are merely "Anglicized". Relatively well-known examples that come to mind include: Geronimo, Massasoit, Pocahontas, Squanto, Osceola, Seattle, Leschi, Attakullakulla, Hiawatha, Tecumseh, Sequoyah, Oconostota, and Pontiac. It seems to me that the tradition of translated names into English words was most common for the Plains Indians, and especially the Lakota people (such as Sitting Bull). Perhaps this is because these Indians were among the last to be subjugated, I'm not sure.

I can't remember the author, but there is a series of books about a world where the Roman Empire never fell, and the Legions reach what we call North America, where they encounter Native Americans, among them "Equus Insanus". Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Could it be the Aquiliad by Somtow Sucharitkul? I heard someone say that it has characters like "Cumulus Rubio", which ought to be Nimbus Ruber; such sloppiness turns me off even in humor. —Tamfang (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

John Kufour's wife

Since John Kufour is born on December 8, 1938, then how old would his wife be? The article I seen said John Kufour married Terri Mensah in 1962, so I thought John's wife would not be younger than 64 or born later than 1964? What year you think John Kufour's wife is born?--69.226.42.163 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean John Kufuor, who married Theresa Mensah in 1962. He met and married her while he was an undergraduate at Oxford in 1961-62. She was a fellow Ghanaian who had trained as a nurse in Britain, so it seems reasonable to suppose she is about the same age as Kufuor. Xn4 (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Who told you She was a fellow Ghanaian who had trained as a nurse in Britain, so it seems reasonable to suppose she is about the same age as Kufuor. . John went to school in England, he himself graduated college in 1962-then he was 24 at that time His wife has her own life. What year was Kufour's wife a training nurse? Is this safe to say Mrs Kufour is one year younger than Mr. Kufour?--69.226.42.163 (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have some basis for guessing her age more accurately (a birth year, a report with her age, the year she got a PhD), it's risky to state that she's one year, five years, or fifteen years older--or younger. William O. Douglas was 67 when he married his fourth wife, who was 23. Strom Thurmond was 68 when he married Nancy Moore, who also was 23. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ivor Agyeman-Duah's Ghana: the real Kufuor; A new biography of President John Agyekum Kufuor - Between Faith and History: "Theresa Mensah, who had finished her nursing training and was about to begin a four-year mid-wifery course at the Oxford University Hospital..." Xn4 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• mr. Kufour only married one wife Terri, Mr. and Mrs. Kufour went to Tokyo, Japan in 2002, and made to Whitehouse in September 15, 2008. I just saw from one website, Mr. and Mrs. Kufour married in 1962, same time Mwai and Lucy Kibaki married. They are 77 (born November 15, 1931) and 68 (born 1940). What's amazing is when black people gets old, they seem to look like they are alot younger, they hardly get grey or white hair until they are in the late 60s or even 70s.[2]

a more direct link to that picture —Tamfang (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Daniel Arap Moi is born in September 2, 1924, 84 years old. If you are looking at his picture, you think he is like in his 60s, No, becasue he is much older. He didn't even get white hair until he was in his 70s. Lena Moi, is said to be born no later than 1929, she seperated from Daniel Arap Moi in 1974, and deceased in 2004 in the mid 70s. Sadly, I never seen pictures on Lena Moi, I guess she her skin is very black, but I don't know. We have no photos about Lena Moi, she just left 8 childs, and the youngest is Gideon Moi born in 1964. Zelma henderson the lady who worked at Brown Board vs. Kansas Education, born in February 29, 1920 and died in may 20, 2008 at age 88. When she left and died, you normally would think she is in the 60s by her beautiful brown skin, and brown-yellow hair, suprisingly, she is alot older. Robert Mugabe is born in February 21, 1924, turning 85 very soon. He married two wives. First wife is Sally Hayfron in 1961, when Robert was like 37 years old. Sally was born in June 1931, and died in janyary 27, 1992 sadly at age 60. In 1996, he married Grace Mugabe in 1996, Robert was 74, and Grace (born in 1965) was only 22.--69.226.42.163 (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Are Myra Soble and Jack Soble still alive?

And if not, when did they die? The WP articles have no details, and I would like to complete the articles on them? I googled them, and still no luck. Can anyone help? Myles325a (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention it but whoever has contributed to the articles have written them as if the subjects are dead. They use 'was' in describing them (which suggests they are no more) - compare it to say an article about a famous actor - oh i don't know lets just say John Travolta...his article starts 'John Travolta is...' - again if you pick another at random, lets say Roger Moore...his article starts 'Roger Moore is...'. By no means definitive proof at all, but certainly based on the way the articles are written I would have assumed both were dead. Will try a bit of searching to see if can find out something more definitive though. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OP myles325a back. You will see your theory collapse when you consider the following quote from the beginning of this article: "He was the fifteenth Democrat elected to that office. He was the third-youngest president..." This refers to Bill Clinton. When the person is known for something they did in the past, it is normal to use the past tense. Thus the Roger Moore article could have begun: "Roger Moore was the third actor to play James Bond". Thanks for the offer to help on the Sobles project. Strange business that...not being able to find it on the net. I might have to take off this oxygen mask and walk to the Library...Myles325a (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I just now searched the New York Times for the Sobles, and they seem to have dropped off the planet in 1963. The search I used only goes to three years before today or 2005, whichever it does because it says both. So, if we can expect the Times to have reported their deaths, they were still alive in 2004. I'm starting to smell relocation—they disappeared from the news. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added them to Category:Possibly living people. Jay (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I see John Z has added 1974 as the date of Jack Soble's death, but without a citation. If Myra were still alive, she would be very nearly 105, and Jack 111, which seems to me to give them both only the slimmest chance of being alive and keeping out of the news! In the US, there are about 200 centenarians per million of the population, and only about one in a thousand centenarians gets to the age of 110. Xn4 (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just gave the citation [3], in Vietnamese, which has (1897-1974) for Jack and (1899-1971) for Myra. The birth for Jack agrees with other sources, but our article has Myra born in 1904, so didn't change that. Social Security death index comes up with nothing for either - closest is a Jack Sobel 1897-1988. (Probably that one was a screenwriter, from other sources, place of death) John Z (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Myra was pardoned in 1991; are posthumous pardons common practice? —Tamfang (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OP myles325 back. Thanks for all the good work, guys. This is what WP Help Desk is all about. Interesting idea about the relocation, too. Wondering about that Vietnamese ref. Vietnam was an firm champion of Stalin and the Sobles were died in the wool Stalinists, but even so, why would an obit appear there and no where else? It might not be entirely dependable, but it is worth reporting in the articles on the Sobles, with a disclaimer. It would mean that our Sobles articles were more up-to-date than any other source in the world on this matter. Myles325a (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't read Vietnamese but the article does not look like an obituary. —Tamfang (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

From google translation, it's an article about spy families. Now that I look again, most sources have Jack born in 1903, and I can't find the ones confirming 1897, lessening the credibility of the Vietnamese article. So I think the vietnamese ref belongs, but not as a clear fact. He used other names Abromas/Abraham Sobolevicius and Adolph/A Senin. John Z (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Facebook and intellectual property

From the terms and services page on Facebook[4]--does this mean what it looks like it means?

"You are solely responsible for the User Content that you Post on or through the Facebook Service. You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof. You represent and warrant that you have all rights and permissions to grant the foregoing licenses."

I'm not looking for legal advice, since I have no plans on doing anything in particular--just a translation. Either this is saying that, if I post a great work of art to facebook, they own it--or it's only saying that I can't sue them just because when I post a photo from my computer it later shows up on my ex-boyfriend's computer (or whatever). It seems to pretty definitely saying that they can use my picture and even my full name in advertisements and there's nothing I can do about it--is that a fair reading? --Masamage ♫ 06:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The British singer Billy Bragg picked up this issue a couple of years ago in regards to posting his music on MySpace. As a result they were forced to change their terms and conditions. See Myspace#Musicians' rights and MySpace Terms of Use Agreement. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

They are basically saying that they can do basically anything with whatever you post on their website. It's a very, very, very broad license. They don't say they own it—you still own it, they can't do anything to stop your use of it—but they are saying that you are basically giving them permission to act as if you sold it to them (to the point that they can sell that permission to others as well!). It's a pretty nasty clause. I wouldn't post anything that you'd hate someone else to become a distributor of anytime soon on Facebook. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is causing considerable drama. I got asked about it at work during lunch, as if I were supposed to know something, and what's worse, I did, because of some blog rant I'd read earlier in the day. Now there's a slashdot thread about it: [5] 207.241.239.70 (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears FB have suspended this change, pending discussion(ie reversed for now). They know they upset a lot of people.

Terms of Use Update

Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog. If you want to share your thoughts on what should be in the new terms, check out our group Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.

BrainyBabe (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that! Awesome~ --Masamage ♫ 16:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

KALORIES

GREETING SIR I HAVE HURD THAT IN THE UNITED AMERICA THE POOR CONCUME MORE KALORIES THAT THE RICHE IS IT TRUE PLEASE THANK YOU IN THE WAIT OF YOUR RESPONSE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes, that is true. The reason is that "diet foods", those which are healthy and filling with minimal calories, are more expensive than "junk food", containing many calories but few nutrients. StuRat (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Food isn't expensive in a first world country like the US, pretty much everyone can afford to eat healthily. I expect the difference is more one of education, culture and attitudes. --Tango (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, gram for gram highly processed and preserved foods which a lower in nutritional value and higher in caloric content do tend to cost less than do whole foods which are better for you. See this article and this more general google search for a detailed discussion of the issue. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we know that. Tango's claim is that even reasonably healthy food is cheap enough (in the US) that most people can afford it. Algebraist 18:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To properly answer this question, I think that the terms "POOR" and "RICHE"(sp) need to be defined. The facts are correct about processed and preserved foods, etc, but the question is about actual consumption if I am reading it correctly. In that sense, a very poor street dweller who wanders in search of the next meal is going to consume far less calories than a fine wine and lavish seafood, steak and desert devouring wealthy individual. (man, I'm getting hungry!) :-) cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that people who are actually homeless, and do find it difficult to find enough food to eat, are less likely to be obese. However, people who are poor, but not homeless, and can afford as much food as they want, are more likely to be obese. While these people could "afford" to buy healthier food, that would mean giving up something else important to them, while the rich can afford to eat healthy without giving up anything important (perhaps their saving rate is 1% less than it would be otherwise). StuRat (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. Here are some references:

(1) The World Health Organization reported in 2004 that the people who tend to be fat change as countries become richer. In poor countries, fat people tend to be rich. In rich countries, fat people tend to be poor. The United States is one of the rich countries.

(2) An academic article from last June says that in America, poor people are becoming fat more quickly than rich people are becoming fat. They also found that people who live in rich neighbourhoods in the United States are more likely to eat fresh fruit and vegetables (which relates to the healthy quality of food mentioned by the other responders).

(3) Another article done in 1996 looked at whether being rich or poor affects being fat or thin among 9-year-old girls in the United States. It found that white children were fatter in poor families. However, there wasn't any pattern for black children.

(10draftsdeep, I searched for "socioeconomic status" as a shorthand for rich and poor; my best guess.) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sex Slaves, Juarez, Mexico or Laredo??

Often on the border between Mexico and the US there are tales of women being kidnapped and taken into Mexico by drug cartels and being sold into the sex slave industry. 1.) It is my understanding that Juarez, Mexico shares the border line to El Paso. 2.) I do not know the Mexican town that shares the border with Laredo. Which of these two areas experiences the aforementioned criminal activity more?? Thanks and I will SO give you a cookie if you can answer this'n!! Rivka (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Across the border from Laredo, Texas you will find Nuevo Laredo (New Laredo). StuRat (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I find the tale hard to believe, myself, as crossing the border with a kidnapped woman is fairly likely to result in capture, and the perps would get a very severe sentence for that. Why risk it when they could just grab any of the numerous American tourists who are in Mexico at any given time ? That way, there is no risky border crossing. StuRat (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a case of "Beware of the Swarthy Ferners! The darkies are here to steal your precious white women and children and sell them into slavery! Send the ferners back to where they came from and secure our borders" Its a piece of racist bullshit, and has no basis in reality for exactly all the reasons you describe. No one is kidnapping rich blonde white girls and dragging them into Nuevo Laredo to set them up as sex slaves. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, everyone knows that it's the Albanians that are taking rich blonde white girls. Seems like a case of the wrong swarthy, foreigners being blamed. Tomdobb (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Um... okay... is anyone who has an actual answer going to answer my query? My question did not say what race of woman was being kidnapped. Why does it have to be white women? There are Mexicans in these cities. Perhaps that's why none of you have ever heard of them being kidnapped?? Hmm...maybe so... Anyway, question SO not answered...if it matters at all to any of you I am a triple minority so there's no reason to assume I was referencing white women in any fashion...Rivka (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I was only able to search English-language sources, not Spanish. Everything that turned up via Google was about the trafficking of women from Central America through Mexico or from Mexico directly to the US, not in the other direction. For example: this pdf, Houston Chronicle article, New York Times article, United Nations report. That doesn't mean, of course, that women are not trafficked both ways across the border. Best I can suggest is you directly contact an anti-trafficking group in the areas you are asking about: Coalition Against Human Trafficking in Houston, Texas, Libertad Latina, El Paso Police Department Human Trafficking Task Force. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also the female homicides in Ciudad Juárez. Not kidnapping or trafficking, but it illustrates a history of crime against women in the area. Tomdobb (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That does give me some assistance, Tomdobb. Thank you very much. WikiJedits, I may do that. Thank you both for your help! Really Appreciate that.Rivka (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Reparations for Slavery in US

I know that there is a proposal in the works for the US African Americans for this. However, is or has there been anything similar for the Native Americans? In history, which was treated harsher by the Europeans: the Native Americans or the African Americans? I guess I am not looking for an opinion, just a historical comparison. --Emyn ned (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that Canada has made recuperation of land and money to the Inuits. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Recuperation ? Was the land and money sick ?  :-) Yes, I realize that that is a correct usage, but not a very common one, at least here in Detroit. Remuneration might be in order, instead, or perhaps reimbursement. Or how about simple compensation ? StuRat (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

it's why they can operate casinos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Canada's policy in dealing with claims by indigenous groups is two-fold; unfortunately the article Aboriginal land claim is a bare-bones stub. Canada accepts comprehensive claims for land that has historically been used and/or occupied by indigenous groups but which was never ceded to the British (or Canadian) crown by treaty. This is how the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement that led to the creation of the Territory of Nunavut came into being. The other types of claims are "specific claims", which deal with things like improper expropriation of lands from indigenous groups when building railroads, establishing military bases, etc. Neither of these processes are akin to the claims of African-Americans whose ancestors were victims of slavery.

In Canada, there have been exceptional compensation paid to wronged groups for somewhat similar situations: the Inuit families that were moved to Grise Fjord in the 1950s, the survivors of Indian Residential Schools, or Japanese-Canadians interned during World War II. In all cases, only living survivors were compensated for wrongs done directly by the government. However, in the case of slavery, there are no survivors left, only descendants, and the government's role was allowing a system to exist, not directly enslaving persons. As a result, such precedents would be difficult to apply, although elements of these settlements that go beyond direct compensation to victims - such as creating government-funded foundations that teach about the shameful history and work to better relations between races - could be used as a model. --Xuxl (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any reparations "proposal in the works," although it is an idea that comes up fairly often. And to say reparations for American Indians is "why they can operate casinos" isn't really in the realm of accuracy. Some articles that may help answer your question are tribal sovereignty and Indian Reorganization Act. Tomdobb (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

how is it not "in the realm of accuracy" when it's the very reason for this existence? Everything you said about tribal sovereignty = reparations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The allowance to operate casinos is not a matter of reparations, it's a matter of jurisdiction. Essentially the native peoples are allowed to set their own rules about whether gambling is allowed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

And why do you suppose they are allowed to set their own rules about anything? Could the fact that America is their land to begin with and Europeans stole it from them have something to do with it...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledging the sovereignty of American Indians doesn't really strike me as the same thing as reparations. At least not the common usage, which is monetary compensation. But either way. This is quickly devolving into a debate, which is not the point of reference desk. Tomdobb (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Giving them sovereignty over limited areas is not a matter of "repaying" them for past grievances. In fact, it's actually the results of said grievances—it's a legal system which evolved as a way of putting said natives onto smaller and smaller parcels and avoiding riots and war with them. That the natives have found ways to exploit the jurisdiction issues to their advantage speaks more for their own ingenuity than it does the will of those who set up those laws in the first place (which was done long before the issues of casinos came into the picture). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I would have said. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Who was treated harsher? Who could say? Is it worse to be invaded, lied to, mostly exterminated, and eventually given small plots of generally useless land to run as you please; or is it worse to be taken from your lands, forced into generations of harsh servitude, eventually released, and kept as second-class citizens for over a century afterwards? Neither are exactly plum experiences. Comparing which is "worse" seems like a pretty difficult exercise in my opinion—both options a fundamentally appalling to those who really believe that "all men are created equal" and should be treated with equal dignity no matter what color of their skin or who their parents happened to be. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to original comment about Reparations for Slavery in US, according to this Snopes article it was a scam or a misunderstanding. The article mentions emails from 2002, but I'm sure it's still circulating. So, if it doesn't exist for African-Americans, then it wouldn't for Native Americans.Tobyc75 (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The US might start by keeping a couple of the existing contracts they closed with native nations. Instead the usual procedure seem to be that some court rules that since they haven't bothered to keep the contract up to now it's not valid. Honoring a couple of those contracts would at least be a step towards acknowledging that "we're right because we have the guns" may be effective, but is morally questionable. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I was present during a discussion of reparations at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, PA. Much work has been generated on this topic. The mainstream discussion of reparations tends not focus on monetary damages as in a lawsuit. Rather, the focus has shifted to atoning by committing funds to economic projects to benefit African-Americans and address social concerns that affect the black community in the United States. I believe the link between righting a declared wrong publicly through the use of very specific funding of special projects is under discussion. The participants agreed that pure monetary damages will never be accepted by white Americans.75Janice (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)75Janice

Samuel Beckett quote in Deleuze & Guatarri...

In A Thousand Plateaus by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, the section 1874: Three Novellas, or "What Happened?" contains a quote from Samuel Beckett;

Beckett's unforgettable line is an indictment of all voyages: "We don't travel for the fun of it, as far as I know; we're foolish, but not that foolish."

D&G don't provide a reference for this quote in the footnotes, and I've been unable to track it down through other means. Does anyone know where it comes from? Richard Hock (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In Lawrence Graver & Raymond Federman's Samuel Beckett at google books[6] there's some reference to travel tensions in a short work, "Mercier and Camier" but not that quote, just the spirit of it being not for fun. Maybe the quote is in that work. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC) PS the book article is crying out for content by the way, JR

The difficulty stems from the fact that Massumi translated the line (of Mercier et Camier, as the above submission suggests) from the French himself, rather than quoting from Beckett's English translation. In French the line reads "nous ne voyageons pas pour le plaisir de voyager, que je sache, dit Camier. Nous sommes cons, mais pas à ce point." Beckett's English version reads "We are not faring for the love of faring, that I know of, said Camier. Cunts we may be, but not to that extent." It comes from the end of Chapter IV in the English, or Chapter V in the French.

