Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

February 25

Crosscountry Skiing Cross

Is there nordic cross and skate skiing cross?174.3.99.176 (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you talking about cross-country skiing (a form of Nordic skiing) and tour skating? Gabbe (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the question is referring to "cross" as in snowboard cross and ski cross; these events are apparently inspired by motocross, which in turn is inspired by cross-country motorcycle racing, hence the "cross". As I never heard of the two winter events until a few days ago, I certainly have no comment on whether there are any others. --Anonymous, 08:50 UTC, February 25, 2010.

Do you mean Nordic classic style cross-country skiing, and Nordic freestyle cross-country skiing? The 4 x 10km relay (held yesterday in the Winter Olympics) had the first two legs skied in classic style [[1]], and the last two legs were in freestyle, otherwise known as Skate skiing [[2]]. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ski cross and snowboard cross are events. Are there such events that use cross country skiing? And Xcountry is divided into nordic (or classic), which is where you use tracks, and free (this method is the same method used to get across flat land when on downhill skis)

So yes, my question is are there events for these 2 possibilities?174.3.99.176 (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, but maybe if you look at ski-orienteering [[3]], Backcountry skiing [[4]]

or maybe the Loppet races [[5]] you will find what you're looking for. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't exist as "Nordic Cross". However, there are "pursuit" races where at least part of the race involves racers trying to be first across the finish line. Most cross-country races (either classic or free/skate-style) are staggered start, and individually timed (like a time trial in cycling). It isn't always apparent to the crowd who the leader is, although late starters finishing before early starters are obviously doing well. In the pursuit, there is either a mass-start, and the first to cross the finish line is the winner. Or the race may be divided into two parts (eg. 15 km classic then 15 km free) with the first half run as a time trial. The winner of the first half is the first to start the second half, with other racers starting at times equal to the they are behind the leader. (At the current olympics, all pursuits, relays and sprints are run as a "mass-start, first-to-finish wins" race). Still, the nordic skiing pusuits are not run as snowboard or ski cross, where there is an initial qualifying round to determine the qualifiers and groupings for the play-offs, followed by small races of four competitors, with the top two in each advancing. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just read your answer Flyguy which you posted while I was researching mine. Actually there are races which are formatted in the same way as the boarder/skier cross events: 2.5km sprints. We don't appear to have an article on this format! In the Winter Olympics, the men's event was won by Nikita Kriukov (RUS), and the women's by Marit Bjoergen (NOR). It can be either classic or freestyle: the Olympic one was in classic style. I wonder if this is what the OP is after? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm guess the OP means skate cross? Downhill skating does exist but it's not yet an Olympic sport. I'd imagine it could be developed into skate cross. --Kvasir (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the OP is referring to skate-skiing, also called free technique. Nordic skiing = cross-country skiing, which is raced both with classic and freestyle techniques. The OP is using "Nordic" to mean classic. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I just added detail to my response. We don't have a lot of detail on the format of the races. TammyMoet is correct. The Men's and women's sprints (and the team sprints) are run with qualifying and playoffs -- the closest to "Nordic Cross", but without the jumps.-- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

self-determination vs territorial claims

If the people living on the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar want their respective territories to remain territories of the United Kingdom, then what ethical right does Argentina and Spain have to continue to claim the territories? I know international relations and territorial claims are rarely based on morals or ethics, but how (and why) does, say, Argentina claim moral high ground over the Falklands row? Maybe they have been wronged historically, but pushing a claim that is opposed by the inhabitants of a territory seems grossly hypocritical for countries that claim to be democratic. --02:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Reference Desk isn't a forum or a place to post opinion questions. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the question should be phrased as: What have the Argentinians said in response to the British argument that the Falklands should remain British because that's what the inhabitants want? (Same with Spain and Gibraltar.) Responses should be limited to examples or summaries of what the Argentinian and Spanish arguments are, not whether they are right or wrong. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The residents of the Falklands and Gibraltar are not a native population; they are, for the most part, immigrants or decendants of immigrants who have moved into the territory since the British occupation began, and have more of an allegiance to Britain than to the place they live (more so in the case of the Falklands than Gibraltar). Thus, we may feel that they have less right to self-determination than do, say, the population of Timor-Leste. An analogy; you have much stronger legal and moral rights to the house you live in if you've owned it and been paying the rates and taxes for 30 years, rather than if you're a squatter who moved in last week. FiggyBee (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no native population in the Falklands in historical times. The current residents are the only ones to consider. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Is the Argentinian government or economy about to collapse again? That seems to be the usual trigger for their interest in the Falklands. DuncanHill (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• By that argument, the US should revert to the native American Indians. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If you mean my argument, Stephan, then you've misunderstood me; I'm not saying that any given territory should be controlled by (descendants of) its native population. I'm saying that in case of a disputed territory, self-determination carries more weight if the population predates the dispute. FiggyBee (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the Argentinian response to the question about the Falklands, taken from the website of the Ministry of Foreign Relations (my translation, with some dictionary help):

