Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 16

Personal jurisdiction

Our article Personal jurisdiction makes it seem like this is a concept in American law only. Is this correct? If so, what is the equivalent concept elsewhere? (If not, the article should be reframed so it doesn't say "in United States law" in the first sentence.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a much more widespread concept. The article needs editing. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Careful, Calliopejen1 — you simply removed "In American law..." from the intro of that article, which was a bad idea because the article, to date, has been written to discuss the subject in the context of American law. Most of the article suddenly made no sense (references to constitutional aspects, individual case citations...) I'm going to revert your change, but leave the "globalize" tag at the top of the article until a knowledgeable editor can rewrite the entire intro. At that point the US content can be moved into a "In the United States" section. But it's a pretty big editing job, not just axing one sentence. And I'll shut up now because this kind of discussion belongs on the talk page of that article and not here on the Reference Desk. Tempshill (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

joe son

wad he aquited? ITs BEEN OVER A YEAR AND HES NOT ENTERED A PLEA? that means the charges were droped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.3.30 (talk) 05:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This ironic article, not a reliable source even if it hadn't been ironic, says he's currently in jail. Our article Joe Son says that he was apparently charged in October 2008 but has not made any public comment or entered a plea. The article certainly needs updating. This link, which does not appear to be one of those reliable sources we like to use, says the charges are related to a 1990 gang rape, and claims that he was linked to the crime when he gave a DNA sample to authorities following a probation violation. Tempshill (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it even possible in California that a person is charged with an offense and months later has not entered a plea? If Law & Order is anywhere near accurate (I know it's fiction, but on these procedural sorts of things it's supposed to be) in New York he'd've been arraigned and asked to plead guilty or not guilty within days, and if he didn't, the judge would enter a not-guilty plea. --Anonymous, 05:05 UTC, July 17, 2009.

Arraignment is even faster in NY: less than 24 hours by law (when it works).[1] Rmhermen (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

[2] "Son is scheduled to be arraigned on Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2008..." [3] (Dated November 12, 2008) "He remains in an Orange County jail in lieu of $1 million bail." 152.16.59.190 (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And the band played on

In the book titled "And the band played on", is there evidence of professional dominance in the story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zel652 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No. --TomorrowTime (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A classic homework question, formulated by an incoherent teacher (so what else is new?)

Are you referring to Randy Shilts' nonfiction history of the early AIDS crisis in America? Rhinoracer (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-fiction in genre, but largely inaccurate, particularly in its perpetuation of the "Patient Zero" myth. - Nunh-huh 20:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Even when I know what "And The Band Played On" is in reference to, I don't understand this question. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

GDP per capita (constant 2000 US$)

The World Bank's World Development Indicators has an indicator called "GDP per capita (constant 2000 US$)". What do they mean by constant?

If you for example express Britain's 1970 GDP in this way, would you adjust for British inflation 1970-2000 and convert at the 2000 GBP/USD exchange rate or would you convert at 1970 GBP/USD exchange rate and adjust for American inflation 1970-2000? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This article (http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=417) on 'constant prices' might help. ny156uk (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but it does not answer my question about how inflation is adjusted for. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

One would actually need to have constructed a Price Index. Specifically, in this case, a Laspeyres index, where the "base" of the index is the sum of all of the prices of a fixed basket of goods in the base year multiplied by the quantity of the basket of goods in the base year. Using this constant base, increases in the "numerator" in each successive year (increases in the prices of goods) increases the value of the index multiplier (it would be 100 in the base year (2000), 103 (or so) in the next year (2001), or 97 in the previous year (1999) etc. etc.). Constant dollars in any given year would be calculated by dividing the dollar amount in question by the index value for that year.

I think that if this is done for the US dollar, backwards through time, then it's a simple matter to use market exchange rates of one type or another in the year in question to convert GBP prices to USD prices (using the second method you mention there). It would seem to be the least wrong way to do it.NByz (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The lazy (wo)man's way is to caclulate the percent change in nominal GDP per capita from 1970 to 2008, and then to subtract the change in prices (inflation). The new, inflation-lite percent change would then be applied to the 1970 data to come up with a 2008 figure. Or, reverse it all to calculate in 2008 dollars. The results are close enough for most uses.DOR (HK) (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading questions from the Da Vinci Code

Just flipping through my old copy of the book. I always wondered: 1) What exactly is so offensive about the idea of Christ getting married and having a child (cf The Last Temptation of Christ)? 2) Why is Christianity so obsessed about the question of the Trinity? In any overview of Christianity, the first thing to be talked about would be the trinity (Arianism, homoousios, filioque clauses and all that good stuff). The concept does seem to be quite minor (it has nothing to do with salvation or ethics or anything Jesus actually said), does it not? 3) was Gnosticism ever in a real position to overtake "mainline" Christianity at any point in its history?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.189.90 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer question 3, Pope Innocent III thought they were enough of a threat to go after them. Googlemeister (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer question 2; it IS a big deal, the exact nature of the divinity of Christ is central to one's relationship with him. Acording to mainline faiths, salvation is availible only to those who give their lives to Christ because Christ is divine. It's not that Christ is kinda like God, or set aside by God, or that God has given him a special place; Christ is God and simultaneously is Man. Salvation, for the mainline faiths, depends on both of these ideas. To deny the trinity is to deny that Christ is fully God. All of the other heresies you list deny the basic idea that Christ is simultaneously fully God and fully Man, which is why they were considered heresies, and threatening to the idea of salvation through him. While the Trinity itself is not expressely called that in the Bible, the concept is fairly clear through such events as the Pentecost. Jesus's divinity is confirmed many places in the Bible, notably The Gospel of John, Chapter 1... --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 00:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As for Jesus marrying and having children, the Bible mentions no such thing, so that without even exploring all the theological implications, maintaining such a hypothesis would immediately involve casting major aspersions on the sources of traditional mainstream "orthodox" Christianity.

With repect to disputes about Christological theology in early Christianity, Colin McEvedy has this to say in his Penguin Atlas of Medieval History:

"The importance of these subtle arguments lies in the adoption of dissenting views as a badge by people at odds with authority, or nations grasping for a sense of unity. In those days of pragmatic political thought, an attempt to secede from the [Eastern Roman] Empire on the basis of 'Armenia for the Armenians' would have been unthinkable. But the central power could be indirectly challenged by adopting the local patriotic heresy, and thus the Monophysitism adhered to so passionately in Egypt, Syria (which at first inclined to Nestorianism), and Armenia was a sign of discontent otherwise inexpressible. ... Pelagianism, the native British development, rather lost its point when the [Roman] legions left and the heathen Saxon became the antagonist..."

It's interesting that where most Christian schisms have ostensibly been over abstract theology, most Islamic schisms have been caused by disputes over who has the most legitimate authority to rule over the Muslim community (i.e. have been originally political in nature). I guess it depends on your own individual taste whether you consider religious disputes over dynastic politics to be worse or better than religious disputes "over a vowel" (as some have called the homoiousianist vs. homoousianist debate)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• • To answer question #2: if you're a Christian, you worship one God. But who is God? If one individual says "I believe in a God who is three persons" and another says "I believe in a God who is one person" [I can't explain this idea of the Three Persons better than Trinity does], the two are plainly not worshipping the same deity — obviously God isn't both exactly one and exactly three. Therefore, each individual will believe that the other is an opponent of the true God, and thus do all that they can to fight for what they believe to be the true understanding of who God really is. Finally — since you speak of "salvation" — (assuming that you understand the connotation of this term) a Christian will say that one must trust the true God in order to be saved. How, s/he will say, can someone be saved who worships a nonexistent deity? Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Death Penalty

Why is the U.S. all in red here if some states don't have the death penalty? [4] --190.50.103.19 (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Because federal law applies to the whole US, and federal law has the death penalty. Algebraist 22:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Algebraist, and so is the Federal Law stronger than State Law? --190.50.103.19 (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a matter of stronger or weaker, they both apply so the death penalty exists there. --Tango (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To be more specific, in the US, if a person is convicted in a federal court of a federal crime that carries the death penalty, he can indeed be sentenced to death even if he committed the crime in a state that does not have the death penalty. Tempshill (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

But, nowadays, the execution would take place in a state that does have the death penalty using that state's approved method. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am not positive, but I believe that federal executions are carried out at United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, which is a federal facility. I know that the nearby United States Disciplinary Barracks, the military wing of the facility, DOES maintain a death row; and I believe that civilian executions are carried out there as well. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 00:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There are very few federal executions; by far the great majority of executions in the U.S. are under state laws... AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

See Capital punishment by the United States federal government: the only three federal executions since 1963 have been in Indiana (all civilian). There have been zero military executions since 1961. Rmhermen (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Although at least one federal execution was for a crime committed outside of Indiana. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there are some classes of crime that violate federal law and can be prosecuted by the federal government. There are others that violate state law and are prosecuted by the state government. There are overlapping cases where the two duke it out over jurisdiction. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually if something is illegal under both federal and state law, you could be prosecuted by both without there being any double jeopardy problem. (Not sure how common this is in practice though.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Samantha Smith, CIA & KGB.

