Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

May 28

Did WWII tanks ever resort to physically pushing enemy tanks?

I vaguely remember a story some years ago about US Sherman tanks' cannons being so inneffective against the German Panzers' armor that they resorted to pushing them, or dragging them off the battlefield entirely. Now I'm not sure that this is true at all because I don't remember properly, I think I heard it on a historical war program though. It may also have been another set of tanks but I think these are the ones best known for the issue. The Panzers having brilliant armor and their cannon excellent ability to penetrate armor, while the Sherman was the opposite in those respects.

It may also just have been about dragging friendly, damaged, tanks around as I'm sure did happen at times. The thing is I can't find any mention of it anywhere, it may have been a very obscure occurance in odd battles here and there.

Does anyone know whether it is true? And if so, could you please point me towards any reliable source on the matter?

All input is apreciated :)

92.21.186.193 (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Baharroth[reply]

I believe that in the 1965 movie "Battle of the Bulge" the Panzers pushed a Sherman off a bridge after shooting and destroying it. A Sherman would not have tried to fight a Panzer by pushing it. Sherman tactics against Panzers were to get behind it and shoot it where the armor is thinner, or hit it with shots from multiple Shermans. The Panzer armor was not magically invulnerable to multiple shots from the Sherman cannons.Here is a Panzer destroyed by a Sherman:[1]. Or they could wait for the Panzer to break down, since they were unreliable. Damaged tanks could certainly be hauled in for repairs. The funniest tank pushing newsfilm from WW2 showed GIs pushing Shermans to keep them from sliding sideways on an icy road, perhaps while headed toward the battle of the Bulge in December 1944.Edison (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Sherman tactics were to get behind the Panzers. This was not incredibly difficult, as the Shermans were much faster and manoueverable than the heavier Tigers or King Tigers. Panthers were a different matter, though (Funny how Mac OSX is named after German tanks! They also have the Leopard !). If a Sherman ever did try to push or drag (presumably using grappling cables), it would be suicide, as the Panzer's turret could just turn and blow the Sherman to pieces, and at that range a kill would be a sure thing. I believe your last theory is correct. Tanks are often used to drag damaged friendlies to safety where they can be repaired, even these days. There is a story I read once about an M1 Abrams getting caught in a bog in the first Persian Gulf War. It was attacked by four T-72s (from as little as 400 yards) and hit four times, but wasn't damaged. It then took out the four Iraqi tanks before help arrived in the form of a couple of APCs. The APCs tried to drag it out of the bog, but failed. Along came another M1 Abrams, and the decision was made to blow it up so it didn't fall into the hands of the enemy. It took three shots from the Abrams before an explosion was noticed, and meanwhile two other Abrams had turned up. The other two Abrams attached cables to the stranded tank, and pulled it back to base for repairs. The only damage that had been done by the explosion was that the main gun had been disabled. This was replaced and the tank was back in service the following day. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are stories of Soviet tanks ramming their German counterparts during the Battle of Kursk, but this history professor roundly dismisses that as "fanciful" and "hogwash", and cites only a single verifiable tank ramming (in France). 87.114.167.162 (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqpj4iYeg40&feature=PlayList&p=713627567B9AE662&index=8&playnext=9&playnext_from=PL Replaceable T34s would ram the less plentiful german tanks.206.220.192.169 (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks for the link from the last poster, it says "The only documented instance of tank-ramming I am aware of is in Normandy, when a British Sherman rammed a German Tiger." Possibly not true, but seeing as it is apparently from a proffessor exposing myths, it might well be. I really did mean that if it ever happened it would be only one or two obscure events. It's the sort of thing that would get picked up in a history program about a particular battle in the War.

Perhaps it happened in WWI when the tanks were less effective? I don't know XD

Thanks also to the other posters, I enjoyed the M1 Abrams story; which, if you're interested, reminds me of one about the Falklands War:

The UK Harrier jet planes which had only recently been produced and not been in...any battles / any major battles? (Don't quote me on that part but you get the point) So it was a true test of their capabilities, and it was worrying that the Argentinian planes had a maximum speed advantage, but luckily they were limited on speed by needing to save fuel (because the airfields were too far away). So in all at the end, "Sea Harriers shot down 21 aircraft with no air-to-air losses themselves, although six Sea Harriers were lost to ground fire and accidents." [2] One of those accidents being that it was foggy and 2 of the Harriers crashed into eachother. Meaning that the Harriers did more damage to themselves than any of the Argentinian planes they were fighting and had been worried about.

92.1.240.55 (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Baharroth[reply]

Hmm, similarly they say there were more Brits killed by Americans (in friendly fire accidents) during the first gulf war than by Iraqis. Have only heard this in passing, don't know if it's actually true... TastyCakes (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection it seems 9 out of 47 of the British fatalities in that war were friendly fire (doesn't say if they were all Americans that shot at them). So what I said seems to be untrue, unless most of the rest of the casualties were from accidents etc. Perhaps it was true for a period during the war? TastyCakes (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that the manual for the Tiget Tank instructed the tank commander to ram and crush enemy targets if possible instead of using expensive cannon or machine gun rounds. Also Soviet tankmen used ramming during the Prohorovka battle (near Kursk) when their tanks expanded all of their ammunnition and dust on the battlefield dramatically lowered visibility but this was a desparate move and not satndard practice. Mieciu K (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Bai Koroma's wife Sia

Around how old will Sia Koroma be? They didn't even say what year was Koromas marry. Ernest Bai Koroma was the 4th national leader of Sierra Leone, and Enest is only 55 (b. 10/02/1953).--69.229.240.187 (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article to which you have linked states that she was born in the "late 1950s" and that she and Ernest were married on October 18, 1986. However, there are no sources given for this information, so I don't know how reliable it is. // BL \\ (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was born on 19 March 1958, so she is currently 51. Source: her website. Them From Space 13:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone care about the big picture?

How come hardly anyone -- even among the non-religious sort who believe this world is or may be all there is -- seems to be interested in achieving things that will make a difference in the grand scheme of things (i.e. affect a significant percentage of the world's population, and/or continue to make a difference billions of years into the future)? Neon Merlin 03:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People are, at the end of the day, interested in doing things that increase the chances of their genes being perpetuated. The "grand scheme of things" doesn't make much difference to the reproductive success of one person. --Tango (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, people are interested in doing things that make them happy, comfortable, and secure in their happiness and comfort. Perpetuating their genes may be what makes some people happy, but certainly not everyone. For other people, looking at the big picture is it. Still others have other preferences. --Anonymous, 21:35 UTC, May 28, 2009.

Some people do look at the big picture. What makes you think they don't? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Global warming? Long term, global impact? Plenty of people care about it. Fribbler (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We (humans) think about many things at once -- the big picture, the little picture, and a variety of sizes in-between. I think it is a mistake to be overly restrictive in our characterizations of the thinking processes of others. Bus stop (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man's civilisation has lasted for around 10000 years. It would be arrogant to plan for a future in a billion years let alone billions of years.
Sleigh (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worse than arrogant—plain impossible. The few concrete plans to do so are pretty amusing in their futility. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, of living in Berkeley for many years, the people who claim to care the most about the entire world at once are the worst to try and interact with on a personal basis. They're the ones who claim to be cosmically connected with the universe but are complete a**holes with people they have to cross paths with in a more mundane way. My suspicion is that their idealized humanity that they care about is something quite different than the reality of human beings, all of whom when seen from up close are considerably more problematic and troublesome than the idealizations would allow.

Or, put another way, I think people need to first cultivate their own garden before taking on the whole world. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that syndrome well. It's often described as "I love humanity, but can't stand people". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The people who tell you they care about the world, sure, because you have to be pretty stuck up to go around telling people how caring you are. I don't think that means that caring about the world is a bad thing or that it makes you a jerk. -- BenRG (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because spending your brief time on this Earth worrying about possible outcomes billions of years from now is tragically sad, and a waste of time in the most ironic sense? Because thinking you can (or even wanting to) change a significant portion of the world's population is possibly pompous and patronizing and probably pointless? Better, I think, to hang about on wikipedia alliterating. Regardless, you might find the Long Now Foundation interesting... TastyCakes (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the original questioner's use of the term "billions." I don't take it seriously. I think it is meant to imply "long term future." Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun is gradually getting warmer such that in about a billion years, the Earth will no longer be habitable. If you really want to think about the big picture, we need to get off this planet and find a new home. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is theorized that when our Sun dies, that Mars may escape destruction, but that Earth may not. [Scientific American Magazine|http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=improbable-planets] Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's when the Sun turns into a red giant which happens in about 5 billion years. But we don't even have that long. My understanding is that our oceans will boil away in about a billion years. Mars will certainly be warmer but I don't think it has enough gravity to keep a significant atmosphere. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a good reference, see Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The big picture is at the tipety-top of the pyramid. Most people in the world live day-to-day trying to meet the needs at the bottom of the pyramid. Its tough to worry about global warming when you are trying to feed yourself and your children. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the Long Now Foundation. They care! BrainyBabe (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salma Kikwete

About what year will Salma Kikwete be born. All they said is Kikwetes have 8 kids total, and Jakaya Kikwete (4th national leader of Tanzania) was born in 10/07/1950 (He'll be 59 in about 4 months), then his wife shouldn't be born later than 1960, but I'm guessing she would be at least 4 years younger.--69.229.240.187 (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you're asking in what year she was born. "Will be" refers to the future, to something that has not yet happened. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

69.229.240.187, you could ask her office – there is an email address available on her website. P.S It would be great if you could add all these birthdates that you are collecting to the relevant articles! Best, WikiJedits (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail will be tough. Plus black women usually may not like people asking the ages. On my computer, I don't know how to set up so I can see my e-mail from my computer. Any e-mails sent goes to my dad or mom's computer. They check the e-mails sent. They will get mad at me wen I have suspicious e-mails, since they say to not ask about anybody's birthday. Jakaya is about 58 right now and he is turning 59 this year, the Salma looks young on images, then she should be born in mid 1950s?--69.229.240.187 (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at the history of the Salma Kikwete article, it was always a one-line stub and was quite rightly redirected to the Jakaya Kikwete article. However, in one of the previous edits, someone did try to add her to the "1963 births" category. How reliable that information is, is impossible to say and it could easily have been vandalism. None the less, looking at photos, she does appear to be younger than her husband, though I'm unsure if she looks as much as 13 years younger. It is probably still better to ask directly at the contact info supplied by WikiJedits. Astronaut (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it. It was add 1963 birth cat by an IP. IP is not vandalising, actually it was made by good faith. 1963 I would probably call it, she seems to be much younger.--69.229.240.187 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Que Sarah Sarah?

Is Sarah still the Duchess of York even though she's divorced from Andrew? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. She kept the title of Duchess but lost the Her Royal Highness upon divorce.[3] Fribbler (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Andrew were to re-marry, what title would his new wife carry? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same, although she may go by a different style to avoid confusion, similar to how Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, doesn't use the style "The Princess of Wales", even though that's what she is, because that title is too closely associated with Diana. --Tango (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that why? I thought it was to keep low-key because the marriage is controversial – an informal way of making it morganatic, in style if not in law. —Tamfang (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, she's Sarah, Duchess of York but not the Duchess (nor HRH). If Andrew remarries, the lucky girl will be HRH the Duchess. —Tamfang (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, is the song title properly Spanish (que será) or Italian (che sarà)? —Tamfang (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learning to sing

I would like to learn to sing. To be honest, I do not think that my voice is perfect for singing, but it is neither truly awful. Perhaps it is also difficult to judge one's own vocal capabilities – nobody likes to hear her own voice. I do not want to take singing lessons, but would prefer to learn the tricks by self-study. Is there perhaps any book on the topic? Below are some quick facts about me.

Sex: Male
Age: 21 years
Nationality: Swedish

Perhaps this is a question more appropriate for the Entertainment Reference Desk, but it would feel wrong to post it there, for music is so much more than mere entertainment. Thank you. --81.227.64.210 (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could start by posting a video of you singing. F (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Record yourself singing and play it back. It is not easy to hear yourself sing while you sing. You have to record it and play it back to really hear it. Then, work on anything you hear that sounds bad. Singing is a physical skill and, like all physical skills, improves with practice. -- kainaw ™ 12:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't go to show like "Schweden got talent" without asking for a professional opinion.--Mr.K. (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karaoke! TastyCakes (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do this privately, a couple of friends have claimed to me that playing karaoke games on a video game console has helped them maintain notes and find the notes, because you have visual feedback right in front of you. Tempshill (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The arts centre where I go juggling has a class called "Find Your Voice" which teaches people the fundamentals of singing. The class also would help with confidence, as they sing to each other. I'm in England, but I'm guessing similar classes run world-wide.--81.136.174.160 (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take some lessons is the obvious answer. There are always lots of good performers in every town who try to supplement their income through teaching. If you want a book to read, I like "Set Your Voice Free" by Roger Love, but I'm just an amateur and have no idea what experts think of that book. I have the impression that its suggestions are not exactly conventional. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Election results in Sweden?