Native Americans/African Americans

In history, which was treated harsher by the Europeans: the Native Americans or the African Americans? I am not looking for an opinion, just a historical comparison.--Emyn ned (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think opinion is all you're going to be able to get..? They both got treated pretty darn horribly, what with torture and murder and enslavement and dislocation. Which atrocities are "worse" can only be subjective. --Masamage ♫ 19:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To be overly general, the Native Americans were pushed off their land through whatever means necessary. The Africans were employed (not meaning paid) to produce goods on their land (in Africa) and other lands. The end result is a sign of treatment. The Native American population is much smaller than it used to be and generally poor (with the exception of those lucky enough to own casinos). Africans populate more areas than they used to and are easily found in all levels of economic and social status. -- kainaw™ 19:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with comparisons like this is that it essentially requires a moral calculus - that is, a system of assigning a value to an event, and then comparing a number of such values to arrive at some outcome. People often ask this desk questions like "who was more evil - hitler or stalin?", but you really can't meaningfully say "Hitler had an evil coefficient of 79 and Stalin had an evil coefficient of 81, therefore Stalin was more evil". I think Masamage is dead on the money - it's irredeemably subjective. Of course a reasonable question to ask in that (as in all the other unanswerable moral calculus questions) is - does it matter? If someone tells you hitler was 4% more evil than stalin, you don't really know anything new. 87.112.81.29 (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that it would mean anything, but my father is 100% Native American and my mother is African American by the way of North Carolina. It was joked that I probably inherited twice as much anger.... not true, though. I am a pacifist and carry no grudges, not that I should have any anyway.....--Emyn ned (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Reststricting this to North America, the greatest damage to Native American by Europeans was unintentional: the introduction of old-world diseases to the new world by the explorers starting with the Vikings. The result was a devestating die-off from which the native culture could not recover. Estimates of the death toll go as high as 90%, which is as bad or worse than any large-scale intentional policy of genocide anywhere in the world. In terms of lives lost or destroyed, this probably outweighs all of the ugly intentional harm done to both African american and native ameican populations in North America andn in the passage from Africa to North america. In terms of total numbers, the effects were perhaps larger in central america, the carribean, and expecially south america: Less tha one in ten african slaves came to North america, with most of the rest going to Brazil. The Spaniards acted brutally toward the native populations there, but the populations started from a larger base and therefore the native population is a much larger fraction of the genetic and cultural heritage of South America than of North America. -Arch dude (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out Hernando de Soto. He's sometimes credited with introducing and spreading communicable diseases that wiped out a significant number of the local people and culture. The use of "biological weapons" may have been unintentional, but the motives for his expedition were anything but. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Can a motive ever be unintentional? —Tamfang (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Even better -- visit some of today's American Indian reservations and you will extraordinary poverty. In too many of the reservations in the southwest, you will find homes lacking electricity and running water. Forget history and be concerned about 2009. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well mostly the Europeans didn't treat Native Americans too badly, or at least didn't have long enough to treat them as badly as the Americans did. Most of the extermination of Native Americans (at least in North America) was done by citizens of the U.S.A. or its territories. I believe the French, British and Spanish did treat some native American tribes badly though this may be off-set by the fact that they used them as proxies to fight each other and basically played them off one against the other supporting some and opposing those allied with other European powers as convenient. The British were a lot more tolerant and friendly to the Native American nations though, I remember hearing this was part of the reason leading to the war of independence, that Britain didn't support such aggressive expansion westwards as the American colonists due to their relations with the Indian nations.

As to how harshly the African Americans were treated, they were mostly all slaves at the time, or do you mean just Africans in Africa? or blacks generally? AllanHainey (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Charles Bowen,Baron Bowen

As is shown on the Wikipedia site, Bowen is credited with the following adage;-

"The rain it raineth on the just, And also on the unjust fella: But chiefly on the just, because the unjust steals the just's umbrella".

Dickens wrote something similar in Little Dorritt - "He went,like the rain,among the just and the unjust,..."(page 702,Oxford Illustrated Dickens,(1953)1987 reprint). It would be interesting to know who used the adage first. Bowen would have been 22 when Dickens wrote LD, not too young for a pithy saying. Of course they could have used the adage independently, it could also predate both lawyer and novelist.

Does anybody know more than I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.125.110 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely both are allusions to Matthew 5:45: "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust". And surely Dickens was not too lazy to put spaces after his commas. - Nunh-huh 20:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless Dickens had access to a typewriter, who can tell? —Tamfang (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian anti-communists

Friends !!! I thought Bin laden was a communist but I read it on the article (Beliefs and ideology of Osama bin Laden) "bin Laden has opposed "pan-Arabism, socialism, communism, democracy and other doctrines,"". Do you think he should be categorized as "Saudi Arabian anti-communists"? --201.254.68.111 (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It would appear the category is actually Saudi anti-communists and if you were to categorize him as such, he'd be the only one. But as they say, be bold. Tomdobb (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be really interested to know why you thought Bin Laden was a communist? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought that because Bin laden is against the U.S.A and UK (capitalists countries) ... PS: I'm 15 understand me. --201.254.68.111 (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I created my account to "be bold", but I can't because he's protected. :( --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected. Your account needs to be at least 4 days old and (/or?) you need to make at least 10 edits to become fully registered. Its the Brady Law of Wikipedia. Livewireo (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The world is more complex than to sum it up into 2 categories. Bin Laden actually fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. There is a tendency, especially for governments, to give everybody who they don't like into some category that is considered evil. For America after WWII 'communist' was that label, and resulted in all sorts of people being called communist who weren't. These days in the US 'socialist' is nearly as bad, which explains John McCain's desperate attempts to label Obama 'socialist'. The thinking was that if he could get Obama branded a 'socialist' people wouldn't vote for him, even if they agreed with the policy that got him the label. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are out of date here. In the us we used to label all of our enemies "Communist." When Communism effectively self-destructed in the 1980's, politicial parties that MUST have a simple label for the bads guys were is a terrible quandry: after all, most of the remaijning bad guys were staunchly anti-communist. Fortunately for them, Al-Qaeda follow their own extremist ideology, as we now have a differnt overly simplistic label for anybody who disagrees with us: the are all "Terrorists." So, my 15-year-old friend, remove the old worn-out word "Communist" from your vocabulary, and learn to use the word "Terrorist" instead. -Arch dude (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My bad, though I stand by my point about McCain and 'Socialist'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Jim Peron, former owner of a libertarian bookstore in San Francisco, told me of an incident when he was a guest on a radio show: a caller asked him to define libertarianism, and then said, "Yeah, I knew you were Communist." —Tamfang (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

---

By the way, for a number of decades many people in Saudi Arabia were convinced that modern Judaism and Communism were exactly the same thing, and that by opposing the existence of Israel, they were somehow fighting the good fight against the menace of world Communism. Not sure exactly how such people explained the fact that the Soviet Union was heavily backing Egypt and Syria... AnonMoos (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Forcing government to pay debt

I don't understand basic finance of government debt. If Country A owes Country B some money, how does Country B ensure that that debt will be paid on time? In an individual setting, if someone doesn't pay the debt, that person can be forced to pay or go to jail. But what about in an international setting? Thanks in advance128.163.224.240 (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. If America wanted to destroy the lifestyle of future generations, it could decide to default on all its loans. In the future, no one would give it any, or on only very bad terms. The fact that since the founding of America it has been a constitutional (really! read it!) mandate that the government honor all its debts has done wonders for America over the past 200+ years. As for other countries, that have no such strong protections? They don't get much credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

So what happens when a country has deficit spending for the year? How does the gov't spend money it doesn't have? Who's giving that money? I realize that the US has been in debt since practically the beginning of its founding. How can a country function when it is constantly in debt?199.76.164.202 (talk) 04:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, usually, the extra money has been borrowed from some other country. Part of their expenditure for the next few years will be paying back that loan, and if they still have deficit spending in the next year they'll take out a loan with someone else. In some cases countries end up taking out loans in part to pay back previous loans.

They can keep taking loans out as long as they keep paying the existing ones back- This is what America does. If a country actually can't pay the loans back anymore they default, and that's bad (See: Argentine_economic_crisis_(1999-2002)). Countries which do that often find it harder to get loans. At that point they have to restrict themselves to spending only what they have... (Or they can just print more money, but that's a very bad move) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furius (talk • contribs) 04:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

When a country issues debt (takes out a loan from somebody), it actually just issues a bunch of contracts that say "I will pay (anyone) you a certain amount sometime in the future including a bunch of payments at a certain interest rate." Each one of these contracts ("bonds") gets auctioned off individually, and can go to anybody: A foreign government or individual or even a person or company in the same country. Whoever buys the contract gets the rights to the eventual full repayment, and all the interest payments in the mean time. They have value because they are backed by the taxing power of the issuing government. The US federal government, for example, could just increase taxes to pay off some huge hypothetical (or 'slowly materializing...') debt it might have.

The only thing that forces a country to keep making interest payments on these "bonds" is that country's desire to get more credit in the future; if they don't keep making payments on their existing debt, they won't get any more.

Since most countries don't consume exactly what they produce every year, they need credit some years to make up the difference. The United States, for example, has been banking on this credit for some time...

So when an economist says that some country has a foreign debt with some other country, they just mean that people or companies within the lending country owns rights to a fixed income stream from the borrowing country's treasury or production. If the borrowing country's treasury or corporate issuers refuses to pay, there is no international body that will force them to. The borrowing country will just lose their standing, or "credit", in international markets. This usually means that the borrowing country's currency will become less valuable (because less "purchasing power" backs it). NByz (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

But the fact that (in the US) the debt is ever growing, doesn't that indicate that some amount of the debt are left unpaid?199.76.164.202 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's true that it's simply the fear of bad credit. Yet it's a significant concern. But if a country really starts to default on their debt, other countries have a variety of means to try and get their money back. For example, during the 2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis the assets of Landsbanki were seized in the United Kingdom. While not government debt, it's clearly possible your countries assets in other countries will be seized if you don't pay up. Depending on the circumstances and country, this could even be private assets. Many countries will also take diplomatic action against the other country which doesn't pay up, e.g. ejecting diplomats, sanctions, convincing other countries to do likewise etc. There are also a variety of quasi legal means to try and convince another country to pay up including the threat of or actual war. It depends a lot on how powerful the debtor country and who their allies are and how powerful the debtee is and who their allies are and public perception. Note that getting another country to pay up doesn't have to mean cash. It could be a demand for access to their land and resources. Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. This is why it is sometimes in a country's interest to renege on locally issued debt before foreign issues. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

OP, retaliation would usually take the form of confiscating property (land, planes, ships, etc) owned by Country A that are outside A’s jurisdiction. First choice would be property in Country B, but if B has good relations (treaties) with Country C, where such property is located, it might convince Country C to hand over Country’s A’s property. In addition, A’s reputation for defaulting on debt would strongly encourage other lenders to call in their debts and / or stop lending to A. Further, B might have sufficient influence to convince the IMF and other multilateral agencies to stop lending to A.

199.76.164.202, Scenario: the US borrows $10 on Monday; on Tuesday it borrows $20 and pays back $10 plus interest. Stretch that out, and continual borrowing without failing to pay back is quite possible. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How is it possible for your mind to learn something?

Think about it. A new concept enters your ears, ears, etc. then goes to the brain. Keep in mind that the brain didnt have a chemical, a cell, or anything before that to acknowledge said concept. Then, boom- now you know, Do you, in a sense, become it? Or does your mind already "know"? Because you can't "know" what's not already a part of you, correct?TinyTonyyy (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Plato had some thoughts along these lines: see Anamnesis. He was wrong. Algebraist 22:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean, I could be this generation's Plato?....(*snap*)- I'M A GENIUS! Hey, how do you nominate yourself for a Nobel Prize? There is one for philosophy, isn't there?TinyTonyyy (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a modern day Plato would have spent this much time drunkenly pandering to a bunch of nerds that are hanging out on a pretentious and self-titled "reference desk" on a Friday night. NByz (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

you'd better try for the Nobel Peace Prize -- the bar is very low. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever "ideas" are in this sense it is almost surely some combination of networked neurons. The connections are the idea, not a chemical or a cell. This makes the mind very flexible: you don't have to add new "things" to it, you just have to wire it up in increasingly complicated combinations. One way to think about it might be that your mind is a big tangle of cords that can tangle themselves up even more on the fly, one constantly shifting and re-wiring system... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it be self-referential to say that, while there's no Nobel Prize for philosophy, there ought to be? (Not that I'm saying so.) —Tamfang (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

See also Hume and Locke if you want philosophy... AnonMoos (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And see memory#physiology for some information towards answering your question (though I admit there's not very much there). --ColinFine (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

To a great extent, learning is the result of those electrochemical processes in your brain, triggered by outside stimuli. Not to overlook neuroplasticity, the process by which you continue to build neurons and connections between them. If you'd like an extended discussion, a highly readable one is Daniel Levitin's This is Your Brain on Music. A more detailed history of modern neurology, together with autobiography, is Eric Kandel's In Search of Memory. You'll be surprised how much what's known about the brain and learning is due to Aplysia californica. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Student association constitution: "not for profit"

I'm presiding of a new student association and to comply with the rules of the body which provides funding, our constitution has to declare that we do not intend to make a profit. I don't believe this constitutes as legal advice because the association is located in the Netherlands and the constitution is in English which renders it unacceptable to the Dutch Chamber of Commerce as a legal document. I am looking at the constitutions of other student associations and there is one which says:

"The Association shall not be operated for profit, and the foregoing objects, purposes are each and all subject to limitation that no part of the net earnings of the Association shall inure to the benefit of any association, corporation/media or individuals."

However, isn't this problematic because it says earnings cannot benefit individuals, but surely all event attendees are individuals and benefit from the money being spent on the event so it makes no sense? The only way to prevent anyone from benefiting, would be to destroy all money as soon as its received which is madness.

I would like help formulating a sensible article that declares that our association will not make profit (in so far as that makes sense for a student association which doesn't want to go bankrupt through an obsession with meeting all income with equal expenditure...). ----Seans Potato Business 22:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The following is not legal advice: "The Association shall not be operated for profit. In carrying out its objects and purposes, the Association shall apply any earnings for the benefit of the members of the Association, and not to the benefit of any other association or person."

Person covers both corporate and natural persons. Clause as drafted should be wide enough to cover using money for the membership as a whole, which should include keeping the money in the Association accounts, as well as for a subset of the membership (e.g. those who show up at a party). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the organization this would be somewhat problematic. It's not that not-for-profit groups have to spend all their money on themselves—they just have to use it in connection with official group activities and costs associated therewith. The distinction is that you don't pocket the surplus at the end of the day—it stays with the group and is used for group things. That doesn't mean it can't be spent on other associations or people—as long as the reason it is being spent is for official purposes (e.g. a scholarship or grant would be perfectly good use of the money as long as it was done in a way compatible with the way the group worked). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase net earnings is key. Whatever the group spends on its defined purposes is not part of its net. —Tamfang (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This may seem too easy. I found that faculty and administrators were quite willing to aid student organiations to form. Of course, in my time, SDS and other radical, far left groups were tolerated, not nourished. Once you understand the basics of the situation, it may help to ask them for their input. They may have experience with problems other student groups faced and solutions. As an added benefit, you will be networking with them and, hopefully, establishing good will for your group. Best of luck. 75Janice (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)75Janice

Well I've tweaked the first suggestion to my satisfaction now, so thanks everyone. ----Seans Potato Business 20:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You might like to look at Not for profit. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

February 14

Arab World political rivals

Do each member of the Arab League have their own political rivals and I mean do Lebanon have political rivals?, meaning one party left-wing and the other right-wing, like Bangladesh has two political rivals: one is right-wing(Bangladesh Nationalist Party) and the other is left-wing(Awami League). What about Egypt, Comoros, Djibouti, Somalia, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Jordan, Sudan and Mauritania?; except the Arabian Peninsula, but if you want to add the Arabian Peninsula, go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.116.156 (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It is rarely as bipartisan as that. In Egypt, for example, the system is dominated by the National Democratic Party, which holds 68% of the seats in the assembly. The primary opposition is the Muslim Brotherhood, which holds 19% of the seats, but because religious parties are illegal, Muslim Brotherhood members must run as independents. Lantzy ^talk 02:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A number of Arab countries have no real meaningful multi-party politics, and the opposition between the faction in power and the main opposition (whether this opposition is a legal open political party or not) can rarely be usefully categorized as a "left"-"right" difference. In many countries, the most prominent opposition force is actually Islamists (as said in the earlier reply). In Lebanon and Iraq, religious differences are at least as important in politics as are first-world-style left-right ideological differences. Some regimes seem to be far more devoted to "careerism" (or staying in power) than to any ideological "ism"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There are definitely different parties in the countries that have elected governments. The Prime Minister of Lebanon was assassinated by Syrian influences. The Christian and Muslim Lebanese have had a lot of problems in the past too. The Palestinians in Lebanon and Jordan have been part of political friction in the past (to say the least). In Saudi Arabia, even though it is a kingdom, there are plenty of political forces... for a good insite check out this story: [7]. NJGW (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What does "assassinated by Syrian influences" mean? ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Rafik Hariri... AnonMoos (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange Book

Hello, I'm looking for the title of a book that is supposedly written in an undecipherable language and includes illustrations of fake animals and plants. It is a very old book that was found some years ago. Does anyone know what I am talking about? Nkot (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the Voynich Manuscript. - Nunh-huh 05:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Or a misunderstanding of the Codex Seraphinianus. —Tamfang (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Disfigured Head of Ukrainian State

I was reading something about Fatwas, and for some reason, the image of the disfigured Ukrainian head of state popped into my head. The one with, what I remember as, boils completely encompassing his face. Can anyone please tell me his name? It would be much appreciated. 66.229.148.27 (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be Viktor Yushchenko, I think. - Eron^Talk 06:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

True, due to dioxin poisoning. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Reveille plush toys and other items

I'm trying to find some plush toys depicting Reveille (mascot). In addition, I'm also trying to find some memorial items related to the 1999 Texas A&M bonfire log collapse. If anyone out there can help me, I'd appreciate it very much. Thank you.72.229.135.200 (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Check your talk page Click here - 76.97.245.5 (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked. There was nothing that seemed right, in regards to Reveille. Is there anything available in regards to the bonfire log collapse?72.229.135.200 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

poker for 2?

can two people play poker, for example a wife and husband, or do they need partners —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't have any problem playing poker with only 2 people. Tomdobb (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Betting (poker) has some details for "When there are only two players" so they don't need a third person. I assume it would not be as interesting a game because if one party folds the game is over. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Since poker is not a "partners" game, it can be played by any number of people. Depending on the variety of poker played, you can play with as few as two (often called "heads-up" play) or as many as 6 (for Draw poker), 7 (for 7-card stud), or up to 20 (for Texas Hold'em), though the practical limit for hold'em is usually 9-10 per table. More than that, you would usually run 2 tables. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

See National Heads-Up Poker Championship. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The strategy is quite different for heads-up (ie. two players), but the basic gameplay (with a few modifications regarding who starts the betting) works fine. --Tango (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be pretty funny to stop a tournament after you got down to two players. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

See strip poker. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

February 15

Why is the Holocaust always cited as the primary example of genocide?