I have been reading that some people say child activist Samantha Smith who wanted peace between the United States (her native country) and the Soviet Union was indeed murdered by the KGB or the CIA. Is that possible?. My question, can intelligence agencies kill innocent people? Even a child?. I really don't believe someone murdered her and I strongly believe that it was an accident but I'd like to know your opinion. Thank you all. --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As it says at the top of this page, "if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere", as this is a reference desk and not a discussion forum. To answer the factual part of your question, yes, obviously it is possible for intelligence agencies to kill innocent people, even children. I expect this would most often occur when the innocent people are collateral damage, but surely at some point in world history an intelligence agency has intentionally killed an "innocent person". Tempshill (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bar Harbor Airlines Flight 1808 says that if is was murder, the cover-up was convincing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

On the collateral damage point, secret services certainly can kill innocents, just see the death of Jean Charles de Menezes or the botched Lillehammer affair. As for intentionally, well I guess they wouldn't be keen to broadcast the fact that they purposefully targeted a child, and keeping secrets is kind of their job, so I doubt we'd ever know. Prokhorovka (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, both of those examples are what we might call accidental killings—cases of mistaken identity. That's not the same thing as saying, "well, we want to kill this person, so let's kill those other six people as well." Obviously collateral damage does happen, but those particular cases aren't great examples of it. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem plausible to me. She doesn't seem worth assassinating (by either side), and certainly not in such an elaborate way. In any case, the weather seemed to be a huge factor in the crash—CIA and KGB can't presumably control that. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

July 17

vast fortunes

It's understood several members of the Rockefeller family and the Vanderbilt family are still alive today. Are there any living descendants of F.W. Woolworth still living? Does Doris Duke still have an estate? What are all of their fortunes worth today?69.203.157.50 (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading through our articles on these families it doesn't look it. The Duke fortune is controlled by several trusts. Barbara Hutton spent through her share of the Woolworth fortune but it isn't clear from her article if she was the only descendant. Rmhermen (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hutton was not the only descendant; her aunts Lena (Woolworth) McCann and Jessie May (Woolworth) Donohue both left progeny. I have several Woolworth descendants in my files born in the late 1960s and 1970s, so unless there's been some sort of recent highly selective disaster, there are almost certainly living Woolworth descendants (Frederick Edward Guest III, born 1975, for example, has notable ancestors besides F.W. Woolworth including Joan Bennett, Walter Wanger, Freddie Guest, Ivor Bertie Guest, and John Spencer-Churchill, 7th Duke of Marlborough). The Duke estate is now operated as a charity and offers tours. There's probably no way of knowing the worth of the Woolworth descendants at this point, and some probably have more wealth from their marriages or personal accomplishments than is left over from the Woolworth estate. - Nunh-huh 19:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Confederate Battle Flag w/13 Red & White Stripes

I'm looking for this, but am having a tough time sifting through google images to isolate by the right search terms. Does anybody have a link to a website with the American flag, canton superimposed by the Southern Cross and 13 stars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which flag you mean, but there are heaps of Confederate flag images on Flickr, supposedly Creative Commons licensed. [5][6][7]. They have 13 stars, not red and white stripes. - KoolerStill (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I mean a hybrid flag. The original Stars and Bars was similar to the Union flag, but I am wondering about whether anybody here has seen a flag which has the Battle Flag cross and stars, in place of the stars on a blue background of the standard American flag, like how there are American flags with Soviet, Nazi and Israeli symbols in the upper left hand corner, instead of stars. Do you understand now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be quite easy to make a high-quality image of such a flag design by combining various SVG files currently present on Wikimedia Commons. However, what would be the point? Who uses this alleged flag, and what is it supposed to represent? -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought there might be a Wikipedia or Commons-spawned one. Perhaps Uncyclopedia would make it. It's just tongue-in-cheek satire. I don't know the first thing about making images like this, plus, I really hate SVG. I long for the days when Wikipedia was graced with JPG, as even PNG sucked. Why does Wikipedia go about with Linux style file extensions? Nobody outside of geekdom uses .ogg files either, but mp3 and wav, etc.

You've changed the subject, now that you've found that nobody has drawn this flag idea of yours, but I'll note that Wikipedia is still "graced with JPG", as most images on Wikipedia are jpeg files. PNG files don't "suck", they are awesome if you want a picture with lossless compression. SVG files are for vector graphics images (so they can be scaled and still look great, unlike PNG and JPG files). I agree that ogg files aren't used widely, as of yet; Wikipedia:Creation and usage of media files claims that file types outside of their short list of approved file types aren't used "for security reasons", although I had assumed this policy was because free usability is one of the Wikipedia objectives, and MP3 playback is subject to patents from two patent holders, and .wav files' compression is worse. I had also assumed the .wav format was protected by patent in some way, though our article doesn't indicate such. Tempshill (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

discrimination against Aspies

i am looking for info about discrimination against Aspies. i heard its so bad in Canada that there was a lawsuit 5 years ago and they are banned from an organisation that is supposed to represent them. how about Europe - Dutch, Spain, Norway, Belgium? Asia? rest of the world? wish to examine and compare discrimination against Aspies in different countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.59.150 (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time telling whether you are a troll or just plain insensitive - if it's the latter, may I suggest you stop using the term "aspies"? Doing so will get you further in discussions with relevant people. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Since "aspie" is used as a self-identifier by at least some members of that community (see Aspies For Freedom, for example), I don't think the term is "insensitive"; at worst it is informal and somewhat imprecise. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm, didn't know that. It just felt wrong, probably because the word is used as a loaded slur on Encyclopedia Dramatica and elsewhere on the Internet. I withdraw my comment, then. Proceed, please. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

actually, i am an Aspie and, like all my Aspie friends, self-identify as such. i suppose those websites hate us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.59.150 (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Aspie is just a term. I'm undiagnosed aspie but I don't find offense at it's use. Websites like ED are cancer, you shouldn't read them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are undiagnosed, how do you identify yourself as such? Livewireo (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have the symptoms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.91.128 (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're probably just a weirdo. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not a very civil comment Adam - please don't insult other editors. Exxolon (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A term used by a group to self-identify seems ok, especially if those it applies to and their families are not known to object to it. (Besides "Asperger" sounds too much like a sandwich made from a patty of donkey meat). Edison (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's completely impossible in any western country that a representational organisation would be banned - various discrimination laws prevent this. If any such organisation was banned I would imagine it was because they were doing something illegal - which would be unrelated to representing aspies - which is legal.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently links to Enc. Dram. are not allowed - so you can't read the filth - let that be a lesson to you...83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

yeah, why do some people attack me for using a not offensive term, instead of answering my question? the organisation representing Aspies is not banned in Canada. the organisation in Canada is supposed to represent Aspies, but it bans Aspies from joining, saying Aspies are useless at advocating, and the Canada government still supports the organisation with funding. that is all i know from other Aspie friends. but like i said, i want to know more about discrimination against Aspies all over the world, not just in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.59.150 (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about this incident http://www.autistics.org/library/aspergerson_censorship01.html ?? 83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know what organisation you are referring to.83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

yes, that. the Autism Society of Canada does not allow Aspies to join. so Michelle Dawson started a campaign against them. Dawson was also involved in a lawsuit - not sure whether it was about the ASC. --59.189.59.150 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure it does allow that, I think you've got that wrong in that it's not a society like a club you can join. It's an advocacy organisation.

Also self identification with a disease or disorder is not particularily what autistic people do - it's more common in young people, and teenagers, and does not relate to actually having any specific disorder at all.

Some people end up having very extreme behavioural problems such as facitious disorder, it sounds like you are lucky to have very mild autism since people who have more fuller symptoms/effects of the disorder would have difficulty even discussing or being in the slightest bit bothered about their diagnosis.

Simply typing "aspergers discrimination" + country into a search engine will turn up specific examples that have been on the news etc. All forms of autism are called "silent disorders" or "invisible disorders" since it's difficult to show or prove that someone mildly autistic has been discriminated against - for example in a job interview - to put it simply they don't perform well in these situations - in the same way that short people don't make good sprinters.

However in general all western counties have laws against discrimination of any kind - but as I hinted at above - it can be difficult to know when you are being discriminated against and when it is simply a fact of life what is happening to you, as happens to all people whether classed as disabled, non-disabled or whatever.83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the society you mention lists itself as championing the rights of people with autism. Could they believe that Asperger's is not actually a form of autism, but its own disorder? According to our article on Asperger's Syndrome, there are those scientists who believe this.209.244.187.155 (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at there home page ie http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Autism+Society+of+Canada+&meta=&aq=f&oq= press one of the first two links - read the page - they include it as an "autism spectrum disorder" - they have resources on it - I couldn't find any disclaimers - who knows? 83.100.250.79 (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to think that. Reading the info in the link gave earlier suggests that it isn't the case to me. Note that the link seems to be trying to make people feel sympathetic to the people who were banned but in my eyes is failing miserably which suggests their behaviour was a lot worse then what's shown which IMHO is telling. (I admit though I'm not particularly sympathetic to those who keep trying to push their ideas and then scream censorship when people tell them to stop because they're sick of listening.) Rather the society simply has rules for their mailing list which they expect people to obey. These rules are that people aren't supposed to attack other people in the community. Whether or not you feel these rules are merited is of course irrelevant, they feel they are and apparently so do other members. They aren't of course unique in that regard, wikipedia has WP:NPA. It's perhaps possible that people with Asperger's syndrome or some form of the autism spectrum disorder may have greater difficulty following such rules however I've seen some discussions here on wikipedia where people where such non-neurotypical people have been critical of those who hide behind aspergers to excuse poor behaviour. I also think if the people who were banned had been neurotypical and had no relatives who weren't neurotypical, they would have be banned a lot quicker and a lot less fuss, i.e. it's easily possible the people banned were given special treatment because of their status/connections i.e. were discriminated for rather then being discriminated against. (Note that the first person banned doesn't seem to have Asperger's but simply two children with some form of autism spectrum disorder.) I also see no reason to presume all of those who supported the ban were neurotypical. Heck do we even know if the president of the society is? One of the emails suggest they may not be.