"The principle of self-determination is not applicable to the Question of the Malvinas Islands.

"The specificity of the Question of the Malvinas Islands is based on the fact that the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelled their original population and did not allow them to return, violating Argentinian territorial integrity. The application of the principle of self-determination is then ruled out, as its exercise on the part of the inhabitants of the islands would cause the infringement of the national unity and territorial integrity of Argentina. In that respect, one may refer to Resolution 1514 (XV), "Declaration on the Achievement of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples," which establishes in its sixth paragraph that "All intention leading to the total or partial rupture of national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."

"In the Question of the Malvinas Islands the General Assembly of the UN recognized this doctrine -- of the application of the principle of territorial integrity by making reference to the interests and not to the desires of the people of the islands -- in its resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified later by other resolutions in (several resolutions listed here). All declare the existence of a dispute of sovereignty and reaffirm the invitation made in resolution 2065 (XX) to the parties (Argentina and the UK) to continue without delay the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee charted with examining the situation with respect to the application of the Declaration on the Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples, with the aim of coming to a peaceful solution to the problem, having duly taken account of the dispositions and objectives of the Charter of the UN and of Resolution 1514 (XV), and also the interests of the population of the Malvinas Islands." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A more nuanced history than the Argentine claims is shown in our article Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And here is a Spanish primer on Gibraltar (in Spanish): [6]. The section on self-determination reads almost identical to the Argentinian argument about the Falklands, referencing the same UN resolutions mentioning territorial integrity and that only the "interests," not the "desires," of the population of a "colony" need be considered. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The first answer was the best one: The Reference Desk isn't a forum or a place to post opinion questions. Thanks, Nytend. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions against the UK over Falklands conflict

Now, Argentina has gone to the UN over the Falklands issue. The UN has asked the UK to negotiate a lot of times, and the British never did it. Why can't the UN impose sanctions against the UK? --190.178.155.223 (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions for what? DuncanHill (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

For disobeying the UN. :S. Lybia, Iran, have been sanctioned for disobeying. --SouthAmerican (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the history of the UN asking the UK to negotiate on this matter, but I do know that the UK is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and therefore has veto power on basically any important action that the UN could attempt to take against the UK. Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What's to negotiate about anyway? "Oh, you invaded a few years ago, we kicked you out, yes of course we'll talk to you about giving you what you tried to steal"? DuncanHill (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Some people think that's quite reasonable, but others disagree. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is really a flame bait question, and I hate to feed the troll. But I will give my answer to the question: outside of South America, few countries in the UN feel the Argentine sovereignty claims are stronger than the British ones. Further, it is Argentina that acted as the aggressor (under a military junta) in recent history, probably to its own detriment (the UK was "open to sovereignty talks" before that time, I doubt they will be again in the foreseeable future). Please see Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, and History of the Falkland Islands. TastyCakes (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Also the alleged British invasion/occupation/ethnic cleansing of the Falklands (Argentina's justification for claiming the land) occurred in the 1830s. If Britain was found not to have the right to land they've held since 1833 (and claimed in the 17th century), then by the same logic large parts of Australia, the USA, Canada, New Zealand, etc, would have to be returned to their native populations; the same would also apply in many other parts of the world (parts of Russia, China, disputed border lands like Lorraine or Silesia, land Israel seized in 1947, etc), and you would have to ask how far back it goes - should Argentina be returned to its aboriginal population? This is why the UN tends to focus on contemporary acts of aggression rather than trying to correct actions in the distant past. --Normansmithy (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole notion of taking land by force and war, should be looked at for international law. Also the "Belgrano issue" needs looking at. Who has the right to the minerals? There is no doubt that Argintine waters come out to an extent from their coast, but where does it stop?