When can we expect the results from the European Parliament election, 2009 (Sweden)? Which websites would you recommend I check? thanks F (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The website of the official elections authority is [4], and on all previous elections that I can remember, they start publishing results district by district there mere minutes after the polling stations close. If you understand Swedish you can read more at [5]. As they write there, preliminary results are expected before 11 pm. Since there are only 18 seats in total, it should be obvious quite soon how the breakdown of seats end up per party (1 seat per 5.5%), while the votes per individual will not be counted or revealed until one or two days later./Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapture

How do we know the Rapture hasn't already happened and we are the descendants of those left behind? Is there any way we could prove the event didn't occur long ago? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't part of the punishment that those left behind are aware that they weren't worthy of being taken to Heaven? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No more than we can prove Russell's teapot. Livewireo (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points, I guess what I'm getting at more is this: Is there any more "evidence" (documents, scripture, etc.) which specifies the Rapture is still yet to come versus it already have happened? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rapture is the name for a set of beliefs common to Christian sects. Beliefs are not susceptible to proof in any meaningful sense; if there were "evidence" then the matter would not be one of belief, but one of fact. Your question cannot be answered except within a specific belief system. I refer you to the article and to the writings it highlights for what claims are made for the belief. // BL \\ (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this, but the Rapture was not actually mentioned anywhere in the New Testament or the Old Testament. It was an idea created later that has no basis on Christianity or anything else, in fact. However, if it was a possible thing, we (left behind) would have no idea that it had happened, as we would be condemned to live our self-centred lives here on Earth while we watch wars and famine and pandemic diseases wipe us out. The idea of the Rapture is partly that people who are obsessed with themselves will remain. People who care for others are the ones who will be 'taken'. Sort of contradictory, really, because in a time when people need help, the people who are willing to help disappear. But anyway, that's what it is supposed to be. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read the Rapture article which goes into quite a bit of detail about which groups support which exact interpretations - and which exact verses of the New Testament they are based on. Rmhermen (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is off-topic and belongs as a separate question, but I was under the impression that the people who subscribed to the idea of the Rapture didn't think caring for others was necessary or sufficient to be saved (and thus 'taken' in the rapture), but that rather believing in Jesus (in a very specific way) was the thing. Have I just been thrown off by some vocal groups? I thought those who emphasise the importance of caring about others tend not to believe in the Rapture. 89.168.96.79 (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any connection between these two beliefs. Groups with varied intrepretations of the Rapture participate in charity, sometimes even working together. Rmhermen (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are differences of opinion about what "caring for others" means. A lot of people that strongly believe in the rapture spend their time "witnessing", basically trying to convert people and thus "save" them. They probably consider that caring for others. I've heard it claimed (I've never researched it enough myself to have an opinion) that Mother Teresa was more interested in caring for people in that way than in the more mundane ways we would expect. --Tango (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, it seems all currently active sects view it as a future event though so there must be some reason why it's universal within the believing groups. Why do think this? Or is there some group out there who does believe it has already occured?TheFutureAwaits (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The worst's already happened, and there's nothing you can do about it" doesn't help to extract (tax exempt) revenue from your believers. (Which is why anyone who believes in this is unlikely to find enough followers to organise into a religious movement. An epicurian dining society, maybe, but not a religion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much to my surprise (though why anything in religion should still surprise me, I cannot say), there are sects who believe that the full Millenium occured in A.D. 70. This article sets out the differences between Preterists and Hyper-Preterists or Full Preterists and covers the degree to which each faction believes that The Rapture is in the past. I cannot comment on the reliability of the information. // BL \\ (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapturists could kiss my Left Behind as a token of brotherly love. Edison (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Way to turn the other cheek Ed. But seriously, if a bunch of people up and vanished, all at once, don't you think other people might notice and perhaps comment upon it? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Can you really take this whole belief seriously, though? TomorrowTime (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some people do, and I guess they're entitled to their beliefs. What's faith or belief to one person is absurd stupidity to another, and vice-versa. Live and let live, I say. If this was a matter that could be proven or disproven, then it might be worth discussing the evidence; but it's not in that category, and virtually no religious beliefs are in that category. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that few tried to answer the question, most of the answers were just soapboxing their own views and trolling around. So to answer the question, let us assume, that the Rapture would occur exactly, or at least similar to how the mainstream Christian (and maybe even Muslim - they too believe in the return of Jesus) denominations describe it. According to the definition of Rapture, it would be a final and irrevocable event, with all left behind being endlessly tortured. There are people who think life on Earth is like in Hell, but as still a lot of people can find joy and happiness, I can assure you, that no Rapture has happened as of today, and we are certainly not in Hell. If we were, we would know it. What is the goal of a punishment if those punished do not realize that they are punished? --131.188.3.20 (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well one could argue that endlessly pursuing salvation post rapture would be a rather tormenting punishment. And of course, if people were aware that it had already happened they wouldn't bother so we may be intentionally kept in the dark to suffer eternally... TheFutureAwaits (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That creates a paradox, because if you don't think the pursuit is in vain, it will not be a tormenting punishment. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said it had to make sense! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The commentators here seem to be taking it for granted that those left on Earth after the Rapture are automatically doomed. I do not think that is the common belief among those groups that talk most about the Rapture, who generally believe that the Rapture comes before the Tribulations. What would be the point of the Tribulations in that case? Just a warm-up exercise for Hell, sort of ease people into it? --Trovatore (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Address of Emmy Rossum

Where can I find the e-mail address of Emmy Rossum? (No, this is not a joke.) --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably nowhere, but if you sign up for a 14 day free trial at [6], you might be able to contact her publicity people. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can send her a message through Myspace if you have an account http://www.myspace.com/emmyrossum. Eiad77 (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a bit more interesting. But can you be sure that it really is her Myspace account (indeed, her name is quite well-known, and, as I understand it, anyone can create a page at Myspace)? Also, does she read the messages herself, or are they read by an employee? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is linked from her official website http://www.emmyrossum.com/ (icon on the left) Eiad77 (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chances are any mail you send to Emmy Rossum (electronic or otherwise) will pass through the hands of a personal assistant. Only mail from people she knows is likely to go straight to her. If you're interested in contacting her as a fan, MySpace or through a contact link on her website is best, the same if you're after media information or permissions for fansites, etc. If you want to ask her out, it's more difficult, but that's still your best bet, short of going to the same parties as her. Steewi (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad, for I have a rather important (or, at least, interesting) message for her. (And no, I am not a "fan" – of course I think she is a truly wounderful actor and singer, but I am not merely a "fan", if you understand what I mean.) --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? TomorrowTime (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply mean that I am not a stereotypical "fan", that has visited all her performances, bought all her CD's, seen all her movies, used all my free wall space for posters, and so on, and simply want an autograph or somthing like that. I am neither a "fool" that has fallen in love with the actor, and believes she would marry me. In fact, I have only seen her in one movie; otherwise, she is completely unknown to me. Instead, I simply want to discuss a matter with her, not as an actor/singer, but as a normal person. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, you are not some kind of stalker :-) That is illegal and likely to lead to restraining orders and perhaps jail time if you are caught. Astronaut (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Astronaut, what do you think of me? :) --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no simpler way? --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Unless you are a member of the media (ie. magazine/tv reporter), it's unlikely you'll get a chance to interview her, in any capacity. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Det var inte vad jag ville höra. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fortunately, I am not seeking an interview. I just want to ask her something. --Andreas Rejbrand (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK Councillors/local councils by party

Hi, is there a list anywhere of the total number of councillors and councils belonging to each party in the UK?

I've looked at the local election results pages on Wikipedia, such as United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2007 and [[7]] but simple mathematics tells me that these sort of pages only show the number of councillors/councils that are up in that specific election, not the total numbers.

So does anyone know where I can find a list of the total number of councillors and councils each party controls overall?

(nb. I realise this will change in a few days in any case) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamUK (talk • contribs) 23:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment at the bottom of this blog has the figures, but doesn't seem to state a source. 81.98.38.48 (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This site provides what you're after, sourced from the Association of Liberal Democrat Councillors

http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/uklocalgov/makeup.htm

Dalliance (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title of a book from my childhood

I'm trying to identify a children's novel from my childhood. This story shares a few elements with The Secret Garden in that there is a walled garden/park which is closed because of painful memories. The story differs in that the wall itself is hidden in the woods, and contains a larger area, which was frequented by the parents of the protagonists decades before the time in which the story is set. Some tragic incident (a death, perhaps?) led to the sealing of the garden/park.

Any ideas about what book this might be? Or suggestions of better forums to post this questions? Thanks! JamesLucas (" " / +) 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no answer here , the old "Stumpers" list, rechristened "Project Wombat", is very good for such questions. You can join that list here. - Nunh-huh 14:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. Don't know if I'm willing to face horrifying LISTSERV memories from the mid-90s just yet. Thanks for the tip; I'll stash if for reserve use. JamesLucas (" " / +) 16:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a little like Tom's Midnight Garden, but based on the plot summary I don't think it's it... -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

U.S. Spelling Bee & participant race

Has anyone established a reason why South Asians are disproportionately represented in the U.S. Spelling Bee final rounds? Are spelling bees hugely popular in South Asia? 61.189.63.185 (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is a greater cultural tolerance for memorizing meaningless letter sequences. Most of the deciding words seem to be transliterations from foreign words, somewhat capriciously done. Might as well memorize a series of license plate numbers, for all the practical use. Words which are actually likely to be misspelled in, say, college level courses, are rarely the winning words. The final words are generally of such low usage frequency they would not be encountered in 16 years of college education. Edison (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our List of Scripps National Spelling Bee champions includes the winning words - which aren't always so rare as you claim, Edison. Rmhermen (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick scan tells me 75% of the words are found only in dictionaries. Tempshill (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the first dozen years made me think, yeah, they're words I had at least heard before age 20. Then I looked at the most recent few years... I'm in my 30s, quite well read, university educated, and I've neither heard nor seen more than two of the most recent 15 words. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

What South Asians? There are a lot of Americans (and a few Canadians) of South Asian extraction. The critical factor is likely their parents' culture's emphasis on the importance of education. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend is most likely correct. South Asian culture places a heavy emphasis on good education to get ahead of the rest of the population. In addition, India has a long history of rote-learning, which can benefit spelling-bee participants (although there are multiple techniques, including spelling rules, foreign language spelling rules, definitions, etc. That's why you're allowed to know the definition and cultural origin of the words). I wish we'd had them in my area when I was in school. Steewi (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What South Asians? There are a lot of Americans (and a few Canadians) of South Asian extraction. Please don't tell me you honestly thought I meant South Asian nationals? They wouldn't be disproportionately represented then would they, since nearly everyone from those countries looks like that! Obviously I meant with respect to North American residents, as seeing the final stage one with no other data could reasonably infer that the United States is half ethnic South Asian. Thank you for your response, Steewi, that's what I was looking for. 61.189.63.185 (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of spelling bees in particular, but I especially dislike the rule allowing you to ask for the etymology of the word. In what possible situation will you ever be in where you know the origin of a word other than a spelling bee? Eiad77 (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't ask for the etymology, just the language of origin. Despite the abuse of language by some spelling bee people (who you would expect to know better!), an etymology is far more than that. --Tango (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The winning words are usually English transliterations of non-English words of excruciatingly low frequency of usage, such that one will likely never need to spell them in learned discourse. Thus a spelling bee has very little to do with a good education. This is not "How do you spell relief?" It smacks of home-schooled kids sitting and wasting their time memorizing the special list of thousands of contest words. Memorizing digits of pi would be about as related to a "good education" as this. Edison (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looked pretty reasonable until the 1990s, then they stopped using "real" words and started using esoteric garbage. I mean sure a word like discombobulation might be used, but how often has the word appoggiatura come up in an English conversation? I mean, even my spell check does not think it is a word. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memorizing obscure words may not be "good education" by itself, but isn't it good to learn how to spell? Isn't it good to learn the sort of rules of spelling, grammar, and etymology that are necessary to do well in the spelling bee? Do you think that these skills aren't applicable to anything else? I don't know what these kids end up doing but I'm sure most of them end up with advanced degrees and academic-type jobs (I read the other day that a number of them ended up in neuroscience.) What about anything else kids do? Is it useful to for kids to play tennis from a very young age? How reasonable is it for anyone to run a marathon, or learn to pole-vault? Or are these okay because they are physical skills, not mental? Adam Bishop (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, I used to go to Music School on Saturday mornings, run by the county. Appoggiatura seems like a perfectly reasonable word for children to be using, to me. Those with an education that did not feature as much formal western music may disagree. 80.41.31.27 (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of it, those newer spelling words are all about the exceptions to the spelling rules. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are foreign words, so there really aren't any spelling rules. --Tango (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gramer? We don't need no steenking gramer! (that aside, there aren't really any spelling rules to what you would perceive as Real English, either. There's alway exceptions and exceptions to exceptions.) TomorrowTime (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you've missed my point. It's considered rather rude to refer to people who've grown up in America as "South Asian". Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have preferred I said "all the brown-skinned Americans" ? I think I made the subject of my question clear in the most polite & concise way possible.61.189.63.185 (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Asian American is the generally accepted term, after all we have an article on it. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the world are happy with "Asian" (or "South Asian", if you want, but the phrase isn't very common in the UK). "Asian" is a race, "American" is a nationality, if you care about both then say "Asian American", if you only care about the race, say "Asian". You can say "of Asian origin" or "of Asian descent" if you want to be clearer. --Tango (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was only in Britain that "Asian" means "Indian subcontinental" or "South Asian". Elsewhere, (well, certainly here,) "Asian" means "East Asian" or "Mongoloid", or the more general Asian, depending on context. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain we use "Asian" to mean Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, etc. and "Oriental" to refer to Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc.. I think other people use "Asian" to mean people from anywhere in Asia (which makes a certainly amount of sense, I must admit!). --Tango (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in Britain, we tend to be either more specific or get rid of any distinction. Iraq is in Asia, but we don't tend to refer to British-born Iraqis as Asian. We generally just say they were British. Also, there would be a problem when talking about Russians in the UK, as most of Russia is in Asia. A British-born Russian with parents from Vladivostok would, by the definition above, be an Asian-Brit, but we don't say that. We just say he's a British citizen. For questionnaire purposes, the usual questions ask what race are you, and the usual tick boxes are 'black (african), black (british), black (other), asian, caucasian (british), irish, caucasian (other), and other'. I have no idea why Irish has its own tick box, but there you go. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean Infantry - Main Weapon

Our article on North Korean Army was very informative, but doesn't say anything about the weapons the army uses. I'd like to know what the main weapon for the infantry is. I would assume, from my ignorance, that it would be the AK-47, but maybe they use something else. Does anyone know anything about it? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the answer, but if I had to guess I'd guess the QBZ-95 from the PLA of China, not the AK-47. Although, the marching photos I see are the AK-47 with bayonet attached, so maybe you're right. Shadowjams (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you guessed wrong. The North Koreans follow a policy of Juche so all of their basic weapons have to be developed in North Korea and not imported. The economic dissaster in north korea means that the infantry units are still using AK-47 and AKM variants. They might have introduced a bullpup version of the AK-47 (like the Norinco Type 86S) which usues the same ammunition as the standard AK-47 and they might be producing limited numbers of the licensed or copied AK-74 rifle for elite units but nothing more complex or expensive. Mieciu K (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be fair, I did say the picture had an AK-47. Shadowjams (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes you did. But there is no right answer for this question North Korea is a paranoid stalinist state which is unpredicteble. The main infantry weapon is still the AK-47 but even the CIA isn't 100% sure. 153.19.11.235 (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - All they (the CIA) have to do is ask a soldier on the south side of the DMZ to use his binoculars to check what weapon the guys on the other side of the DMZ are carrying right? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        And how are they going to check what and how many weapons do they have stored for wartime use in warehouses? Warsaw pact countries used to gather huge ammounts of weapons that went straight to storage, without being fired even once. Even right now you can sometimes buy in the US ex-Warsaw Pact brand new machine guns and AK-47 rifles and even older bolt action Mosin rifles which have spent the last 50 or 60 years in wooden crates wraped in waxed paper. That the North Korean paramilitary units train with wooden guns does not mean that they do not have millions of brand new guns stored somwhere. And we will probably not know untill this regime collapses since operating a spy network is next to impossible when everybody is so paranoid about contacts with forigners. 153.19.11.235 (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need binoculars. They're only twenty yards away. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which Buddha Statue ? (done)

I am trying to identify a defined Buddha statue. One picture here and another here. The folds of the clothes are special. Any concrete suggestions (Google Immages => nothing so far) --Grey Geezer 07:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

Looks like a very ordinary Buddha statue to me. Named Buddhas are normally identified by colour, mudra, posture, and any implements they hold, but we can't see enough of that statue to be able to identify it as a particular Buddha.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reformulating my question: Where is THIS Statue standing (those curls, those earlobes, that mouth, that special clothing [Why was THAT ONE chosen as the book cover?]. I am aware that there are different kinds of Buddha statues but THIS one ... which country, which location. Thanx --Grey Geezer 10:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

Found it ... via the curls => "Mathura, Standing Buddha, 4. Cent. --Grey Geezer 11:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Search for the orignal artwork

Does anybody know where this:

picture has been taken from? To me it looks like a younger version of Graeco-Buddhist art. --Liebeskind (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can't help, but isn't it odd that two people have asked the very same question in the space of two hours (see Grey Geezer's post above at 07:08)? Ericoides (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I overlooked that paragraph --Liebeskind (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems too coincidental to be a coincidence ...? Ericoides (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buy one of the books that are featuring this picture on the cover. If you are lucky they will have provided the information about the cover image in the colophon. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Favonius date of birth

Anyone know when Marcus Favonius, the Roman politician, was born? Thanks. Ericoides (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found "Born about the year 90" (BC), A History of Cynicism, p 120, but I didn't see where this information came from. I found nothing in Plutarch. Since he was chosen as an aedile around 53/52 BC, and the minimum age for that office seems to have been 35, I guess he was probably born before 88/87 BC. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Sluzzelin, it's a piece of info that seems tricky to hunt down; and as you say, Dudley's date is of unknown provenance. Still, I've stuck it in MF's page, along with your ref. It would be nice to know more about Favonius' family and youth too... Ericoides (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the contribution of coal (percentage) to the total energy consumption in Poland?