Anyway regardless, the claim they don't allow people with asperger's syndrome to participate is clearly without basis currently, the only evidence we have is that they don't allow certain people (whatever their neurotypical status) who don't obey their rules to participate. Do note that it doesn't even seem to be a ban from the society but simply the mailing list.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking further I came across this [8] [9] [10], note from before the mailing list thing (which makes the mailing list thing even less surprising). She apparently has problems with the governance structure which appears to be top down (not uncommon of course) and doesn't like the way they promote autism is a serious problem requiring serious intervention (which for better or worse is usually the best way to actually get funding). Also they appear to think of Asperger's as autism since they consider all people somewhere along the line of the autism spectrums as having autism, something which Michelle Dawson doesn't like. I can't be bothered looking in to it some more but from what I can tell from what I read it's not that the society doesn't allow people with Asperger's to participate, rather their top heavy approach means that their decisions are primarily made by the people managing the society who I presume includes a variety of neurotypical people including pscyhologists and other people with no personal connection but probably also includes some people with autism spectrum disorder or with relatives; rather then the community of people they try to represent. As I said, this sort of structure isn't exactly uncommon for many things and regardless of whether it's bad, doesn't intrisicly indicate they don't think the community can manage themselves or that they don't want people with asperger's syndrome or somewhere along the autism spectrum contributing Nil Einne (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Indochina War

Hello all. Does anyone know any good references about the French Indochina War? Specifically anything which relates to the impact the Fall of France and Vichy France had on the conduct of the French during the conflict? I've got Paxton, Jackson, Roy, Fall x 3 (Street, Hell and 2 Vietnams) and Windrow. What other good ones are there out there? Also, what good primary source documents are there? I've already ID'd some foreign office docs, though the French are reluctant to release them. I also understand that the army censoring office during the conflict would retain correspondence they dealt with during the conflict. Where could I find such docs, if possible? Regards, SGGH ^ping! 12:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Vichy government fell in 1944 and the Indochina war began in 1946. I don't understand the question. Rmhermen (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I take the question to be "are there any documents that show how France's position in Europe in WWII led to what happened in the Indochina War?" Sorry that I can't provide sources; but do I understand your question properly? Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The concept I want to research is the impact of Vichy France and the Fall of France on the French mentality and national mindset and memory, and what ramifications that had in Indochina and the evidence there of it. But the question I am asking is, what are some good sources for the French Indochina War, the Fall of France, and the Vichy Govt. SGGH ^ping! 12:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Senator by proxy

Assuming that a United States senator is fully sentient, yet entirely immobile and unable to reach the capitol, is it possible for him to send a proxy to cast an important vote on his behalf? If not, may the transaction be accomplished by telephone? Or is the senator simply cut out of the process on account of his physical absence? LANTZY^TALK 15:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read of votes cast by a Senator unable to speak: touching the eye to signal "Aye," but not a mailed in vote or a proxie vote. Legislators who need to miss a vote will sometimes match votes with another legislator on the other side, so that the nonvotes effectively cancel. If he is "entirely immobile: and the vote were crucial (like the deciding vote in an impeachment) it might be possible to transport in an ambulance and roll a gurney into the chamber long enough for a vote to be indicated. Edison (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The "'Eye' for an 'aye' Senator was Clair Engle of California in 1964 [11]. Engle was dying from a brain tumor, and his vote was for cloture to stop filibustering against the Civil Rights bill [12]. He died a month and a half later. Edison (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Edison is pretty much right here. Voting in person is required in cases such as this because proxy voting is open to fraud; even telephone voting would be. If the person is actually present there is no doubt that he is actually casting his vote. And as noted, infirm Senators and Representatives have been basically wheeled in to the houses to cast votes in key situations; for non-major issues and votes on procedure and the like, vote matching may be negotiated. Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule XII governs voting procedure; standard voting rules require the senator to personally attest "yea" or "nay" during a roll call vote. Additionally, Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule VI makes it clear that a Senator must be present to be considered part of the quorum and to conduct official business. If a senator is not present in the chamber during a roll call, then they are not availible to conduct business. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 18:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A proxy vote could be forged or coerced. Physical presence makes it more of a deliberative body, however few actually show up to hear speeches. Edison (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

For a cloture vote, you'd need to "match" three ayes against two nays, heh. —Tamfang (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

King Oliver, King Kim (monarchy/republic)

First of all, can someone explain to me why the Commonwealth of England was a republic and not merely a kingdom ruled by a crownless guy? Considering that Cromwell ruled absolutely and was succeeded by his son, doesn't it make sense to think of the interregnum as a sort of monarchy, albeit a rather dour and unornamented one? Were the Cromwells so very different, in the way they functioned politically, from the royal dynasties that came before them? Was Charles' death so different from the deaths of Harold Godwinson and Richard III?

To put the question in abstract terms, is there any structural political difference between monarchies and republics, or are the differences merely stylistic and cultural? For instance, why is North Korea classified as a republic rather than an absolute monarchy? And as for those democratic countries where the monarchy is entirely decoupled from the business of governing, would it not be more accurate to think of these countries as republics which happen to operate popular, well-funded historical recreation programs? Excuse my irreverence, but doesn't a European royal family serve the same general function as an olympic team - a feel-good, politically neutral project in which many citizens feel a patriotic involvement, but which has no political agency? Once a monarchy has been stripped of political power, why does the term 'monarchy' continue to describe the country? In contrast, the term 'constitutional theocracy' has never been self-applied by any of the European states where churches continue to be established. LANTZY^TALK 17:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Because a Monarchy is a hereditary state ruled by royalty or nobility. Monarchies are usually understood to be exclusively ruled by members of the "noble classes", and access to the executive position is restricted to those who are royal/noble by blood. Even in cases of elective monarchies (Kingdom of Poland or Holy Roman Empire), the King had to be elected from eligible royals, and not just from anybody. Cromwell was not a monarch so much as a Military Dictator, he was merely a military leader who overthrew the previous government and took over executive power personally. Additionally, during the interregnum between the end of the English Civil Wars and the start of The Restoration there were several different forms of government. From 1649-1653, the government was officially a republic with legislative power vested in Parliament and executive power vested in the English Council of State. After 1653, Cromwell as head of the army overthrew the Council of State and installed himself as Lord Protector, establishing The Protectorate, which was still a republican form of government. Cromwell made no attempt to declare himself a monarch; he had no royal blood and did not try to establish himself and his family as royalty. His rule of England was more akin to that of people like Francisco Franco and Muammar al-Gaddafi than to an actual monarchy. I suppose that he could have declared himself king and his family royalty; however he did not do that. Thus, under his rule, England was a republic. Basically, Monarchy/Republic is a binary thing. A government is either ruled by a hereditary ruling class or it is not. Any government which does not claim itself to be a Monarchy gets called a Republic, even though many modern monarchies are inarguably more democratic in form than many modern republics. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 18:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the term for a ruler (elected or not) announcing that their offspring will rule after them? Just a "political dynasty?" Kim I is followed by Kim II is to be followed by Kim III in Korea. No election, more of an anointing. As for King Oliver, having an African-American jazz cornettist from the future leading their country would have been quite a novelty for 17th century England. Edison (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a form of nepotism. Sort of thing some rulers have been hypocritical about.- Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 19:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The difference between a monarchy and a republic can be a fuzzy one. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the early modern period, in which nobles elected the king, is sometimes referred to as a monarchy and sometimes called a republic. The Holy Roman Empire also had an elected king/emperor, but for hundreds of years they always elected the Habsburg family's heir to the throne, so the empire is thought of as a monarchy. The term "Kim Dynasty" is often used when referring to the rulers of North Korea, but in theory, Kim Jong-Il's power comes from his position as general secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea, not from his position as heir to Kim Il-Sung (but we all know better). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The other thing is that Crowmell and Kim Il-Sung just happened to have sons available to be designated as their successors (and Kim Jong-Il also has a son). Thus, it looks like an hereditary succession. But what if they had been childless? Would it have gone to their eldest surviving sibling, or a cousin, or a more distant member of their family? We'll never know for sure, but imo almost certainly not. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that the difference between a monarchy and a "hereditary republic" like the Protectorate or your example of the Not-So-Democratic People's Republic of Korea is that the ruler of a republic, no matter how despotic, doesn't call himself a monarch. Of course, monarchies can develop from "absolute republics" [my term, not an academic one]: Julius Caesar was killed because many feared that he was about to claim the title of king (which really wouldn't have had a practical change in his position over the state), and President Jean-Bédel Bokassa of the Central African Republic decided that he wanted to become an emperor: thus the Central African Empire came into being. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The difference between the DPRK, say, and a monarchy is that in the former, the inheritance of power is not guaranteed by a succession law of general application as it is in the latter. It either occurs by the use of non-legal political power, or by ad hoc laws of non-general application.

The DPRK, for example, has no law that says the top job in the country (the Presidency doesn't even operate any more) shall be passed to the lawful successor of Kim Il Sung by male-preference primogeniture. The current head of state is in fact elected by parliament, which itself is elected via non-competitive general elections. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is enough of a definition - it would also cover Anglo-Saxon England, where the monarch was elected by a Witenagemot of nobles and leading clergy who, it is generally agreed, did not work to a legal succession law, but instead came up with ad-hoc procedures to choose anyone they liked - although, in practice, it was always someone related to previous monarchs in some way. Warofdreams talk 11:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In 1970, a disaffected Western Australian farmer named Leonard George Casley "seceded" from Australia and announced the creation of the Hutt River Province. He styled himself Prince Leonard I. In the 1980s he upgraded himself to King Leonard I, but has since downgraded himself to a Prince again, changing the name of his bailiwick to the Principality of Hutt River. Was he ever really a king/prince and was his territory ever really a monarchy/principality? I, for one, don't think so. In this case, the "Principality" has been recognised by no sovereign states, least of all Australia, so Casley's claim is barren. Bokassa's claim to have become an Emperor was equally fatuous. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say Bokassa's claim was as fatuous as Casley's? He did in fact govern the sovereign territory he proclaimed himself emperor of, and was (I think) internationally recognized as such, which are two important points he has over Casley. Do you consider the First and Second Empires to be in the same category? Algebraist 14:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He did have de facto control of the country, just as Casley has de facto control of Hutt River. I understand Casley has not paid a cent in tax to the Australian Government since his declaration, although I'm sure the Australian Tax Office would regard him as a debtor. Essentially, he's treated as a harmless eccentric and left alone. I'd like to see some evidence that "Emperor Bokassa I" was widely recognised internationally. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He bought an extremely fancy throne while he ruled the country. Did that advance his claim to have "noble blood?" Weren't nobles generally just successful warlords at the start of their dynasties, for all the fancy talk of their being anointed by God to rule over the rest? Edison (talk) 09:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Jack, what sort of evidence do you want to see: that he was recognised as the head of the country, or recognised as being the Emperor? He had been the ruler of the country for something like a decade already, and although he had some difficulties at first, by the time that the mid-1970s rolled around, his position wasn't challenged much internationally. Don't know about his imperial status, if that's what you mean. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