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Mineral exploitation is protected in the states EEZ, 200 miles from the baseline unless that intrudes on someone else EEZ in which case the boundary is at the median point.

Nothing to look at on the Belgrano issue, it was a conflict.

And the issue of using military force for territorial gain is covered in international law, members of the UN should use diplomatic means where they are available. The penalties for not doing that do depend very much on the relationships within the UNSC though.

ALR (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

By "notion of taking land by force and war", are you referring to Argentina or the UK? I also don't see what needs looking into regarding the Belgrano - seems fairly open and shut to me. TastyCakes (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is quite a complex issue, but I can try. Oil exploration inside one states Exclusive Economic Zone is permitted, so the issue appears to be where the boundaries of the respective EEZs are in this instance. Argentina claims the Falklands within their borders, so extending their baseline to include the islands, and pushing their EEZ out beyond them.

The Islands themselves are 300 miles from the Argentine mainland baseline so outside the EEZ that would be derived from that. The Islands at the moment are a British Sovereign territory so in the British view the EEZs of Argentina and FI abut one another about halfway between the islands and the mainland. That's essentially the position currently recognised by the UN although through a bit of a fudge that brings in a conservation zone, that allows Argentina to claim a significant amount of the South Atlantic, but not the areas around the islands themselves.

Sanctions are managed by the UN Security Council, a body that has little interest in the enforcement of maritime borders unless there is a military activity around breaching the agreements; an offensive action by Argentina for example, or a pre-emptive action by the UK. Neither are likely, the Argentine Armed Forces aren't militarily capable of unilateral action and a pre-emptive action would be counter-productive since there is no justification for it in international law.

There is a broader issue of self determination around sovereignty, and whether some historical lineage traced back over nearly two hundred years should trump the opinions of the current population.

The whole permits issue is potentially the trigger, all vessels have a right of innocent passage through Territorial waters, so Argentina can't legally enforce a requirement to apply for permits to transit, although they can impose a departure permit requirement on vessels in their port entry points.

ALR (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all sincerely for giving your well learned comments on this issue.

Someone asked re The Belgrano issue; which side am I on? This is precisely the very issue I am concerned with. Why see me on any side? For I'm not in any side. The needless loss of life in the Belgrano and a "sitting-duck" syndrome was in my mind. It is the conflict issues that are of concern. And then the loss of life!

Once again, thank you to all who came in to talk on these issues.

MacOfJesus (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that if Argentina wants to claim their right to the Falkland islands because of early 19th century claims, shouldn't they be willing to give the land they currently occupy back to the Diaguita, Guaraní and Tehuelches? But then, I guess consistancy is too much to ask for. Woogee (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The real answer is based in the fact that whoever owns the Falkland Islands has a claim on mineral rights not only in the ajacent seas but on Antartica, and quite a large stretch of Antartica. It is basicaly back to wealth.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Adjacent areas, yes, but I have seen nothing to indicate that the British tie their British Antarctic Territory claims to the Falklands. Yes they have been administered from the Falklands in the past, but there is nothing to indicate that giving up one would involve giving up the other. The South Sandwich Islands dispute is, on paper, a separate matter from the Falklands.

I would say it is basically down to pride. Pride, and the public support it garners, have driven Argentine governments actions on the Falklands, and pride is what motivated the UK government to go to war and spend huge quantities of money on this economically insignificant rock. I don't think mineral rights factored much into Thatcher's decisions at all back in 1982, and indeed they haven't been a significant source of wealth so far in the islands' history. TastyCakes (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In the most recent maps of Antartica the division lines are drawn, according to most adjacent property nations. The people who came in on this issue and show great knowledge of UN law may confirm. You may remember that at that time sovereinity issues were reserved to the Crown and Thatcher and parliament were told not to enter in to such issues again, without mandate. This is as I remember it.

MacOfJesus (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're getting at or referring to. TastyCakes (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica isn't that close to FI, so the EEZs are different. In any case the Antarctic agreement limits mineral exploitation in that region.

ALR (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

All I was saying is there was more than pride / loss of pride involved. Regarding minerals: When there is a global need then laws tend to get changed.