There are plenty of other notable genocides. Armenian Genocide? Rwandan Genocide? These are very significant, among many others. So why does the Holocaust get more attention?--Whootwole (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would AGF on this one. Occasionally, someone wants to start a serious discussion on this. Not always. But lets see where this goes. Ok. Here's why. It's the first genocide of the multimedia age. Its the same reason why World War II gets more coverage than almost any other war, why Hitler is the model "mad power hungry dictator" etc. etc. When history had to be recorded on paper, it wasn't as vivid in the memory. When history is recorded at 60 frames per second, it is far more significant at a visceral level. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It probably doesn't hurt that it took place in a major European country either. I mean, Rwandan genocide? Those people are brown! Tomdobb (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I second that. It's much easier to have sympathy with people who have similar appearances, traditions, and lifestyles. Also, a lot of people in North America and Britain--I'm guessing the OP is from one of the two--have family members who were personally affected by the genocide. People aren't likely to take note of something their grandpa read on the newspaper, but if their grandpa's girlfriend died, they'd definitely take note. --Bowlhover (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly my point.--Whootwole (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The main reason is that it's within current historical memory (not ancient history), and committed by a "civilized" wealthy 1st-world country. AnonMoos (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the poster's question (although the subsequent comment "That's exactly my point." might sound a bit like soapboxing). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's also relevant that it was committed against the citizens of "civilized" wealthy 1st-world countries. Some of the imperial powers did some pretty bad things to their colonial populations (though nothing so large-scale and systematic), but they aren't in the same category in the popular consciousness. Algebraist 02:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at providing a partial answer at least in regards to the Rwandan Genocide. The Rwandan Genocide is a relatively recent event. The the Holocaust has decades lead over Rwandan to be cited as an example. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What about scale? According to our articles, the Holocaust claimed about 9-11 million lives, the Armenian Genocide about 1-1.5 million victims and the Rwandan Genocide about 1 million lives. It seems reasonable to cite the Holocaust first. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I don't think that alone is enough to explain the way the Nazis and the holocaust are treated as being in a whole different category of evil from other dictatorships and genocides, though. Algebraist 02:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the risk of being misunderstood, the Nazis are sexy. By that I mean that people find them to be an interesting topic to study, even if they are repulsive. They are the quintessential 'bad guys'. They had the snappy uniforms, the huge crowds, the insane ideology. For whatever reason, people find that interesting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a "whole different category of evil" except as explained by scale and awareness. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nor do I understand conjoining "sexy" and "repulsive", but that may just be a matter of personal taste. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that some people feel a need that the Nazi episode be incomparable and inexplicable. (This has the incidental benefit that any alleged warning signs of fascism can safely be ignored as irrelevant.) —Tamfang (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A simple answer to the original question is that the Holocaust was what Raphael Lemkin had in mind when he coined the word "genocide."John Z (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As for why the Holocaust is so well-known, it happened during World War II. No other war involved, to a first approximation, every person in every country in the world. That the English-speaking countries directly fought Germany also helps; you'd expect English-speaking people to care more about the enemy their country spent 8 years trying to defeat than about Rwanda or Armenia. --Bowlhover (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of motive, we actually got a number of good answers to this question. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Enough already!.

^ Agreed! Although, at risk of adding more fuel to the fire, more people died in the Holocaust than in either of the genocides cited in the original question, hence the reason why it's often cited. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 02:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. All posts by anon and all posts solely responding to him/her removed. Algebraist 02:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

the facts are preserved here. 82.120.97.16 (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone tried looking for studies of the cultural impact and importance of the holocaust? I'm sure they exist, but my cursory search found nothing useful. Algebraist 02:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

do you want my opinion? I realize I might not have had the best strategy in pointing out that the answer to your question would offend a lot of Jews. My answer, which is based on careful research as well as correpsondence with experts in international affairs, could certainly be offensive to Jewish people. Would you like my answer anyway? (just the best-referenced part) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.97.16 (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there is another aspect to this. Not only is the Holocaust generally accepted as 'the greatest evil of all times' in Western mass culture, but the resistance against Nazi Germany is heralded in Western historical concept as the most justified act of all. If someone today wants to start a war or conduct any other form of aggression against another country, then the first thing to do would be to try to demonize their enemies as analogous to Hitler (Saddam, Milosevic, etc..). --Soman (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

do siamese twins have ONE or TWO ID's?

Do siamese twins have ONE or TWO passports, etc? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Conjoined twins are two people sharing body parts. Abigail and Brittany Hensel, for example, states that they have "driver's licenses" -two, not one. They would then, logically, also have two passports. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In Jewish law, DICEPHALUS conjoined twins (twins with two heads on one body) are considered to be ONE individual. I have researched this subject and a paper of mine in Hebrew appears on my website at www.geocities.com/chaimsimons/dicephalus.html Simonschaim (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, and the answer no doubt depends on where you are; except that there must be countries which have never had to address this particular conundrum, making the answer more of an opinion than a fact. Certainly in English law conjoined twins are two individuals - one of them, for instance, can issue proceedings against the other, and each of them can get married. If a pair of such twins are UK citizens, it seems to me that they must each be entitled to hold a passport. If such twins were to come from outside the UK to live here, it's conceivable that one of them could be naturalized as a British citizen and the other not. And marriage could also lead to their having different nationalities. Xn4 (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I believe that's based on the idea that the heart is the defining characteristic, so if there is one heart, there is one lifeform. --Tango (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely there being two brains, both able to communicate, should be more relevant to determining whether there are two legal individuals? AnonMoos (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The comment is probably in reference to Jewish law, which uses a more ancient approach to human consciousness. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. That the brain was responsible for thought and conciousness was rather disputed until well after Jewish law was written. I don't think Jewish law explicitly deals with conjoined twins (Conjoined_twins#Conjoined_twins_in_history mentions no recorded cases that long ago, and being written down in Jewish law would probably count as recording), so it's just based on an interpretation of more general (misinformed) statements. --Tango (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The subject of conjoined twins does appear in the Jewish Religious literature throughout the ages. Some of this material can be found in English. This includes: English translation of the Babylonian Talmud at Menachot 37a by the Soncino Press, London, and in the Schottenstein edition published by ArtScroll Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn, NY; Rabbi J.D. Bleich, Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature, “Conjoined Twins” in “Tradition” vol.31, no.1, Fall 1996, published by Rabbinical Council of America, NY; Drake D, “One Must Die So the Other Might Live”, published in “Nursing Forum”, New Jersey, vol.xvi, no3, 4, 1977. Dicephalus conjoined twins (two heads on one body) who are joined from the bottom of the neck downwards are regarded as one person in Jewish law; however with other types of joining, they would almost certainly be regarded as two persons. Simonschaim (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist attacks.. why do most of them take place in the morning?

• September 11 attacks
• 2004 Madrid train bombings
• July 7 2005 London bombings
• Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway
• 1993 World Trade Center bombing
• 1992 Israeli Embassy attack in Buenos Aires
• 1994 AMIA bombing
• 1998 United States embassy bombings

and others... why?. is it because there are more victims in the morning? --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be selection bias... You've chosen eight attacks which happened in the morning, and are attempting to extrapolate to a general trend. I can pull up eight nightclub bombings and say "Why do most terrorist attacks happen at night in bars". There are terrorist attacks weekly, and I don't know that most DO occur in the morning... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

For at least 9/11, the terrorists probably selected early morning so it would receive the maximum amount of media attention. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Part of the reasoning for the 9/11 attacks was when the least amount of people would be on fully fueled planes. Tomdobb (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Would the last poster clarify the last sentence? Are you saying that the terrorists did not want large numbers of passengers to potentially fight them off or a concern for safety, which doesn't make sense to me. I lived in downtown Manhattan at the time so perhaps I am sensitive. If it is true, it is interesting.75Janice (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)75Janice

I have read that Janice's first guess is correct. I don't know how reliable the source of this information is. --Anonymous, 04:50 UTC, February 15, 2009.

If I remember Tomdobb's idea, I have heard it before, and I think the rationale wasn't that the hijackers minded killing more passengers, its that they didn't want anyone getting in their way. Remember that on one of the 4 planes, the passengers DID disarm the hijackers and. Full flights mean more of a chance of vigilantes stopping them... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed remember what the attackers here cared about was using their planes as weapons. The passengers as victims were likely of little concern to them. They obviously wouldn't have wanted completely empty planes (which would probably have been far more like to have been shot down) but on the whole passengers would probably have been seen as an annoying distraction. Remember that while getting a large number of victims was surely seen as a bonus, the terrorists clearly weren't just aiming for that. Their targets were choosen due to their status more then simply the number of putative victims Nil Einne (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall the suggestion the London bombers choose morning so it would have a greater effect as a result of coverage throughout the day. Note that with any attack aimed at a transport system, the attack would always be at rush hour so either early morning or late evening (as was the case of the recent Mumbai attacks for example). While I'm not sure, early morning might often be better in the Western world since the greatest density may be then (since I think there's a larger difference in the time people finish work then start work) Nil Einne (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this one? The Oklahoma City bombing was also one that happened in the morning, right after the workday officially started. Anyone's guess is just as good as mine.72.229.135.200 (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't I hear that McVeigh was delayed on the way there? Or is that wishful thinking (that he meant to blow up a nearly empty symbol of the oppressor)? —Tamfang (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You attack transit in the morning because that's when it is most heavy (going to work). You attack buildings mid-morning because everyone has arrived to work. Additionally if you are a clever terrorist you want a full day's news cycle to monopolize. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The 9/11 terrorist pilots also were flying by sight, so they needed a clear view. Additionally, there is a rush hour in the morning and another in the afternoon. The problem, from a terrorist viewpoint, is that after an attack on the afternoon authorities have plenty of time to clean until the next working day. --Mr.K. (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

what is the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli civilian deaths?

I am not looking to start any debate etc, so please no long paragraphs, just simple numbers thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Over what period? AnonMoos (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

total, since it is all recent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There's little agreement on how many of the dead were civilians. For the period since 2000, our article Second Intifada#Casualties has a lot of information. I don't presently have total figures going back to the '40s. Algebraist 03:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

if I'm reading the article correctly, then between 2000-2009:

The sources do not vary widely over the data on Israeli casualties

There is little dispute as to the total number of Palestinians killed by Israelis

so that we can be quite certain of the figure, which is

4,745 Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces

versus

1,053 Israelis were killed by Palestinian attacks

so the ratio is

4745:1053

or

4.5:1 Palestinian vs. Israeli deaths

But what about before 2000? Are there no reliable figures for that period of time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.236.246 (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Casualties has some figures for further back. Algebraist 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Go back further and you'll have to define the area that constitutes Palestine - or whether there is an ethnicity question. I imagine they'll be much harder to find. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I don't think it's that hard to define these things previous to 2000. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Here's an interesting analysis of the casualties of the first two and a quarter years of the so-called "al-Aqsa intifada": [8] . Among other interesting facts, if you just count sex (male vs. female) alone, ignoring all other factors, less than 5% of Palestinian deaths during that period were female, while over 30% of Israeli deaths were female... AnonMoos (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not a statistician by any means, but, as approximately half of the Israeli Defense Force is female, one would expect there to be higher numbers on the Israeli side. I don't know how many women are in the Palestinian forces, but I doubt their numbers are anywhere close to half. "Ignoring all other factors" is not always wise. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC) See comment below. // BL \\ (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the other graphs in the linked article, you will see that women soldiers does not come close to accounting for the discrepancy. AnonMoos (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I find Bielle's estimate unlikely. While women make up approx. 50% of the Israeli population, I'm quite sure they don't constitute 50% of the IDF. Married women, Druze and religiously observant Jewish women are excused from service, there are far fewer women than men in the standing army, nor are the great majority of women called for reserve duty. Though combat roles for women is a recent development in the IDF and not yet all that widespread, a female soldier on active duty would be counted as a military casualty were she wounded or killed. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Have any commentators given reasons to account for the discrepancy in the male/female distribution of non-combatant deaths? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems like we can't immediately rule out the possibility that most of the discrepancy can be explained by a combination of random chance, faulty data and some form of bias in the analysis. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, the default "null hypothesis" is still the following: during that period, the Israelis had a much greater tendency to target combatants, while the Palestinians had a much greater tendency to be indiscriminate. AnonMoos (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A general problem here is that the IDF and Palestinian organizations are not 100% analogous. Israel repeatedly claims that a large number of Palestinian casualities are 'Hamas terrorists' (and thus 'military targets'). However, Hamas is a political movement with 10 000s of members. A Hamas member in his own family residence is not a uniformed military combattant, and bombing his residence is an attack on a civilian. The equivalent of the Israeli discourse would be if Palestinian organizations labelled all IDF reservists (i.e. virtually all adult Israelis within a certain age-span) as 'military'. --Soman (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

They really don't bother to limit it to reservists; Yusuf al-Qaradawi has declared that since Israel is a militarized society, basically any attack against Israelis under any circumstances is Islamically legitimate. AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Who are 'they' in your first sentence? It seems like it ought to be Hamas, or perhaps Palestinian militant organizations in general, but then you cite a source who is not affiliated with Hamas, or even Palestinian. Algebraist 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Qaradawi is not Hamas, but his thinking with respect to a number issues (including this one) is similar to that of many in Hamas, and Qaradawi's statements are probably much more comprehensively documented in English-language sources than those of Hamas ideologues. AnonMoos (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Source for that claim? Algebraist 03:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Source for which claim in particular? I linked to the Qaradawi article because I knew it would be a Wikipedia page that would discuss the same line of reasoning which I've also seen expressed by Palestinians in newspaper articles from past years, newspaper articles which I didn't feel like trying to dig up when linking to the Qaradawi article was quick and easy... AnonMoos (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For the claim that Hamas's thinking is similar to that of Qaradawi. Algebraist 04:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The conjectures comparing the two sides and seeking equivalencies are pointless if no adjustment is made for the highly evident and widely disparate natures of the "target" populations and means of fighting. Palestinian militant forces deliberately targeting and attacking Israeli civilian populations from within and without the borders of Israel has been a constant feature of Hamas and Hizbullah activity for decades and even as recently as a few hours ago in the Western Galilee, not far from my home. The terror effect is not adequately measured by number of fatalities. (Note: Ynetnews is an English-language web edition produced by Yedioth Aharonoth, one of Israel's mainstream dailies.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Deborahjay for providing a better look at the number of woman in the IDF. I trusted too much to the Info Box and did not read deeply enough into the article. My apologies to the readership. // BL \\ (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

from 1988 about 17122palestinans:4144 Israelis ratio you calculate the ratio it should be noted theses are western sources that i don't trust in the Arab Israeli conflict This unsigned comment was added at 21:09, February 21, 2009 by User:Nightshadow 2007.

book title

Some once recommended a book to me but I have forgotten the title. The book is quite special as is alternates between the story and a shory commentary of the writer explaining why he wrote the preceding paragraph and what he thought when writing it. Has anyone heard of the book or read it? thanks --helohe (talk) 03:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you know anything about the story? What genre? Any specific country/ period? The more information you give us the more likely it is that someone can find it even if they haven't read it. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's not that one, you might be able to find it in the List of metafictional works. It seems to have been a popular style in Russia. I had gotten as far as Metanarrative, but then got stuck. Richard's link cleared that block. Thks. --76.97.245.5 (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the list was very helpful --helohe (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Poetic Forms

If you create an original poem in your own words but use a form that was created by someone else, are you violating any copyright laws or infringing on any intellectual property , or are you protected because you did create your poem using all your own words?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronos46 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all you should know that we can't give you legal advice. You should talk to an Attorney. Secondly I believe that the standard with copyright is whether you are creating a derivative work. Derivative_work 82.124.81.10 (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You're fine. See sonnet, etc. --Wetman (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The answer will likely depend on the jurisdiction, the complexity/originality/ingenuity of the form, etc. See, e.g. sweat of the brow. I can imagine a situation where the "form" of the poem may be so complex and original that the form itself will attract copyright. For example, the layout of a newspaper is a copyrightable work. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be copyrightable. If the form were a protectable piece of art, he'd be in trouble, like if you walk back and squint your eyes at the poem from 10 feet and it looks like Andy Warhol's Marilyns. Tempshill (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A poetic literary form is not subject to copyright. --Wetman (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for that? There's certainly no problem with the sonnet, which is not only old enough to be out of copyright, it predates the very notion of copyright by 500 years. But the situation might be different with recently invented poetic forms, like... um... have any poetic forms of note been invented in the last 100 years? The clerihew? Nope, slightly too old... -- BenRG (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what you call "form" I guess. A form in the sense of a genre is probably not subject to copyright, but what Tempshill described almost certainly will. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not an answer, but if form (or style or whatever) were subject to copyright then there would have been a single cubist painter, a single phantastic realist, a single space opera or a single rap musician (which may be true). You might as well suggest to pay royalties every time you use a word which has been uttered previously by Chaucer, Shakespeare and Co. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright in the U.S. applies to "original works of authorship" fixed in a tangible form of expression. Ideas, procedures, and methods are specifically excluded. To the extent that poetic forms are procedures or methods for arranging words based on elements such as stress, syllables, or sounds, the forms themselves would almost certainly not be covered by copyright. An original expression in a form, such as a sonnet or a sestina, most likely would be. By way of analogy, you can't copyright the idea of a diet cookbook; you could, conceivably, copyright a book of recipes written in iambic pentameter. The original work would be the recipes themselves, not the meter. --- OtherDave (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oil prices in Canada

(the following is moved from a talk page)

Because of the politics in Canada, can't the government get involved and regulate oil prices for the Canadian people. I still can't see how its posible that gasoline costs more in Canada than in USA when we have oil reserves that they purchase from us (which brings in loads of money). Plus our population is more than 9X smaller, so why isn't gas in Canada cheaper? After all the value of the Canadian dollar shouldn't be part of the answer (even though the American Dollar is only slightly higher in Value than the Canadian dollar) since we don't need to export anything to distribute it to the Canadian people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.249.55 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps Canada has fuel taxes (which are intended to pay for a lot of useful things)? Please notice that the USA is currently "addicted to oil" exactly because for decades they had plenty of cheap fuel available. IMHO this was in the long run a huge disadvantage as the car industry in particular, and the whole society in general, saw and had little reason to moderate their spending. A "tipical consumer of the rest of the world" has precious few reasons to buy a tipical fat American car that guzzles gallon after gallon. It's simply way too expensive. And AFAIK on average a person of the US spends way more fuel than a citizen of any other country whatsover. And this comes with economic and political consequences and a huge prize tag. Flamarande (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC) my own opinion and OR

To put it in a little perspective, Canadian's pay around/just under 1 Canadian Dollar per litre (about 55p GBP) compared with 90p - £1 in Britain. Here, the government doesn't get involved because it already is - to the tune of around 70% of the pump price. Besides, there's a definite conflict between a) maintaining relations in the Middle East (considering they can double world oil prices overnight), b) maintaining 'green credentials', c) making money and d) not wishing to interfere in commercial processes, which generally shouldn't be messed with. You may wish to see this source from about 6 months ago. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Canada has very little final good (gasoline, jet fuel, heating oil) refining capacity. Most refineries (see List of oil refineries, Canada section) exist to get dirty crude up to standard for international sale. Much actual gasoline production takes place in the Gulf region of the US. Being an internationally traded and standardized commodity, (traded @ the NYMEX), any significant price differences between Canadian and international prices would encourage arbitrage. Domestic producers would buy or sell into international markets when prices were significantly different.