In Germany nobody can answer this question. Answers in German Wikipedia vary from 22 to 95 percent. The later number is from German TV (ARD).

--IuserA (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This site says that in 1998 coal provided "around 70% of Poland's primary energy supply, but this is expected to fall as use of other sources of primary energy increase. Almost all of Poland's electricity production and district heating is coal fired." And this article, from 2008, claims that Poland "generates 96 percent of its electricity in power stations fired by coal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These figures from 2004 are the best I've found, and they essentially agree with those given above. 59% of its primary energy supply came from coal, and 92% of electricity generation was from coal. Putting the two figures together suggests that around 79% of total energy consumption was contributed by coal, in 2004. Warofdreams talk 13:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary energy supply includes energy used to generate electricity, so it does not make sense to adjust the figure for primary energy supply with the figure for electricity generation. Therefore, in 2004, 59% of Poland's energy supply came from coal. The percentage of Poland's energy consumption (somewhat smaller than its supply due to inefficiencies) from coal should be nearly the same as the percentage of its supply that came from coal. Marco polo (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latest data I found is for 2007. Coal (including hard coal and lignite) accounted for 60.51 percent of primary energy consumption in Poland in that year. Details below:

Structure of primary energy consumption in Poland
	2003		2004		2005		2006		2007
	PJ	%	PJ	%	PJ	%	PJ	%	PJ	%
Total primary energy	3939.8	100.00	3937.8	100.00	3927.1	100.00	4166.6	100.00	4137.1	100.00
Hard coal	2056.7	52.20	1932.2	49.07	1865.0	47.49	2002.5	48.06	1996.9	48.27
Lignite	516.9	13.12	518.9	13.18	538.5	13.71	530.7	12.74	506.5	12.24
Crude oil	742.0	18.83	770.1	19.56	771.8	19.65	851.7	20.44	854.7	20.66
Natural gas	509.4	12.93	521.6	13.25	545.5	13.89	551.4	13.23	552.2	13.35
Other	114.8	2.91	195.0	4.95	206.3	5.25	230.3	5.53	226.8	5.48

Source: Energy Statistics 2006, 2007 published by the Polish Central Statistical Office, Warsaw 2008, ISSN: 1896-7809

— Kpalion^(talk)

BP, which is the best (free) info available in one place (http://www.bp.com/productlanding.do?categoryId=6929&contentId=7044622) says 60.5% in 2007. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to ARD's reliability, they probably meant electric power production. According to the source I quoted above, 95.06 percent of Polish electricity came from coal-fired power plants in 2003. In 2006, the figure stood at 93.63 percent. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cabbage

I cannot find this in either article - what is the difference between Kimchi and Sauerkraut?

As the first sentences of those articles say, Kimchi is pickled, Sauerkraut is fermented. --Tango (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, their origins are different: kimchi is a Korean dish, while saurkraut is German. Nyttend (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kimchi is also pretty spicy while Sauerkraut is, strangely enough, sour. Livewireo (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Tango's assessment, there are versions of either Kimchi and Sauerkraut which are pickled and/or fermented. Both use pickled/fermented cabbage at their core, but as noted; Kimchi is frequently heavily spiced. Sauerkraut is also used as a condiment while Kimchi is frequently a side dish or main course. Most importantly, they are independently created dishes. That the Koreans and the Germans both created pickled cabbage dishes independently is the key; merging the two ideas is a bad idea. Consider the similarity between Moo Shu and Fajitas or between Ravioli and Pierogi or any of a number of other dishes. Similar dishes often have indepenant development in multiple cultures. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was also under the impression that the cabbage used is of fairly different varieties ("regular" cabbage in the one case and Chinese cabbage in the other). Or was I wrong? Can kimchi be made from regular cabbage as well? TomorrowTime (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly pickle regular cabbages with spices, but it would be a different dish. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Practically speaking, Kimchi and Saurkraut are very different. This might have a lot to do with spices, but you'd never get the two mixed up tasting them. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another important difference is that while there is little variation between sauerkraut recipes, kimchi comes in many varied forms and can be made from almost any vegetable, not just cabbage. Cucumber, scallion and radish varieties are all common. —D. Monack ^talk 09:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abatement

Is "abatement" properly used in the history section for Bay County, Michigan? The section states that someone pled abatement because they were being tried in another county for a crime allegedly committed in Bay County: the defendent said that the other county's court therefore didn't have jurisdiction. Reading abatement in pleading, I couldn't find anything of this sort: it discusses matters related to the person of the defendant, and there's nothing about such a plea because someone is being tried by a court that doesn't have jurisdiction over them. Do we need to revise the Bay County article or expand the abatement article? Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done any research, but in 1858 Michigan might have still been a writ pleading state, and even if not, abatement might have been actually what was used under the specific circumstances. I would suggest pulling up the actual Michigan supreme court article and seeing what they say the procedural history was. Shadowjams (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which was worse the First or Second Red Scares?

The Second Red Scare and McCarthyism is more popular in public imagination, but the government was far more persecutorty in violating civil liberties during the 1st Red scare. Certainly far more violent repression and people were arrested and killed during the 1st. --Gary123 (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it should probably be noted that just because one was "worse" in some ways doesn't mean it had as much affect overall on the culture or atmosphere. The two "Scares" were very different in their targets—the first one targeted a bunch of self-proclaimed radicals who were already pretty far removed from the mainstream, whereas the second targeted those who were part of the mainstream power (politicians, aides, actors, scientists, academics, etc.). That's part of why the second one looms so high—it seemed like the sort of thing anyone could get caught up in by hanging around the wrong people, signing up for the wrong newspaper, being uncomfortable with taking certain oaths; not just those people who were self-described revolutionaries and agitators. As a result, the second one was more likely to have a strong affect on how "regular" people acted on a day-to-day basis. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(For the interested reader, archive hunter, and link fetishist's sake): Red Scare, First Red Scare, McCarthyism. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Documents

I am really interested in perusing some of the source materials for our accounts of major historical events. Is there a general repository somewhere (ideally scanned online) with this kind of information (more ideally with English translations)? For example, we know much of Roman history from written records at the time. Where can I see ancient roman manuscripts? And what about earlier civilizations? Thanks! TheFutureAwaits (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wdl.org has a number of items like that. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are specifically looking for Roman documents a good place is the Philodemus Project which restores the library of the Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum. Especially since this project is still being worked at and has resulted in the discovery of some very interesting and previously unknown ancient books on Epicureanism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oxyrhynchus also has lots of ancient papyri. Generally though, ancient documents haven't survived, except in medieval (or later) copies. There are numerous publishers who print edited versions of those, in the original language and often with English translations, or exclusively in English. Oxford Classical Texts publishes Latin editions, Loeb Classical Library publishes Greek and Latin with translations, Penguin usually publishes just translations. Say you want to read a major source of Roman history like Livy's Ab Urbe condita - well, not all of it survives, and what does survive comes from various places (Oxyrhyncus, plus later ancient and medieval copies). Fortunately someone has already done the hard work for you, and you can read published Latin or English editions of Livy without having to look at the original manuscripts. If you really want to look at scanned manuscripts, there are places online that you can do that, and a large enough academic library should have some on microfilm; but they will be written in strange ancient and medieval handwriting that you probably won't be able to read at first glance, and they won't always have transcriptions or translations attached. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library is the source pointed out by the anonymous editor above. It is only is its very beginning but has potential. Rmhermen (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literaturedoesn't have the original tablets photographed / scanned, but it does the next best thing. It has a transliteration of the text, an English translation and a bibliography for each section. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Adam Bishop stated not apart from epigraphy and the occasional fragments, not a lot of original Roman documents have survived. Besides the two major finds already mentioned I can only come up with the Vindolanda tablets as a source of a good collection of Roman documents (some of them can be seen online here). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some cool answers, thanks! TheFutureAwaits (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish hymn

There is a well known Jewish hymn that begins (phonetically) "Ain kal-lah hey-nu". What is it actually called? Thanks. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ein Keloheinu. -- BenRG (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! 207.241.239.70 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I was wondering were I might find the name of the tartan (plaid) kilt worn by Sir Harry Lauder of Scotland. Programmer13 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear that he restricted himself to one. In fact some of his sheet music covers show multiple images of him - each time in a different tartan.[8] Rmhermen (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he wore based on his name then it should be Lauder Tartan. (http://www.scotsconnection.com/product.asp?P_ID=518&numLanguageID=1). It may also be worth looking on here (http://www.scotclans.com) though my (brief) search didn't find a lauder-clan-tartan unfortunately. ny156uk (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish Tartan World Register has three different Lauder tartans. Rmhermen (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Death quote

Many years ago I read some book which quoted a monk in a plague-ridden village who supposedly left a blank page at the end of his account of the Black Death and wrote something to the effect that if any human survived, they should finish the story. Can anybody fine me the quote or a reference? Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're referring to John Clyn. Check out the quote in the "Notable entries" section of his article. Them From Space 02:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thanks! --S.dedalus (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OT: I just read that book (Doomsday Book, by Connie Willis) recently. I loved it! Steewi (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not alone: it split the Hugo Award with A Fire Upon the Deep. —Tamfang (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

Myrna Colley-Lee

Myma Colley lee is Morgan Freeman's second wife marry in 1984. Then what year would Myma Colley-Lee be born. She looks like she would be born in 1960s between 20 and 30 years younger than morgan while she looks much younger.--69.229.240.187 (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This says 1941. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's Other Satellite

Apparently (according to QI), the Earth has another 'moon', which orbits the Earth every 770 years. Unfortunately, I can't catch the name of it. 'Cruithni' or something, it sounds like. Does anyone know the correct spelling so I can look it up? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3753 Cruithne. It's not really a moon, it orbits the Sun, just in an odd way because of how it interacts with the Earth. That article explains the details. --Tango (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Someone's been watching Dave. Bah, someone beat me to it. Even though I have The Book of General Ignorance to hand. Vimescarrot (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A later episode of QI claims there are now five moons. The book claims at least seven: 2000 PH₅, 2000 WN₁₀, 2002 AA₂₉, 2003 YN₁₀₇, 2004 GU₉ are the others. Vimescarrot (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, folks! Very enlightening links. I always trust everything said on QI, especially when Alan Davies speaks! --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any other famous latin phrases like "carpe diem"?

I'm looking for famous Latin sayings or quotes like "carpe diem." A plus if it's from a poem, but it's not necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas52 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latin sayings will give you plenty of examples to be getting on with. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a couple of famous examples taken from Latin poetry: "Odi et amo" from Catullus, "Nil desperandum" and "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" from the Odes by Horace, "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" from Juvenal, or "Omnia vincit amor; et nos cedamus amori" from Virgil's Eclogues. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been a fan of In vino veritas, especially the in vino part 83.250.236.75 (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been fond of Nil carborundum and Sic biscuit disintegratus. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is "res ipsa loquitur," but the thing speaks for itself. Also De gustibus non est disputandum which involves Sputum and a fellow named Gus. Occam's razor says "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."Edison (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of good stuff from Latin poems. "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes", etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And also, the apparent (at least for Americans) E pluribus unum. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Francis Bacon's Scientia potentia est. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dulce et decorum est / Pro patria mori. Tempshill (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or if you ever work in a marketing/design type job you'll constantly see Lorem ipsum which is oft used Placeholder text. ny156uk (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat emptor or Cogito ergo sum or quid pro quo are classics as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe et cetera (etc.) is also Latin, though I am not certain. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as well as etc, i.e., ibid. Americans during the "War on Terror" have survived eight years of Inter arma enim silent leges.--Wetman (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada GM Car Clearance

I heard that General Motors is getting rid of their new cars and selling them at very very low prices. Is this true? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find out all GM Canada offers for your area here. Google hits for "Canada Wide Clearance" bring up several past events. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3 of the 25th Amendment under VP absence

I've seen this happen on both The West Wing and Commander in Chief and it bothers me. If there is no Vice President (nominated nor appointed), can the President still invoke section 3 of the 25th Amendment and have power defer to whoever's next in the succession line?