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

technical answer

Nations always claim sovereignty over the territory and peoples in their domain. what this means is that once a nation has secured physical control over, and laid claim to, a region - by whatever method - that region and all the peoples are thereafter subject to the laws and principles of the controlling nation. any subsequent attempt to violate that nation's sovereign rule (by another nation or a revolutionary force) is an act of war. There are exceptions: the UN can (and does) sometimes violate national sovereignty in the interests of human right; sometimes states will choose not to consider violations of their sovereignty as war (e.g. when rebels are treated as criminals or when a nation calls its violation of another state's sovereignty a 'police action', and makes no move to actually claim the territory it has occupied) Once a nation controls a territory, everyone and everything there 'belongs' to that nation, and and that cannot change except through warfare or treaty.

self-determination is almost never used to request that states give up sovereignty over people or territory. In general, self-determination means that a regional or native population is given political control over their particular region or people under the auspices of the sovereign state. So, for example, American Indians in the US have certain regions set aside under their own sovereign control: certain US laws do not apply there, and federal authorities are restricted in how they can act on reservation land. However, these lands are still sovereign territory of the United States - no other nation could (for instance) annex a Sioux reservation without it being seen as an act of war against the US. Keep in mind that on the international scene, nations are the only players; 'peoples' may enter into discussion when there are human rights concerns, but peoples (as a rule) do not have a say in what nations do. --Ludwigs2 16:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. What I was looking at is the possibility of resolving land issues without conflict. Perhaps stronger rules of the UN that demand dialogue. But the whole notion of enforcing law is in fact the issue. John Paul Sartre saw a morality based on absence of law; acting freely in your situation.

Thank you for a very well put reply.

MacOfJesus (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There have been times when land transfers have happened peacibly between nations. The U.S., on several occasions, purchased sovereign rights to territories during the "Manifest Destiny" period of the early 19th century, see the Louisiana Purchase and the Gadsden Purchase. The Oregon boundary dispute between the U.S. and British Columbia was resolved peacably. The UK and Germany agreed to a land-swap in the Heligoland–Zanzibar Treaty, whereby Germany gave the UK Zanzibar in exchange for Heligoland, a small archipeligo off of the Frisian coast. Until 1949, the Dominion of Newfoundland was an independent British Dominion, on par with and equal in status to Canada, from whence it volutarily joined Canada. The Newlands Resolution was a peacable, if somewhat underhanded, annexation of Hawai'i to the U.S. During the 19th Century, the independence of the major British colonies occured by a process known as the "granting of responsible government" or of the granting of "Dominion status"; unlike the earlier U.S. experience, the gradual independence of countries like Australia and Canada occured in a rather organic and peaceful manner, culminating in the Statute of Westminster 1931, which recognized the sovereignty of the Dominions. --Jayron32 06:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

To a large extent the UN requiring anything needs some form of enforcement model if it doesn't happen, and that's so bogged down in process that it might as well not bother. It also really needs both sides of any debate to be willing to collaborate, and for a potential compromise solution to be available. Where we're talking about a binary situation there is little opportunity for compromise, hence little appetite for dialogue.

ALR (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You again for such learned replies. No one has mentioned Alaska?

One of the things that come to mind is the Newspapers /Print /Journalism. Print took Europe out of "The Dark Ages"; for the more people had knowledge of what was happening the more public opinion could enforce controle. However, it is a very weak controle.

During the World War 11, Malta was faught over, heavely, as the use of Malta was a clear gate-way to Africa.

MacOfJesus (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This thread is probably finished, but I can't help post some thoughts. As I understand it, Argentina's claim of soveirngty is largely based on the international laws of uti possidetis juris and uti possidetis. The question is whether these laws apply to the Falklands/Malvinas. There is apparently disagreement over whether the Nootka Convention of 1790, between Britain and Spain, applies to the islands or not. The first (and most important) Nootka Convention can be read at Wikisource, here. For the Falkland/Malvinas issue, Article VI is key. Even though Britain essentially forced the Nootka Convention on Spain under the threat of war, Article VI holds that Britain "shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the [South American] coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain". In other words, Britain promised not to colonize South America south of the areas already occupied by Spain, even uninhabited terra nullius areas. This promise to not colonize applied to the mainland of South America and "the islands adjacent". But the phrase "islands adjacent" was left undefined. I might be wrong, but I think that Argentina has always held that the Nootka Convention applies to the Falklands--they are "island adjacent"--while Britain claims the Nootka Convention does not apply--the island are too far from the mainland to count as "adjacent". In effect, as I understand it, the desires of the inhabitants of the islands should not be the deciding factor, according to Argentina--the British colonization of the islands was a breach of treaty--in a word, illegal. Personally, I think an occupation of nearly two centuries ought to have more weight than a rather odd treaty, but international border disputes have a very long memory. Pfly (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, sincerely for this. It does put things in prospective. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Statistics of first names by ethnicity