According to this page, the USA commissioned one ambassador to the Central African Empire. Since the USA recognised the Empire as an Empire, I think it's reasonable to say that the USA saw Bokassa as Emperor. Nyttend (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me a bit of the Myanmar fuss (how some people insist on calling it Burma). I think the key point here is that Bokassa's territory was recognised as sovereign territory even if people didn't recognise or like the person controlling it. He therefore had de facto control off sovereign territory and so I would say it's not unresonable to say he was emperor of that territory at the time even if you consider his rule illegitimate. Anyone who wanted to do anything in the CAE/CAR or wasn't pleased with what was going on there would have had to deal with Bokassa or get rid of him (as the French did), they wouldn't have tried to deal with someone else and expected it to be of any use. Casley on the other hand basically controls land which he alone (well probably a few other odd people and other micronations) consider soveign territory, but no one else does including the people who as far as most parties are concerned, do have de facto and de jure control over that territory (i.e. the Australian government). Anyone who wanted to do something in Casley's land would likely speak to and consider the laws of the Australian government (which means Casley has some control over his land) and if Casley was doing something in his land to annoy someone else (difficult of course since he's 'bordered' by Australia but let's just imagine) people would speak to the Australian government rather then worrying about Casley. So he controls nothing in the eyes of most people and is just a harmless eccentric as you say whereas it seems clear Bokassa (illegitimately?) controlled the recognised soverign territory CAE for a while. And e.g. if Casley was doing some nasty shit like distributing child porn the US would discuss it with the Australian government not send a team to kidnap Casley to Guantanamo (actually the Australian government wouldn't need to be told), whereas if Bokassa was doing the same shit (yes it was a while ago but again let's just imagine) it's possible he would be kidnapped for Guatanamo or perhaps just removed like the French did and then put on trial. Nil Einne (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What do they say regarding evolution in intro to biology classes at some conspicuously religious universities?

I'm thinking of places like Notre Dame or BYU. I mean what do they (the actual professors in the room)say in a nutshell, not links to their overly worded, legalese written, circular, prepared statements which the average person can't understand. I'm betting it's something weak like "it works as a theory but we just don't accept it with regards to humans." I'd like to hear some firsthand anecdotal evidence from people who went to such schools and heard the teacher speak in plain words on the subject of their/the school's position. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that accredited universities like Notre Dame or BYU would employ professors that countermand the directives of the biology departments with any personal religious bias. Livewireo (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think the question is, "what are the directives of the respective biology departments?". Of the two universities, Notre Dame is Catholic and so there is no doctrinal problem whatsoever with teaching evolution. There's certainly a problem in terms of previous Mormon statements on the subject at BYU, but as far as I can tell the LDS church has not taken an official "position" on evolution, and so there is probably no reason for BYU to teach anything but the relevant science. - Nunh-huh 19:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

BYU not only teaches evolution, its professors solidly defend it in the face of what is often an ignorant student body. Usually they will say something like "This is what science says (evidence suggests we are related to monkeys)." Some may not mention religion at all. Many, however, may say something like. "All we know is what God says, that we were created by him. How he might have done that we really don't know. Maybe evolution. Maybe not." The church has always had deeply divided opinions on it going all the way up to the leadership of the church. The only thing that has really come out officially is that we maintain that we were created by God. BYU actually banned it from being taught at the school at one time, nearly a century ago, but that period is long over, and it probably wasn't the only school to do it back then. Any student studying Biology at BYU will learn evolution as a part of the science. Wrad (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be worth adding that being "accredited" itself is no guarantee: Liberty University is accredited, yet teaches, among other nonsense, the superiority of creationism to evolution. - Nunh-huh 23:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic Church accepts evolution and the LDS Church takes no official position on the matter, so I don't see why these two schools would have any problem teaching evolution in biology classes. (See Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church and Mormonism and evolution.) An example of another approach is Liberty University, an evangelical Christian school which promotes creationism in its science classes. —D. Monack ^talk 19:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as can be seen from the articles Relationship between religion and science and Theistic evolution being a Christian does far from always mean rejection of evolution (quite the contrary probably). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an enlightening article on creationist teachings in science classes at Liberty U. You can tell the guy is a real scientist by the fact that he's wearing a lab coat. --Sean 15:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And during a class to boot :-) Nil Einne (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Bilingual American President?

Has the United States of America ever had a bilingual or multilingual President? - Vikramkr (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

According to his article, Barack Obama is at least conversationally fluent in Indonesian. Also, Franklin Roosevelt and his wife Eleanor Herbert Hoover and his wife Lou Henry used to speak Mandarin Chinese to hide their personal conversations from White House staff. Livewireo (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed your link. --Anon, 22:55 UTC, July 17.

Thomas Jefferson was fluent in French. All the presidents until Andrew Jackson could read Latin at a level that would pass college language requirements today. Almost all upper-class Americans educated between the Civil War and the Vietnam War spoke French, however haltingly.--Wetman (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought George W. Bush gave some speeches in Spanish, though his article doesn't mention being bilingual. Tempshill (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bush did not give full speeches in Spanish. However, he does know many phrases and can properly use them. There are many examples of him using one or two Spanish sentences and then switching to (Texan) English. -- kainaw™ 22:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I wasn't aware he was even unilingual. Just what language is he fluent in? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This is informative, though there are no sources. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

James Garfield could write simultaneously in Latin and ancient Greek, although I'm not entirely certain whether he could use them easily. Not that there were too many native speakers of either language that he would have met :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

With a pen in each hand, you mean? Ian Spackman (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ambisimuldextrously.  :) Page 1229 of The People's Almanac #2 says "Garfield was not merely the first ambidextrous chief executive. There were those who claimed (my emphasis) they had observed him write classical Greek with his left hand and classical Latin with his right hand simultaneously". Make of that what you will. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

FDR spoke German, having vacationed in Germany with his family as a teenager. He read Mein Kampf in the original at a time when the only translations were abridged and expurgated, giving him an understanding of Hitler superior to many of his contemporaries.John Z (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Martin van Buren did not have English as a first language, according to our article. He grew up speaking Dutch. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

President George H. W. Bush spoke French. He would not do so in public, because his advisers (Lee Atwater ?) told him it wouldn't go down well with voters - it would give him an "effete" image, was the way the media put it. In the last days of his mandate, Bush met President François Mitterrand and the two played around with the US media by speaking French to them, letting the cat out of the bag that the President in fact spoke French fairly well. There's an allusion to his language ability at the end of this transcript [13]. --Xuxl (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm told that Jimmy Carter, on his first visit to Mexico, made a long unscripted speech in fluent Spanish. —Tamfang (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

July 18

Copyrighted old newspapers

Before 1989, something published in the USA without a copyright notice was not copyrighted. Did newspapers generally carry copyright notices? Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that changeover was in 1977. Before that, there were sometimes copyright notices on specific articles that the newspaper thought might have lasting value. Most stories didn't have notices since by the time anyone copied them, they would have been yesterday's news. 24.5.85.158 (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no requirement to put a notice on every story. I haven't done a survey, but I'm sure every newspaper whose editor had ever talked with a lawyer at all had in the masthead or front page, "Entire contents copyright (C)1975 Hearst Co." or whatever. Tempshill (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never really paid attention to such things, but the inclusion of an issue of Stars and Stripes (the official US Army newspaper, thus obviously PD) from World War II at a gallery at Commons made me wonder about the possibility of including other newspapers. Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(For the questions about dates and requirements, see this). Looking quickly at an issue of the New York Times from 1945, under the masthead it clearly says, "Copyright 1945, by the New York Times Company." --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

painting

Who painted this work? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.162.44 (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like one of hitler's self potrait's in ink.83.100.250.79 (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Hitler's work to me. I'd be interested to see a source.91.109.251.183 (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's another one http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9522/awesome006.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.190.103 (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Look's like a hitler Smiley - try [14] 83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't Hitler. The eyes are a reference to Kuso Miso Technique, a Japanese gay pornographic manga. It became an Internet joke with reference to the gay lovers' faces, one of which is this half smile of which you've linked to. See this image to corroborate. bibliomaniac15 21:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I finally get to say LOL! Sorry about my wrong guesses then - how was I supposed to know?83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Bible

What happened on the road to Damascus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtboyo (talk • contribs) 15:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, have you read the Bible acount? An anonymous query with no context sounds too much like homework to me, so here are a couple good sites for commentaries, which have been written by scholars about it. The verses will be covered by some of them. This one [15] has them by book and chapter. This one [16] says it has them in easy English though I haven't looked at it. I had this listed first [17] but I'm not sure how much it has in way of that specific verse's commentary. (I could have sworn I signed that, I think I might have reased it when I edited.) Somebody or his brother (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

See also Conversion of Paul. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

En brosse

In 44 Scotland Street, character Bruce Anderson is described as wearing his hair en brosse. This USAian reader understands only that it's a sort of crewcut, but what does this style signify in the novel's milieu? What does it indicate about this character? -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the French, thisshort haircut was trendy about the time of the serialization of the book (2004-ish), and is what they call cheveux en brosse. A "brush cut" in my parlance, or a "crew cut" in yours, is much shorter, especially on top, though I am hardly an expert of men's hair styles. Would the cut need any more significance than that it was the latest style, as style was almost the whole of who Anderson was? // BL \\ (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you, just still wondering whether this "latest style" was an on-target choice for the image Bruce wanted to project, or one of his off-key renditions skewed by his profound solipcism. -- Deborahjay (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It was Brad Pitt's hair style at the time, though that doesn't really answer your question any more clearly. // BL \\ (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that does help peg it. Adopting the sexiest-man-alive's style's not so blatant as, say, aping David Beckham's early 2003 cornrows. (Note to self: see about adding that blog as an external link for men's hairstyle pages.) -- Cheers! Deborahjay (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

BOOK TITLES

What is the word/phrase for the revealing sentence in a book that uses/explains the TITLE of the book?98.228.215.125 (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a specific expression. It's a device only a few books use anyway. Algebraist 17:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm pretty sure I heard/read this word/phrase years ago but neglected to write it down... Obscure term, I know! Most or many of the novels I've been reading do have the title tucked away somewhere within the work... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.215.125 (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Titular sentence? Dismas|^(talk) 00:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Related to this: Novel and film titles which actually indicate the surprise ending or solve the mystery, if only you had picked up on it. Two such are Theodore Sturgeon's Some of Your Blood and Stephen Sondheim/Anthony Perkins' The Last of Sheila. Any others? Pepso2 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Stephen King's Bag of Bones is sort of up that alley. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A classic in that vein is 'The Hands of Mr Ottermole', which you can find in Greene's 'The American Rivals of Sherlock Holmes'. There's also 'To Serve Man', by Donald Wolheim. Rhinoracer (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, this one is a movie, but it definitely tells you the ending! Eating Raoul Snorgle (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Did Joachim von Ribbentrop really play ice hockey for the Canada men's national ice hockey team?