Canada does, however, interefere in other ways. Most major cities include very large (10 cent/litre +) provincial transit taxes and municipal levies. BC has a provincial carbon tax. Farm fuel [[9]] programs subsidize agricultural gasoline. NByz (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There is yet another matter: the price of oil is not just one price. Right now a very unusual thing has happened -- "West Texas Intermediate", the light, sweet, "good" oil that is generally preferred, and generally more expensive, is ten bucks a barrel cheaper than the heavier, more sulfurous oil produced elsewhere, including Canada. The reason is that demand has fallen off in the U.S. and the stuff has been filling up huge storage tanks, while demand for this oil elsewhere has not fallen off as much -- and there aren't enough pipelines to move the different grades around. So prices of the different oil grades have gone upside down. For a while, at least, this may be a factor in gas price differential. Curiously, a lot of U.S. gasoline comes from "Brent" crude, which is from the North Sea, and is refined on the East Coast. Here is a recent AP news item on it. Antandrus (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Canada certainly could regulate gas prices if it wanted to, but there are some serious downsides to doing so; capping prices would reduce government income if international prices rose, and might result in the price having to be subidised if they went high enough (including subsidising the Americans who came across the border to buy it). The questioner seems to be assuming that low gas prices are a good thing, and that's not necessarily true. If nothing else high gas prices encourage people to reduce consumption which is good for the planet and reduces dependency on foreign imports. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Any economist will tell you that price-fixing distorts consumers' incentives by masking the true costs, and thus results in consumption patterns inconsistent with the efficiency principle, i.e. the goal of getting the most benefit out of the resources available. If you're an oil producer and you find that you can't sell gasoline above $X, you'll divert your oil to some other use, even if the consumers want gasoline enough that they'd pay more for it if it were on offer. Thus you get a shortage of gasoline and over-production of something else. —Tamfang (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Good topic for an argumentative paper

I am currently working on my second argumentative paper for my college English class and the third one is right around the corner. We chose our own topic for the first one and were assigned one for our second. We can choose our own topic for the third one, but I am out of ideas. I was thinking about doing something history-related like my first paper on the origins of the Kaifeng Jews. Perhaps on the first crusade. Can anyone think of something that I could convincingly argue and find supporting sources for? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind a lot of work "effects of the Mongol Empire on conquered territories" would be something not everyone does and there are definitely two opinions on that one. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

For the First Crusade, you could argue about whether the crusaders were motivated by greed or religion, which is a standard question in crusade history. Thanks largely to me, our article is currently a useless mess, but it should be easy to find arguments either way. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Easy. Free will or determinism? Tempshill (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Both Adam and Tempshill's suggestions lend themselves to the classic essay conclusion 'that's a false dichotomy'. I don't know if that would be appropriate for whatever you mean by 'an argumentative paper' though. Algebraist 16:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but if I remember classes like that correctly, they weren't about being logically consistent, they were more about developing essay-writing skills. Like debate clubs, where the goal is to learn how to speak in public. (But this is probably why public figures can only speak or write in false dichotomies...) Adam Bishop (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Where I come from, at least, the ability to critically attack the question is an essay-writing skill. Algebraist 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

But you're British and therefore inherently more sophisticated! Over here we are constrained by the five paragraph essay! (And contrary to the article, the middle three parts are usually "repeat whatever you read".) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Five paragraphs might (just) be an essay for a first-former, but not beyond. DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the paragraphs are really enormous? That could be even worse, though… Algebraist 22:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Algebraist, these essays are double-spaced, so the paragraphs are not as big as you would think. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

WWI Survivors

Were there any soldiers who were at the Front Line on the first day of WWI as well as on the last day (i.e. from the first moment that that army was in the war right to the end, besides armies that joined later, such as the US), and survived?--KageTora (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Undoubtedly there were people who were in the armed forces for all combatants at both the start and end of WWI, however it is kinda hard to define the "start" of the war, as hostilities began in different places at different times. Considering that some 70-80 million military personel fought in these wars, it is entirely likely that many people were on active duty for the full 4+ years of the war, probably hundreds of thousands, if not several million. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

One of my books states that Corporal Edward Thomas, the first British troop to fire a shot in the war, survived until the Armistice. Hope this helps.--NeoNerd 21:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Most armies rotate their soldiers at the front lines. No sane general would let one guy directly at the frontlines for 4 years. A few weeks (or days) fighting and then some time away from the front. --Michael Sch. (talk) 11:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

February 16

Ismaili Mustalis and Nizaris

Is there any Arab Shi'a Muslim who is either belongs to Mustali or Nizari? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.7 (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the Nizari article, there are "about 15,000 [ Ismā'īlī ] in western Syria" that do not follow the Aga Khan IV, so I'd assume that there are others that do. I'd guess there would be some Arabs in that group. NJGW (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We have an article on Mustaali... AnonMoos (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Boiling to Death

The question on the science desk reminded me of a newspaper story that I want to find but frustratingly cannot remember any proper nouns/specific details about. A teenage girl was abducted by a man hoping to extort money from her parents. Her father, believing the kidnappers would not kill her because doing so would eliminate any chance of financial gain, engaged in brinksmanship. He adamantly refused to pay the sum demanded unless it was lowered significantly (by 80%?). After finding out that even torturing the girl wasn't even enough to get him money, the kidnapper threatened to boil her alive. To the father's surprise--he said something like "Oh? So he doesn't want the money?"--he carried out the threat.

This story is from around two years ago. I read it on the Internet, so it might have happened virtually anywhere in the English-speaking world. Can anybody find it? --99.237.96.81 (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

perplexing why it would have had to happen in the English-speaking world, unless that's all your news sources cover? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.97.16 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't bite. If you have no answer for the question, remain silent. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason is simple: this news story is from an English article that I believed was describing a local event. I could be wrong, though, considering that I don't remember enough details to find any related information. --99.237.96.81 (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's biting. It's a valid question based on the phrasing of the OP's question Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What a father. Are you sure that it wasn't an urban legend? There are many stories of very brtual crimes like that on the Internet which usually began as chain emails: ...and if you don't send this to 15 people by midnight, their ghosts will come and boil you! That kind of thing Library Seraph (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It could have been an urban legend, but I don't remember doubting the legitimacy of the website; it looked like a site of a newspaper. About the comment "what a father"--well, not everybody has millions of dollars to spare, and not every kidnapper can judge how much money the victim's family is financially able to pay. Taking a hard line may have been the best choice for both parties with the information they had. --99.237.96.81 (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you just hand over the money this time then you are encouraging others to do the same thing. (That's the reasoning behind "don't negotiate with terrorists" policies.) --Tango (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There was no boiling involved but the brinkmanship sounds like the story at the bottom of this page--Digrpat (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think cutting off fingers to prove you are serious when someone refuses to pay is particulrly uncommon when it comes to kidnappings sadly Nil Einne (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Historical forms of address

A&C Black's Titles and Forms of Address (for example) is a useful summary of modern customs regarding titles and addresses. But when did these customs become established? We now have a very strict hierarchy and order, and would never address a knight as "my lord", or an earl as "your grace". Were these distinctions always as rigorous, or might a man have called his master "my lord"? Also, how might kings and queens be addressed in the past? I know "Your Majesty" is not an old form, and while Queen Elizabeth II is addressed "Ma'am" (after the initial "Your Majesty"), I can't imagine anyone addressed Queen Elizabeth I so familiarly. And were there similar forms and traditions in other languages, or did they develop independently? (I did try to search Wikipedia for these answers, but the various title pages seem to discuss only the current forms.) Thank you in advance for your comments. Colours Blazing (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have the impression that the rules in Tudor times were more variable and less elaborately codified than in the 19th century... AnonMoos (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember watching a programme (UK television - may have been Channel 4) which claimed that "Your Majesty" was invented by Henry VIII. Before that, monarchs had been referred to as "Your Highness". On another TV programme about the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire, the staff referred to them as "Your Grace" to their faces - saying "Yes, your Grace" in reply to a question, for example. The staff at Longleat (on the BBC's Animal Park series) seem to refer to the Marquess of Bath as "Lord Bath" and "Sir" to his face. I know you're not really interested in current forms, but it seems instructive here. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Forms_of_address#United_Kingdom and Forms_of_Address_in_the_United_Kingdom. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, the formal English usage to do with titles has changed very little since the late 17th century, but the medieval uses were very different. "Your Highness" and "Your Majesty" came into general use in English in the mid 16th century. Elizabeth I was often (but not always) called "Your Majesty", and Shakespeare uses "Your Majesty" in addressing some of his kings - even King Lear. Xn4 (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Your answers are all very interesting, particularly the Shakespeare reference. XN4 - what were the medieval uses? Colours Blazing (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That calls for quite a long essay, but to give you two examples, in the later Middle Ages the wife of a knight was commonly called 'Dame Joan' (or whatever her Christian name was); and before about the end of the 17th century the daughters of English and Scottish monarchs weren't 'Princess Joan', they were usually 'the lady Joan', unless they took on some other title, by marriage or whatever. Both of those uses are so old-fashioned that they can't be looked on as correct any more. Xn4 (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I too have read somewhere-or-other that it was Henry VIII who adopted Majesty (in imitation of some other court) in preference to Grace. I would like to know when/where the whole Your Abstraction pattern got started. —Tamfang (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Australian Floods

Is there a website on resources for Australian floods where I can find detailed information on the causes, reactions, causes, analysis, the responses of emergency services, the processes involved and a timeline about the history of Australian floods that is as detailed as possible?

Thanks in advance. Fuzzymugger (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We have a short article on Floods in Australia, but it does have a reference to a book titled Flooding in Australia. this page contains links to places where you can possibly find that book. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Does Australia have something like FEMA? They should be able to provide such data. (I would assume they are public record, but you may have to go to their archives to get at it.)76.97.245.5 (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

16th-century Latin

Can anyone help in translating this phrase from an engraving by Dominicus Custos? Que conspecta nocent, manibus contingere noli, ne mox peiori corripiare malo ciao Rotational (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Dominicus Custos09.jpg

"They who do harm in gazing refrain from touching with the hands, lest they soon compound the sin." --Wetman (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that the "refrain" in Wetman's traslation should be taken as imperative (or hortatory subjunctive) rather than indicative. Deor (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps more meaningful? "Do not grasp in your hands those things which are harmful, once you have seen them, in case you are soon seized by a worse evil." 196.2.124.248 (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, "Having seen things that harm, do not touch them with the hands, lest the sin soon becomes worse" Rotational (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that - sounds a bit like Jimmy Carter's confession of adultery in his heart! Could you please take a look at these as well? They are all part of representations of the five senses, the illustrating of which seems to have been a popular - or lucrative - pastime of the period. Rotational (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC) File:Dominicus Custos10.jpg File:Dominicus Custos11.jpg

The second one (taste) is "Sweet things are often harmful when tasted with a greedy palate and as wanton pleasures of damnable gluttony"; the third (smell), "Although a flowery garden is pleasing to the nostrils, often gall is hidden beneath the sweet odor." Note that each "caption" is an elegiac couplet. (Also, it occurs to me that the translation of the first one, above, might be clarified by having it begin "Let them who do harm …") Deor (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What is this story?

I read a short story many years ago. The main characters are a boy and his governess. The boy keeps stealing nutmeg for use in an occult ceremony involving a wild animal, possibly a mongoose, which he keeps in a cage or perhaps a shed. The governess' curiosity eventually leads her to investigate, and she is mauled to death by the animal. Lantzy ^talk 19:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sredni Vashtar," by Saki. Deor (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And an excellent story it is too. All children should be encouraged to read & learn from it. DuncanHill (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, Duncan, your comment reminds me of another Saki story. Deor (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A copy of Saki and a polecat-ferret would make an excellent present for any small boy. DuncanHill (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Small boys indeed have an affinity for ferrets, but isn't Saki a taste we acquire with maturer years? Xn4 (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Deor. That had been bothering me for a while. Lantzy ^talk 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sredni Vashtar" culminates in shredding of vascular tissues, it seems. Edison (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Who owns a car dealer's cars?

My local authorised Honda dealer has gone bankrupt, and I've been shocked at how quickly and thoroughly the lot has been cleared - every single car has been removed from the dealership, leaving only a few desks and one very bored security guard. I'd expected to see the cars still there, heavily marked down by the receiver, and probably with some of the sales staff retained to shift the remaining inventory. This leads me to think that maybe the dealer didn't own the cars, that they're in fact owned by Honda (or some Honda-associated dealer-financing company), which has withdrawn all the unsold cars to its own storage facilities (which appear to be several old airfields dotted around the UK). Wikipedia's car dealership doesn't help answer this; for the US the Car dealerships in the United States says the vehicles are owned by the dealer, but financed by the manufacturer - I guess if that's the case in the UK too, and the dealer has run up a big debt with the manufacturer, then I'd guess the vehicles are collateral. So, who actually owns the cars on a UK (manufacturer branded) dealer's lot? Thanks. 87.112.81.29 (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In the usual case you described, where the dealer is the registered owner of the car but it is financed by the manufacturer, then the dealer has the legal interest in the car and the manufacturer has an or the equitable interest in the car. See equity. The precise nature of that equitable interest will probably depend on the terms of the arrangement between them.

This is similar to the situation when you mortgage your house to the bank in England and Wales (under registered title). You are the legal owner of your house - still - but the bank now has an equitable charge over the house. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've heard it said that most goods in the possession of most dealers (including food in supermarkets and so forth) are sold before the suppliers have been paid for them, but for a dealer to be able to pass on a good title to a car, he must surely have it, unless he is acting as an agent for the manufacturer? I'm not sure about the concept of "registered owner" - registration of cars in the UK is to do with keepers, not owners, and although the keeper is often the owner, what is registered is not ownership but physical possession. Actually, it seems to me rather unlikely that the OP's question has a clear answer, as arrangements will surely vary from one business to another. Xn4 (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In the case where a retailer like a supermarket sells a good before actually having paid for it, ownership would still have been with the supermarket. The payment would just end up a payable (liability) on the supermarket's books and a receivable (asset) on the wholesaler's. Account will be settled by payables/receivables clerks based on an agreed upon timing structure. There will usually be a discount for early payment (less than 2 weeks) and a penalty for late (greater than 1 month). This allows the purchasing company to minimize the working capital needed to run the business by aligning receipts with expenditures. The opportunity cost of the money in the bank (working capital) has been minimized.NByz (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that doesn't help the OP's question, unless car dealerships operate in the same way. I don't know :) NByz (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember messy equity cases about lawnmowers and whatnot where the question was who "owned" them when the dealership went bankrupt. The results there depended on the terms of the agreement and also their timing. Will need to check them up. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That must be right. When such agreements are drafted, suppliers need to keep a keen eye on the occurrence of retailer bankruptcies, which have always been a constant problem, to a greater or lesser extent. With relatively expensive items such as new cars, there's a balance to be struck between the risk of not being paid and the risk of losing sales. It seems likely that some dealers can get easier terms than others, at least from some suppliers. Xn4 (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional question

Would the Treaty Clause enable the US to accede to a supranational constitution that had legal supremacy over that of the US? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

From a purely technical point of view, I don't know, but in practical terms it doesn't matter. The US constitution can be changed if there is a large enough majority in Congress, and I can't see such an accession happening without a large majority even it it were legally possible (it would be a political nightmare). --Tango (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The US constitution can be changed if there is a large enough majority in Congress -- uh, not so. A large enough majority in Congress can offer an amendment to the states to be voted on for approval. Much harder. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My bad (not my country!). My point stands, though, I can't see such a treaty being signed without such widespread approval that would allow for a constitutional amendment. In fact, I would expect a referendum to be held. --Tango (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

mmm... I have to disagree. There is rarely "widespread approval" on anything in the US, and certainly appealing to direct popular votes as in a referendum would not get you that in most cases. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And that is why the US in unlikely to accede to a supranational entity. --Tango (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

well, I think there are deeper reasons for why that is unlikely that are unrelated to its treaty process. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You could imagine similar questions coming up, though, in certain other agreements. For example, let's pretend the US agreed to the Baruch Plan in 1946, and now, 60 years later, the International Atomic Authority (or whatever it was they called it) decides that occasionally it might need to search places at random in order to determine whether forbidden nuclear activities are going on there. Does that violate the 4th amendment? Only the courts could tell, of course, but it would set up a tough constitutional question about whose authority has authority. --140.247.243.148 (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Courts have ruled in the past that treaties themselves cannot contradict the US Constitution — that is, you couldn't sign a treaty that violated the first amendment in some way in its implementation. (In other words, treaties and statutes are treated in the same way, constitutionally.) Other than that, I don't think there are any limitations. Whether the supranational constitution was constitutional is an independent question (it might be, it might not). Courts have never (yet) ruled treaties unconstitutional, to my knowledge, but that doesn't mean they can't. More legalistic discussion here. --140.247.243.148 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've heard a contrary argument that foreign parties can't be expected to know the nuances of US constitutional law and therefore treaties must take precedence over the Constitution so that foreign parties can be confident of no "gotcha". I don't buy it, but there are lots of things in settled constitutional precedent that I don't buy (such as the "insular cases"). —Tamfang (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The totality of the U.S. Constitution deals with establishing national sovereignty and states retaining their sovereignty in the proper spheres. I cannot conceive of any circumstances that would lead the U.S. to legally establish intranational sovereignty over U.S. sovereignty. Such a move would run counter to the intentions and dreams of the Framers and every generation of Americans since then. Still, the U.S. Constitution may be amended through ratification. Only the section dealing with two Senators per state is not amendable. In Star Trek time, though, it appears that the former U.S. ceded such power to the United Federation of Planets. So, it is feasible with science fiction.75Janice (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 75Janice

I must confess, I am asking the question for science fiction writing purposes. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WTO The WTO has been used to supersede US law in some cases, and seems to have bypassed the Treaty clause in it's passage/adoption. Search for wto us constitution for all sorts of takes on this. NJGW (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Does the US enforce WTO rulings? Aren't they enforced by the rest of the world on the US, whether the US likes it or not? --Tango (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WTO treaties or rulings don't supercede American law. However, the US is obliged to, in some cases, change its laws and practices to comply with WTO treaty obligations (and rulings are a part of these treaty obligations). Though the WTO is a voluntary organisation, the importance of trade makes its rules pretty much enforceable in practice: don't comply with the rules, and other countries wouldn't trade with you. However, where the laws are changed to comply with WTO rules, it is not the WTO acting by legal paramount force - it's US lawmakers voluntarily choosing to comply with WTO rules in order to avoid adverse trade consequences. This is different to the situation envisaged by the OP. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this isn't always the case. In the on-line gambling story, the result so far is "don't comply with the rules, and the other countries will break your intellectual property laws." So far there's been no resolution, but congress isn't about to pass a law permitting the gambling.[10] We'll see what happens. NJGW (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

February 17

Why is the gov't obligated to help people get out of foreclosure?

I'm referring to the US gov't on the subprime mortgage crisis. Why should taxpayers help out homeowners who got subprime mortgages? If I, for example, don't give full, timely payment for a car, the car will be taken away. I don't expect other people to be forced pitch in so my car wouldn't get repossessed. Shouldn't the homeowners be treated with the same logic? I think it's even worse because those homeowners weren't in good financial status in the first place to get the house. I'm not looking for some right vs left, conservative vs liberal debate here. I'm just trying to understand the logic of those who feel I should help out those who couldn't pay for something they should've never gotten in the first place! (P.S I realize there's enough blame to go around for the crisis. Securitization of the subprime mortgages is one big cause. I don't want this question to be a discussion of the causes of the crisis. 199.76.164.202 (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because lax government regulations and oversight played a significant role in creating the mortgage mess in the first place, and because foreclosing on every mortgage which is behind would significantly worsen the current economic crisis? Also, if banks can get hundreds of billions in government funds, then why can't some cash be directed towards hard-pressed individuals? In any case, few are advocating mortgage aid for people who were always way in over their heads -- it's the marginal cases, who have the ability to make significant payments, but who are still at risk of foreclosure, who are the most eligible candidates for such aid. AnonMoos (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

From a macro point of view, helping struggling homeowners is a targeted fiscal stimulus. Like a tax cut, the extra money that the government distributes will either be directed towards consumption (which helps reduce inventories of consumer goods, encouraging producers to produce more, employing more labour, capital etc.) or savings (in the case of a struggling homeowner, the most obvious place to build savings is via the equity in their home, which helps bolster real estate and real estate-derived asset prices). Is a targeted stimulus better than a regular stimulus (a general tax cut or spending increase)? Difficult to say, but it would have to be analyzed in the normal economy terms: equity (equality) and efficiency.