Second question, assuming this is the Speaker of the House, are they required to resign as Speaker and serve as Acting President or can they refuse (not resigning and thereby "failing to qualify" for the position) and have the President pro tem do it (who can in turn refuse, etc.)? Would their resignations "stick" after the President becomes capable again and they're removed as Acting Presidents? 82.95.254.249 (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deal with ANY questions of presidential succession, is there is no legal precedence and thus no way to accurately predict how the law will play out. Sure, there is what is written on the paper; but the devil is in the details here, and the details aren't always clear. Even the current idea that the Vice President actually becomes the new President upon the death of the old President is not entirely clear from the original consitution, the text could easily be read to indicate that the VP becomes "Acting President" or "Interim President" or simply does some of the work of the office, while still remaining the Vice President. There was something of a constitutional crisis when the first sitting president to die, William Henry Harrison , died in office. When Vice President John Tyler took the office, it was only through sheer force of his own personality that he insisted on being the full President, with no qualifications, and had to fight tooth-and-nail for the idea. It was not easily accepted at the time that the VP would just become the new President, as it is today. Since no more complex succession issues have ever come up, then it is unclear what would happen if the succession law actually had to be invoked; if for example both the President and the Vice President were killed at the same time, or if one or the other or both was incapacitated and a temporary solution needed to be worked out. Likely, there would be some sort of constitutional crisis again as the courts tried to figure out exactly how it should work. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be any crisis; this situation has been provided for. The 6th clause of Article II, Section 1 specifies that "the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected", and the relevant law is the Presidential Succession Act.

We may observe that that Act provides the legal precedence. What's absent is precedent. "There is no precedent for anything until it is done for the first time" (Lord Mildew: Doggett v Port of London Authority). —Tamfang (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

This act says specifically that one of the situations where it takes effect is if no one is able to discharge the powers of the presidency due to "inability", and that upon the "removal" of this disability, the real president resumes power. And hence the scenario we saw on TV.

The 25th Amendment affects that clause in Article II, but only slightly; basically it sets rules for who gets to determine whether the president is unable to exercise his powers, and, of course, provides a way for a new vice president to be chosen. But it doesn't repeal the clause altogether, and the rule in interpreting the Constitution is always that an older provision remains in effect if it is isn't contradicted by a later amendment. So Congress still has the authority to address cases not covered by the 25th Amendment, and the Presidential Succession Act does that. --Anonymous Canadian, 03:05 UTC, May 31, 2009.

There is still a question about whether the Speaker can remain Speaker while acting as President and, if not, whether they can take back their position as Speaker once the President recovers or if they opt out of acting as President in order to keep their seat as Speaker. --Tango (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually (to respond to anonymous canadian) since it has never been tested, there would be a crisis. Anyone can read what the words say; it doesn't mean that we all agree on the meaning of those words. That was what happened to Tyler; it required someone to actually put the text of the constitution into practice before there was a sound procedure. It wasn't the words of the constitution that established the current practice of having the V.P. become the president once the old one died, it was Tyler interpreting the words to say that they meant he could do just that. Many at the time disagreed with him; but it ultimately worked out for the system we have now. The idea of what would happen in the case of simultaneous death/illness/temporary incapacitation of a president AND vice president is, of course, written down in the constitution. However, until the actual situation happens no one can be sure exactly how it will work; and you can be sure there are differing opinions on how it should work, and that whatever does happen, someone will object and say that we are reading the constitution incorrectly. That is what a constitutional crisis is. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Someone will object" is too loose a requirement for the term "crisis". It would have to be someone with enough power to actually cause trouble, e.g. through court cases that are more than nuisance suits. Which means there would have to be some solid grounds for a variant interpretation. The appointment of Gerald Ford as VP was an unprecedented situation, but nobody called that a constitutional crisis or caused trouble on constitutional grounds. --Anon (Can), edited 00:58 UTC, June 1, 2009.

My question wasn't if there would be a constitutional crisis. Maybe there would be, but then all bets are off anyway, so who cares? I was sorta hoping for anyone with experience reading this kind of law to come up with the most reasonable interpretation (ignoring the fact that it might be challenged if it occurred in real life). Just throwing up our hands and saying "well who knows how the law might be interpreted" is tantamount to saying the laws still aren't good enough to cover the tough situations that they were expressly written to cover, which seems a bit desperate to me. Reading between the lines of the discussion, I gather the answer to my first question (could the President still invoke section 3 and would power defer to the Speaker) is "yes", while the answer to the second (what exactly happens to the Speaker) is still in the air. 82.95.254.249 (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any references for this, but I think that in the case you mention with the Speaker, that they would be re-elected to the chair after such time as the POTUS is freed of their "inability". Given the extremely special circumstances surrounding their resignation, and the fact that they did the "patriotic thing", I can't see that there would be public support for the House not re-installing the Speaker. If, on the other hand, the Speaker refused to resign, they would be turning their back on their Constitutionally prescribed duty. To punish someone in this way when faced with that choice is ostensibly not "The American Way", right?--Rixxin (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out [9]. It's a paper on the unconstitutionality of members of the legislature being potential successors to the Presidency, but it (briefly) mentions the example of the Speaker refusing to resign and the implications on the Incompatibility Clause that has, in addition to the possibility of another Speaker being elected in the incumbant's absence. --Rixxin (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't they have to resign as a member of the House, not just as Speaker? --Tango (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reckon so. I did forget to mention how I think that would pan out, didn't I? Well, I think when a Congressperson or Senator resigns mid-term, the Governor of the relevant state can pick someone to replace them. I think most Governers would put this person back as they were, once the POTUS is back on stage. --Rixxin (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the time period was short enough that they could leave the seat vacant, that ought to work. If it were a longer period, there might be more of a problem. --Tango (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben's "History of Constantine the Great" series

i) I'm wondering if this image ("Constantine Directing the Building of Constantinople") might be a sketch for tapestry (sketches are usually drawn, not painted though). Or is this image done by or after Rubens (Rubens follower)? It was on display at a temporary exhibition in Trier. The image is "copyrighted" by Staatliche Kunsthalle Karlsruhe, Germany. Where is it usually displayed?

The German Wikipedia describes the sketches as "Konstantingeschichte, Sieben Entwürfe zu Tapisserien, 1622–1623, Editio princeps, Philadelphia Museum of Art".

a) This is the "tapestry showing Constantine Directing the Building of Constantinople" of that series, on display at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. The museums states "Figural composition designed in 1622 by Peter Paul Rubens woven at the Comans-La Planche tapestry factory, Paris. Workshop of Filippe Maëcht and Hans Taye, Flemish".

b) This is the tapestry depicting the Triumph of Constantine over Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. The museum states that the tapestries were woven at the Comans-La Planche tapestry factory, Paris. Workshop of Filippe Maëcht and Hans Taye.

ii) What about the tapestries made by Philippe Maecht and Hans Taye being located at Mobilier National (Paris, France): are theses copies or originals or look-alikes?[10] [11]

iii) The Philadelphia Museum of Art finally brings in Pietro da Cortona who made (other?) such tapestries[12]

Seems like a diffcult subject. It also seems, that there's no further information about the subject in the internet. --Scriberius (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tapestry-weaving is a slow process. More than one set of tapestry are generally woven from a set of cartoons without being considered "copies". "Weavings" is the usual expression. "Originals" might apply to the first weaving made expressly for the original commission that resulted in the cartoons. Oil sketches provide color guides. Tapestry cartoons, full-size, are usually used up in the workshops and rarely survive. --Wetman (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben painted the foreground figures, the backgrounds were executed by his students. [13]—eric 03:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giveaways and antitrust

According to the Wall Street Journal, the EU is headed toward using antitrust law to challenge Microsoft again on its bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows. My question: Other than Internet Explorer, has there ever been another antitrust case in which the product in question has been free-of-charge to consumers? To anticipate and avoid a certain unwanted derailing of the question, I realize that Microsoft's distribution of IE probably results in indirect costs to consumers of other sorts — but it's a free-of-charge download from their website, and I am not looking for responses in that vein, but am looking for other products that consumers have not had to pay money to obtain. I'm crossposting to the Computing desk to ask for responses here. Tempshill (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't AT&T originally lend telephone handset and receiver units to its customers? This necessary hardware was permanently owned by the telephone company and "borrowed" by the subscriber. Though the phone unit was was required to use the phone service (which was billed), I think the actual hardware did not have any associated costs. Nimur (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good lead, but I think the phones were leased. I remember hearing a year ago that some of the Baby Bells were being pilloried for still, to this day, leasing a phone to elderly confused customers for $6.95 per month or whatever. Tempshill (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a great question. I'm not 100% sure about this answer, but I'm going to assume we're talking about Section 1 cases, which is the typical example. For a while "tying" was an antitrust violation, and I guarantee you many of those tying cases involved "giving" away a particular product, so in a technical sense I wouldn't doubt it. See International Salt Co. v. United States. In fact, the Microsoft case might have involved tying, although I have no idea. I would note too, that tying is (I think) no longer a per se violation, although could be. It's been widely attacked as an inefficient antitrust feature. Shadowjams (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually International Salt's a bad example of giving products away, so I guess your question still stands. But I'd first look towards the tying cases to find something similar. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Dumping (pricing policy) and Predatory pricing. The concept of giving something away at less than it is worth simply to drive your competitors out of the market is seen as "against the rules" in most jurisdictions. Forget the whole "free" thing; its the motivation. If you are using your position as a market leader to dump product on the market for the express purpose of driving your competitors out of business; thats usually a classic sign of an illegal trust. It's OK to give something away for free, its NOT OK to give something away for free in such a way as to force all of your competitors to go out of business. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All very interesting; however, I am looking for specifics of freebie giveaways being the center of an antitrust case. BTW, undercutting your rivals while you're merely a 'market leader' isn't sufficient to trigger an antitrust claim. Tempshill (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a little bit of an oversimplification. While price ceilings were once illegal per se, that's no longer the case.^{State Oil Co. v. Khan} Shadowjams (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for predatory pricing cases and I haven't found any that have given away the product for free. Predatory pricing cases are pretty out of vogue too since the economics behind them rarely make sense. I will note though that I haven't even looked at lower court cases, so I'm sure somewhere someday there was an example of this. Shadowjams (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a tying case where one of the products was given away for free. Siegel v. Chicken Delight, Inc., 448 F.2d 43 (9th Cir. 1971). Shadowjams (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty funny - the "freebie" was a chicken restaurant franchise; you just had to buy their fryers and bags of their ingredients to get it. But in that case, the consumers did have to buy something from the company. (Sounds expensive in this case, too.) Tempshill (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is right and what is left?

So, jumping in the middle of a, maybe controversial question, why is Nazism referred as right wing, when it was in fact leftist? It seems to me, that a lot of people, even in the media, who have no idea about politics and history, present the political spectrum as a line from the far left (Stalin) to the far right (Hitler) with everyone else inbetween. What are the causes of this? Can the political spectrum be represented as simple as this line?

As for my historical knowledge and understanding: Nazism was just another form of socialism (but instead of internationalism it promotes the interest of their own nation), so it should be part of the left wing. Actually the WW2 was not between political views but national interests: The USA and Britain, one of them a republic, another a monarchy; Germany and Italy, one of them national-socialist, the other fascist (which is actually part of the right wing, why do people think the two are synonyms?) - It was even a surprise for the Allies that the two countries formed an alliance, they thought Germany and Italy would eat each other because of the radically different political systems. So why is national-socialism referred to as part of the right wing? Or as synonymous with fascism? Yes, I know, it was part of Soviet propaganda, that if they are our mortal enemies, than we can not say they are on the same side of the political spectrum as we. But why is this view still common today?

(it seems for the first sight as a call for debate, but it isn't. If you understand what I was trying to formulate, you will see the question) --131.188.3.21 (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer is yes, the spectrum is as easy as that, if that's how you define the spectrum. The scale is designed upon Nazi-style fascism (as opposed to other types) being right-wing and Stalinist (or Leninist) communism being left-wing. The reason they're thought of like that, IMO, is because they define the scale itself. I also think they make a good scale because they are extremes. And, a lot of historians would argue with Nazi intentions after coming to power ever being socialist (despite the name). I've seen many sources, for example, that say they moved right, particularly in the context of the Night of the Long Knives. FTR, Italy was a monarchy too. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the latter points, fascism is a arbitrary definition. It makes sense to call Nazi policies fascist because a) they were extreme and b) they certainly weren't communist. Historians don't really argue about this; they use terms like Spanish fascism, Italian fascism etc. That's why I think they consider them fascists. If Nazism is a type of fascism, then it's sort of synonymous. Depending of the context. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, our fascism article gives what is considered 'core' policies for fascism, so it may help on why/whether the Nazis were right-wing. Or you could consider that fascism defines the right wing (as above) and the Nazis were fascists (see article). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And was Stalin's communism even remotely related to communism? As for an all black and white "everything we do is good, everything else is evil so it must belong to the right wing", I don't think it should be used for a sane sociological debate, it belongs to a political campaign. "they were extreme" and "they certainly weren't communist". I don't think the definition of fascism means extreme and not communism (it means a certain structural composition of government). I'd like to ask about the ideologies themself, and not the swear words their names became today. Yes, the national-socialism as implemented by the Third Reich was extreme, but checking the dictionary I don't see the extreme == right wing automatic association. --131.188.3.20 (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was picking up on another point rather than it being right-wing at all, that it was far-right (the far- bit). With the former reply bit, what I'm saying is the media likes to have distinct groupings, here there are two, so that's why I was suggesting that extreme + away from communism = fascist (the media label). I wasn't saying that's correct. Is your question Was Nazism fascist? or Was Nazism right-wing? I was more answering the why it is referred to in the media etc. sort of question. If either of those was your question, my answer (since I don't actually know that much about exact ideology) is that perhaps it has become the definition? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I'm going to stop talking. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our fascism article leaves me more confused each time I read it. It seems as if there is no consensus for what philosophy or philosophies are "fascist", and that the term is merely a pejorative thrown at any "oppressive" state. I find it hard to believe that the politics of Nazi Germany are similar to the politics of most of the other so-called "fascist" states. I have even heard intelligent political scientists call Stalin a "fascist." I can only conclude that this term is useless. Intelligent discourse on politics should instead detail and critique specific policies of a particular government, rather than its "overlying ideology." As to the original question, pretending that all forms of government lie on a single-dimensional spectrum can be nothing less than idiotic. The space of possibilities for collective decision-making is multi-dimensional and I'm still baffled that anyone can get far into the study of political science and contend that there is such a thing as a single spectrum. Nimur (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there's a one-dimensional spectrum is that no-one has come up with any close to being accurate. I've seen quite a few and all of them have been some way away from making any sense whatsoever. It's because people like to do that sort of thing that they like to try. And I agree that as soon as you start to define the word fascist you realise you can't. It's only useful for defining specific periods for example. Like I say, 'Fascist Italy' and immediately my audience will think of Mussolini - that sort of thing. You might as well say 'Italy under Mussolini' for all the term actually helps define what happened in the period; it does, however, label the period. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I stumbled upon this political compass [14] which is two-dimensional. It was interesting that by searching on forums, a lot of national radicals were surprisingly ended up mostly in the "authoritarian left" part. --131.188.3.20 (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done many like that. I think the point is that there are many things that historians would argue (I've read, any way) that the groups people consider 'far-left' and 'far-right' are inseparable. One example would be state censorship, from what I know. But that's not really the question (?). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was the first question I asked in my first politics lecture. (I only ever went to two.) The answer I got was that the political spectrum is not, in fact a spectrum in the sense of an open-ended continuum: it is, in fact, more like the colour wheel, in which extremes of left and right blend imperceptibly into one. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With (at least in Europe) the current leftists supporting strongly capitalist economies and free trade, and the current rightists fighting against big corporations I am no longer sure who to call leftist and rightist. --131.188.3.20 (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left/Right distinctions are always somewhat arbitrary, and always contextual. Nevertheless, the spectrum analysis hold some validity, and most contemporary party systems can be divided along left/right lines. Some things should be stated though:

adding 'extra dimensions' is usually done with the intention to prove a point. I don't subscribe to the notion that adding a 'authoritarian-libertarian axis' is particularily relevant, such models are usually constructed by the self-proclaimed 'libertarians' to position themselves in a better light.
every political movements share some common traits with other political movements. Depending on what emphasis you chose (arbitrarily), you can always claim that 'ideology x' and 'ideology y' are related since they both say Z about W.
So then, what are the core definition of leftwing or rightwing? The truth is that it doesn't exist. A position identified as 'leftist' in one country might be a typical 'rightwing' position in another. Rather the left/right spectrum depends on the interrelation between political forces. Nazism is rightly located as 'far right' in terms of its uncompromising opposition to Socialists and Communists (and, although in different terms, liberalism), whilst the movement had a far more concilitory position to rightwing nationalist and conservative groups in Germany. Communists are generally seen as further to the left than Social Democrats, since the latter generally position themselves closer to bourgeois forces.