See Talk:Joachim von Ribbentrop#Early career. I'm still not completely satisfied with the answers there and this question still lingers in my mind. Can someone definitively verify this? -- œ^™ 19:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The listed source says Eisenbahnbau which means building railroads, not national ice hockey. Rmhermen (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The listed source also states "Mitglied der kanadischen Eishockey-Auswahlmannschaft" which translates as "member of the Canadian ice hockey selection team". There are some refenced sources for the statement "In 1914, Ribbentrop competed for Ottawa's famous Minto ice-skating team, participating in the Ellis Memorial Trophy tournament in Boston in February of that year", here [18]. Maybe someone mixed up skating and hockey? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Two things to note. There are, obviously, other hockey teams in Canada. The Wikipedia article on von Ribbentrop says that be played for "the famous Minto ice-skating team", not the national hockey team; but Minto just links to a disambiguation page. I know nothing about hockey teams of that era outside of the NHA/NHL, and anyway "ice-skating team" could mean figure skating. Second, one of the sources cited in support of that statement was written by a Robert Lawson, who, unless someone is spoofing, is the same person who posted to the talk page to say that von Ribbentrop participated in figure skating and was not a member of the national hockey team. --Anonymous, 01:08 UTC, July 19, 2009.

Smells like a hoax. Edison (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a page from the Skating Club of Boston, which talks about the Ellis Memorial Trophy and Ribbentrop on page 6. (By the way, when I think of Minto and Canada, I think of the lacrosse trophy established by Governor General Lord Minto...not hockey or ice skating.) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah! So we're talking about the Minto Skating Club, founded by Governor-General Lord Minto, and that clearly makes it figure skating. The club still exists but von Ribbentrop is not mentioned on its web site. --Anonymous, 05:39 UTC, July 19, 2009.

Well, it wouldn't exactly be something to brag about. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

See Janet Uren's book Minto: Skating through Time for a brief description and amusing anecdote about Ribbentrop's involvement with the club. The champion figure skater Eleanor Kingsford recalled Ribbentrop’s participation in a skating competition in Boston on February 24th, 1914, remembering his "pale, watery blue eyes" and her rejection of his invitation to dance: "The most interesting memory of that trip was the snubbing of Von Ribbentrop, who being in Ottawa on some mysterious business at that time had joined our party. Even then I disliked him, and it must have been quite a shock to one of the 'master race' to have someone who dared to skip his waltz.” As well, I have published an article in the International History Review (Dec. 2007) on Ribbentrop's years in Canada. Robert Lawson

July 19

Why did Massachusetts vote for McGovern?

I only ask because if you look at the county map, Massachusetts seems to stick out as a Democratic bloc, while the rest of the Northeast (and the country) was almost uniformly Republican. Had McGovern campaigned especially hard in the Massachusetts primary? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Massachusetts is known as perhaps the most liberal state in the country. Conservatives have been known to call it the "People's Republic of Massachusetts." (A term of derision also used for Berkeley, California, Takoma Park, Maryland, etc.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And don't forget that McGovern's VP candidate, Sargent Shriver, married into the Kennedy family. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Still, both of those by themselves don't really indicate why Massachusetts when all out for McGovern and basically nobody else did. It's true that a number of other very liberal counties (San Francisco and Alameda stick out quite plainly), but even other usually quite liberal counties did not (e.g. Los Angeles). What's impressive is that almost no counties in the Northeast outside of Massachusetts went for McGovern, and that in Massachusetts even the Western counties went for him. I suspect it is not a question that can be answered by one fact or the other. It was, to be sure, a completely bungled campaign on his part. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather see that map in shades of purple; remember, one vote can make the difference between a blue and red county. Nixon's popular vote victory was substantial, but it wasn't the vast percentage the map indicates. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also LA was a lot less liberal in the 1970s. Googlemeister (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at this, as I am a longtime Bay Stater. Massachusetts was probably the most liberal state in the country in the 1970s. The western parts of the state were and are no less liberal than the rest of the state. In fact, the least liberal part of the state is Southeastern Mass and Cape Cod, as you can see even on this map from 1972. Most people in Massachusetts strongly opposed the Vietnam War by 1972, so they responded well to McGovern's antiwar campaign. Also, Richard Nixon was widely disliked in Massachusetts, whose people tended not to go for his authoritarianism wrapped in faux-patriotism. As such, they did not respond as most other parts of the country did to the Nixon campaign's character assassination of McGovern. Someone else as already mentioned Shriver's Massachusetts ties. Two other big pluses for McGovern were strong union support in a state where unions were still strong. Blue-collar workers in Massachusetts have never taken as much to the cultural conservatism that has worked so well for Republicans in other parts of the country. Also, McGovern's Irish last name surely resonated in a state with a very large and political Irish-American population. Marco polo (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Name of literary device

When a word is repeated for emphasis or to create a rhythm. For example, the word "never" in this poem about abortion:

I'll never have the chance to see what everyone can I'll never even learn to stand I'll never crawl, I'll never walk I'll never get the chance to talk I'll never smile,I'll never cry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.230 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The general term is simply repetition. This particular example seems to be anaphora. Algebraist 16:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

July 20

Patron saints

How does a saint come to be regarded as the patron saint of anything? Patron saint doesn't say anything about it, and I don't know where else to look. I presume that it's different between the Eastern and Western Churches, but for all I know it could be by popular opinion in both cases. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the subject a particular saint is patron of has usually been extrapolated (sometimes strenously) from how that saint lived or died. For instance, Saint Barbara is the patron saint of miners, and the article says it is because of her association to lightning, which can be stretched to associate her with explosives. (BTW, I never knew the lightning connection until now.) I would think it is indeed just popular opinion, as you say. TomorrowTime (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, Joseph of Cupertino is the patron saint of air travel because he could levitate. Sometimes though, it is just because of ancient tradition - like St. George is a patron saint of soldiers because he was a soldier, or of various countries (Georgia, England) which identified with him for whatever reason. That is basically how saints were always made in general, by popular tradition. In Catholicism a methodical process developed in the Middle Ages (and since JPII has been even more rigourous), while in Eastern Orthodox churches sainthood still occurs by popular acclamation (so Tsar Nicholas II could be a saint if enough people believe he is). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a vague memory of hearing that there's a patron saint of television repairmen. Assuming that there's not popular acclaim for a saint becoming the patron of such an occupation, how would this happen? Or is this a false story? This story says that there's a patron saint of television, declared so to be by Pope Pius XII; is this a very common means of a saint becoming a patron of something? I know that popular acclaim was common, although I didn't know that it was still common in the East; I've heard of the Tsar and his family being thought of as possible saints (as martyrs for the faith, among other things), although I thought it was a decision of the Patriarch and other high prelates. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think in days of yore the patronhood came about naturally, from the people rather than the clergy, but recently patron saints of newer inventions have to be declared - there's just not as many people who would desire "little gods" for specific purposes, like there was in past times. For instance, there is a patron saint of the Internet, but I don't think many users of the Internet say a little prayer to protect them from trojans before clicking that link that just mighty be iffy. TomorrowTime (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, creating Isidore of Seville the patron saint of the internet was proposed, but not carried out. --Sean 15:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Being God?

Are there any works of literature or philosophy which ask the question "what is it like to be God?" In particular are there any that have a pessimistic view of such an existence? Thank you, --S.dedalus (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely not philosophy, and it's probably not literature, but Black & White is the closest that I can think of. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Gods have it pretty rough.[19] 67.117.147.249 (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard to Be a God by Strugatskie brothers is exactly it. It is a masterpiece, but a pretty damn dark one; at least the Russian original is. I don't know what English translation is like. --Dr Dima (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In my hazy memory, God in that title is pretty damn metaphorical. —Tamfang (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

More optimistic takes on this question are Lord of Light by Roger Zelazny and American Gods by Neil Gaiman. You may also want to read some of the Jorge Luis Borges stories, like The Aleph for example. --Dr Dima (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Jerry Springer: The Opera does present that question. One of God's songs is:

It's not easy being me. It's so not easy being me. Millions of voices making all the wrong choices, then turning 'round and blaming me.

The fights between Jesus and Satan are also fun. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to speak up for Terry Pratchett's Small Gods, too. It's not exactly pessimistic, but it does address some of the problems of being a god. John M Baker (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you conceive of a God? Then be silent about all Gods. -- Nietzsche. Vranak (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

1886 Nietzsche declares God dead.

1900 God declares Nietzsche dead.

Googlemeister (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nietzsche predicted his own death though. "I know my fate. I am not a man, I am dynamite!" Or something to that effect. Vranak (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Incarnations of Immortality series by Piers Anthony. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The character of Doctor Manhattan in Watchmen essentially becomes a god and has what I'd call a pessimistic view about it. -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On the extremely light side, there's Bruce Almighty which starts off with God being fed up with his job. Then there are the Preacher comics by Garth Ennis whose story largely revolves around what happens when God doesn't want to do his job any more...and seeing American Gods has already been mentioned, Gaiman's Sandman comics also more or less follow the theme of a god-like, quasi-immortal, quasi-omnipotent being who cannot really cope with the burden of his position. -- Ferkelparade π 19:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerical celibacy and Catholic priests

My question is, their celibacy is 100%?. I mean, can't they do ANYTHING related to their sexuality?. Even desire a woman?. Any article?. Thanks and have a nice week. --190.50.112.44 (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We have two articles which overlap with the same information - Clerical celibacy and Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church). Basically, yeah, nothing sexual at all, after they are ordained. Of course, that is not to say that a priest will never desire a woman (or a man). Of course they will. You also do a lot of things you're not supposed to do, don't you? Why wouldn't they do the same? But that's not the point - the point is to overcome temptations, whether you are a priest or not. There are just extra rules for them because they are supposed to be committed to a higher purpose than regular people. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Great Britain"

Was the choice of King James VI & I to rename his dominions not only due to a need for a common name? Did it reference Henry VIII on the "ancient empire" he declared, that of the ethnic Britons or Bretons, the very same people the Tudors come from, the Tudors also having been in exile in Brittany and Earls/Duke of Richmond, a fief of Brittany since the Norman Conquest? Brittany, like Normandy, had been taken over by France by this point, only just recently. I could sum it up by asking whether it was as much for ethnic reasons, just as for political expediency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are asking if Britain is named after Brittany, then no, it was the other way around. Little Britain was named for Great Britain. See also History of Brittany#Early Middle Ages. Rmhermen (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I take it that the OP is not asking about Brittany at all, but instead why James I of England (who was also James VI of Scotland) used the style King of Great Britain. While I don't know all the reasons for his choice, I feel safe in saying that the primary reason was that he wanted a style that represented the island as an entire unit, and the island was already well-known as "Britain," notwithstanding that the Britons had not been ascendant for about a millennium. James was interested in unifying his realm, so calling the whole thing "England" or "Scotland" was a complete nonstarter. John M Baker (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Geneva Convention, treaty agreements etc

Would it be against the Geneva Convention or other treaty agreements to coat bullets with biological materials that would cause an infection, like blood poisoning?