It's definitely not more equitable. Although it's somewhat progressive - as some least well-off citizens will be the ones who aren't able to make their mortgage payments - the least well off people never even tried to buy a house in the first place, and wouldn't be getting any help. Tax cuts, on the other hand, can be targeted by income. It can't be more efficient. Rather then letting the free market or the aggregate general public choose how to allocate the funds, they are being distributed in an area with a very high marginal propensity to invest in housing.

It's possible that there are externalities when foreclosure happens, and that government is trying to avoid these. The assumption of "costless bankruptcy" is a common one in the economics of finance, but doesn't reflect reality.

It's also possible that the government believes that the environment of fear is resulting in imperfect information or non-rational decision making in real estate, and real estate derived asset markets. If this was the case, and these asset prices are temporarily and artificially depressed, then propping them up temporarily could be seen as offsetting this externality or market imperfection, yielding an 'efficient' allocation.

It's also possible that, since struggling homeowners tend to be in areas hardest hit by the coming recession generally (say: Michigan), distributing funds in this way allows government to target the stimulus in the hardest hit areas.

Without entering a partisan discussion, I would suggest that this policy be better analyzed from the point of view of political science than economics. A few political points:

1) Blue states and swing states have been very hard hit. The hardest hit states will get the most relief under a mortgage assistance plan.

2) Homeowners and people on fixed incomes or social assistance are more likely to vote than others.

3) The democrats ran on a "struggling low-to-middle class assistance" platform. They need to reward these voters with something tangible.

I'm sure others on the ref desk can think of quite a few more political points. NByz (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, you would say "My next door neighbor had it coming... He shoulda never taken on more debt than he needed, and if he gets forclosed, its just deserts" Sure, until his house, and twenty others like it in your neighborhood get forclosed, and even though you've never missed a mortgage payement and you bought your house in a good neighborhood, now through no fault of your own, your house has lost 20 percent of its value, and the good neighboorhood now has twenty houses for vagrants and meth labs and crack dealers to move into. So you tell me? How many of your neighbors in your neighborhood do you want to see get what's coming? This stuff does not exist in a vacuum, and plenty of innocents are being dragged down because of the crisis. The government's responsibility is to protect people who have done nothing wrong. Even if it means proping up those that did. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The more liberal side of politics would add protecting people who have done something wrong but did so under mitigating circumstances. In this case, that includes people who were misled by faulty professional advice (i.e. they were told by a person they trusted that these loans were a good idea). When that crosses the line into fraud and other criminal activities is very gray, but protecting people from the effects of crime is clearly in the government's realm of responsibility. Otherwise this could really be seen as a natural disaster (human nature in this case) and the government also helps out with disaster relief. SDY (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Shouldn't the homeowners be treated with the same logic?" - a car is a disposable item of (normally) considerably less value than a home, your occupation may require you to have a car but it is not in the same league as losing your home either in terms of your finances or life-distruption. "I'm just trying to understand the logic of those who feel I should help out those who couldn't pay for something they should've never gotten in the first place! " - Many would argue that by doing nothing you would be Cutting off the nose to spite the face. The crisis has occured so whilst there are lessons to be learnt about how/why this transpired, the question is what action will have the biggest (positive) impact at the best cost-to-impact ratio? Some Economists have argued that we should let the banks fail, some argue that we should step in and save the banks - others argue for Nationalisation of (more) banks. As it is there is no given definitive answer, but certainly the 'reason' that 'we' are helping (i'm in the Uk so slightly different) is that we are believing that acting now with money will be less costly than trying to pick the country back up again if we let things pan out without any interruption. It happens all the time with government pumping money into industries, seeking ways to prevent shut-down and it happens all the time with private-businesses but in the current climate the problem is the depth and breadth of the crisis means that more 'visible' action is taking place. 09:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk)

The short answer is that you're right: it's fundamentally unfair to reward people for bad choices. Fairness just isn't a very high priority when you're trying to prevent another Asian financial crisis, or worse. --Sean 14:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but that also depends on your how you want to look at "fair" and "unfair". For example, is it fair that people who make bad choices have to suffer the consequences? Maybe. But is it fair that their kids have to suffer as well? Or that their other creditors get the fallout when these people suddenly find themselves in a financial crisis? This "every man for himself" crap is pretty short-sighted. The economy just isn't as simple as it was when squirrelskins and potatoes were considered as (or more) useful than paper money. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's compare the house and car examples. If your neighbor couldn't make his car payment, and it's repossessed, that probably won't have all that much effect on you. If your neighbor's house is foreclosed, however, and it won't sell in this depressed market, and ends up being boarded up with homeless and/or drug dealers living in there, that will have a profound negative effect on you and your home value. StuRat (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The American government is “of the people, by the people, for the people.” In this light it seems natural that if enough of the people are in need of some particular help the government will respond. People vote based on their personal problems, not necessarily what seems fair. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Not taking it to the extreme that StuRat does in his example, homes that do not sell generally drop in property value. Prospective buyers will look at the date the home went on sale and think to themselves "Gee, this house has been on the market for 3 months/6 months/1 years, etc, why hasn't it sold yet? Is there something wrong with it?" This will carry over to YOUR house when people look at homes in the area and think "well, if this house over here can't sell, maybe its something wrong with the area. I don't want to live there" Its poor logic on the behalf of the prospective buyer, but it is what happens. Livewireo (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's more logical than that. Why would a potential buyer pay the asking price for your home if your neighbor's identical foreclosed house is on sale for half that ? StuRat (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Australian Passport

Do you need a passport to travel from Australia to New Zealand? Does the Trans-Tasman passport agreement still apply? Jamie Shaw (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

See [11]. --Sean 14:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You definitely need a passport. If you are an Australian citizen (which I presume you are otherwise you wouldn't be in Australia without a passport) or permanent resident, you probably don't need anything else, even if you want to work (see [12], [13] and [14]). However you definitely should contact the New Zealand high commision to make sure, there are other potential complications e.g. if you have a previous criminal conviction Nil Einne (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You are asking an incomplete question. Perhaps you are asking if an Australian citizen can travel to New Zealand without a visa? You need to be a bit more specific about your question. 118.71.169.174 (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Travel Europe To Australia

Is It Quicker To Go From Europe To Australia Via Aircraft Than Australia To Europe Via Aircraft? Jamie Shaw (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I just looked up Melbourne to Paris and back on a variety of routes, and the trip varies from 20-24 hours of flight time, with the to-Europe direction taking an hour or so longer than the return direction.

Plus half a day more for getting through customs at Charles-De-Gaulle Airport.--KageTora (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're lucky. --Sean 20:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Having headwinds or tailwinds can make some difference in how long a flight or the reverse flight takes. Time zones don't really change how long a flight takes, but can make it appear to take more or less time, when comparing departure and arrival times in the local time zones. StuRat (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparative religion: Jesus

It's the consensus view that Jesus is both fully deity and fully human. In my opinion, this introduces unnecessary complexity, such as the need to answer the questions "did Jesus exist before he was born?"[15] and "did Jesus exist after he died?". (deities in general, and the Christian God in particular, are usually considered to exist eternally)

Question #1: Are there any other religions that share this concept of fully human and fully deity?

Regarding the question of "did Jesus exist after he died?", it's true that deicide is prevalent throughout mythology (see life-death-rebirth deity for more examples). However, Jesus is the only one that I know of where a non-deity was able to kill a diety.

Question #2: Are there any other examples where a deity was killed by a non-deity? --Underpants 14:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for any confusion my handle might cause — this is a serious question, and all of my contributions have been done in good-faith. --Underpants 14:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean the consensus view among Christians? There isn't a general consensus view. Doesn't the Bible say something like "In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was God and the Word was with God"? The "Word" here is mean to be Christ (see Christ the Logos), so that would suggest he existed before he was born. And Christians frequently pray to him, so that would suggest he still exists now (ie. after his death). But you really can't discuss this without discussing the concept of the Trinity, and I'm not sure there is even consensus among Christians about that. --Tango (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the questioner means 'consensus among Christians', and among Christians overwhelming belief is Trinitarian. Those who dissent from it number only a few percent of Christians.

Question 1: I know of no belief system that has a corresponding concept to this. Several polytheistic religions allowed for 'hybrids' between Gods and humans, but those demi-gods didn't have the full nature of both. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, in some traditions, Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu who, in some traditions, is the supreme being and, in some traditions, Krishna was killed by a mortal with an arrow. Haukur (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This notion of "deity" you are talking about is an extremely monotheistic notion, and so your question doesn't apply to polytheistic religions. I mean, when you ask "has there ever been a person in mythology that's both human and god?", then yes, obviously there have been. There's been lots of them. But when you phrase it so specifically, "is there anyone that's both fully human and fully a deity", you're framing it in a way that really only applies to monotheistic religions

Take Heracles for example. He's a human and a god at the same time. Sure, you can argue that he's not fully a human and fully deity, but he certainly fits the bill. You can argue (and many have) that this whole hypostatic union thing in Christianity is just a variation on the same theme.

As for question two, this again is sort-of out of context if we're talking about polytheism. In Christianity, there's only one god and everything supernatural somehow comes from him. That's simply not the case in polytheism, there's lots of different variations of "deity". Was Medusa a deity? Is the Sphinx a deity? There isn't really an answer, because the monotheistic concept of "deity" simply doesn't apply.

But, for fun, lets explore the possibilities. If we assume that these guys are deities, then the answer is obviously "yes". Medusa was killed by Perseus (by the way, she was the daughter of deity, so it's fair to assume she was one as well) and Oedipus made short order of a Sphinx. But now, lets assume that these things aren't deities. If we can't consider Medusa a deity, surely we can't consider the Giants of Nordic mythology deities either? I mean, they're just hulking guys walking around. But Loki was a giant (a non-deity, by our hypothesis), and he killed Baldr, unquestionably a deity. So it seems that the answer would yes either way.

My point with that little ridiculous argument was "don't come over here with your monotheistic concepts of human and godlike. We polytheists do our own thing! You can't really compare your conceptions of divinity with ours!" Your questions don't have good answers, because it's comparing apples to oranges Belisarius (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call the question ridiculous - I think my Krishna answer is a fairly reasonable parallel. And while it's true that pagans/Hindus have different conceptions of deity than the Abrahamic religions you should not forget the demiurge and the brahman. Haukur (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I had guessed that the diety/non-diety distinction was a result of the recent focus on philosophical/scientific naturalism, but you're totally right, it's a distinction that really only has importance under a monotheistic mindset. (it's only when you say "there can be only one god" that it suddenly becomes important to pin down exactly who is a god and who isn't) Thanks for broadening my horizons, it looks like I finally have enough reasons to dive into Hellenistic polytheism. --Underpants 23:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, that's very nice of you to say, I'm happy to broaden horizons! BTW, if you wish to broaden your horizons even further, don't just focus on the Hellenistic mythologies, there's a whole bunch of mythologies and gods that no one cares about that's way more fascinating. My favorites are the Aesir, Odin and Loki and those guys, but there are many more. There's Gilgamesh, Anansi, Cúchulainn, Quetzalcoatl and many more. Maybe it's just me, but I find all these guys endlessly fascinating.

Haukur: when I said "ridiculous", I was referring to my own little argument about whether you could consider Medusa and the Sphinx a deities or not. It was sort-of a reductio ad absurdum, but with gods instead of math. The question is not ridiculous at all (look how much fascinating conversation we got out of it!), and your Krishna-answer was excellent, and well to the point. I was just trying to make about how differently people view gods depending on whether they're monothestic or polythestic, that's all :) Belisarius (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Mini-comment: many consider Jesus to have been in voluntary control of the moment of his own death, because of the verse where he said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit; it is finished" and then "gave up the ghost." So, if one buys that, it wouldn't be a case of an immortal being killed by a mortal. --Masamage ♫ 23:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite sure there are still monophysites around in the Eastern church. You might also find that a lot of people casually hold monophysite doctrine without realising it. See also monothelitism and miaphysite. Steewi (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe no one mentioned Gilgamesh, who was two-thirds god and one-third human, a nice trick if you can manage it. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The article Athanasian Creed explains the views of many mainstream Christian denominations. That creed, at least 1500 years old, says there is only one God. That God exists as three persons. The Son is "infinite," "eternal," "begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother." Per the creed, he died, descended to hell, rose from the dead, then ascended to heaven. This creed would logically have had the two persons of God called The Father and The Holy Spirit living, during any time the person called The Son was dead. This creed seems to say that he existed before he was born as a human, and then he was made man, and died, then was resurrected, then exists eternally. A cartoon once depicted the Christian God saying to humans "Don't make me come down there!" Edison (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

@Belisarius - This is some real nitpicking, but Oedipus didn't make short work of the Sphinx, she killed herself (leaped to her death) and Loki didn't kill Baldr, he gave the mistletoe weapon to Höðr to perform the deed - and Höðr was a deity. In the main, however, I agree that the question is difficult to apply to non-monotheistic religions. Matt Deres (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To pick the nits on your nits, the version of the story in Gesta Danorum presents Baldr as a god and Höðr as a human. Haukur (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of both of those two little counter-arguments, but I choose to ignore them :) It's true, Höder (I don't have an Icelandic keyboard, and that was how I was taught his name was spelled, so I'm going with that) was the one who fired the arrow, but lets face it, it was Loki that killed Balder. Höder didn't know what he was doing, and if the case had gone to a modern trial Loki would be the one who would be convicted, not poor blind Höder. And indeed, he was the one who got the worst punishment, even though Höder suffered too (being killed was down-right merciful in comparison to what happened to Loki. And Höder will be resurrected after Ragnarök, so you know, no harm, no foul).

As for Oedipus, it's true, all he did was answer the riddle correctly. It technically would have been more correct to state that he "defeated" the Sphinx, but it's all the same in the end. The Sphinx is dead, and she wouldn't have been had not Oedipus mastered her.

However, my nits are rightly picked. I should perhaps have been more specific, but the stories I mentioned were only incidental to my main point about the different conceptions of deities, and I didn't want to clutter up my argument.

(can I just say how much I love the Humanities Reference Desk! Whenever I start droning on about these things in real life, people just roll their eyes and don't care one lick. But then I come here, and find a whole cadre of people who think these things are just as fascinating as I do! And way smart people, too! I love you guys!) Belisarius (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ivan Vasilievich

In Leo Tolstoy's short story, After The Ball, the incidents are narrated by one Ivan Vasilievich. Though this person is not shown to be "terrible" at all, is this name an allusion to the actual name of Ivan The Terrible (which was Ivan Vasilyevich)?--Leif edling (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but from the article, "The epithet "Grozny" is associated with might, power and strictness, rather than poor performance, horror or cruelty. Some authors more accurately translate it into modern English as Ivan the Awesome." NJGW (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There are apparently references to the Empress Elizabeth, Tsar Peter the Great, and Tsar Nicholas I in the story, and the vocabulary is "high and courtly" throughout, but only "to turn a provincial ball into a representation of the imperial court as a whole".[16] I can't see any evidence that it was based on real people or events. Ivan as a given name and Vasilievich as a patronymic are both extremely common in Russia, and so it would be very unlikely, without any specific evidence, that a narrator called "Ivan Vasilievich" has anything to do with our "terrible" friend, Tsar Ivan IV. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Finnish War Film & German War Film

Does anyone know the name of a brilliant war film made in Finland in the 1990s? I cannot remember the name, but it was about a small platoon of Finnish soldiers fighting the Russians. Some details: It was all in Finnish. The soldiers were on bicycles. The main character looks like Jude Law. Also, does anyone know the name of a German war film, also from the 1990s, about a German soldier captured by the Russians and sent to work in Siberia. He escapes and ends up walking back to Germany, via Iran. It has '9,000km' in the Japanese title, if that helps. (Sorry, I watched both of these films in Japan). TIA. --KageTora (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the second film, see [17] and [18]. Oda Mari (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks, Mari! Now I just need the other one!--KageTora (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Talvisota? If that's the one I half-remember, it is brilliant. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Might be Rukajärven tie. See [19] and [20] too. Oda Mari (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Finnish film's definitely Rukajärven tie, or Ambush, as some extremely imaginative person saw fit to rename it for the English language release. (The literal translation would be "The Road to Rukajärvi". Rukajärvi is a municipality (as well as a lake) in Karelia, Russia, and it was occupied by Finns during the Continuation War.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That looks like the one, 'Rukajärven tie'! Thanks again! I watched the original Finnish one with Japanese subtitles and thought it was brilliant, but now I have the name, I can look for one with English subtitles.--KageTora (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

US Democrats and US Republicans

I am looking for the link to the Wiki archive question regarding US Democrats and US Republicans. I believed someone originally asked why it seemed that the US Republicans are very conservative and (I think) anti-NAACP while the US Democrats are not. Then someone answered that the Republicans were the ones that freed the slaves. But then someone answered that today's Republicans are defintely not the same ones that Abe Lincoln was a part of and that these are just labels. Does anyone remember or know the link to this? --Emyn ned (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this it ? Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008_June_21#Who_decided_left_and_right_wing..._ie._social_conservatism_and_fiscal_conservatism_go_hand_in_hand. StuRat (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. Thank you very much. --Emyn ned (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

StuRat (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal question regarding polygamy.

I've been meaning to catch up on the show Big Love for quite some time now, so I marathoned through the first season this weekend. I enjoy it very much (the cognitive dissonance you get from watching that show is enough to give you an aneurysm), but I have a question about it:

In case you haven't seen it, it's about a "modern" polygamist named Bill living in Utah with his three wives, Barb (his first wife and the only legal one), Nicky and Margie. They live in the suburbs in adjoining McMansions, and Bill rotates the nights he spends with each of his wife (so every wife gets every third day with him at night). Everyone is grown-up and everything is consensual.

My question is this: is he actually breaking any laws? I don't mean in the libertarian sense ("they're grown-ups, they should be allowed to do anything they want!") that what they're doing shouldn't be illegal, I mean does there actually exist a law in the state of Utah or the United States that they are breaking? My point is, he's only legally married to one of them, she's the only one that the state of Utah considers his wife. He doesn't have three marriage certificates. He's not cheating on his taxes. Beyond that, what can you really legislate about? I mean, from a legal standpoint, if you can convict him, you really should be able to convict any adulterer, right? How can the state just go in and tell him who he has to sleep with? Isn't there an amendment and a recent supreme court case that specifically states that as long as everything is consensual and with grown-ups, the state should butt out of what people are doing in their bedrooms? Belisarius (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, technically adultery is illegal in Utah. It is a class B misdemeanor as defined in Utah Code Sectoin 76-7-103. Also see the section on bigamy. Part of the bigamy definition also defines a bigamist as a married person who "cohabits with another person." So Bill may only have one official marriage, but authorities in the show could use the cohabitation definition against him. Laenir (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In practice, no Utah sheriff would arrest him, and no Utah prosecutor would charge him. --Carnildo (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am curious as to whether these polygamous groups have brought a U.S. Constitutional challenge under the Free Exercise Clause. If I am correct, the Court ruled on this in the past. Would a renewed challenge work? Some crimes are so heinous that they are not protected as a religious exercise. Certainly, though, polygamy as a crime is attenuated for the adults. Times seem to be changing. I believe the state has a right to protect children, though. 75Janice (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC) 75Janice

Sherbert v. Verner#The_Sherbert_Test -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Guns for roses

So some police departments in the US swapped working guns for a rose and $100 in vouchers.[21] I'm not American so I have some questions: how much is a typical second hand gun worth? is it hard for people to sell second hand guns themselves? thanks 121.72.165.27 (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Price varies, like anything else, based on as-new price and condition. You can get new "junk gun" for as little as $50; this discrepancy has been exploited in the past, where licensed gun dealers have gone to police buyback events with a big box of brand new junk guns and made a profit from trading each one in. Secondly, legally, most (all?) states have laws that control how handguns are sold and require paperwork for both parties in the transaction - so if the gun isn't legally held, it' can't legally be sold. Of course there's a black market in guns, but given the price of legal handguns the price of illegal ones on the black market isn't very much. I guess prices for things like Ak-47s and machine guns, which are much more difficult to legally own, will thus command a much higher black market price (and you won't see too many in the cops' tradein). 87.113.5.56 (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would love to see police officers armed with roses and vouchers to give out. DuncanHill (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Federal law (as I misunderstand it) is not concerned if you sell a gun casually, provided that the buyer is not prohibited from possessing it and selling guns is not a regular business of yours (this is the "gun show loophole"); there may also be a requirement that both parties be resident in the State where the sale occurs, I don't remember for sure. If you make a business of selling guns, then you need a Federal Firearms License; a condition of holding this is that you go through all the paperwork hoops. The State of California forbids gun transfers except to or from a FFL holder (but this doesn't stop California politicians from campaigning against a nonexistent loophole!). I once heard two acquaintances agreeing to a fiction that their transaction was taking place in Nevada. —Tamfang (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you might be right on that they have to live in the same state. Is it the Sherman Antitrust Act, or something like that? Anyway, being a resident of Canada, I really don't know for sure. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 22:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why Antitrust?? I think it's the Gun Control Act of 1968; Lee Harvey Oswald bought his rifle by mail, so obviously we can't have that. —Tamfang (talk) 01:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a Science Fiction book I read ~17 years ago.