--Soman (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this question is in itself questionable, as it seems that at least three erronous statements of the original poster, has to be accepted as facts in order to reply to his liking. All I can say is that it would be very superficial to view nazism as a communist ideology. Try instead and look at it as an example of a (very successful and ingenous) attempt of an extremist far-right nationalist ideology in embracing some (at the time) popular ideals of the communist ideology, without compromising the ideas of the former. I can recommend reading up on the history of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have misunderstood what I wrote. I never talked about communism. I hope you know the differences between communism and socialism. The only thing I was expecting to be accepted is to view these ideologies as ideologies, and not as loaded swearwords which got thrown around in hot electoral debates. What were the other two statements you consider erroneous? --131.188.3.20 (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point still stands. Beside you stating as fact that nazism was "leftist" my other two objections is your view that Germany and Italy had "radically different political systems". While they were different in many aspects they had even more similarities compared to any other systems at the time. The third being that you make it sound like the general view of WWII is that it was an ideological struggle, when you would hardly find a proper historian that would make such a simplified statement. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By radically different political systems, I used the original definition of left and right, as rightist meant a supporter of a hierarchical society, aristocracy, etc. About he third, I think you misread what I've written. The whole point was that the WW2 was not an ideological struggle. --131.188.3.20 (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My goal was not to state that nazism was leftist, my goal was to find an answer to the question "why is it considered rightist despite of, as I think, it was based on leftist ideologies?" --131.188.3.20 (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the basic right/left split can USUALLY be thought of as "right=backwards looking" and "left=forwards looking" or, if you prefer, the rightists support a return to a better time, while leftists support the creation of a new paradigm. Ultimately, the Nazis are rightists, because at their heart is a philosophy of returning Germany to its glory. It was primarily a Germany-first, and the "original" idea of Germany-first, Großdeutschland. It is ultimately a backwards-looking philosophy. The Nazi's, despite being named a "worker's party" were primarily concerned with returning to a state of glory, not in creating a "new world order" out of whole cloth. The Stalinists, OTOH, were clearly looking to create a here-to-fore unknown system, a communist nation, and weren't really concerned with recreating or recapturing any past ideals. The same is true for other Facist and/or Communist states. The Spanish Fascists (rightists) were ultimately monarchists who wanted a restoration of the monarchy and an end to republicanism. The Maoists (leftist) gave us the Cultural Revolution which sought to erase traditional Chinese culture and replace it with a new Communist culture. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks, this was a very helpful explanation. I was a bit confused by the two dimensional spectrum, where the left-right is explicitly economical and would place them to the left wing. So, as I understand, their kind of nostalgic view of the past is what causes most people to place them to the right wing. I remember now the mid 19th century debates, where indeed, the right wing was the conservative party, and the leftist were who tried to change everything and build a brand new society. Hm, does that place those current socialists who look back nostalgic to the Soviet era to the right-wing? I see the political spectrum is very complicated, it's not that black and white as it seems at the first look :) --131.188.3.21 (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet-style socialism is and always will be about building a new economic and social order. That they miss the old Soviet Union doesn't make the right wing, it just makes them wish the leftist of the past had done a better job in establishing that new order.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, the political term right-wing originates from the French Revolution. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 is right about the basic idea behind right versus left. As DOR (HK) points out, it goes back to times when right-wingers where monarchists (wanted to go back to the old society) and left-wingers were republicans (wanted to create a new society). Concerning the Nazis: not only were they very much oriented towards the past (Germany's supposedly heroic history in the Middle Ages and the 1871 Empire), but they were also supported by more traditional right-wingers. The Nazis received donations from industry, the banks, and the nobility, and their most reliable voters were farmers and small business owners. On the other hand, the ones who opposed the Nazis were socialists and communists, and the Nazis never obtained many votes from workers and the poor (there was never any serious opposition to the Nazis from other right-wing parties). In conclusion -- while the Nazis certainly incorporated leftist ideas into their ideology (such as government control of the markets), overall and especially when looking at the political spectrum in Germany at the time, they were definitely right-wingers. --Chl (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no political scientist or anything, but the right-left scheme barely even works for regular parties that generally do align one way or the other. The Nazis don't really fit anywhere...they're not right or left, they're Nazis. What use is it to put them in one slot or the other? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before the Nazis were the Nazis, they were just a regular political party. At that time, they fit into the spectrum just fine. With respect to the time after they took power and all other parties were outlawed, I agree -- it doesn't make much sense to classify them at that point. --Chl (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The more useful way of looking at the problem is "power from above" (i.e., power naturally belongs to the state and whatever power individuals have is granted by the state) and "power from below" (i.e., power naturally belongs to individuals and whatever power the state has is granted by individuals). In American politics, "the left" tend to believe in power-from-below in the social sphere, but "power-from-above" in the economic sphere, while "the right" tend to believe in the reverse. Neither is logically consistent and so you get weird positions like, the right to do what one wants with one's own body is OK if the choice is social (e.g., gay marriage) but not when the choice is economic (e.g., selling labor for less than the legislated minimum), or vice-versa. Wikiant (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Right" and "Left" are constructs - we develop our notions of what are "right" and "left" based on the parties which we classify as "right" or "left". It's all a bit circular, and it's pointless trying to apply strict logic to it. Whenever anyone says "the Nazis aren't right-wing!", what they mean is "the Nazis aren't what I in my preconceived notions thought was right wing!".

Clearly a lot of political ideologies on different parts of the spectrum will share certain policies or principles. For example, all mainstream parties in the UK might support a democratic system of government. Does that mean "there is no right or left in UK politics"? Of course not.

"Right" and "left" is just one (useful but) generalising way to classify political parties and there are plenty of finer distinctions. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikiant, don't most leftists claim to believe that state power is "power from below", and private choice is "power from above" because there is no equality in the wild? —Tamfang (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow you. Wikiant (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I don't reckon the point is worth the effort of elaborating. —Tamfang (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that they have any consistent meaning, I think the 'right' is for stability and the 'left' for equality – in some sense or other. I once had an Esperanto calendar with a chart of European political parties (long before there was an EU Parliament!) arranged in a triangle whose corners represented stability, equality and freedom; pace Soman above, I have no reason to think this was cooked up by a libertarian. —Tamfang (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

communion faux pas?

I'm non-religious, but I recently attended a Catholic funeral as a friend of the deceased's family. Most of the other attendees (family members, relatives, etc.) were Catholic. At one point in the service, everyone got out of their seats and got in line to receive a communion wafer from the priest. Not wanting to be awkward, I did the same thing. The priest gave me a wafer but he also gave me sort of a funny look. I think he figured out what was going on, and gave me the wafer anyway to avoid creating an embarassment. My question is whether I committed either a social faux pas and/or theological error. Also, did this even count as a communion since there wasn't wine involved, there wasn't a transsubstantiation ritual that I noticed, etc.? As a nonbeliever I'm not worried about theological consequences for me personally, but I'm wondering the proper thing to do in this situation in general. It also occurs to me that the priest might now consider himself in trouble "upstairs" for giving me the wafer, for which he might have to do some annoying penance on account of me, which I'd rather have not caused.

Also, after receiving the wafer, what are the faithful supposed to do with it? I took it back to my seat, held onto it for a little while, and finally ate it unobtrusively. I couldn't tell what anyone else did. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communion is restricted to Catholics, and not just any Catholics but those in the state of grace. I wouldn't worry too much about the fate of the priest. They get strangers turning up every day of the week, and they're in no position to question or challenge them. Maybe in some rare cases they have very good reason to know that the person is not a Catholic (e.g. if the Archbishop of Canterbury stood in line), but in general they don't know, and have to take the person on trust. Even Catholics who've just murdered their mother and have not yet repented could take Communion but they're not supposed to, and the priest would not know that person A is ready for the Pearly Gates but person B is ready for Hell. For the future, simply let those who want to partake in Communion do so, and you should remain in your seat. If you're the only person in the entire church not participating, I appreciate it could feel really awkward to be the odd person out, but just grit your teeth and stay put. Re the wine and transsubstantiation ritual, I can't imagine a priest giving out unconsecrated hosts (they would be, as far as the priest is concerned, mere bread), so there would have to have been something going on that you didn't notice. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to various religious services, including a Catholic funeral, where they took Holy Communion and I just sat quietly in my seat and nobody minded. I doubt anyone will mind too much that you took communion when you shouldn't have done, as long as you did so in a respectful manner (had you taken the bread and then thrown it away, that would have offended some people, almost certainly). As for there only being bread, you can receive communion with only one of the two (either is fine), I'm not sure under what circumstances they use one, other or both (I think both will have been present during the consecration, even if they weren't both handed out). --Tango (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know about Catholic priests who have an ecumenical point of view. Myself a Protestant, I've been at a Catholic ceremony where the priest, knowing that there are some protestants present, explicitly said that they we can take part as well. Of course, sitting there and doing nothing is perfectly acceptable. Another good example is the sign of the cross. Catholics do it on a Protestant liturgy, Protestants or nonreligious people don't do it on a Catholic Mass, and nobody is offended. --131.188.3.20 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long time since I was last at a Catholic mass, but my memory is that there are always people in the congregation who don't partake of Communion. I can't remember ever seeing literally every person get up and stand in line. It's obviously possible, but if I were a priest, I'd be thinking "Hmm, I bet some of these people shouldn't be here, but I'm going to have to pretend that I'm overjoyed everyone's coming to the party". -- JackofOz (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, in his next sermon, he could subtly (or not so subtly) remind his flock about the rules. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what they said. The wafer (the 'host') will have been consecrated. Either there will have been a mass during the service (in which case there will have been a part where the priest was at the altar retelling part of The Last Supper, "Take this all of you and eat it." etc), or the consecrated host will have been stored carefully from previous masses to be used in services like this one. Either way, this was communion and you accidentally took part.

Communion nearly always includes the wafer (host) and often includes the wine. Receiving either counts as receiving communion. The thing people are supposed to do on being handed the wafer is to put it straight in their mouth and respectfully eat it (while crossing themselves). Given that the accepted way of disposing of excess consecrated host and wine is to consume them respectfully, that you disposed of the wafer by respectfully eating it was probably the best thing you could have done.

If you were in that situation again, as someone who didn't believe the host was the body of Christ, the respectful thing to do would be to stay sitting (as many people do) or go up with your arms crossed across your chest (right hand on left shoulder, left hand on right shoulder) and receive a blessing instead of communion. Ideally, the Catholic people who knew you should have given you a hint, but obviously people have other things on their minds at funerals.

The priest won't be in any trouble. You don't need to worry yourself about that. Receiving communion is largely a matter of individual consciences, and priests generally just have to leave it to those. He can't know whether every given individual is in an appropriate state to receive communion, and is not expected to. 80.41.31.27 (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bread would have become the body of Christ, per Catholic belief, and that is what you consumed. Feel any different? Edison (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did it taste like pork? —Tamfang (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the explanations. Yes, now that I think of it, I believe the priest did do something with some wine before the communion; it just wasn't dispensed to the congregation, so I didn't realize that it "counted". I wasn't paying very close attention to the priest at that point, because of the surrounding commotion of everyone getting out of their seats to stand in line. Yes, it was everyone, or anyway nearly everyone. I checked to see if anyone was going to remain sitting down, and I was going to do the same if anyone else did, but since everyone got up, I felt it would have been disrespectful for me to do otherwise--oops. I like the idea of approaching with hands crossed on shoulders. The whole thing was much less portentous than I imagined it being from movies and novels. The priest was a relaxed young Irish guy who mentioned that he had been ordained just 4 years ago, and he acknowledged the presence of non-Catholics and no-longer-practicing Catholics in the room. To Edison--yes I do feel different, but I'm not sure I can attribute that to the communion or the other ceremonies. I tried to get into the meditative aspect of the praying of the Rosary (done the previous evening) but it didn't do much for me, partly because I didn't know it would be repeated so many times, and I was trying to understand the words, which were a bit garbled from so many people saying them at once. The most "religious" part of the event for me was the hymns, some of which I had heard before. The priest mentioned that the Catholic version of "Amazing Grace" had altered lyrics from the version more familiar to non-Catholics. The only difference I noticed was they changed "wretch" to "soul" in the first verse, but I wasn't that familiar with the "usual" version so I may have missed some other changes.