How about coating bullets in pig products (blood, fat, urine etc) as a psychological weapon to use against those who adhere to Islam or Judaism? Googlemeister (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

See Geneva Protocol. Yes I believe anything like that would be prohibited even by the very earliest agreements. Dmcq (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The pig blood thing a goofy idea anyway. Some idiotic legislator proposed it some years ago, based on an urban legend about Black Jack Pershing. Here's a rebuttal from the Anti-Defamation League, of all places. --Sean 16:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it was partly based on how the Indian Mutiny started... AnonMoos (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Countries for Euthanasia Without Terminal Illness Requirements

Is there any country where you can be euthanized on request even if you aren't terminally ill?20.137.18.50 (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This list Assisted suicide#Legality by country should help. A quick scan suggests that plenty don't place it on Terminal Illness alone (well it depends on your definition of Terminal Illness) - but rather placing it more firmly in the hands of approval by a series of doctors. 17:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If your request can be made in the form of a particularly nasty crime, then many countries have the death penalty. Googlemeister (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There are not "many countries" which enforce the death penalty but a small number. China, some Muslim countries and the USA are the main executioners. See our article on capital punishment. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Many is more then a few, which is 5 or 6. I think 58 countries would qualify as many. Googlemeister (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you put it that way, would you consider 58 out of 197 many? TomorrowTime (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Many is not the same as most, but this seems to have digressed into something for the language desk. Googlemeister (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Edward Downes recently committed suicide in a form of assisted euthanasia at a clinic in Switzerland, where it's legal. He was not terminally ill, although his wife, who joined him, was. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably a nitpick, but I think it's more correct to say he chose to die because his wife had chosen to die, and he did not want to carry on without her. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Around the world in 80 days

I've just finished the book and I wondered how long it would take nowadays. It could be done in less than eighty hours by plane, but how long by train and boat alone in the same route Fogg took? Assuming that entry into certain countries, like the US, was not hindered by passport issues, etc.

-- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You might find Michael Palin: Around the World in 80 Days interesting. Palin attempted the trip in the late 80s, using only transport which would have been available in Jules Verne's time. It took him 79 days. He was shooting a documentary as he went, though. Gwinva (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's start at the beginning. According the German Railways timetable server, the fastest possible train trip from London to Brindisi (we aren't requiring him avoid using the Channel Tunnel, are we?) is just under 22 hours if you leave London St. Pancras station at 11:01 int he morning and change trains at Paris (with change of station), Milan, and Bari: you arrive at 09:59 the next day, one time zone east.

The next train is from Bombay to Calcutta, now Mumbai to Kolkata. According to the Indian Railways web site, this can be done in about 1 day and 12 hours by the Samarsata Express, leaving at 20:35 and arriving at 08:25 the second morning following. There are other trains in the day.

There are no long-distance trains from San Francisco any more, due to its location on a peninsula; he would have to start his journey to New York from an East Bay point such as Emeryville (getting there by Amtrak bus or urban transit), where the California Zephyr starts at 9:10 in the morning. It reaches Chicago at 3:50 pm (15:50) on the second following day (two time zones east). Then the Capitol Limited departs at 6:50 pm (18:50), arriving at Washington the next day at 1:15 pm (13:15), one more time zone east. Then there are trains leaving Washington at 1:25 pm weekends and 2:00 pm weekdays and Sundays, arriving New York at 4:47 or 4:50 pm (16:50) for a total time of 3 days 4 hours 40 minutes. All times according to the Amtrak web site. (There is also a direct Chicago to New York train, but it leaves later in the day and if everything is on time it's faster to go via Washington. There are no other feasible trains.)

The next rail segment was Queenstown (now Cobh) to Dublin. According to the Irish Railways web site, this takes about 3 hours 25 minutes with a change of train at Cork, with several trains every day.

Finally, returning to the German server, Liverpool to London takes 2 hours and about 10 minutes by most trains, and there are lots of them.

Of course, this assumes that the timetables are to be relied on, which is certainly not the case for Amtrak long-distance trains and I suspect not for Indian ones either. I think the other countries have a better shot at being reasonably close to on time. In any case, Fogg in the novel allowed 2 days for delays to be made up; his estimate by the timetables alone was 78 days, so I think that's what we'll need to compare against.

That covers the land parts of the trip; someone else can do the sea parts (and the sea/land connections and the travel within London). For many of these routes there may be no scheduled passenger ships any more, but travel by freighter or special charter is another matter, and of course the type of ship will affect the time requirement.

--Anonymous, edited 23:03 UTC, July 20/09.

(ec, after the better response by anonymous above) Well I think most of the rail sections will be reduced. The article says it took 7 days to go from San Francisco to New York, but I think the train goes from San Francisco to Chicago in less than 3 days, and I can't see it taking more than a day getting from Chicago to New York. The steamers seem similarly slow, it says it took 22 days in the book but the Pacific is about 5000 miles between Yokohoma and San Francisco so at say 25 knots (is that reasonable?) non stop a boat would get there in a little over a week. However, I don't know if any liners remain doing such a route, and they certainly wouldn't be booking it at that speed. If you took away the constraint of following the same route, you could probably do the whole thing much faster by taking the Trans-Siberian Railway, which didn't start construction in 1891 (and I think was off limits to Westerners for most of its history). The trip from Moscow to Vladivostok takes 6 days, 4 hrs (according to the article), and much of the trip from London to Moscow can be done by high speed trains (the total would take about 3 days). TastyCakes (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

With Amtrak's reputation for being far far far behind schedule, it probably isn't advisable to use their own time tables. Dismas|^(talk) 06:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You can take trains out of San Francisco. Either BART across the bay to Oakland, or Caltrain to San Jose and points south. I'm sure you can connect up with Amtrak one way or another. 67.117.147.249 (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, no long-distance trains is what I said. You used to be able to connect between BART and Amtrak at Richmond, but the California Zephyr no longer stops there, nor does it run to Oakland. Its Emeryville terminus is 1½ miles from the nearest BART station; its other East Bay stop, Martinez, is more than 5 miles from a BART station. Having said that, I see that Amtrak provides a medium-distance service, the Capitol Corridor, that among other things connects Oakland, Emeryville, Berkeley, and Richmond. So it would be possible to take BART to one of those points, then Amtrak for the short hop to Emeryville and another Amtrak train to Chicago: a shorter route than via San Jose. However, the Capital Corridor services are not particularly frequent, with up to 2 hours between train in the daytime. Of course the easy way is the Amtrak bus from San Francisco to Emeryville, but we're trying to use trains. Maybe the 1½ mile walking connection would be best. Or, of course, if you can manage it and it's not considered too far from the original route, take a ship that docks near Emeryville or Martinez in the first place. --Anonymous, 22:15 UTC, July 21, 2009.

I think TastyCakes' estimate of 25 knots for sea travel is optimistic. Wikitravel's article suggests it would take about 8-12 days to cross the Atlantic Ocean by cargo ship (compare that to the Queen Mary which took 4 days at a speed of around 30 knots).

As pointed out above, sticking to the same route might be too difficult. I suggest the following route:

• London to Moscow by train = 3 days
• Moscow to Vladivostok by train = 7 days
• Vlaidvostock to Yokohama by ship = 3 days
• Yokohama to Los Angeles by ship = 15 days
• Los Angeles to Chicago by train = 2 days
• Chicago to New York by train = 1 day
• New York to Southampton by ship = 10 days
• Southampton to London by train = couple of hours

In all around 41 days in a pretty punishing schedule and that's assuming everything runs to schedule, there are ships which travel between the ports and you are not waiting for a ship to either leave or dock for days on end, the trains run every day, and so on.

However, by avoiding the Trans-Siberian and staying close-ish to the original route, you could perhaps do this:

• London to Naples by train = 1 day
• Naples to Mumbai by ship = 14 days
• Mumbai to Chennai by train = 2 days
• Chennai to Hong Kong by ship = 10 days
• Hong Kong to Yokohama by ship = 6 days
• ...then as described above = 28 days

Unfortunately, that would add 20 days travel, mostly by sea and that's assuming you don't get attacked by pirates. Astronaut (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

New York to Southampton on the Queen Mary 2 is 7 nights, call it 8 days. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

July 21

Identifying an unknown US sword

Hello all! I suppose this question would loosely go under "history." We've had this sword stowed away either in a closer or under a parlor sofa for quite some time. I only just now got to taking a close look at it. There are some ornate inscriptions on the blade; you can pick out a shield, probably an eagle here and there, you know, stuff you'd expect to see engraved. In addition, on one side is a nice big "US," and on the other a "Pluribus Unum" (I can't seem to find the "E"). I combed over the blade and scabbard in search of a date, to no avail. Any help on some identification? I'll list some details:

• The hilt is goldish, covered in engraved four-point stars.
• The scabbard is primarily silver, but there are four gold areas:
  • The very top (which the cross-guard rests on when sheathed)
  • The very end (which I guess would be the chape, but it actually extends off the basic shape of the sheathed sword. A similar shape can be seen on the end of the scabbard in this sword.)
  • Two separate rings where you attach...um, something to something...they're for attaching the sword to your body, of course, but I'm a dunce at how it actually attaches. They're similar in shape to the rings on Marxuach's sabre in the preceding image. However, they are placed a bit farther apart on the scabbard than on Marxuach's.