The U.S. Census Bureau has compiled this ranked list of surnames based on how common they are. The list contains also information about the percentage of individuals with a given surname that belongs to various (broad) ethnic groups. Are there similar published statistics on first names? --173.49.9.55 (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Except for Hispanic, all the categories are racial rather than ethnic. See Race and ethnicity in the United States Census. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

_{I don't know the answer to the question, but who would have guessed 5.5% of Cohens in the U.S. are black? (And that two of them play for the Detroit Lions?) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)}

The categories may officially be termed racial, but I think ethnic may be a better word. I assume that the categorization in the compiled data is based on respondent self-identification. For individuals of mixed ancestry who might identify themselves as belonging to more than one group, I think self-identification may be more based on cultural identification than physical characteristics. --173.49.9.55 (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

But race and ethnicity were separate questions in the census with the meaning described in our article. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Left wing vs. right wing

Germany and Netherlands (particularly Netherlands) are more liberal on cultural issues than the US or UK. But both the countries are ruled by right wing parties. Christian Democratic Union for Germany and Netherlands cabinet Balkenende-4 for Netherlands which include Christian Democratic Appeal and ChristianUnion. While both US and UK are ruled by left wing parties, they are more conservative on cultural issues. What is the reason behind this? --Qoklp (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Left wing" and "right wing" are relative terms. In fact, they differ not only by point of reference, the axes even have different directions in different countries. When I first went to the US (probably in 1996) I was very surprised about employer benefits granted to "domestic partners" - in fact, it took me a while to even understand what that was about. Admittedly, this was at an east cost university - still, in that aspect they were more "liberal" than any major employer in Germany. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Left and right wing are incredibly vague terms (as are "liberal" and "conservative"). It's important to remember that the political landscape varies greatly between countries; things which are significant issues in one place can be completely off the radar in others. For example, you may say the Netherlands is culturally liberal, but - in common with a lot of Western Europe - they seem to be having issues with the hijab. FiggyBee (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally, there are far more differences between countries than within them, politically. A U.S. Republican and a German Christian Democrat may agree philosophically on broad topics such as the importance of religion in society and the danger of excessive regulation. But practically, a German or Dutch Christian Democratic government will hold positions far to the left of the supposedly left-of-center Obama administration on topics such as gun control and the welfare state. Cultural issues, as Stephan and FiggyBee have pointed out, tend to be rather hard to compare between countries. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Gun control is an interesting topic which I didn't touch on, since it doesn't fall into a left-right or liberal-conservative dichotomy; liberals (and libertarians particularly) may think restrictions on firearms are a breach of civil liberties, and "tough on crime" conservatives might want to clean the streets of weapons. It is, however, a good example of how political issues can be different from country to country. In the USA, the only mainstream positions on gun control are "no gun control" and "a little bit of ineffective gun control". In Australia, there's been an almost total ban on private ownership of firearms (and certainly handguns) since 1996, and it's now a complete political non-issue. FiggyBee (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You missed those of us who believe the Founding Fathers' "arms" were 6-foot, muzzle-loading flintlocks, and that those weapons -- and ONLY those weapons -- ought to be freely available to competent people. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, the Constitution does not authorize USG to use any technology that did not exist in 1788. —Tamfang (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Figgy, you call libertarians a subset of the liberals. I'm not sure where you are posting from, but in the US, they are considered ultra-conservative. This is an example of the virtual reversal of the meaning of the terms "liberal" and "conservative". This is an extremely simplistic generalization, but, in the US, conservatives are more concerned about individual liberties (hence the inclusion of libertarians) and liberals are concerned with social equality and egalitarianism. You simply cannot compare the political spectrums across these cultural differences (as Stephen Schultz said, the axes are often pointing in completely different directions). —Akrabbim^talk 13:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure many so-called "Liberals" would argue they're for individual liberties too - I certainly would! Libertarians may not be Liberals in the American tradition, but nor are they Conservative (they don't want to "conserve" anything). The true opposite of "Conservative" is "Radical", not "Liberal". Incidentally, the name of the main Conservative party in Australia causes much confusion for many foreigners. :) FiggyBee (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