I read a book when I was ~10 years old (~1992) and for the past several years have been trying to find it again. The book was about a young man who was playing a flavor of "laser tag" and was achieving a high score. When he achieved that high score he was recruited by a group of aliens (of different species that were recruited in the same manner) that wished to utilize his skills on the battlefield. I thank you for your time, have a great day!

Could you be referring to the novelization of The Last Starfighter? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just coming to post Warriors of Kudlak, but that was an episode of The Sarah Jane Adventures, not a book from 17 years ago. --LarryMac | Talk 21:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right I wrote that prematurely, I thought I had erased it :|

You did, but you blanked a lot of other stuff too, so I put it back because I thought you made a mistake :) Sorry! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sort of sounds like Ender's Game, though the details are different. Ed's guess is good, too. --Masamage ♫ 22:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You're thinking of Space Demons by Gillian Rubinstein. There is a sequel called Skymaze. Steewi (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If it helps at all I remember a sequence in the book where one of the aliens that was recruited confused the enemy by firing from multiple locations to make it seem like they were surrounded. Thanks for the help so far guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.247.227 (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it could be Only You Can Save Mankind by Terry Pratchett? Although I don't think that was laser tag, so maybe not...Duke Of Wessex (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ender's Game was my first thought after The Last Starfighter, sounds like a description of the battle room. Just remember the enemy's gate is down! Lanfear's Bane | t 15:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Chateauneuf castle

hello, I would like to know if someone at Wikipedia can expand on the Chateauneuf castle in Saint Germain en Haya, preferably if it can have its own article outside of the Chateau at Saint Germain en Haya article, also I have some questions about the Chateauneuf, and would like to know if there is some historian I could contact to talk to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maracx (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia has an article, "Château-Neuf de Saint-Germain-en-Laye", which I will now attempt to translate over to the English Wikipedia. (I assume that you meant "Laye". I'm going to scold you now for asking such a hard question and giving us bad information through carelessness.) If you look at the talk page for the article "Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye" you will see banners for several WikiProjects, including France and European History. The links in those banners will take you to the project pages where you can ask what you like on their talk pages. This link will turn blue when I've started the article: Chateau-Neuf de Saint-Germain-en-Laye. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Milkbreath, the OP is Mexican and en Haya may be not French. Btw, the article has a date typo @ 177 that needs fixing. Looked for it but didn't turn up anything. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

LGBT holidays

Does anyone know of any lists of LGBT-related holidays or days of note - the type with birthdays of notable figures in the LGBT community, dates of key LGBT rights laws or treaties being put into effect- that kind of thing. Thanks. Sam 23:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs)

List of LGBT holidays? Timeline of LGBT history only shows years. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's precisely what I was looking for! D'oh, I can't believe I overlooked that page.

February 18

Cambodian Kings.

Norodom Suramarit says he was king 1955 - 1960 and that he was Norodom Sihanouks father.

Norodom Sihanouk says that he was king from 1955 - 2004.

Sisowath Monivong says that he was king from 1927 - 1941, when he was immediately succeded by Norodom Sihanouk

doesnt take much to see there are some serious incontinuity issues here...

Okay, it seems there are some overlaps, abdications and other things. I get N. Sihanouk made king by the French at 18 which must be 1940 or 1941. When he abdicated in 1955, his father N. Suramarit took over until his death in 1960. S. Monivong was Sihanouk's grandfather. Looks like the succession was preempted by the French putting Sihanouk on the throne hoping for a puppet king. He didn't comply[22]. Then again succession may have been from the grandfather to the grandson because Suramarit was Monivong's son-in-law and only became king when Sihanouk abdicated in his favour. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Percy Shelley's politics

I just read Percy Shelley's The Mask of Anarchy in which originated (?) the famous phrase “We (originally: Ye) are many — they are few.” While I see no reason this couldn't be applied to any popular uprising, I've often heard in reference to socialist and/or anarchist causes. And yet, quite centrally, Anarchy in the poem is one of the horsemen, claiming “I am God and King and Law!” This seems like an attack against anarchy and, perhaps, other egalitarian forms of government. The verse: “For he knew the Palaces/Of our Kings were rightly his;/His the scepter, crown and globe,/And the gold-inwoven robe.” seems to fit with other anarchist literature I've read, as well. The next verse, beginning, “So he sent his slaves…,” does (emphatically) not fit with what I understand of anarchy. (How could Anarchy hold slaves?!)

While the articles here indicate to me that Shelley was anti-tyrannical, they don't seem to indicate what sort of politics he espoused. Furthermore, how ironic would it be for an anarchist to borrow the phrase, "we are many -- they are few"? What did Shelley mean by the term Anarchy, anyway?

Thanks — gogobera (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Not quite the same, but makes me think of - because none of us are as cruel as all of us. Lanfear's Bane | t 11:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to explore the periodical literature, for example: Redfield, M. (2002). "Masks of Anarchy: Shelley's political poetics." Bucknell Review: A Scholarly Journal of Letters, Arts and Sciences, 45(2), 100-126. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Librsh (talk • contribs) 11:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't really until a few years after Shelley in the 1840s that Pierre-Joseph Proudhon redefined anarchy as a political ideal worth trying to achieve, before this anarchy mostly held negative connotations. So Shelley is really criticising an anarchic state that can kill its citizens without due process of law. Also, divining Shelley's political views from that poem is not going to be easy as he wrote in in anger and in a hurry after the event and the imagery is deliberately chaotic and can often be rather surreal. Shelley's politics are often simply described as radical as he was typically against much of the conventions of the day but his political ideas had not settled down into some fixed system and there was not really a clear creed around for him to follow at that time either. meltBanana 14:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't know anything about Shelley's specific beliefs, but the closest thing to an anarchist theorist in his time was William Godwin, and he ended up marrying Godwin's daughter. However, Godwin apparently didn't use the word "anarchy" in a positive sense... AnonMoos (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all. One of these days I'll learn my history; it seems that a time-line understanding of the political ideas in question would've gone a long way toward knowing what was going on. And, Librsh, thanks for the reference. Bane, interesting comparison since, in this case, it was the few being cruel to the many. — gogobera (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

phil? plato dubois douglas ect. ideas related in america today

how was democracy seen by these philosophers(plato, dubois, douglas, Aristotle, Hobbes, and Locke) and what are some view of theirs are present in our current day America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.35.34 (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a huge and unformed topic, but you might start by perusing the classic book The Liberal Tradition in America by Louis Hartz... AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like homework.10draftsdeep (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you ask about Plato, W. E. B. Dubois, Frederick Douglass, Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke? Because we do have articles on each of them. They also all wrote books. You could read them to get their own philosophies in their own words. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be difficult to answer your second question without speculating (which we aren't here to do) since many of the listed philosophers died hundreds if not thousands of years before America was even a glimmer in England's eye. Livewireo (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Poetic Technique

I've seen several poems where there are intertwining narratives, usually with one written in italics, that alternate stanzas within a poem. I can't think of an example at the moment - if one occurs to me I'll add it here. Does anyone know what I mean? If so, is there a specific term for this technique?

Thank you,

Daniel (‽) 19:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this too. I googled intertwining narratives poem to see if a separate term for this appeared, but no luck – however, that search did provide many examples. Another one from my own collection is Rupert Brooke's On the Death of Smet-Smet, the Hippopotamus Goddess, which alternates the voices of "the Priests within the Temple" with those of "the People without". The People's words are italicised. (But the Priests' words are not, for some odd reason, in Egyptian type, but Roman. What was Brooke thinking? In his defence, maybe the poem was set in the period when Egypt was ruled by Rome.) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a short story by John Sladek which contains IIRC thirteen nested levels, the outermost one of which is the word 'SHIT' shouted by a character in some of the others. I don't recall the name, nor whether he had a term which described the technique. --ColinFine (talk)

Maybe off topic since you're asking about intertwining narratives, but there is call and response though the article is a tiny stub. It's also liturgical as per Brooke's use and reminds me of modified Greek chorus. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help; I shall have to invent a term, if I do use it. Daniel (‽) 20:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

NYSE and NASDAQ

Are there any large US businesses (similar to Walmart size) that do not participate in any stock exchanges? --Emyn ned (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a list of privately held companies from 2007. The 2008 list should be available, but I'm pressed for time right now. --LarryMac | Talk 20:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Topping that list is Koch Industries, with revenues approaching 100 B US$ and 80,000 employees. Wal-Mart has revenues of just over 400 B US$ and 2.1 million employees. So what exactly do you mean by “similar to Walmart size”? It's lonely at the top; there aren't many corps, public or private, that are so large. — gogobera (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that after the federal government, Wal-Mart is far and away the largest employer in the country. I don't think that any other company, publicly traded or not, comes even close to them. Even such massive companies as General Electric and General Motors don't approach 1,000,000 employees... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Judaism and the Second world war

OK everybody knows that about 5.1 million Jewish people were killed during the second war and they were liberated by an allied victory. My question though is what would have happened to the Jewish faith internationally if their had been a Nazi victory. Would they have been completely annihilated? Or would the international community have banded together to try and protect them. I know this is hypothetical, and thankfully the allies won, I'm just interested in peoples theories on the matter. Thanks, Hadseys 22:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Ref Desk tries to avoid theories about alternate universes. There are a number of good fiction writers who treat the subject. Try Harry Turtledove's In the Presence of Mine Enemies. ៛ BL ៛ (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and normally people believe that it was 6 million Jews not 5.1.--Mr.K. (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe there are legitimate claims to be made between 5 and 7 million. No one knows the number within 900,000. --Sean 00:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It would have been weakened certainly, but not annihilated unless the Nazis could have somehow conquered the U.S. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A little pedantic, maybe, but the Jews were killed during The Holocaust, that's not quite the same a the Second World War - it started a few years earlier. --Tango (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Jews were repressed in various ways before the war started, yes, but if we're talking specifically about the systematic mass killing of Jews, then that didn't start until well into the war. Algebraist 00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your definitions. There were certainly Jews killed before the war (Kristallnacht, for example). I don't know if there were enough killed before the war to make a difference to the statistics. --Tango (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Algebraist said systematic. Before that, it was ad hoc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

First, the Nazis made a distinction between the Jewish race and the Jewish religion. It wasn't so much that they were against the religion as they were against the race. For example, if a Jew converts to another religion, he/she would still be a Jew to the Nazis. Nazis were obsessed with "blood". Second I think it is a common misperception that the Nazis wanted to kill every Jew on the planet. Maybe some of them did, but it wasn't their general policy. Their aim was to get rid of the Jews who lived in Europe (or perhaps the territories they controlled). By 'get rid of' I don't necessarily mean kill. It could also mean relocation (voluntary or forced). But other countries had their own problems with antisemetism and weren't exactly friendly to Jews either. For a while, they considered the Madagascar Plan. After that proved impractical, they started the systematic killing of Jews. When Himmler ordered the roundup of the last remaining Jews in Germany, their non-Jewish relatives staged a protest and the Nazis uncharacteristically backed down. By the end of WWII, there were still some Jews free (for lack of a better term) in Germany. Of course, I haven't really answered your question. Most if not all Jews in territories conquered by Germany and Italy would have been killed. I'm not sure what the Japanese policy was towards the Jews. But internationally, most Jews would have been safe. The idea that one country can conquer the whole world is hugely impractical. It's unlikely that Germany could have conquered the United States, for example. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Fugu Plan gives an insight into the Imperial Japanese attitude towards Jews, and for a wider view there is the History of the Jews in Japan. More germane to the original question is our article on the International response to the Holocaust. Lantzy ^talk 00:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

i am no anti-Semitic or anything but considering Arab and Muslim sources the Jews emerged as the most victorious from the second world war they got Palestine and even till today the world relate any crime they do to the Holocaust and their suffering and thus creating pardons for them despite the crimes they have been doing for 60 years to people that have nothing to do with the what happened in the past which make me think if the holocaust really happened and to the extent the Israelis refer to why aren't they allowing people to do more researches on it it is illegal to deny it i mean that's against freedom but since all concepts have been changed according to what they like so it is okey that's Israel the most peace loving country in the world back to the main point my theory is that Zionism was the biggest benefactor as it allowed them to complete their grand plan which both world wars played a main role in it with the first taking Palestine from the ottomans to a more cooperative country the UK and the second was getting the reason for taking Palestine even for the cost of 5.1 million Jew which may be heavily exaggerated also that happened in Egypt after Israel was created by attacking Egyptian Jews and destroying their homes to convince them that Israel is better wasn't back then. in any case the forces of Zionism was sure of wining the war as Germany would have never won in any case assuming that Germany won Hitler would have died by that time either of assignation or naturally and since the idea of antisemitism was his and his alone (at least to that extent) and Zionism would have no gains in killing more Jews the would simply live normally after some years also the international community would have done nothing as the U.S would have no gains of supporting them just like every country and in fact they would simply cooperate with Germany saying okey they suffered after the first world war it is their right. it should be noted that if Germany would have won many things would have happened so i think that it is impossible to give a right answer

Latin American Human Rights Award?

Hi. Is there a such thing as a "Latin American Human Rights Award" or a "Honorary Award of the Latin American Human Rights Organization"? I'm struggling with two vague sources in a foreign language. Punkmorten (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything reference to either of these terms. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights covers Latin America, so they may have an award scheme. I couldn't find any trace of the 'Latin American Human Rights Organisation', which would lead me to suggest that there is not an 'Honorary Award of the Latin American Human Rights Organization'.MarquisCostello (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Could there be one, or something like it, with a Spanish name? I don't know enough Spanish to check. // BL \\ (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

February 19

"Reciprocal" marriages

Hi! If Family A's brother (John A) and sister (Jane A) are married to Family B's sister (Jane B) and brother (John B) respectively (John A-Jane B & John B-Jane A), what is this type of marriage called? Are there any social taboos or biological/social advantages concerning this type of marriage? Thanks! --Shibo77 (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the marriages have a name, but the offspring of them would be double first cousins. --Tango (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any social taboos to these sorts of marriages. I have them on both sides of my family. My mom has two brothers that married a mother and a daughter. On my dad's side, two of my grandmother's aunts married two of my grandfather's uncles, making THREE close marriages of this sort. In smaller communities, with relatively small numbers of distinct families, it would not be unusual for several close members of the same families to intermingle in that way. As long as there is no close consanguinity usually there isn't any taboos. This article describes identical twin brother marrying identical twin sisters, which they call "Quarternary marriages", so that may be the term you are looking for. It claims there are only about 250 recorded cases of this happening world wide. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What would be the probability that their respective children (double cousins to each other), would be identical, or at least be so similar in appearance as to be virtually identical? (Male-male and female-female only, of course). -- JackofOz (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Double cousins of identical twin pairings have the same consanguinity as true siblings do, so they would probably look like siblings, if not perfect twins. See Double first cousin for a discussion of this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Good. Thanks, Jayron32. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a time when such marriage might have been forbidden. Before Henry VIII married his brother's widow, he got a Papal waiver. (Consider the phrase sister in law literally.) Incest was defined rather differently before Gregor Mendel! —Tamfang (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Different situation entirely. There would have been no problem if Henry VIII had married Arthur's wife's sister. The problem in that case was that Henry wanted to marry his dead brother's wife, not his dead brother's wife's sister... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Which is actually mandatory in some cultures. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

An interesting variation of this used to happen relatively (no pun intended) often, back when siblings were often spread out over many years and widows and widowers were plentiful. Two brothers (say 20 years apart in age) might marry a widowed mother and her daughter, or some variation like that. Widower Samuel Adams, for example, was remarried to Elizabeth Wells, and his daughter married Elizabeth's brother. Not unusual, but it does bring6 to mind the old novelty song, I'm My Own Grandpa. —Kevin Myers 14:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I know of one biological advantage first hand. A child I know was diagnosed with Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome, was classified as a SCID-kid, and was basically kept in isolation most of his life (i.e. as a "bubble boy"). He had three double-first cousins, of which two were perfect bone marrow matches. He got a transfer and is now a (mostly) healthy boy. If not for those double-cousins, the chances of finding a suitable (let alone perfect) match would have drastically decreased and he would almost certainly be dead. Matt Deres (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in the article on Prohibited degree of kinship. I'd summarize it here to answer your question but I'm afraid my mind's still spinning from reading about "wife's son's daughter" and so forth. ---- smurdah^{[citation needed]} 18:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Siblings marrying siblings is a rather common practice in Western societies (as any amateur genealogist could tell you), but I'm afraid I don't know of a particular term for it. One reason for the practice (at least in the past) is that the first pair to wed have already overcome the sometimes-strict religious rules against consanguinity of married couples, so the second pair who have the same ancestry need not worry about that impediment. However, just a few days ago I heard a report on BBC radio of a couple in just this situation who have long been prohibited from marrying in the Greek Orthodox church because it is considered "incest". Here [23] is a link to a news report of the case. Thylacoleo (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it true that the Mongols never lost a battle to a European force?