And of course, some rather rough measurements:

• The blade is 30.5 inches.
• The grip is 3.5 inches.
• The inscriptions on the blade end about 17.5 inches from the cross-guard.

There's also something a bit unusual with the pommel. At the very end (that is, opposite the blade), there is a silver circular piece, topped with a gold cap nut/acorn nut. I really don't think unscrewing it is a good idea...

I did browse through a few US military sword sites, but nothing looked like it. So, with this plethora of information, anyone have a clue?--The Ninth Bright Shiner 03:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

With the inscriptions about halfway down the blade, it sounds to me like some kind of ceremonial sword. A photo might help with identification, but you might do better taking it to a specialist. Of course, you might find out it is a worthless souveneir from somewhere, but it might genuinely be worth something or at least turn out to be something interesting.

As for the nut at the end of the handle, I did read that with Samurai swords, the patina on the tang inside the handle is particularly important to the value of the sword - maybe the same applies to your sword, so I suggest you do not remove the handle and certainly do not clean the tang without seeking expert advice. Astronaut (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The legal concept of acquiescence -- does it exist in any United States laws?

The legal concept of acquiescence (see article), are there United States laws, especially Federal, where it is in law? (I don't mean the precedent Georgia v. South Carolina.) Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There are definitely adverse possession laws in the U.S. Although I think they are mostly at the state level. 164.156.231.55 (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no one acquiescence statute, but there are many statutes and common law doctrines that reflect this concept. For example, it may be said to underlie statutes of limitation, where a would-be plaintiff has only a limited amount of time to bring suit after being on notice of a wrong. John M Baker (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of Maxims and Arrows 27

What is the meaning of Maxims and Arrows 27 from Twilight of the Idols By Friedrich Nietzsche The quote is "Women are considered profound. Why? Because we never fathom their depths. But women aren't even shallow."

What is the meaning? Is it as simple as women are below shallow or is there a much more profound meaning? I have heard the quote used many times but with no context —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.64.15 (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The original is "Man haelt das Weib fuer tief - warum? weil man nie bei ihm auf den Grund kommt. Das Weib ist noch nicht einmal flach" - It's just an aphorism - of the type "I'll never understand women because they are illogical creatures - maybe that makes them profound?", and similar to "rocket science is easier than marriage"

The subtitle of the book is "how to philosophise with a hammer" - don't expect it to be profound - most are trite. In contect most of this section of the book is about "turning on the head" or "giving a twist to" common phrases or sayings - it's not a particularily profound or philosophical work by any measure. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Learning to kill

I read On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society awhile back and was most interested in his thesis that specific changes were made in the training of Western soldiers in the years after World War II along Skinnerian lines in order to increase their individual chances of being psychologically capable of killing when the chance game. Unfortunately the book is high on argument (and anecdote) and low on historical citations. Does anyone know another good, generally readable book on such a topic that goes into this particular type of training? E.g. Skinnerian conditioning in the American armed forces between WWII and Vietnam. Any suggestions? --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Or put another way. Is there a good book on the use of psychology in warfare for the purposes of training, not psychological warfare as it is typically understood? I'm looking for a historical study on the uses of psychology in developing troop training, basically. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

UK Ministry of Information during WWI

I noticed the following unsourced statement about the (former) Ministry of Information, in the Censorship in the United Kingdom article: "During the First World War it was infamous for having a staff of 999." Was that because government bodies with 1000 or more staff were subject to greater supervisory or public disclosure requirements, and the Ministry was able to get away with specific, identifiable dirty deeds because it was small? Would be very interesting to read about if so, but otherwise "infamous" is just a throwaway superlative that should be deleted. 86.162.194.37 (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That should be "During the Second World War..." If you're headed to the library, try: Riley, Norman. (1940). 999 and all that. OCLC 12876189.—eric 04:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Can a nun enter a civil marriage

Can a Roman Catholic nun enter a civil marriage? Does any secular country forbid Roman Catholic nuns to enter a civil marriage? Surtsicna (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that any country (even the Vatican) has laws forbidding Catholic nuns from getting married. The Catholic church forbids marriage. A nun can freely marry with the possible result being loss of status as a nun by the church, not the country. -- kainaw™ 15:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have heard of such cases. Of course those are moot, since in all cases the nun/priest had to denounce her nunhood/his priesthood before the actual marriage could take place. And I also find it less than likely that any country would have a law forbidding nuns marriage. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If the Pope himself wanted to marry someone, I doubt there's be any law preventing him. There'd of course be theological ramifications ..., but that's not the state's concern. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well isn't the Pope himself a head of a theological state? Googlemeister (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but he is also the head of a religion. Are the rules/laws of the state identical to the rules/laws of the religion? It is very possible that the religion forbids the Pope to marry but there is no specific law in the state forbidding marriage. -- kainaw™ 15:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the nun in question (if british) could enter into a civil partnership... AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can't say something nice...

Every time Bernanke makes a public statement, the Dow takes a 50+ point hit. Why does he insist on making public statements? Googlemeister (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Every time? Literally, every single time he has made any sort of public statement, the market drops more than 50 points? If you actually believe that, you shouldn't be messing with stocks. Or... now that I think of it... I have a bunch of Martian stock that is very rare that I can sell you for, say, just $5,000/share. -- kainaw™ 16:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering how stocks are fungible, rarity is not a means of increasing value. And I mean everytime he makes a public televised statement. Googlemeister (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure of the accuracy of the premise (that Bernanke's statements (almost) invariably make the market go down). Even assuming it to be true, however, consider that maintaining the valuation of the stock market neither is, nor should be, a central responsibility of the Fed Chairman. He has more fundamental responsibilities with respect to, for example, the monetary supply and the banking system; protecting the interests of stock market investors and speculators is at best a secondary consideration. In addition, there are many occasions on which he is obligated to speak, and others on which he may believe providing reliable public information is part of his job. John M Baker (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the questioner could read today's news and realize that the base of his claim is simply not true. -- kainaw™ 20:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

All I know is stock was about 60+ before he said anything, it dropped to -20 or so, and then eventually worked its way back up to end at 60+ or so yesterday. Probably just observer bias. Googlemeister (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Retiree organization in USA

I can't recall the name nor find anything in the Category:Retirement in the United States - but I am almost sure there is an important organization in USA for senior citizens that has major influence on politics by lobbying... any thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

How about AARP? Googlemeister (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is the AARP. Tempshill (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Are confessional booths always made of wood?

Are confessional booths always made of wood? -- 208.120.179.230 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

They can be brick or stone as well.83.100.250.79 (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

When I was on tour in Europe 2 months ago I saw a church with a confessional made of glass, both the outer door as well as the panel between the confessor and the priest. The confessor spoke into a microphone which presumably had a speaker on the priest's end, and vice versa. Since the whole setup was glass, we could look in from the main floor of the church. It might have been Notre Dame (/me runs off to check his pictures...), yes it is Notre Dame. I have a not-so-good picture of one. Do our articles on confessional or Notre Dame particularly need a pic? Zunaid 18:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Notre Dame de Paris? Algebraist 18:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Buying share - online or physical broker?

I would like to buy some (maybe U.S/Cad) shares and I live in Canada. I'm treating this like gambling so I'm not really asking for advice on which stock to buy etc. I'm thinking of spending roughly 100 ~ 300 Canadian dollar per month. As a complete stock newbie (with no knowledge whatsoever, crazy, I know) which method would be better? Buying share online or go visit a physical broker? I tried Google, which return pages after pages of online share trading company intend on promoting their own services. The closest question I could find asked in the past here in the reference desk is "Stock exchange and share things", which quickly go off topic and not really helpful. What are the pro and con of each (buying online vs. broker)? Lastly, any link/book/advice to some intro material (basic lingo, very basic working on share/market) would be much appreciated. Thank you very much in advance. Royor (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You really want two things: First, how much is the charge for the service? It may be a monthly charge or yearly charge. Second, how much does it cost to submit a transaction? It may be a flat rate or a percentage or a combination of both. With those two figures, you can budget how much the service charge will be, regardless of if you trade or not. Then, you can add in the transaction charges when you plan your purchases. When talking to brokers (online or in person) pester them to give you those two values. Nothing else is important until you are a power broker and you need split-second trades to profit off the microadjustments in a million different stocks at once. -- kainaw™ 19:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The online service I personally use has a $US10 per trade fee and no other fees. Based on this, you would probably want to do trades of at least $500, maybe $1000 to keep the fees from eating too much of any gains you might get. The physical brokers I know start at $30 a trade, so if you are not trading in large chunks of $, online will probably be the wiser choice. Googlemeister (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think you can get trades in Canada for that low a price. I think the lowest you'd probably find for occasional (ie not over quite a few per month) is about $20CAD a transaction from online companies. I asked at TD the other day and they said it was $29CAD a trade there. As Googlemeister says, if you're only buying or selling small amounts you are going to pay a lot of it to the broker. If you are just looking for a reliable way to invest money, I would recommend index funds. As someone pointed out to me here a few weeks ago, you can get TD e-series funds with an MER of 0.31%. You don't pay any transaction fees, and unless it's an RRSP you don't pay a yearly fee (if it is, it's $100 a year unless you have over $25000 in it, in which case it is waived). You can set it up to buy an amount each month (see dollar cost averaging) and not have to worry about buying or selling individual shares which can be incredibly volatile. Of course it's less fun - if you're just looking for the joy of speculating by all means go ahead, but be advised that it's quite possible you'll lose a lot of money doing it and your chances of "hitting it big" are probably less than you might imagine. TastyCakes (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Another note that I've found many people to miss... Buying stock is a trade. Selling stock is a trade. If you are paying $20/trade, you pay $40 for the entire buy-sell transaction. Therefore, say you purchase 10 shares of stock at $10/share ($100 total). The stock needs to increase to $14/share when you sell just to break even. So, before you start gambling, see if any stocks you are eyeballing happen to be making similarly large jumps in value. -- kainaw™ 20:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't recommend this idea of yours, because the transaction fees are going to dwarf any profits. In addition to the regular commission to the broker, you are supposed to buy shares of stock in lots of 100, or else you have to pay additional "odd lot" charges. Buying Intel will therefore cost you US$1,890 plus the commission to the broker. I applaud the idea of experimenting and starting small, but a less expensive way to do it would be to find a website that runs a stock market simulation game, and play that for a couple of years until you have more money you're willing to gamble all at once. Or invest in a stock-based, no-load mutual fund and follow its progress. Tempshill (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In the UK i can trade stocks in any number and my charges are the same, not sure if this 'odd lot' charge is something unique to the US/Canada but never had it disclosed in any of my trades.