To the extent that Left and Right have any coherent meaning, I think the Left is for equality (in some sense; they may disagree vigorously over what's the most important kind of equality) and the Right is for stability. The soft libertarians have largely been in an uneasy coalition with the conservatives against the soft socialists, but calling libertarians 'conservative' strips that word of substance. (Which is fair; 'liberal' once meant 'free-trader' and now it often means someone who wants to regulate everything to death.) To me 'ultra-conservative' connotes pro-war, anti-sex, and perhaps krypto-KKK, none of which describes anyone I'd call libertarian. —Tamfang (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"While both US and UK are ruled by left wing parties". They might be left of centre within their own countries, but I understand that its common knowledge that politics in the US is far to the right of that in the UK. 78.146.70.111 (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to the Political Compass is in order: [7] FiggyBee (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The confusions and difficulties discussed above may be a symptom of the inadequacy of using a one-dimensional (or single-axis) parameter to analyse political thought (attitudes, philosophies, etc). The 'Spectra' section of our Politics article currently only discusses two one-dimensional approaches; Left-Right and Authoritarian-Libertarian; Left-Right politics discusses the hoary historical origins, and some doubts about the modern applicability, of that approach.

"Spectra" itself implies one-dimensionality, but our article Political spectrum discusses some systems of analysis involving two dimensions, none of which seem to have gained widespread acceptance (perhaps they would be too nuanced for the purposes of the mud-slinging that passes for political "debate" nowadays). I see no reason why three dimensional analyses (a couple of which the article mentions) might not prove even more useful - perhaps the comparatively recent ubiquity of computers able to display such arrays might enable them to be explored more readily. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

people will naturally (always have, always will) reduce politics to a single dimension - it's just an abstraction of 'us vs. them' that tries to make it look less subjective - however, the ends of the spectrum (the 'us' and 'them' points) shift historically. the left/right dichotomy is a bit dated now: it had its roots in a populist/royalist dichotomy that later shifted to socialist/nationalist dichotomy, but the current us/them split has wandered into different territory - something like moralist/liberal or religious/secular or traditional/progressive. left/right no longer really makes sense as an us/them distinguisher, though there is a protracted effort on both sides to warp the terms to capture the new distinctions. --Ludwigs2 15:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

American liberals and conservatives both favor a lot of regulations, just different lists of regulations. Libertarians claim to want to reduce regulations on both businesses and people to a minimum. Libertarian could be characterized as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

eh... speaking in political science terms, the US is a degenerate case. The non-trivial players in US politics are all pro-big-business, pro-military (to the extent that that differs from being pro-big-business), pro-authoritarian, and anti-populist. The only reason the nation hasn't collapsed into a more pure form of oligarchy is that the system was designed to make it easy for any number of greedy selfish bastards to get ahead by banging the populist drum, so populist ideology is carefully husbanded as a political resource for the well-to-do. There is no political spectrum in the US. There is a politically oligarchic mono-party that spreads republican and democratic wings over a largely anarcho-individualist populace. Hobbes Leviathan, with powdered sugar and a liberal-cream filling. --Ludwigs2 16:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Bugs, I just think your last sentence there is wildly off the mark. The claim they are "socially liberal" is easily defeated because any libertarian opposes "liberal"-identified US social programs like Affirmative Action, Social Security, and gun control. As for "fiscally conservative", I think it'd be more accurate to say that libertarians want to chop the size of government down to 25% of its current size, which goes way beyond the term "conservative". Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Wow, Bugs, I just think your last sentence there is wildly off the mark. The claim they are "socially liberal" is easily defeated because any libertarian opposes "liberal"-identified US social programs like Affirmative Action, Social Security, and gun control." - I think Bugs want to say Cultural liberalism, which he mistakenly typed social liberalism. Libertarianism is a mixture of cultural liberalism and fiscal conservatism. And calling libertarians conservative is utterly nonsense because conservatives will split coke all over their keyboards when they will hear that libertarians want to legalize prostitution, or want to remove laws restricting public nudity. Libertarians are for personal freedom, conservatives are against personal freedom. --Qoklp (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Socially liberal in the sense that "you can do whatever you like as long as you don't harm someone else". For example, abolition of all anti-drug laws. That's where the conservatives who like to call themselves "libertarians" get off the bus. Libertarians I've known also call themselves "classical liberals" as opposed to modern liberals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