^Topic says it all. 76.6.56.157 (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Our article Mongol invasion of Europe notes that some did. Under "Later campaigns" it notes that the Poles defeated the Mongols at Krakow in 1287; but that it was something of a Pyrrhic victory for the Poles. It also notes unsuccessful raids against the Lithuanians in 1275 and 1277, and that a force of Mongols was defeated by Ladislaus IV of Hungary in the mid-1280's near modern Budapest. Then there is, of course, the Great stand on the Ugra river, where Ivan the Great defeated the Golden Horde and ended Mongol suzerainity over Russia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If not, you'd need to explain what caused the Mongols to leave Europe. StuRat (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It was the death of the Khan that made them leave, as they all had to go back to Mongolia and elect a new one. This happened three times, apparently. On the thrid occasion, the Mongols didn't bother returning to Europe, presumably because of a new policy by the new Khan. It had nothing to do with whether we beat them, or not.--KageTora (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So an empire collapsed due to a lack of absentee ballots ? StuRat (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

mount everest

how is this site used by the chinese population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkuba4 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

As a start, there was of course the 2008 Summer Olympics summit of Mt. Everest.MarquisCostello (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Frozen assets

I'm trying to find Wikipedia's information on the idea of 'frozen assets' in banking/economics. I've searched for 'frozen assets', 'assets frozen', 'asset freezing', 'freezing assets', 'frozen', 'freeze' and checked the page Asset but with no result. Where can I find this information? Normally I have no trouble finding stuff on Wikipedia, so this suggests some redirects or additions to the disambig page might be needed. 131.111.245.195 (talk) 10:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a page on Asset forfeiture, although this is not quite the same.MarquisCostello (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Try "Frozen Accounts". The first ghit was [24]. // BL \\ (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Castle inheritance

hello there my name is elisha neville and my fathers name is richard neville we have heard for a few years that a castle has been handed down to him in male generations and after reading about the neville history is quite convincing i was wandering if you had any more information on the history you can contact me on #### thankyou very much for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.179.153.84 (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your email address. manya (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about your specific case, but be wary of anyone trying to tell you that you've come into an unexpected inheritance - that's unfortunately a very common internet scam. It generally goes like "you've inherited xxx, but you need to pay lawyers/taxes/bribes to get at it"; in these cases there's no inheritance, and your payment (and identity info) just lines the scammer's pocket). 87.112.89.175 (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be careful, but the Neville family do have castle-owning relations. How did you come into the knowledge? I'd first check this 'castle' exists; preferably by finding it. Then ask the current owners about it - even if it is a scam, I'm sure they'll want to know that their property is involved. If you've (or your father) inherited it, you must be a blood relative of the previous occupant, so they'll know if your inheritance is a possibility. I'd suggest also, though, if it's been on the back boiler (letter a couple of months ago), then it's almost certainly not real - no-one would leave such a building like that for any period of time. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The name of the castle would make this more intreresting for us others.--Wetman (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How did you hear about it? If it was any way other than the previous owner's solicitor contacting you, it's probably nonsense. --Tango (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're probably talking about Warwick Castle. I would have thought the present owners might have something to say about an "inheritance"! Oh and if your Dad thinks he's descended from Richard Neville, then he probably is: many people with English ancestry can trace their descent back to the Nevilles, myself included. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Teenage behaviour

What can I do to convince my 14-year old neice that I have no interest in the actual content of her text messages, MSN messenger conversations, emails, blogs and documents on the family computer or her cell phone? As I'm the family expert on all things "technical", she quite often asks me for help with the computer or cell phone, but if something is left on the screen a strange paranoia suddenly takes hold - turning the screen away, furious clicking to exit programs, covering the screen with her hands, and so on. Is that normal behaviour for a 14-year old girl or should her parents be worried? Astronaut (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds entirely normal to me! DuncanHill (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, perfectly normal. It might help if you make a point of looking away while she hides things or, if you have hold of the mouse, minimise the windows yourself straight away. Of course, it is possible that she's hiding something specific that her parents do need to be worried about, unlikely, but possible. A certain amount of monitoring of children's internet usage is recommended. --Tango (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you're stuck between upholding a PC version of doctor/patient priviledge and you role as uncle/aunt. If she has a problem you need to fix - let her show you/take control first and then when she is comfortable she can hand it over to you to work on. Apart from that the above make sure you look away (and not just your eyes - make it obvious you're not trying to look) and that'll help. As DuncanHill said it's entirely normal behaviour - desire for privacy and fear of embarrassment are probably two of the biggest defining factors of what it is to be a teenager. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah that's a relief. Even though she makes all the right comments when internet safety is discussed, as a responsible adult I was getting worried. Astronaut (talk) 12:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to embarrass her, tell her you've been discussing her behaviour with millions of strangers on the internet. DuncanHill (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) No need to do that. She doesn't want me to see anything of what she's writing, but is quite happy to put at least some of it in a blog for her friends (and millions of others around the world) to read. Crazy eh? :-) Astronaut (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree with the advice you're getting. The kid has enough friends; she needs somebody who loves her looking to protect her. Would you be OK with her sloping off to the local streetcorner to hang out and chat with a mix of criminals of all ages and persuasions? Be afraid, be very afraid of the internet. Watch her like a hawk, and it doesn't matter whether she thanks you later; you're not doing it for any reward other than knowing you've done what you could to help her reach adulthood intact. Although her behavior might be nothing more than teen weirdness, what you've described sure looks exactly like guilty conscience and furtiveness. Am I the only adult who remembers being that age? You try to get away with things, and kids today have more avenues. The kid can have privacy when she earns it by openness and when her brain is full-grown and when she gets married or has her own place. Put a keylogger on her computer (but never, ever read her diary). Protect her. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

She's your niece. You have a responsible-adult role, but you do not have parental role; you may not invade her privacy. If you are going to spy on her, be sure to lie to her; she's going to resent the hell out of you when she finds out, so you may as well delay it as long as possible. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As you say that you are the computer expert of the family and that you have no desire to spy on her, maybe you could tell her about public-key encryption? --Aseld ^talk 01:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

February 20

Please Help!

Hello, I recently joined Wikipedia in order to ask this question. I tried to find it, but could not, and I need it to finish a report...

Why did Eric Arthur Blair used "George Orwell" as his pen name?

Pease help me! Knitemare217 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Our article George Orwell contains the lines

He returned to teaching at Hayes and prepared for the publication of his work now known as Down and Out in Paris and London which he wished to publish under an assumed name. In a letter to Moore (dated 15 November 1932) he left the choice of pseudonym to him and to Victor Gollancz. Four days later, he wrote to Moore, suggesting these pseudonyms: P. S. Burton (a tramping name), Kenneth Miles, George Orwell, and H. Lewis Allways. He finally adopted the nom de plume George Orwell because, as he told Eleanor Jacques, "It is a good round English name."

Algebraist 00:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "George" was for the patron saint of England and thus quintessentially English, and "Orwell" was for the River Orwell in Suffolk, which was a place he held in some affection. I've done some googling and discovered several sites that agree with this (eg: [25] [26] [27]), but none of them provide an authoritative reference for this assertion, so it should be used with care if at all. Karenjc 15:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Catholics

1. What do Chinese Catholics do as regards to having children?
2. Is the One Child Policy enforced on foreigners living in China?
3. How does the Catholic Church in China address the first problem?

Vltava 68 00:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The one child policy (further relaxed in the last couple of years) has never applied to non-Chinese citizens, even alien-residents. The Chinese government has no control with that respect on non-citizens. Steewi (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There are many exceptions to the one child policy. It does not apply to ethnic minorities, for example. Some of these minorities, such as the Hui or the Jews, are generally at least partly defined by religion - though I don't think Catholicism is counted as an ethnic minority. A Chinese citizen of foreign extraction would, in the usual case, be an ethnic minority and thus not be subject to the policy. Chinese citizens who have previously lived abroad are permitted two children. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. How would this affect an ethnic-Han Chinese married to a foreigner?--KageTora (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The status of Roman Catholicism in China is complicated (see Christianity in China for an overview); Catholicism has been in China a long time due to Jesuit and other missionaries, but the PRC government regulates religion, banning sects it doesn't like and tightly controlling the rest. Hence Catholicism in China is officially controlled by the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, rather than being under Papal authority. The article on the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association says the CPCA approves of abortion and artificial contraception in contrast to Vatican teaching. The Vatican seems unwilling to break ties with Chinese Catholics even if they obey the CPCA, but the Vatican doesn't accept the Chinese government's authority over Catholicism either. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist Attack on Big Ben

Hi friends I read on 20minutos (Spanish newspaper) that terrorists whoa attacked London in 2005 also wanted to attack the Big Ben and the Buckingham Palace. My question is... if they achieved it, would any person die in the Big Ben?, Are people working there?. I read the article of the Big Ben but there's no mention about attempted terrorist attack in July 2005. Thanks and forgive spelling mistakes. Greetings all! --190.49.118.197 (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Big Ben is in the clock-tower at the Houses of Parliament, so it would be an enormous terrorist attack and whilst it might be that it was low in terms of number of people it would be huge in significance - it would be an attack on an icon. Add in that depending on the 'time of day' there would be potentially thousands of tourists that could be injured/killed by falling debris etc. Of course to understand the terrorist policies you have to consider that they focus heavily on symbolism and the knock-on effects that an attack would have. You don't have to kill thousands to get the attention and spread fear to millions of people. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, depending on the nature of the attack, you might wipe out several hundred MPs - that would be a pretty successful terrorist attack. --Tango (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There would also be the knock-on effect of BBC Radio 4 losing the bongs before the news. AllanHainey (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

^{Of course, Radio 4 have used other bells before as stand-ins during building work, maintenence etc. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)}

IT would also be very difficult to rebuild Big Ben to how it was, and the effect of an attack on the original buildings of the Houses of Parliament would also be irreparable.MarquisCostello (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the scope of the attack and resulting damage, These Guys would have to find another Quarterback  :) Cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that dude's tough. He played the Super Bowl with a broken rib. However, I don't even think he could take on a 747... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

China

Would it be fair to say that the reason China has been united throughout most of it's existence is because the ethnic and geographic layout of East Asia? 72.200.101.17 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

On the ethnic perspective, it depends on the time at which you take the snapshot of said layout. Historically, what is today "China" was inhabited by a whole range of diverse groups, most of which eventually became assimilated into the Han. Even today, there is great internal division amongst them. What has held the nation together is probably not so much their "ethnic" makeup as a cultural unity which has developed over the centuries and even today is incomplete. I would say the written Chinese language is one of the most important unifying factors. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also say that the original premise is somewhat faulted. The idea that China has been united throughout its existance is a faulty premise. Consider that Modern China includes territories which historically are not populated by the Chinese (Han) peoples, including Tibet, Manchuria, Uigur lands, etc. etc. Also consider that for large amounts of Chinese history there have been competing Han Chinese states, including such time periods as the Warring states period, the Three Kingdoms period, the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period, the Sixteen Kingdoms period, the Southern and Northern Dynasties period, the Xinhai Revolution, the Chinese Civil War period, all represented times when there was no single monolithic Han Chinese state. Just watch the animated gif titled File:Territories of Dynasties in China.gif and you'll get an idea about the ebb and flow of Chinese history... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you define a core central China excluding peripheral territories, then you get a zone roughly equivalent in area to Europe excluding Russia and northern Scandinavia, or roughly equivalent in area to the Indian subcontinent -- yet over the past 2,200 years, this core China has been politically unified considerably more often than than either Europe or the Indian subcontinent, and in some respects is more culturally unified, too (in terms of having only one major written language, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cavemen in literature

When did the present stereotype of a caveman first appear? (By that I mean a group of people living in caves, wearing furs, carrying clubs and saying "Ug". Not meaning 'modern people' who choose to live as hermits in a cave.) In particular, would folk emigrating in the 1840s on the Oregon trail be familiar with the stereotype? -- SGBailey (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think they'd be aware of the sdtereotype because it doesn't fit at all well with Biblical beliefs - as practised by almost everyone on the trail, and probably to the characters to which you refer. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 11:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Neanderthal remains were the first real discovery of fossils significantly different from modern humans, but significantly more connected to modern humans than to apes; however, this wasn't really understood until 1856-1857 (and even then, some claimed that the Neanderthal skeleton was that of a "deformed Cossack" soldier from the preceding century!). Remains of fully modern humans from before the origins of agriculture (ca. 10,000 B.C.) weren't discovered until 1868 (Cro-Magnon). -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So do we have any idea when / where the stereotype evolved? -- SGBailey (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Conan Doyle's The Lost World was published in 1912 with ape-men fighting humans; Edgar Rice Burroughs copied this idea for The Land That Time Forgot in 1915. I can't find any references before about 1912.

IMDb seems to point to a genre of caveman movies in the 1910s, listing D. W. Griffith's Man's Genesis (1912)[28] and Charles Chaplin's His Prehistoric Past (1914)[29]as well as Brute Force (1914)[30], The Cave Man (1912)[31], and later Cave Man (1934)[32]. From the descriptions, Griffiths's characters can't talk (handy for a silent film), and use sticks and stones for weapons, while the hero of Cave Man acts like Tarzan, another source for primitive life, and fights dinosaurs. Stills from Man's Genesis[33] and His Prehistoric Past[34] show the wearing of furs and grass, although Chaplin still has his bowler hat.

Caveman, Category:Fictional prehistoric characters and Category:Prehistoric people in popular culture may have some more information. There seems to have been a genre revival in the early 1960s: The Flintstones began in 1960, two years after B.C. (comic strip). One Million Years B.C. was made in 1966. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if caveman stereotypes might be influenced by circus strongman imagery, particularly as regards the brute strength and one-shouldered fur costume; but I can't find anything earlier than the early 20th century, e.g. Abe Boshes in an undated image[35], so the circus performers may have been influenced by caveman movies. The Circus Historical Society[36] would be the place for research. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There have been heraldic "wildmen" or "woodwoses" in European iconography for a long time, often shown as bearded and carrying huge clubs, but they're not uniformly depicted as brutishly subhuman (in fact, often they're shown as fine physical specimens influenced by classical depictions of Hercules), and they have no real association with caves, that I'm aware of... AnonMoos (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If I recall, the idea of "cavemen" specifically dates from the mid-19th century, coinciding with the widely-reported discovery of Neanderthal remains in Europe. Europeans of that period were fascinated with the idea that even "civilized" people like themselves had a pre-civilized, "barbaric" stage of life where they were essentially brutes. Tracing the evolution (har har) of this particular trope would be quite interesting, as it is one of those things that everybody "knows" today but nobody really knows why they know it, but it was well-established by the time people like Darwin and Galton were writing on the evolution of men. Darwin in particular draws on this idea in Descent of Man as a way to counter the accusations that Europeans and "savages" from other parts of the world were not the same species (he shows that civilization is just a layer over the basic barbaric frame). I don't think Americans in the 1840s would have been aware of the idea, though. I imagine it made its way into cheap Victorian literature a lot earlier than the "classics" described above. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've edited some of the fruitful thoughts above into Wikipedia's weak article Caveman. Anyone interested might want to improve it further. It needs your help--Wetman (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks wetman. -- SGBailey (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It might not be a stereotype - see Cerne Abbas giant 89.241.159.20 (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Stereotypes can be based on real difference, rather than just imagined ones. Just because some images show this type of 'caveman' does not mean it isn't a stereotype, because there are bound to be cavemen that don't ift into that group. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Succession

Duchess of Saxony, yes or no? This should be a title for the pre-Windsors, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.164.27 (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Victoria was a Duchess in Saxony. All British royals descended from Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, including Elizabeth II but excluding her descendants, would've also been Dukes and Duchesses in Saxony if George V hadn't renounced all German titles for himself and his descandants. If The Duke of Edinburgh hadn't renounced his princely titles, Elizabeth II and her male-line descendants would've also been Princes of Greece and Denmark. Surtsicna (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So why doesn't Wikipedia mention this in their styles, only casually glance over the issue in relation to WWI? Surely, some standardization is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.164.27 (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Victoria never used the titles of Duchess in Saxony and Princess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, because she acquired them when she was already Queen of the United Kingdom. She used her highest, monarchical title instead of courtesy titles acquired by marriage. Her children rarely (if ever) used the titles of Duke in Saxony and Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha because their British royal titles ranked higher than their German ducal titles. We can mention that they held those titles, but they surely didn't use them. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wanting to see all titles, not just regnant, but even the honorary. HM the Queen today has all of these articles about her wonderful titles and positions, but you'd think we'd see this title included for the Albertine period of the BRF, what with the inclusion of all the French titles for the government back in the day, as they are listed on Wikipedia. I myself know much less about the German titles and situation, the whole present establishment descended from Sophia of Hanover. It would help me and others less familiar with this brand of the modern Monarchy. I know the title is in her article but the circumstances of the German dynasties with respect to their Continental holdings, are all rather hazy. I know much more about the French dynasties and their Continental connections with England, but maybe it's just not that interesting in this case. I don't know why Victoria inherited when there was a legitimate male heir to the throne. This is bewildering. The same thing happened to the Windsors, with Elizabeth instead of some male Windsor. It's like Parliament is increasing the Royal turnover rate for dynasties, so none of them are dyed in the wool elements of the establishment. Consequently, it is rather tiring to cultivate sympathy for nobodies on the throne, although I'm a hopeful monarchist.

There are some articles which list all titles of a deceased British royal - List of titles and honours of Mary of Teck for example. Why did Victoria succeed? Victoria succeeded because her father was the eldest of the younger brothers of William IV and William IV had no children at all. Since Victoria's father was dead and she was his only child, she was the representative of him and his line. Ernest Augustus of Hanover was younger than Victoria's father and so Victoria was "older" than him in the eyes of cognatic primogeniture. Since the throne of Hanover was restricted to men only (just like the French throne), Ernest Augustus succeeded there as William IV's closest male relative. In the United Kingdom, however, women can succeed if they have no brothers - this has been a rule since the 12th century. Victoria and Elizabeth had no brothers and therefore they were both rightful heirs to the throne. Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Female succession was accepted from the 12th century, but it was not the rule – in the sense that Victoria definitely preceded her uncles and male cousins without controversy – until much later. —Tamfang (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The male line was still in existence and still is today. It's quite strange to hear tabloid reports of the present heir to Hanover in Germany, instead of acknowledge that a male heir is desired to prolong a dynastic hold on the throne. It's not like the Tudors here, in this situation. What becomes of all the male Hanoverians and Saxons? This is just Parliament's stranglehold on the Monarchy and they've been doing it since they booted Jamie from the Throne, so there is no intention of a change any time soon? Is there an actual stipulation or clause written somewhere, that forces each dynasty to do this, a contract of Constitutional Monarchy? The Throne is divorced from reproductive pass/fail, but is wholly arbitrary? It couldn't go either way, could it? I want to know if this is as official as the ban on Roman Catholicism.

Yes, but cognatic primogeniture doesn't care about the strict male line. Agnatic primogeniture does. The UK follows and has always followed (just like it's predecessors followed) cognatic primogeniture: if a person has no sons, then that person is to be succeeded by the eldest daughter. The parliament has not plotted against the monarchy or whatever you're trying to say and I hope you won't edit the article to reflect your opinion. Let's continue this discussion here please. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

All right then, you want to say Parliament had nothing to do with forcing Henry Tudor onto the nation by marrying Elizabeth of York, even though there were viable claimants in both Houses of Lancaster and York that were of the Plantagenet dynasty? You're saying Parliament didn't interfere and demolish the Plantagenets by skillful use of the Tudors? I'm not necessarily addressing the Commons on this issue of royal right, but the Lords want concessions out of the Crown and will only get it for so long as they dictate the succession. What I'm getting at, is that England very clearly was an agnatic primogeniture succession country until the "solution" to the Wars of the Roses. I could not imagine any dynasty handing over their power so easily, unless the parliamentary establishment put handicaps on the succession. There is no law of the land that could prevent agnatic succession in the UK before the Williamites redefined the Monarchy and the natural desire of a Royal Family is to prolong their own kind for as long as God allows.