I have one other question--the priest seemed to signal the start of communion by holding an enormous book over his head and walking forward. The book didn't appear to be a Bible. What was it, and what is the significance of the gesture? 67.122.209.126 (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand which part you are describing, that big book will have been a missal. It contains all the words for different versions of different services on different days. This is important because there are different versions even of the parts that don't change from week to week, and you don't want to risk mixing them up. On top of that, some of the prayers have particular versions depending on the week, the year, the special day, or other occasion. The priest usually has it open on the altar while performing the central part of the Mass (as in, the bit recreating the last supper). Since the service starts with the altar bare apart from the cloth and candles, the missal has to be carried up and put on the altar. Because the service, particularly the Liturgy of the Eucharist(the bit recreating the last supper) is sacred, everything in it is carried out in a reverent, careful fashion. So the missal is carefully placed on the altar, as are the other things (such as the chalice) used in the liturgy. 80.41.31.27 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you wanted to know what the words were in the rosary, it will mostly have been the Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be, probably with some words to meditate on said occasionally by an individual. 80.41.31.27 (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can see that might have made the priest look at you funny was taking the host back to your seat. In my parish (when I was a kid), the priest always put it directly into our mouths. Times may have changed since then, for hygiene reasons, but that is the only thing I can think of. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it (and our article suggests similarly), it is usually up to the person receiving the host whether they want it put in their hand or their mouth. I think you would generally eat it straight away even if it was put in your hand, but I thinking taking it back to your seat would be odd, at worst, not offensive or "wrong". --Tango (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, straight-in-the-mouth is pretty old school. Apart from the more 'traditional' churches and individuals, most people (in my experience) go for receiving it in the hand. They would still eat it straight away. 80.41.123.51 (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that you are one of the Elect. Edison (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also quite possible (probable?) that you put out a bit of body language that said "I'm not at all sure what I'm supposed to do with this thing", and the priest picked up on it. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The priest gave me the funny look and hesitated slightly before giving me the wafer, so it couldn't have been due to my taking it back to my seat afterwards. But JackofOz is correct, I was very obviously looking at other people and trying to do what they were doing, which the priest surely noticed (that's why I felt it might have been obvious to him that I wasn't supposed to receive communion, causing him a conflict which he resolved by giving me the wafer anyway). I remember now that I took the wafer back to my seat because I had the notion that the communion was supposed to also involve wine, which I guessed would be passed around afterwards, so I was going to wait and see what to do once that happened. Thanks to 80.* for the explanation about the missal. The thing with the missal was quite impressive, much more than a reverent transport of the book from one place to another. The book was held overhead like Moses holding the Ten Commandments, or as if the priest were summoning lightning to shoot out of the book and fry any vampires (or whatever) that might have been present in the room (fortunately I guess there were none) before going on with the ceremony. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems pretty well covered, so I won't go over the ceremony again... but... someone (I didn't want to scan the whole thing again) mentioned that anything left over should be consumed in a respectful manner. I thought I'd just point something out for you, 67.* and anyone else who is curious. If there is only a little blood or a couple of hosts left, the priest will often just consume these at the end of communion. If there is more, then the leftovers are stored in a tabernacle. There will be a candle of some sort burning next to the tabernacle. When empty, the dishes that were used for the wafers and wine/body and blood will be washed out in special sinks. The drains go directly into the ground, like a greywater system, instead of going into a septic/sewer system. Dismas|^(talk) 04:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had the wine in an Anglican church once, but never at a Catholic church. At the churches I went to, only the priests and whoever was helping hand out the wafers drank the wine. (Also, although I probably shouldn't say this publically, one time I took the wafer home with me, and nothing happened. But then I felt bad so I ate it anyway. Hooray Catholic guilt!) Adam Bishop (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While altar boys, my friends and I used to eat the wafers if we were hungry. They hadn't been blessed yet, of course. Dismas|^(talk) 08:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then, theologically speaking, you were just eating bread, indistinguishable from a loaf you can buy at the bakery. Just count yourself lucky you didn't live in 18th century England, where the theft of a loaf of bread could have got you transported to New South Wales for the term of your natural life. Corollary: There's nothing stopping a priest using a loaf of bread for communion instead of ready-prepared wafers. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there something about the bread being unleavened? This article says: "The bread is unleavened in the Latin, Armenian and Ethiopic Rites, but is leavened in most Eastern Catholic churches." --Tango (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen both, although the leavened bread was at a Lutheran service, not Catholic. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must distinguish between ordinary and unusual circumstances. If unleavened bread is available, you should use it in a Catholic mass; if not, any kind of bread will do. I used to eat unconsecrated wafers like Dismas did when I was in Catholic school and wonder why they didn't come in different flavors. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the wine, there should always be wine at the consecration, which should be consumed by the priest. --Joe^Talk_Work 03:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

Full version of "JANA GANA MANA/INDIA'S NATIONAL ANTMEM"

Is there any way that you can help me find the complete version (all 5 stanzas) of "JANA GANA MANA" written by Shri Robindra Nath Tegore? I do remember reading it during my school days in 1947-48-49. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkmsrm01 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see Jana Gana Mana. --Soman (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I requested about ALL FIVE STANZAS OF THIS PARTICULAR SONG sung in 1911, Please. Thanks. Rkmsrm01 (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkmsrm01 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When I searched for "Jana Gana Mana" "full text" on Google [15], I got a bilingual Bengali-English version here [16]. Sorry, I can't tell you whether it was the one "sung in 1911," as you requested. Can I ask which language it is you're looking for?

Another thing, it's probably better you avoid writing in capital letters - even if it's only a few words, sometimes it feels like shouting. If you want to emphasize something, you can always highlight it, and then put it in bold or italics using the two buttons on the far left, right above the box where you type in your stuff. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help :-) 89.242.162.196 (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economic slowdown causes

What were the other causes of the worldwide economic slowdown besides the subprime mortgage crisis in the U.S.? Thanks. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things were more like the gunpowder waiting for a spark. That's why we've had quite a few discussions here about what constitutes a 'cause'. From the UK, two example would be high house prices, overgenerous lending (like the US) and some over-ambitious (i.e. they overvalued the business they were buying) takeovers in the financial sector. I think there were some exchange rate issues as well, I can't remember exactly. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point you to the article on the crisis.- Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 13:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key reason it became a worldwide economic crisis is due to securitization, the way that financial institutions put their debt into packages which they then sold to other investors. Hence when one country's financial institutions came into severe difficulties, it transmitted all over the world. True, there are a lot of other factors. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, economies naturally wax and wane. The more globalization there is, the more likely that the waxing and waning will be near-simultaneous across countries. This particular slowdown is less a natural waning than it is a correction of an unnatural waxing. As other editors have pointed out, aggressive lending created a housing bubble and the associated bubble in mortgage backed securities. The formation of the bubbles was encouraged by a combination of loose monetary policy (which made the loanable funds available), government pressure on banks to extend loans to less qualified borrowers, and government facilitation (in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) of lending. Wikiant (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever anyone asks this question (it comes up every week or so here) I always direct them to this podcast: [17] which does an excellent job of explaining the nitty gritty in very accessable terms. Please take a listen. These guys have done followup episodes as well which explain other aspects of the current economic situation, but this one is one of the best explanations of the full background of the crisis. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, the US budget surpluses built up by the Clinton Administration were treated as free money by Dubious & Co (yeah, POV: I don’t like ~~him~~ W and his gang of thugs). Spending increased and taxes were cut while interest rates remained low. This led to a rapid increase in the money supply (from 4% growth per annum in the 1990s to 7.7% p.a. in 2001-03) and a $650 ~~trillion~~ billion reversal of the federal budget balance over four years. Double hit: easy money and the most irresponsible fiscal explosion in history, at the same time. Add a regulatory change enacted by the Republican-controlled congress in 1999 that reversed many decades of restrictions on commercial banks, investment banks, stock brokers and insurance companies being under one roof. The net result was a bubble, and with low interest rates banks were scrambling to increase the yield on the “core capital” they had to hold. Since such capital has to be the least risky (AAA rated), highly paid financial engineers ramped up the issuance of securitized financial instruments that paid more interest than Treasury bills but still had the high rating. When the bubble burst, banks' core capital was not only inadequate but also illiquid, which led to panic selling of anything remotely related to securitized paper. Confidence fell and with it consumer (and corporate) demand, leading to the largest and longest drop in US domestic demand in post-WWII history. Oh, and the rest of the world got broadsided, which resulted in the worst global economic contraction since the 1930s. Roughly speaking DOR (HK) (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there were no surpluses under Clinton. Check figures (a google search will yield many sources) on the national debt -- it shows national debt increasing in each of the Clinton years. Next, check figures on the budget deficit -- those figures will show a surplus in the Clinton years. Why the difference? Because money the government borrows from the Social Security fund is counted (incredibly) as revenues. Hence, the figures show a "surplus" even though, in fact, total Federal debt rose. Wikiant (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikant, I'll show you my source if you'll show me yours . . . (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls)'! Lo, there were surpluses in 1998-2001, the last four years in which Mr Clinton was responsible for the economy (presidents get the credit or blame for the year following their departure). The national debt may well increase even with a surplus, since the two are not specifically measuring the same thing. Since we had to continue to pay of Ronald Reagan’s worst-in-history-to-that-date budget deficits, and George the Sane’s (41) continuation, there was an increase in the national debt.DOR (HK) (talk) 09:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your data shows debt held by the public. It does not include intergovernmental debt -- i.e., amounts borrowed by the Federal government from Social Security. The only way to get surpluses in the Clinton years is to ignore the intergovernmental debt. Wikiant (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why did Clinton NOT veto it? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

While the US was almost certainly the trigger for the crisis, I don't think you can blame the whole thing on the US. The rest of world wasn't in a particularly stable state, had they been the US going under wouldn't have snowballed so much. --Tango (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congress has authorized the creation of a Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to examine the causes, domestic and global, of the current financial and economic crisis in the United States. Section 5(c)(1) of the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 lists 22 different factors whose role the Commission is specifically directed to examine. This link has FERA's text in bill form; it was signed into law on May 20.

As you might expect, the economic slowdown is a complicated matter and has many causes. In my own work (I've done some presentations on this), I tend to emphasize the regulatory failures, but of course there were many other factors too. John M Baker (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys... I was curious as to whether the whole global slowdown was caused by something that happened only in the US. To conclude from your answers, there were factors related to other countries too. --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Holocaust Theology" sources

Could you tell me any sources used for any or all of the text in the article on "Holocaust theology"--books, other encyclopedia? Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.78.30 (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few are listed in the holocaust theology article's "notes" section (but not really enough). It's not clear which of these, if any, support much of the article. Consequently you'd be well advised either to check those few patchy sources that are given yourself, or ignore the whole article (until it is adequately supported by references) altogether. 87.114.167.162 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

Canadian girls as prostitutes

I know it may sound weird but what will be the punishment if a guy took lure the Indo-Canadian and Pakistani-Canadian girls into modelling in India and Pakistan and all of sudden, they become prostitutes in Mumbai and Lahore? And his reason will that he did this to hate India and Pakistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.171 (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, the punishment in India would be 3 to 7 years. This article says the punishment in Pakistan would be up to 25 years. They would also be guilty of an offence in Canada, but I can't find the punishment. I'm still looking. --Tango (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly they would also violate Canadian law - are there offences under Canadian law making it illegal to lure people with false pretences; he might be guilty of fraud or violating employment law or something similar? Also, does Canadian law have any provisions about transporting people for immoral purposes, or laws on human trafficking, etc? --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human trafficking is covered in the Kidnapping section of the Criminal Code of Canada, and includes taking people out of Canada. Penalities range from 14 years to life. WikiJedits (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military Discharge and Land Purchase

If I have dishonorable discharge from military can I still buy own land in the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.131.150 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

added heading -- 128.104.112.106 (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

~

May I ask if there is some reason for you to think that you can not? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters one can not keep firearms. Our article on Military discharge makes no mentions of anything about land owning. It does, however, mention difficulties related to a career later. 62.128.252.85 (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being fired from any job will make it difficult to get a new one. Not being allowed to keep firearms makes sense - you've shown yourself to be untrustworthy in some way. That is no reason to stop you owning land. Unless you have some reason to think there is a law about dishonourably discharged members of the armed forces owning land, I would say there almost certainly isn't. --Tango (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even convicted felons can still own land, although it would be very, very difficult to get a loan to buy it. Livewireo (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do banks check criminal records for loan applicants? I don't think they are allowed to in the UK, they just look at your credit report and might request proof of income. --Tango (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it does affect your income level and ability to get a job, which in turn affect your ability to receive a loan. Livewireo (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, it would generally only affect your ability to get a job while it was an "unspent" conviction (see Rehabilitation of Offenders Act), so it would only be an issue if the offence was fairly recent (last 5-10 years for most offences) or a particularly serious offence (ie. a sentence of more than 2.5 years). Does the US have a similar system? --Tango (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do not allow "convicted felons" ever to vote, which removes democracy from some portions of society. 89.240.49.168 (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that just convicted felons that are currently serving their sentence? --Tango (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it is only in America (I think) where someone could be deprived of their right to vote for life even after they've served their sentence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHAAOE! Felony disenfranchisement. --Tango (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Business Cases

There was a historical business case where one company created bullwhips and another created railroad ties (or somethign similar). One of the companies failed and the other became a prominent orgnanization. Has anyone heard this case, and do you know which company is which? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MSweeney1354 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of "buggy-whip manufacturer" (a kind of proverbial phrase for a company in danger of going out of business)? AnonMoos (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High resolution scenes of the Bayeux Tapestry

Is there anywhere I can find them online? So far the only ones I can find are rather bad quality, seeing as I wish to zoom in on them for my video. I don't mind if it's a only a replica, in case that helps. Surely there is no copyright on the tapesty nowadays! : ) Thanks, --217.227.113.100 (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Category:Bayeux Tapestry has a few higher-resolution images. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side note on copyright - the Bayeux tapestry is in no way under copyright, as you say, but photos and videos of it may be under copyright of the photographer/cameraman. The WP ones are free to use, but check other images first, if you're concerned about copyright. Steewi (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Victorian replica, complete with bowdlerised little shorts over on character's genitalia, is on display in Reading Museum. They should be open to enquiries about photos -- perhaps they have their own sources. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing a proper online museum exhibition a few years ago. It was really facinating with high-res photos, english translations, and so on, but unfortunately I cannot find it at the moment (or maybe it is no longer online, or maybe I'm remembering it wrong). The best I could find for the moment is this page, and if I find the one I remember I'll add another link here Astronaut (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't find it after viewing 100 or so sites. However, this site might have once had what I was looking for, but the author says (at the bottom of the page) "It is with some sadness that I must announce that, after four years of operation, the on-line prototype of my Digital Edition of the Bayeux Tapestry has ended" - you can now buy a CD version for £30 + VAT + P&P. As for copyright issues, I very much doubt the tapestry itself is copyrighted, but almost everywhere you look the images taken by others are copyrighted (with some sites going as far as using javascript trickery to stop you saving the images to your disk). Astronaut (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BT has naughty bits? Soldiers mooning each other, or what? —Tamfang (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, reading our article gave me an Anglo-Saxon name of an identifiable character near the inscrutable one. I used that to google: "bayeux tapestry Ælfgyva naked". That took me to, inter alia, a brief semi-scholarly discussion of the raunchy conundrums in the Exeter Book of Riddles, illustrated with a NSFW image from the tapestry of a naked man squatting, displaying pendulous generative organs. The author says the character is an enigma. Madeline H. Caviness, on the other hand, posits in Reframing Medieval Art: Difference, Margins, Boundaries that the naked men were there to discredit the chastity of Ælfgyva and thus by implication the line of succession within Anglo-Saxon royalty. Remember that the Tapestry was a work of propaganda, history being written or embroidered by the victors. BrainyBabe (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2

Hu Jintao's family

Does Hu Jintao have any kids, any grandkids, if Hu Jintao have kids, are they born in 1963-1970? For grandkids [18] isn't the little girl shaking hands with John Kufuor at FOCAC one of grandkids born in 1990s? --69.229.240.187 (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read our article on Hu Jintao which mentions that he has two children with his wife Liu Yongqing, a son and a daughter. It does not mention grandchildren. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it on the article in section one. Hu Jintao have one son, one daughter. Hu Hai Feng (male) and Hu Haiqing (female). On this article they said son is 35 in 2006, they he will be born in 1971. But I can't find anything about daughter.--69.229.240.187 (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then who is this women by Mwai Kibaki and a boy and a girl with Paul Biya?--69.229.240.187 (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have to be somebody related to President Hu? The girls shaking John Kufuor's hand could be anybody. You can't even see her face. Could it be some girl who won an essay contest at her local school? Maybe its the daughter of someone else in the government? The article gives no indication who it is, and given the paltry lack of any evidence otherwise, I don't see any way we could decipher who she is. Even if Hu had a granddaughter, we have no way to tell if this is her. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The girl in the photo is almost absolutely certainly not Hu Jintao's grandkids. Children are chosen for tasks like this based on political outlook, academic merit and that kind of thing. It is unheard of for leaders to use their children in this role. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swine flu in Antarctica?