Another thing I would add - the bid offer spread is something to consider. Some stocks can have a very wide spread which adds to your need for more returns. I would say - go for it if you can afford to (and are happy to) lose every penny, and are not expecting to make much - if any - money. I have enjoyed my trading (which has been profitable even during the current economic downturn, thanks to Barclays and Aviva) and whilst all the above is perfectly true, and yes trade-costs and other incidentals add to the need for returns, if you are interested in learning more about trading, business and financial-information I find there's nothing like having money ride on it to make you take an interest!

Oh and another thing - in the Uk you pay Stamp Duty (a tax). I've no idea for Canada, but similar taxes may apply, adding to how much your need for profit. ny156uk (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all the prompt replies. I have a few more related questions:

• 1) I heard about penny stocks, should a newbie try or stay clear of them?
• 2) So suppose I buy stocks once every year (CAD$4000 worth) and hold them for say ... 5 year before doing anything to them, would transaction fee still dwarf any profit?
• 3) Tempshill you mention the amount I'm willing to spend is too little to "buy-in". How much would be "enough", or at least worth the trouble?
• 4) I’m already buying RRSP for tax purposes (from my insurance company) - if I want to use index fund or mutual fund of my choice (right now I just give the company money and they pick for me) as my next year’s RRSP who should I approach? Bank? Insurance company? Is it really recommended (to pick your own) or should I just believe in the pro who do this for a living?

Royor (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, despite your not asking for stock picks, this is getting close to giving financial advice, and the Reference Desk is not supposed to give professional advice. Have you considered blowing a couple hundred to spend an hour talking with a financial advisor? Or, at a minimum, read The Intelligent Investor. I'll try to field some non-advice questions, though:

1. Penny stocks. These are simply stocks that trade for very low prices. They are trading that low for a great reason — the companies have very little value, because they aren't earning much, their debt payments are larger than their foreseeable profitability, etc. As the article states, their prices are pretty easily manipulated, and they are usually thinly traded. A total crapshoot.

2. This is of course impossible to answer because stocks are often like gambling, and nobody knows if there will be any profit at all. If you're talking about "odd lot" fees, $4000 would avoid them if the stock price is $40 or under, because you could afford to purchase exactly 100 shares. But then you are putting all your eggs in one basket. You should settle down with the book I mentioned and then do some math and figure out what price targets make sense for you, or whether mutual funds are a better idea.

3. See 2.

4. I don't know the answer to the question, but a good thing to investigate is the common claim of the superior performance of index funds over time when compared to actively managed funds. (Of course there are years, like last year, in which index funds lost millions of people a metric ton of money, despite their supposed superiority.)

Hope this helps - let me recommend that financial advisor or a lot of reading to you again. Tempshill (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think the Intelligent Investor would be a great book for anyone that wants to get started buying and selling stocks. TastyCakes (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again. Financial advisor sounds good, any additional recommend reading? Royor (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of the odd lot fee. Googlemeister (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality.

In Saudi Arabia, is it illegal to BE gay?. Or to engage in homosexual activity? --190.50.111.180 (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

See LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia. Laws generally govern activity, not states of being (in part because a state of being is not usually prosecutable, while an activity is). In the cases of groups, religions, states, etc. that are against homosexuality, they generally don't recognize that one can be a homosexual if one is not engaging in homosexual activity (that is, they don't believe homosexuality is anything more than a "choice"). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Pacific Scandal 1872

Why did the pacific scandal lead to the resignation of Macdonald's government when all he did was ask for money from Sir Hugh Allan? Don't politicians ask for money from others all the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.144.211 (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We have an article about the Pacific Scandal. It wasn't so much that they were asking for money, but that it was so secretive, and there was apparently bribery going on. It wasn't much of a scandal at all really, but it's the best we can do in Canada! Adam Bishop (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

July 22

Libertarian socialism and left libertarianism

What is the difference between libertarian socialism and left libertarianism? If there is no difference, then why two separate terms are used? --AquaticMonkey (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As described in the articles, left libertarianism specifies common ownership of natural resources and nothing else, while libertarian socialism is far more prescriptivist as to the structures of economic activity. —Tamfang (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"the good doctor"

This phrase is puzzlingly loved by composers of blurbs, who apply it to anyone known as Dr., good or (oh, irony! how original lol!) otherwise. As one isn't nearly as likely to encounter "the good professor" or "the good captain", it appears to be allusive, but to what? —Tamfang (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

See The Good Doctor for some possibilities. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Moken Sea Gypsies of Thailand

Hi I need to do a essay on indigenous people are the Moken sea gypsies indigenous to their area —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madrob (talk • contribs) 07:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Gypsies aren't usually ingigenous (by definition), the moken according to the article are austronesian which suggests a more eastern origin, more pacific in origin, but they live around the west of SE asian penisular Indochina. So on the surface it looks like they are not.83.100.250.79 (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Visigothic establishment in Hispania

When did the Visigothic kings came to rule Hispania? Who was the first king of Hispania? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Visigothic Kingdom? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Scandalous Saints

What Saints would be likely to appear in the tabloids today. Which ones might have had a turbulent or scandelous enough life to be in the likes of TMZ? Between halucinations and revelations there's bound to have been some desolute lives out there. Which Saints are the most popular and would end up in the press? Thank you. 190.229.67.201 (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article : Cecil Adams Who Was the Worst Catholic Saint. APL (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That is interesting. And I thought Mother Teresa was bad.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The New Orleans Saints perhaps? Googlemeister (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Historical Jesus question

Do scholars of historical Jesus believe the man in quesion actually was crucified and died on the cross? If so, why was the man crucified? (from a hisorical not religious perspectve) --193.253.141.64 (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus says that "scholars ...agree..." that Jesus "on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion", so that should answer the first part of your question. -- Finlay McWalter Talk 19:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

ok. And their opinion of whether he died on the cross? To me, if he was seen again later occams razer implies that he didn't die, but Im interested in what historians believe... --193.253.141.65 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about "historical Jesus" arguments, but premature burials were uncommon but not unheard of throughout most of history until modern medical technology was invented. Even if he was crucified and the Romans declared him dead, unless they did an EKG it's not completely impossible for him to be up and about a couple of days later. (Improbable, though, but that's why we're still talking about it twenty centuries later.) 72.10.110.109 (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

also what about why? (from historical not religious perspective)...--193.253.141.64 (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Although there is no consensus as to the reason for his crucifixion, it followed closely (in the chronology used in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke) on his overturning the tables at the Temple, so many scholars think this was at least the trigger for his being turned over to the Romans.

The crucifixion itself is considered one of the best-attested events of the first century, since there are multiple sources confirming it occurred and it would at least initially have been difficult for the Christians to overcome the fact that their god had been crucified (i.e., for Christians to say it happened was a statement against their own interests). There is no serious suggestion that Jesus did not die on the cross. The historicity of the resurrection is quite a different matter; its evidence consists of a much smaller number of reports that his tomb was found empty and that a small number of followers saw him or had visions of him. As our article on Historical Jesus puts it, "Most scholars believe supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, and thus consider the resurrection non-historical but instead a philosophical or theological question." John M Baker (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

United States Special Operations Forces

Which of the United States Special Operations Forces is most elite? Can you just apply to be one? My friend is bragging that his bro is in special forces but I would think that their protocol wouldn't allow them to advertise that info in public. BTW, do they live in the public? If so, are they incognito where that they have a home front or a job front? --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinions will vary. In my experience, the particular special forces branch with which one is affiliated is "most elite". Cross-application is generally restricted by the branch of service: for instance, the SEALs are open only to members of the Navy or Coast Guard; however, there appears no restriction within branch of service (for instance, an Army soldier could attempt to join both the Rangers and the Green Berets). There is no particular secrecy associated with much of the special forces. On the other hand, how would we know about the secret ones? That said, members of special forces live much like any other members of the military -- often off-post, with the military as a day job. They should not be confused with intelligence operatives who work under cover. — Lomn 19:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is "most elite" is a matter of opinion; I'm sure all the members of each will contend it's them. They're all divisions of regular military forces, so you're recruited from the normal ranks of the army etc. - you don't just join Delta Force or the Seals straight from the street. So, to the extent that it's secret, they'd just say they're in the army or whatever. Anyone who is bragging they're in the SAS or whatever is, in my experience, generally in the catering corp. -- Finlay McWalter Talk 19:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is probably not a way to determine which SOP unit would be more elite then another that would be be without controversy. To become a member of such a unit, you would need to be a member of one of the branches of the US military first. From there, you can probably volunteer to apply for a SOP unit, and take the required training for it. Such training is pretty hardcore, and they generally fail a good portion of those who take it. They are usually as public as most others who are in the military, although most likely they will be involved in missions with higher levels of classification, though it is not always the case. There is not any real reason why they should be incognito at home about them being part of a special ops unit, and it is certainly a matter of pride to most of them. Googlemeister (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't at all speak for US special forces, but members of the UK's SAS, including its two territorial units, don't publicise their membership, and (even when they've left) their appearance on TV often shows them with their faces obscured. The rationale for this is that the SAS was heavily involved in operations against the PIRA and INLA, and they don't want current or former SAS members to face retaliation from said groups. -- Finlay McWalter Talk 19:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there any statistics to the female popluation of the United States Special Operations Forces? --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)