Oh, I hate conspiracy theories so much. England has not practiced agnatic primogeniture since the Norman conquest. You forgot that Matilda was designated heir of Henry I and that both Stephen and Henry II based their rights on their mother's succession rights. The parliament doesn't dictate succession, nor does the Cortes in Spain (and Spain practices and has always practised cognatic primogeniture). The throne is not held by a dynasty, it's held by the rightful heir. Henry VII was not forced to marry Elizabeth of York. He was monarch by the right of conquest and his marriage to Elizabeth simply strenghten his children's succession rights. The parliament has nothing to do with succession to the Crown or a peerage title. Surtsicna (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Really not sure what you mean by that last sentence -- Parliaments in the British Isles were involved a number of times in resolving disputed claims about noble heirships, and what are the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Royal_Marriages_Act_1772 if not parliamentary acts? AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean that Parliament doesn't change the succession law to suit a particular dynasty. Anyway, what's disputable about Victoria's accession? What's disputable about Elizabeth II's accession? Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you would have Francis II instead of Elizabeth II if the Act of Settlement 1701 hadn't been passed by parliament, as well as the fact that if the Royal_Marriages_Act_1772 hadn't been passed, then a lot of the illegitimate children of Victoria's father's elder brothers might have been legitimate children of Victoria's father's elder brothers ... AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP was asking why Victoria ascended when there were males from the House of Hanover and why Elizabeth II ascended when there were males from the House of Windsor. Jacobites were not mentioned. Surtsicna (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Female succession in Spain goes back quite a long way, but since the Bourbon succession it has been excluded at least sometimes. —Tamfang (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Every Bourbon King of Spain had a male heir, except for Ferdinand VII, who was succeeded by his eldest daughter Isabella II - therefore, agnatic primogeniture was not applied in Spain since the Bourbon succession. Surtsicna (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you are telling me that dynasties willingly abdicate their power to other people? That's not the English history I know. Monarchs wouldn't even give in to their own blood, much less one not in their family! Whig history tends to besmirch those who refuse to give up their power to new people they could control, but it is telling that Parliament owes the Magna Carta to the French and yet, Parliamentarians like to rewrite our history to make it seem like the Dutch are the fountainhead of freedom, since William of Orange and the Bill of Rights. Did you notice how both the Catholic and Protestant English hated the Stuarts? The Catholics tried to blow up the King and replace him with his daughter, Princess Elizabeth, who would be married to somebody they liked better, while the Protestants themselves used the very same daughter to promote Sophia of Hanover. The via media Anglicans were willing to use a Caroline descendent like Mary or Anne, so long as they were married to a husband they approved of. They did their damnedest to get rid of a native dynasty with a foreign ideology, only to import a foreign dynasty with a native ideology. Above all, they would not abide by a Royal Family of legitimists who would have a canonized ancestor like Charles the First. This is Parliament's intervention in the Monarchy. You are obviously reading some other country's tradition.

Just so you know, the reason why Matilda was heiress, was because there was no legitimate male of the Norman dyansty, so they'd obviously have a husband from another dynasty come in, but the Londoners wanted Stephen because Normandy didn't like Anjou, so they were trying to keep Geoffrey Plantagenet out of the picture. You are misreading the situation. It is obvious that one would have to rely on a maternal right of succession, if there were no paternal one to speak of! Henry Tudor was a conniving Parliamentary aristocrat who took over the Throne and ran it like a public office. He had the full backing of other Parliamentarians who were tired of fighting French wars for a dynasty which facetiously used a maternal succession right as justification for a century of war, when it was really just retaliation for not having autonomy over French territories, the Crown wanted to be held in right of the King of England, rather than in homage of the French Crown. This very same Angevin dynasty of Plantagenets fought amongst themselves for power and their conflicts were defined by the relation of their fathers to Edward III, although the ultra-Parliamentarian Yorkists also invoked the maternal succession from the Mortimers to Lionel of Antwerp. The Lancastrians were moderate Parliamentarians, only enough to depose Richard II's absolutism and regain the power John of Gaunt held. In a sense, the Yorkist succession was of the same type, that of regency and ultimately of usurpation.

@Surtsicna: The parliament has nothing to do with succession to the Crown or a peerage title - that's not strictly true, as the case of George VI succeeding Edward VIII shows. Had the UK parliament not decided that Edward had abdicated (they get to decide, or at the very least confirm/agree/approve, because British monarchs cannot unilaterally abdicate), then Edward would have remained king until his death in 1972, and only then been succeeded by Elizabeth II. And, of course, parliament could theoretically change the succession laws tomorrow (subject to the Commonwealth Realms' concurrence). Parliament and parliament alone has that right. No monarch does. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And, besides succession to the throne (which follows law set by parliament), Parliament is the only means by which succession to a peerage title can be changed. - Nunh-huh 22:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I wasn't clear enough. Yet I don't understand what the IP wants to know. Succession is cognatic rather than agnatic. Fullstope. The parliament doesn't change the succession law every once in a while to suit someone. Do you think that the Parliament conspired to change the dynasty when it gets too powerful or whatever the IP tries to say? Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm stating that the succession must be cognatic only by duress from Parliament, to eliminate the concentration and entrenchment of Royal power in one family. The Monarchy has traditionally tried to run its affairs in the French manner, which means Salic Law. Of course, Edward III purposefully made this an issue for his own succession in France, but that was because he wanted to even the odds. The same tactic was chosen by Richard, Duke of York in his deposition of Henry VI's rights in favor of his own by invoking both male and female lines to his own benefit. The natural form of an hereditary monarchy, is to deplete all legitimate males when all efforts have been made to secure a male inheritance, then move onto a female of the most recent generation. Electoral monarchies rely on aristocratic intervention and caveats on who can succeed, whether the Throne will go to a male or female, or this or that new dynasty, from inside the country or a foreign choice. Surtsicna, you must have little understanding that England was once an hereditary kingdom, but became an electoral oligarchy over time, so even as the Monarchy was invested with central powers, Parliament had the trade-off of counsel and direction behind the establishment, for the choice of the Stuarts and subsequent rejection of them is a prime example of this. On the royal.gov website, the transition from Olde England to Great Britain is done with James, so they admit it just as well. The Monarchy had already been debased to being possessed by "New Men" in the form of the Tudors, who rose as "favourites" of the "corrupt" Lancastrians. The Tudors went from simpletons to royal majesty in less than a century and their record as leaders betrays these humble origins.

Anyways, I was hoping for more coverage of the Germanised establishment which prevailed since the Stuart twilight. I know but a little, that it mostly consisted of mercantile class connections and a few foreign dignitaries held in high regard. The process began under the Stuarts, with the Palatines and then the Dutch and onward. Mary of Teck was Swabian and her retainers came to Britain, but I confess to know rather little about these people in the "New Monarchy", even whilst learning much more than I used to about the old French establishment. I guess it's because the French have been absorbed into the English, but the new German establishmentarians are still too close to the Monarchy for their sort to mix and mingle with the English commons. The original point of discussion, was to find more exposure on the relationship of the UK to post-French Continental holdings of the Monarchy (her being Duchess of Saxony is one example of this). I think we all take it for granted about the knowledge we have on the Angevin Empire, but as to the Principality of Orange, for instance, I know next to nothing in its relationship to the UK in the time of William III, but I suspect Louis XIV tried to annex that territory for France. As I said before, this is all vague for me and I bet for most people who aren't related somehow to the present establishment of Great Britain, because they identify by default with England alone. One would probably have to be part of the new in-crowd to relate with the concept of Great Britain and its remade Continental relationship. We might all connect with Britannia, but that was so long ago. So by now, you see that German electoral monarchism is the norm for Great Britain, but the old hereditary establishment died with England.

Oh right...the first instance of Parliamentarians unrelated to the Monarchy dictating the succession in their favour, rather than engineering it in the case of the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, was when the Duke of Northumberland made the dying Edward VI pass over his own two sisters in favour of Lady Jane, so that Guilford Dudley would eventually be made king. While Edward's father Henry VIII stipulated (with a notorious male preference) that the the Throne would first go to Edward, then Mary and Elizabeth, followed by a descendant of Henry's own younger sister Mary, he explicitly forbid the Scottish succession of his older sister Margaret. Parliament overrode this restriction and invited James VI of Scots anyways, but eventually regretted it and that is why the Civil War happened. Parliament has been Kingmaking in some form or another, ever since the Wars of the Roses, but it's only been a legitimate power of theirs upon the election of James Stuart, because they did not have a Royal Writ and didn't need one. Now, Parliament does it all the time, even where Royal Consorts are concerned. Their first interference in choice of consort, was removing Anne Woodville's family, followed by engineering any number of Henry VIII's marriages, then protesting Philip II of Spain and eventually Henrietta Maria of France was objected to and part of the reason for war with their king. Then, as mentioned, Parliament made William of Orange and George of Denmark their favoured husbands of the hated "legitimist" dynasty of the Stuarts, but you can already see that, despite the seniority of Margaret Tudor, the Stuarts were only as legitimate as the Tudors were at Bosworth. Parliament objected to Maria Fitzherbert and Wallis Simpson. 68.231.164.27 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't comment on Mrs Fitzherbert, but I doubt the bit about Wallis Simpson is true. It wasn't the parliament that objected to her, it was the government, and the PM, Stanley Baldwin, in particular. Baldwin told Edward that his choice of wife would never be accepted by the British people. That was what put the kibosh on him marrying her if he wanted to remain king. Afaik, parliament per se never expressed an opinion on the matter, one way or another. That would have been a waste of parliament's time in any case, because they don't get to approve or disapprove a monarch's choice of consort, well, not these days anyway; so objecting to it, or, for that matter, agreeing with it, would have had no effect. But they were happy to rush through the legislation altering the succession laws, allowing him to abdicate rather than continue to reign without "the woman he loved". -- JackofOz (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Pamphleting cars

Does anyone know of any locale that penalizes the placement of pamphlets on vehicles' windshields? Is there any reason passers-by may not remove such pamphlets? Thanks in advance. Imagine Reason (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Targeted littering. Remove at will and recycle.--Wetman (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing the pamphlets from windshields and dropping them on the ground would probably not be an acceptable alternative, however. But you could remove the pamphlets and toss them into the nearest trash can. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Seven of the top 20 millionaires in the Sunday Times Rich List owe their fortunes to online gambling"

Or so says Roy Hattersley, a British politician, in The Guardian newspaper. Yet a quick look at said list http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/specials/rich_list/rich_list_search/ shows that nobody in the top twenty five has any mention of gambling. How can the big difference between what a reputable politician says (and whose party I incidently support) and the reality be explained? 78.146.66.185 (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Did Hattersley say which of the top 20 he was referring too? MarquisCostello (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The above quote was all the detail he went into. He did not mention any names. 89.241.159.20 (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "top 20 millionaires" is rather odd too... the top 20 are all billionaires (strictly speaking, a billionaire is a millionaire, but you would normally use the more precise term). It sounds like he didn't have the faintest idea what he was talking about. When and where did he say that, by the way? If it was at a time when he wouldn't have been expecting to discuss the topic, he may just have said what he thought was true and hadn't fact checked it. Rather irresponsible, but perhaps not malicious. --Tango (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

@ Tango: the "when and where" are both in the column linked. // BL \\ (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Saw question on conjoined twins and had a thought

If there was a pair of conjoined twins, and one of them committed a serious crime (say physically punching someone), is it legally possible that their twin would have to go to jail simply because they are inextricably connected to their twin? I mean one could make an argument that they were there and thus an accomplice, but its possible they were physically unable to prevent the crime despite trying.

Please note that I am not asking for legal advice, this is a purely hypothetical legal paradox. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

See Chained for Life. If a movie director can't decide, I wonder what chance the rest of us have.// BL \\ (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to be crass or insensitive, but if they're conjoined isn't the question immaterial? I would conjecture that, like the film hints, this is uncharted legal ground and would amount to a precedent-setting decision or two. Wolfgangus (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed at the refdesk before. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2007_August_21#Conjoined_twins. (There are links in that discussion to 3 earlier related discussions, too.) Karenjc 15:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Identify the crown

Could somebody identify this crown? I found it during a google search and didn't recognise it. It's the one in the top left corner (it's no use clicking for the larger image as it comes up as an error). It is presumably British due to the fact that it links to the website of the British monarch's site. The monarchy have relaunced their website and this image is not to be found amoung the crown jewel gallery... Thanks so much for any help! ;) --217.227.116.32 (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I did a similar google search for 'crown of wales' and i believe this is the crown of King George I of England, dated 1715. A google image search for 'crown of king george I' brings up this picture. MarquisCostello (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I second that opinion; this seems to be the State Crown of George I. - Nunh-huh 23:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

February 21

When did Kitty Lange Kielland die?

And before you say January 8, 1914 just as the article says bear with me a moment. The Swedish and Norwegian Wikipedias list it as October 1st, 1914. Yes, I wrote the English article, but I no longer have access to the book I used and I know suspect I read 1/8/2008 in the American way (Month/Day/Year) and not the way it was meant (Day/Month/Year). I've checked around the internet, but can't find anything conclusive. Anybody have anything? Thanks! --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

October 1, 1914. Citation: Marit Lange and Thea Miller. "Kielland, Kitty." In Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online, http://www.oxfordartonline.com (accessed February 21, 2009). --Milkbreath (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions related to the development of civilization

What was the problematic nature of the term "civilization"? How have a variety of social biases influenced our understanding of western civilization over time?

What were the culture and abilities of our hunter-gatherer ancestors?

How did the Neolithic Revolution establish the necessary preconditions for the development of civilizations?

Which historians defended this statement: "Egypt was in many waysa typical Neolithic civilization; its geography made it distinct"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.220 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 February 2009

Out out courtesy, and assuming good faith, I have combined your related questions into one topic for ease of responding. I have to say that these read exactly like homework questions. While I am sure many people here would be willing to help you with things, we don't really just answer your homework questions for you like that. Have you researched the appropriate Wikipedia pages, like Hunter-gatherer, Neolithic Age, Neolithic Revolution, etc.? - Eron^Talk 02:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not homework questions and other websites will do. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.220 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 February 2009

Pre-Socratics

With the Pre-Socratics, western thought emerges from mythology into an attempt at accounts of reality that can be evaluated according to a new standard: rationality. What were the difference between these Pre-Socratic philosophers when it came to the way tradition is replaced by reason as the measure of the Greeks understanding of reality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.220 (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

From one point of view, the pre-Socratics were the first ones we know about who were dimly groping towards science by trying to explain complex phenomena as arising from basic principles or laws of nature. Unfortunately, from the relatively little we know about many of them, their debates were often about such things as whether fire or water was the first and most fundamental element... The article pre-Socratic philosophy is mainly a list of names. AnonMoos (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Plato's allegory of the cave

What was the Plato's allegory of the cave? What was the theory of Forms or Ideas it is based on? How does that theory relate to a theory of knowledge on one hand and what kind of educational practice does it produce? Any other websites about htis will do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.220 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 20 February 2009

I recommend you start your homework by reading Allegory of the cave. - Eron^Talk 02:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I recommend that you watch the movie "The Matrix". 118.71.169.174 (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

First Legal Tender Approved by US Congress

In the March 2009 issue of Popular Mechanics, pp 53, there's an ad for "Silver Dollars of the American Revolution" - ie Spanish Silver Dollars, that claims "Congress Chose This Silver Dollar as Our First Legal Tender" and goes on to say that the Contintental Congress approved it as such. This articleclaims that coin served as the unofficial national currency of the colonies for much of the 17th and 18th centuries, while none of the seemingly pertinent wiki entries, such as the Coinage Act of 1792 or This one on the dollar coin or any entries on the Constitutional Congress make any mention of the Spanish Silver Dollar as the first approved by Congress.

So does anyone know of a reliable source to back up this claim, made by a site called GovMint.com? Thanks Wolfgangus (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Both of our articles on Dollar coin (United States) and on Spanish Dollar mention that the Spanish Dollar (aka Piece of Eight or Real de a Ocho) was legal tender until 1857. I have not yet found that 1857 act which ended its use... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The act was 11 Stat. 163 (text here). --Cam (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK but neither verifies the ad's claim, that the Spanish silver dollar was the first legal tender for the newly created country; unless this is very loosely interpreted, i.e. it was accepted as legal tender among the colonies and became an ad hoc legal tender following the First or Second Continental Congress. Is this sound? Wolfgangus (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Coins from many foreign countries were accepted as legal tender in the American colonies, but the Spanish dollar was the most common. The first legal tender issued by the Continental Congress was paper money (or bills of credit) known as Continental (currency), which was based on the Spanish system and theoretically backed by Spanish dollars. This is perhaps what the ad is referring to. Finding more info on Continental currency will probably help you find the answer. —Kevin Myers 04:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can work from this. I appreciate the help from both of you. Wolfgangus (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

British pound sterling was still used in post-revolution America to pay for things, for one. Edison (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

American Pound Sterling

Why didn't the Founding Fathers choose an American version of the British currency? -- 16:34, 21 February 2009 68.231.164.27

There were persistent problems with a scarcity of precious-metal circulating in the British north American colonies, and coins of a number of different countries were in de facto use (as mentioned in a previous comment). So it was very easy for the U.S. to start from scratch in creating a new currency, if desired, and several figures (such as Benjamin Franklin) wanted to do this for various reasons, including decimalization... AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Why didn't they go the whole hog and have a metric system for weights and measures as well? -- JackofOz (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just today reading a book about Zebulon Pike and his explorations of Colorado. In several of his journal entries, he makes extensive notes on the weather and uses Centigrade temperature. However, he also uses standard length measurements (feet, miles, etc.) I expect that for some time, both metric and non-metric systems were in use throughout the U.S. For probably random and arbitrary reasons, the non-metric system "stuck". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Irish state of Ulaid

Ulster in light

Ancient Ireland with Ulidia in blue

Hi, Ulaid is a precursor to the Irish province of Ulster. It is somehow entangled with Ulidia which is a small north east portion roughly covering counties Down and Antrim. Is it fair to say that Ulaid is roughly the same in boundaries as Ulster? What is the relationship between Ulaid and Ulidia? Anyone suggest a book or website that details these two? ~ R.T.G 11:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This source [37] seems to state that the terms Uladh, Ulidia and Ulaid were used interchangeably in ancient texts. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Did Barack Obama's daughters ever get their puppy?

If so, where is the Wikipedia article for it? US Presidential pets are apparently notable enough for their own articles.--Wovit! Wovit! (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This op-ed suggests they are waiting for warmer weather before getting one [38]. Exxolon (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for just putting those maps there without a warning - I have a phobia of maps, especially ones showing islands or water. Very considerate.--Wovit! Wovit! (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

has any work in philosophy ever caused historical change?

Hi, are there any good examples of any book or system of thought in philosophy having a definite causal effect on history? People often talk as if philosophy has been influential, and the preponderance of philosophical works on "great books" courses suggests an assumption of its wider importance, but I'm looking for a fairly concrete example. Thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Communist Manifesto seems to be an fairly concrete example. The text established a new method of political thinking a new ideology, which was to have an effect on the later history of so many countries.MarquisCostello (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Analects of Confucius exerted (and continue to exert) a massive influence on the course of Asian history. Adam Smith continues to influence economic policy. The works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in particular The Social Contract, were a major cause of the French Revolution, and his novel Emile had a major effect on pedagogy in France and elsewhere. Jeremy Bentham influenced the development of the modern penal system and the welfare state, among other things. The work of Georges Sorel may be partly blamed for the rise of fascism and Nazism, as it fueled anti-parliamentary extremism in the years before the Second World War. LANTZY^TALK 19:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam war interview

Hi, I am looking for a video clip from the Vietnam war in which an American officer is being interviewed outdoors. He insists the North Vietnamese are nowhere nearby but immediately afterward there is gunfire and a wounded soldier is carried through the frame. Not sure if it was Tet, Hue or Saigon. Haven't had any luck with my searches on youtube. Thanks!--75.157.250.4 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Name of science fiction story

Hi, I am trying to find a series of science fiction books on Wikipedia, but I can't remember the name!! The name of the series is simply a year in the 17th century (I thought it was called "1639", but I checked that year and can't find it there). All I need is the correct date and I should be able to find it.

The story is of a circle of land in modern-day US that was switched with an identical circle of land in 17th century Germany, and goes on to tell the story of the American people that were then trapped in the past... a pretty awesome story, no? Jonathan ^talk 19:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to 1633 (novel)- there were also books entitled 1634 and 1635. Regards, MarquisCostello (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Louis Font, Donald Duncan, and Howard Levy

Why don't we have articles about Talk:Ehren_Watada#Other_US_military_against_the_war_.28prior_history.29 these people? GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)