Is it serious? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:H1N1_map.svg --190.50.68.16 (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around on the news, outbreak reports linked to in the article, and 2009 swine flu outbreak by country, but I couldn't find anything about swine flu in Antarctica. It was User:Vrysxy who updated the map to include Antarctica. You should probably shoot him a message since I can't find a reference for the change. Sifaka ^talk 03:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need The Following Census Information On Religion Within The United States

% of people who identified as Christians

• in the years earlier than 1990 (how far back? As far as you can go) • state-by-state today • state-by-state in the past

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razzaskingquestions (talk • contribs) 05:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check the Bureau of the Census at http://www.census.gov Livewireo (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the U.S. Census asked people their religion. Edison (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How are you supposed to claim to be a Jedi if the census doesn't ask for your religion? That's the only reason to fill our a census... --Tango (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jedi religion comes from an Australian census.
Sleigh (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The official U.S. Census simply does not ask about religion. This creates problems for those who consider themselves to be of Jewish ethnicity (even if they may not be particularly religious), but who definitely do not consider themselves to be German-Americans or Ukrainian-Americans etc. in the usual sense (even if their ancestors may have come from there) -- there's not really any official census-approved reply which they can put in the "ethnic origin" field which is in accordance with their own sense of self-identity. AnonMoos (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just doesn't ask about religion but legally cannot ask mandatory questions about religion (Public Law 94-521). Rmhermen (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Association of Religion data Archives. In the US there have been religious censuses conducted by religious interfaith groups back to the 19th century. See [19].You may find the article [[20]] helpful, as well as the articles it links to. Edison (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Seifert Poetry

Where can I find the original Czech version of these two poems?[21] I don't understand the language at all, but I'd like to see how the original poems looked and might have sounded. Vltava 68 09:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cicero on Plautus

Cicero spoke highly of the Roman playwright Terence. Did he have any (recorded) opinion on Plautus?? (added signature, which I forgot): It's been emotional (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cicero ranks him with the Athenian poets for his "elegant, polished, ingenious and witty manner of jesting," [De officiis I.29.104] and even puts into the mouth of the orator Crassus a statement that his mother-in-law's speech reminded him of Plautus' style. [De Oratore III.12.45] In the lady's interests, if for no other reason, we may imagine that Cicero was less familiar with our poet than he implies. Norwood, G. (1963). Plautus and Terence. OCLC 405627

—eric 13:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treasury Stock

When a corporation purchases back its own stock it is considered "treasury stock", basically stock the corporation owns and can resell when it pleases. But let's say a corporation had no debt (just equity) and purchased back ALL of its stock; does the corporation then own itself?

I don't believe this ever happens since it is a pretty silly way to use capital but in theory is this possible? And what would happen to the corporation since it's technically an legal entity (a person in many legal regards)? Maybe it would do a better job cleaning up the balance sheet then its former board of directors ;) TheFutureAwaits (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It happens quite often, actually, and is called "going private". Many private equity funds and hedge funds specialise in this sort of operation. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well right, maybe I should have been more specific with the assumptions of this theorectical situation. I'm saying imagine there's a corporation with no stakeholders, no board, just the last remaining executive who decides to quit but just before he does he decides the corporation will purchase all of it's equity and convert it to treasury stock (maybe I left a detail out but I think you see what I'm getting at). After he leaves and there's no one in charge and all of the corporation's capital is in treasury stock, wouldn't the corporation own itself? Who would have the legal authority to deny the legal entity of its possessions? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corporations always have board members - if board nominees resign, the underlying owners become board members, whether they like it or not. Corporations always have owners; not least because ownership of a private company carries liability, and one cannot wish that liability away. People either have to sell stock (to someone else) or dissolve the company - and even if a company is dissolved its former owners still have liability for it (and for its proper wind-up), even if all its assets have been disposed of. 87.115.16.117 (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don't think I'm elucidating myself clearly. What I'm getting at is if there were no underlying owners/stakeholder/whoever, any individual with a stake in the company besides some people who had common stock. Then ALL of the common stock was repurchased by the company as treasury stock (let's say the stockholders made this decision). Assuming it was originally in a 100% equity (common stock) state of capitalization prior to the repurchase then there wouldn't be anyone else to be considered the owner.

At that point there is no one left in charge of the company so wouldn't it own itself? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is predicated on a false postulate, namely "if there were no underlying owners/stakeholder/whoever". This cannot happen; there is no mechanism where a company can continue to exist but not have underlying owners. Even Byzantine schemes of mutual holding companies, eccentric wills, and the death or madness of owners or directors doesn't make that ownership go away (even if actually figuring out with whom it lies is very difficult). 87.115.16.117 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except if the only stakeholders were shareholders who then had their stock repurchased as treasury stock... TheFutureAwaits

The company couldn't buy its last share, there always has to be at least one shareholder. When a company goes private it doesn't buy all its shares, it buys all except those own by whoever is going to become the private owner. --Tango (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See that sounds plausible, Tango. So then if (hypothetically) the company were to purchase that last share it would own itself. I agree there are likely laws against it, but I'm saying in theory this would be the end result. Do you guys agree? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The law would mean the transaction selling the last share was void, the company simply cannot own itself. --Tango (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like everyone keeps jumping to this answer because they think "hey that can't happen, someone needs to own it". But since a corporation is a legal entity the concept of ownership gets very distorted. I'm suggesting that (although there are likely laws against it) ultimately there are circumstances by which no one would own a corporation except for itself. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The corporate personality is a legal fiction: a corporation acts through the mind of its officers, and said officers must by law act in the interest of the company's owner or owners. Who would be the mind, and acting on whose behalf, when that last share is purchased?

Aside from the fact that it would not be legally possible (a company cannot own itself), let's look at this economically. Let's say there is one share on issue for the company, owned by Joe Tycoon. JT is the sole owner of the company. Economically, the so-called "share" now represents the entire company, since the entire net assets of the company is one share. If Joe were to "sell" the share, he is selling the company. If he sold the company "to itself", what consideration would he receive? In an arm's length transaction, since he is selling the entire company, he must receive the value of that entire company. So the company would have two options for paying him: transfer all of its assets and liabilities to him personally, with the company henceforth being an incorporeal shell with no assets. Or, the company can liquidate itself and pay the proceeds to JT. In which case the company would again be an incorporeal shell with no assets. Either way, economically speaking, there would be no company. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a fallacy in "the entire net assets of the company is one share". The net assets are represented by one share; the assets and the one share are on opposite sides of the balance sheet. If Joe sells the company to itself, he receives whatever he (as corporate officer) chooses to pay himself (as the seller); what's the problem? There's nothing illegal about selling something (on one's own behalf) for less than it's worth. —Tamfang (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent answer, thank you for addressing my argument and also pointing me to the corporate personality debate which I was not previously aware of. This is fascinating material, it makes me wonder if there might still be benefits to JT selling the stock via removal of liability, a tax benefit, etc. Of course this is all theoretical so there's no way to put a value on those factors but still interesting to consider. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the link in my earlier post. I had no idea that "corporate personality" was a theological concept!--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that there must always be shareholders; nonprofit corporations have none. Such a buyback would, it seems to me, convert the corporation in question to a nonprofit. —Tamfang (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Art Deco" PAGE [Photo of black car bottom right of page]

I don't know how to change (edit)the caption under the photo of the black car near the bottom of the section. It is listed as a Nash Ambassodor It IS NOT! It is a 1947(I Think) Cadillac. Would you,whomever you are, correct the caption, please?Djlebeau (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC) DJLeBeau (Logo on the front grille of the car)[reply]

Hi. Hard for us to action this if you're not sure yourself. Why not post to Talk:Art Deco and see what the others there think? --Dweller (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the logo as a 48 Nash, but the body is 42. I removed the year and asked about it on the photo's talk page. I suspect it is a remodel with a 42 body and 48 grill. -- kainaw ™ 15:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a picture of a post-war Nash "Slipstream" Ambassador 4-door sedan that I took at a car show. There is more information on these cars here, but it is NOT a Cadillac! — CZmarlin (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

Why a slow rise but a sudden fall in the economy?

What are the reasons behind the often observed fact that the economy rises slowly but falls suddenly, like a crashing wave? Instead of slow/sudden, why isnt it slow/slow or sudden/slow for example? 78.147.251.229 (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One reasonable explanation is that people are (on average) risk averse. That is, as things get better people will tend to be slow to believe that things are getting better. When things get worse, people will be quick to believe (and even overestimate) that things are getting worse. As people act on those beliefs (e.g., make big ticket purchases now versus later), they generate (or fail to generate) economic activity. Thus, economic up turns will tend to happen slowly and down turns will tend to happen quickly. Wikiant (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perception problem: it only looked slower going up. The four quarters prior to this down-turn in the US saw an average 1.9% real GDP growth. That’s the same as results for the year preceding three of the last six recessions. As for housing prices, the run-up was extraordinarily fast. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's for much the same reason that houses are built slowly, but burn down fast. It takes time to build real value, but losses can be realized overnight. For example, in September 2008, one of the world's largest brokerages went bankrupt, one of the largest money market funds failed (and no money market fund with individual investors had ever failed before), and there was a massive government bailout of the world's largest insurance company, all in a two-day period. Naturally, there was a massive rush away from any perceived risk, resulting in an immediate slowdown. It takes time to regain trust and rebuild that economic activity. John M Baker (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is questionable to what extent the increase in the stock markets, etc., was "real value". It was, in large part, a bubble. --Tango (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is one can't define "real value" because value is subjective. By extension, there is no clear definition of "bubble." Wikiant (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And even then, those terms only have meaning in 20/20 hindsight. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That's why I said "questionable" not "wrong". --Tango (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An example might be GM - took decades to build up, now in bankruptsy. I've been thinking that maybe its because un-truths are discovered suddenly, but building something takes time. By un-truths I mean things like Madoff's fraud, bubbles, or that the GM business model is appropriate for the current economic environment. 89.243.113.64 (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that, to some extent, a recession may simply be the revelation that supposed value was in fact illusory. But there generally are real losses in economic productivity, and these tend to predominate.

Note that the OP is asking about falls in the economy, not falls in the stock market; these may be associated, but that is not always the case. John M Baker (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The graph at the start of the business cycle article only shows a slow rise and sudden fall most recently: there have been lots of sudden/suddens in earlier decades. 89.243.74.161 (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Indian Sri Lankan Party

Which Sir Lankan political party is considered as a Pro-Indian? Sri Lanka National or United National? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.32 (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what the basis of a "pro-Indian" political party would be, when many Sinhalese are distrustful of India's intentions, while many Tamils have bitter memories of India's military intervention... AnonMoos (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Career In Photoshooting

I want to get a career as a paparazzo, if not, a photographer. How do I do that?68.148.149.184 (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attend a college and get a degree in photo journalism. This page here: [22] from the National Press Photographers Association has some advice on choosing a school to get a degree in photography. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any idiot with a camera can be a paparazzo. Even children can do that. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Being a paparazzo is much more about where you go and whom you see as about the quality of the pictures. So, read tabloid press to learn about your targets.--80.58.205.37 (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most paparazzi sell their photos through photo agencies, so you could approach one of them with a portfolio/resume. You don't say where you're based; in the UK, the Big Pictures agency has a website Mr Paparazzi which buys photos from the public; this would offer a way in. Googling "How To Be a Paparazzo" throws up lots of websites, which recommend first taking photos and then hawking them around newspapers or agencies. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese online communities / discussion forums

Hi. Can anyone point me to a good English language discussion forum or website (if it exists) where chinese people discuss their politics/society etc. I confess I have a morbid curiosity to snoop in on what people of other countries are talking to each other about but I can't find anything for China. Thanks --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find much, you might find the reasons here. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A more pertinent reason might be the scarcity of fluent English speakers in China? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapa Nui mythology

Is Make-make the only god known from this religion, or are more gods and godesses known? --Aciram (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a start: The book Handbook of Polynesian Mythology, which is mentioned as a source on the Make-make page, also refers to a god called Haua. And this book mentions Era Nuku, Manana Take, Taporo and many more. Looks like we don't have articles on any of them yet. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Tangata manu article mentions other deities. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! They should have their own articles. Perhaps I'll write them! --Aciram (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deportation laws (~1945) Alaska => Soviet Union

Where can I find information about the deportation laws (~1945) in Alaska? Background: Were there any cases of POWs who escaped from the Soviet Union to Alaska and who were returned? Would they have been returned? I assume, yes, but I can not find the legal basis. Thanks! --83.141.221.231 (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POWs of what nationality do you mean? 87.115.17.103 (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately post-WW2 there were Russian POWs liberated from the Germans who were sent back to the USSR despite requests to remain in Europe. Stalin regarded them as contaminated by exposure to his Cold War enemies and unreliable, and many were sent to labor camps. In the 1980's a Russian sailor jumped from his ship onto a U.S. naval ship, and the U.S. allowed Soviet security forces onto the U.S. ship to chase the man down, club him into submission, and drag him back onto the Soviet ship. So there were many instances of not granting asylum to random citizens of the USSR who sought it. So it is quite possible that immediately post-WW2 if a German POW escaped from a hypothetical POW camp in Siberia to Alaska that he would have been returned to the USSR if they requested the return, on the basis that he was not worth an international incident that would have strained relations between then-allies. Did you have a specific person in mind? Edison (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting story. The background of my question is a fiction (see Clemens Forell published 1955) based on the experiences of a German WWII-POW in Siberia wo escaped through Siberia and Iran, among other countries, because "he had learnt that another prisoner who had escaped to Alaska was returned to Siberia". Whether this deportation is true or not may be of secondary importance. The question remains, whether the legal basis for a deportation was given in 1945++ . --83.141.221.231 (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pacific Coast might have been a military zone under command of the U.S. military in 1945, so military commands rather than civil law could have applied. Edison (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

liberalism and journalism

Why is it that in the US, a disproportionate number of journalists are political liberals? Is there something inherent with liberalism that influences them to become journalists, or do they start mixed and become liberal during their education, or is it something else? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really disproportionate; you probably just think there is a liberal conspiracy against you because you're a conservative. It's observer bias, maybe? Or maybe we can go with the glib answer that educated people become liberals because conservatives are dumb. Or that there are no liberals in the US, everyone is conservative, and the rest of the world giggles when you think otherwise. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should see the Canadian media ;) TastyCakes (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US media bias article mentions a survey showing 61% democrats, 15% republican which would imply that it is not really observer bias. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is certainly a correlation with the type of people that want to be reporters and the type of people that hold liberal ideals. It is an "artsy" degree at school, after all. While there may be more of them, however, I'd say a case could be made for conservatives more than holding their own thanks to popular conservative commentators like Limbaugh, Hannity and (always obnoxious) Glen Beck. As in there are fewer of them but more people watch them. I'd say the bigger problem with American news is that people tune in to these kinds of political talk shows for more than just opinion, they go for the "facts". Instead of looking for information to better formulate their own opinion, they are effectively told an opinion by often extreme public voices. I think this has been an important factor in the increased polarization of American politics, and don't think it's good for anyone except the shrill peddlers of this twisted and over hyped information. TastyCakes (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense that more liberal people would want to be journalists (or vice versa). Journalists generally value freedom of information and keeping the public informed, which suits a liberal ideology more than a conservative one. --Tango (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's particularly true. I'd consider myself a conservative in the libertarian streak, and I believe part of that is having transparent information, particularly where it comes to government spending, laws and policies. Similarly, there are liberals who do not seem to care about twisting information to suit their needs: Michael Moore being the obvious candidate. But I agree that journalists often seem to fall into the "bleeding heart liberal" mould, probably because part of their motivation for becoming a journalist is exposing and correcting perceived social ills. TastyCakes (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that 50 years ago, the Republican party owned the college-graduate demographic, but that it leans heavily Democratic today. Journalists almost all have degrees, so if you just took a random sampling of college-educated people, it's likely to lean left. Add to that the do-gooder aspirations of many journalists which TastyCakes mentioned, and you're going to get an even more liberal crowd. That said, I think the whole "liberal media" meme is wildly overblown. Books and articles by lifelong Republican Bob Woodward don't come off much different to works by his more liberal colleagues. --Sean 20:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an element of subjectivity. Sure, a lot of US journalists are Democrat voters. But from a European perspective, that doesn't really mark them out as social liberals. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European liberals are called radical socialists here. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, European "liberals" are called free-marketers here. The Economist had an amusing essay a few years ago, remarking that liberal is a term of abuse on both sides of the pond, with roughly opposite meanings. —Tamfang (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Cronkite has promoted the view that journalists tend to be liberal because they are better informed than the average person. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Adoption Statistics

Does anyone know where I can find any statistics on successful and unsuccessful applications for adoptions by gay men in the UK. Since 2003 I suppose, after discrimination was removed.

Sounds like something that should be available, but my google-fu is failing me. Thanks 78.144.219.154 (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try approaching the Lesbian and Gay Adoption Group UK, at New Family Social Group. They have a message board, and a section form research requests. Or try the British Association for Adoption & Fostering, which has some statistics on its site and might be able to come up with more if you ask nicely. Lisa Saffron has writen books on the alternative family, mainly lesbian parenting, but might have journalistic research leads as well. She was involved with Pink Parents, which now has branches all over the place. Good luck! BrainyBabe (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden resigned as Senator in January 2009. Was this unconstitutional?

Doesn't it say in the constitution that no person can be in the executive and the congress at the same time? Why didn't Obama and Biden have to resign on Nov 5th?Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because until the inauguration in January, he was only the P or VP elect, which is not an executive position (or even a job technically). 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Obama wasn't even elected President until December 15, 2008, per the Electoral College. That election's formal vote tally and certification didn't take place until January 8, 2009, per the Twelfth Amendment (with a date change for this particular election). Only then could Obama and Biden formally claim to be the President-Elect and Vice President-Elect -- and even then, as 65. notes above, those are not executive positions. — Lomn 20:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah of course. For some reason I completely forgot they weren't inaugurated til January. ThanksJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rid of the National Debt by a period of inflation?

Britain and other countries have large national debts, private individuals have debts too. Wouldnt therefore some inflation for a few years be good for everyone, both individuals and governments, to reduce the real value of these debts? 20% inflation for 5 years would reduce the real value of debts by about two thirds. I assume that wage levels would rise to keep up with inflation, as they did in the UK during high inflation times in the past. 89.243.113.64 (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People have savings, too. Would you want to dilute the value of savings to benefit those with debts? Sounds like the Free Silver movement of the 19th century. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20% inflation would be very damaging in many ways (see Inflation#Effects), it would also be very difficult to get rid of after the 5 years. As you say, wage levels would rise to keep up, which itself causes inflation, so you get a "wage spiral", which is notoriously difficult to break. --Tango (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nobel prize winner Tobin says inflation is good. 89.243.74.161 (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is referring to expected inflation. What the OP is suggesting is unexpected inflation. In the case of the former, people can incorporate the inflation into their decision making (for example, don't accept a job contract unless the offered wage is automatically adjusted for the inflation). In the case of the latter, the inflation acts as a tax on savers. When the government prints money to payoff debts, it is stealing from savers by reducing the purchasing power of their savings. Wikiant (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"What the OP is suggesting is unexpected inflation." No I wasn't! There are more borrowers than savers, and many savers are also borrowers, so its democratic. Maybe inflation is bad for the rich - thats why the nobs dont like it. 89.242.95.175 (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your generalization is not necessarily correct. Savers aren't necessarily rich (plenty of rich people are net borrowers). Consider the following examples of net savers: (1) the elderly who are living off of past earnings, (2) the prudent (e.g., those of all income levels who save up before buying rather than buying on credit), (3) working folk who are building up for retirement in 401(k)s. Characterizing everything in terms of "rich vs. poor" might be emotionally appealing, but makes for bad economic thinking. Wikiant (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would you expect to happen to imports/exports and international investment into Britian during this period? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sightless Cervidae. 89.243.74.161 (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would undoubtedly be a very bad idea. While some previously fixed debts would obviously benefit, the real value of all the cash (ie savings) held by everyone in the country would reduce. Creditors would increase their lending rates to match (indeed, to exceed) inflation, so a new mortgage or other loan would entail an extremely large rate by today's standard. Everyone not employed (the retired) and anyone whose job's pay doesn't rapidly adjust to the inflation (pretty much everyone to some degree, government employees and such to a greater degree) would see a corresponding decrease in their real wealth, they would be unable to buy as many goods and services as they were before this "policy". Perhaps most damaging would be the loss of trust between lenders and the government: if lenders know the government is willing to flood the economy with money to stir inflation and reduce the costs of existing debts (ie ease the debtors burden by making the lenders feel the pain) they are going to be much more cautious when lending money for any purpose in that country. That would probably have devastating consequences that would rival the credit crunch of last year, and has been demonstrated in countries experiencing hyperinflation all over the world over the past few generations. TastyCakes (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not working well for Zimbabwe, nor did it work out too well for Germany post WWI. I would say historical precident says this is a bad idea. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cop search legality and marijuana suspicion

If a US Cop suspects marijuana on a person, is that cop allowed to legally search you, even if consent is not given? I have a friend who has been bugging me about it, so I thought this might be the best place to ask. Please be elaborate in your response (I'd like to learn a lot more about the fourth amendments usage and application). ^blurred _peace ☮ 21:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search of persons#United States says no, and cites Minnesota v. Dickerson. Students have a lowered right of privacy, as this link discusses. Tempshill (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, he might search you even though this might violate the Fourth Amendment, and you're not allowed to resist. They could then jail you and arraign you if they decided to be jerks; and then your competent attorney at trial would succeed in his argument that the marijuana itself should be excluded as evidence against you, and at that point you'd be off the hook; though of course you've been in jail for a bit by now, and had to pay an attorney. Also I'm not certain what the required threshold is for suspicion of drug dealing. I seem to remember one case established that an anonymous tip describing the dealer was insufficient to allow a search. Tempshill (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two standards in use for this sort of thing. Reasonable suspicion is the standard for a police officer who wishes to stop and question a person; or to "frisk" a person for weapons (but not drugs or other contraband). Probable cause requires a higher standard of evidence to activate a search, but such evidence as a positive "hit" from a drug-sniffing dog may provide that probable cause. Of course, you should always seek the advice of a lawyer should you find yourself in a situation like this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who answered. I got answers from here, a legal pal, and from this video (for others who find this thread and need an answer compounded on to what has been stated). ^blurred _peace ☮ 03:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist/communist locales in the United States

Are there any socialist or communist strongholds in the United States? If not, what specific area(s) have the most support per capita for socialist or communist resolutions or candidates? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The socialist to have achieved the highest political heights in the U.S. is Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who probably could not have gotten elected in any other state. That said, you can't call Vermont a socialist stronghold -- the state house has six Vermont Progressive Party members out of 150 members. Arcata, California is one of the most left-wing places in the country -- it once elected a Green Party majority to the city council. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have any data to support it, if you consider unions to be inherently socialist perhaps there is a swathe of blue collar socialism across the rust belt? TastyCakes (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is an extremely helpful answer. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget that in San Francisco, when Gavin Newsome ran last time for mayor, he was considered the conservative candidate because the main opposition was from the Green Party. Republicans don't stand a chance there. There are 11 members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors: One is Green, one, Sophie Maxwell I can't find her party, and all the rest are Democrats. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't forget the upper midwest. The city of Milwaukee has elected multiple mayors who were members of the Socialist Party of America or other affiliated parties. See List of mayors of Milwaukee. Also consider the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, which is a state-level affiliate of the national Democratic Party, but is also a descendent of the socialist-leaning Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many college towns lean left due to their demographics. Ann Arbor, MI; Chapel Hill, NC; Berkeley, CA; Austin, TX; etc. But that's a long way from saying they're "communist strongholds", which I don't think exist in the US, perhaps outside of intentional communities. --Sean 12:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is common to see shirts in Berkeley that say "People's Republic of Berkeley." But that being said, while they lean left, they are far from socailiasm and Communism in reality. Berkeley is mostly college kids (whose political demographics are about the same as anywhere else these days) plus long-term homeowners, who are usually pretty left-of-center but are most of the upper-class Green type than any actual proletariat.

All that being said—don't confuse Socialists with Communists. They are not the same thing, they do not believe in the same things, they do not operate the same way. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question About A Song

This could easily be on the language desk, so feel free to move it. I put it here because it's a question about a song. I also think I may have asked this before, but it might have been a dream as I can't find it on the archives (spending too much time on Wikipedia!). Anyway, to the point. What are the words for Transfiguration (et in Arcadia ego IV), by Aerenda? The title is obviously Latin, but the lyrics sound like Hindi to me. Can anyone help me here? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2009 May 5#Song by Aerenda. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Jack. I knew I could rely on you. Good job I said I'd asked this before (and thank God it wasn't one of my many Wikipedia dreams!). Still haven't got the lyrics, though, just an explanation of the title. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 4

Trading spaces

The Mississippi River is the boundary between many US states, but events such as the 1812 New Madrid earthquake have shifted the river's course, leaving little bits of most river states on the wrong side of the river, such as the areas that you can see of Tennessee and Arkansas on this map. Any idea if any pair of states have ever tried to swap such bits? Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Often times, these bits of land are unpopulated and non-productive bits of swampland with little intrinsic value. One notable exception is Kaskaskia, Illinois which was originally on the east bank of the Mississippi, and is now on the west. However, I am not sure there is a compelling reason to do so. Either a) the land is valuable and populated and thus the state that has it probably does not want to lose it or b) the land is worthless and unpopulated, and then there's no reason to be bothered over it. It's a cartographic curiosity, but there's not much practical purpose in moving around the borders. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A similarity would be the panhandle of Oklahoma attempting to join Texas (if I remember correctly - I doubt they tried to join Arkansas). The attempt failed. -- kainaw ™ 17:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Piscataqua River has not moved, but that doesn't stop New Hampshire and Maine from fighting over where their ~~boarder~~border is. APL (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably asleep in his dormitory, or maybe hiding in the woods. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the difference there is over a very productive piece of land, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and that the two states have probably NEVER agreed on the location of the border. The borders around the Mississippi River states have long since been agreed upon; and they shouldn't move simply because of the fickle nature of the river. To put it simply another way; if a chunk of earth belongs to Tennessee, that chunk of earth should not change possession simply because the river running next to it moved. The issue with the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is that there has never been an agreement on where the border really is; whether the border lies along the Maine shoreline or along the main navagation channel of the river. Its the difference between an unsettled issue and a LONG settled issue. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does a bronze start mean?

I have been told that bronze stars, which are described as being awarded for "specific acts of bravery," are being handed out in Iraq as, basically, attendance awards--you show up, you get a star. I don't know where to find out if this is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.166.188.99 (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about those specific criticisms, but you could read Bronze Star Medal for more background. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While dated, this article may be of use. Note the discussion of the "BS" for service versus the "BV" for valor in combat; many discusssions of awarded quantities don't distinguish these. Poking around, I see suggestions that the Bronze Star was similarly common in Vietnam, so this is perhaps not a new phenomenon. — Lomn 19:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of English Industrialist

I am looking for the name of an English Industrialist (think industrial revolution). He had a really awesome name (perhaps kingdom was in it don't really remember). There's also a picture of him on around here (on WP) of him posing with chains behind him, if that helps. I know this sounds vague, but any help would be appreciated.--CM (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]