May I try to answer taking the quetion at face-value. It is a well known psycological phenomenon that opposites attract, in this situation. In England we have Labour and New Labour. When we eventually have to make policy and decisions, without influnces, we tend to be more attracted to opposite! The believer begins to doubt, and the non-believer wonders if he/she may be Godless.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Lionel Arbuthnot

How do I find somebody with access to The Times online archive? I am trying to check this fellow's military career and whether he was in fact a general. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried looking at the London Gazette website? [8] This is the magazine of note for the British Establishment, which means that all military honours are printed in it. Anyone who has a Forces medal is in it. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Except Lionel whose MBE of 3 Jun 1919 is not listed. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a mention of him resigning his commission and retaining the use of Major: [9] --TammyMoet (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

An earlier resignation of commission: [10]--TammyMoet (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And here is an appointment to ADC: [11] --TammyMoet (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

He worked for the Burial Corps: [12] --TammyMoet (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Was made temp. Captain:[ http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/30894/supplements/10730] --TammyMoet (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Shared Resources indicates that User:Mirv has such access and is willing to use it for Wikipedia purposes. Algebraist 17:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You may well have found these references already, but this[13] site says: "Lionel Gough Arbuthnot, MBE. Born Kensington 24 September 1867. Died Surrey 16 May 1942. Educated Harrow 1882-86. Captain, Lancashire Fusiliers; Order White Eagle Serbia 5th class". This[14] site agrees. Looking on Google Books, "Burke's landed gentry of Great Britain"[15] page 25, also agrees; "Capt. late Lancashire Fus." Alansplodge (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I am wonderng how to reconcile those sources with [16]. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe contacting the Regimental Museum for the first listed regiment? --TammyMoet (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... A bit suspicious as a Brigadier-General would be a staff officer, not part of a regiment. I tried Googling "Brigadier-General Arbuthnot" but only got this[17] from India in 1879. Alansplodge (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sir Charles George Arbuthnot. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's me again... There was a Major-General Arbuthnot in WWII, in command of the 78th Division, Italy 1944[18]. Can't be the same one as he'd have already died of old age! Alansplodge (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Keith Arbuthnott, 15th Viscount of Arbuthnott. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your public library may give free online access for its members to the Times archive. 78.146.242.196 (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Political polling in the UK

I'm looking for a single poll carried out in the UK in perhaps the last year on pseudo-political issues, so I can compare them to my own. For example, the death penalty, Afghanistan, expenses, that sort of thing. Most polls tend to deal with general voting intention and perhaps one or two choice reason issues, but not these long-running issues. Anything you can throw up would be appreciated. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can probably piece it together from YouGov, but if you do find anything, I'll be pleased to see it. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Try UK Polling Report - for instance, this category discusses polls on the environment. Warofdreams talk 17:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a regular reader, but I didn't realise they archived it like that. Thanks. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

a great and effective lie to get someone to stop smoking?

Hi, If I know someone who I can probably pull one over on, and the one way in which I would like to do so is by getting her or him to stop smoking, then can you tell me what a truly great and effective lie would be (it seems the truth is just not enough), that would, psychologically, really work? I know marketers are very effective, and they're not even allowed to lie directly, so with the addition that even direct, bald-faced lying is allowed, I'm sure there should be something super, duper effective. If any adept marketers or liars (you don't have to tell me which category you come from!) are here, please let me know the best, most effective lie you can come up with that will meet my request. Thank you. 84.153.228.193 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell you a lie, but I can tell you something marketers use, and that is to find out your friend's greatest fear and link continuing smoking to that fear coming true. For example, if a woman's greatest fear is getting wrinkles, you can point to research telling her that women who smoke are at greater risk of getting wrinkles at an earlier age (I'm sure there's some somewhere...).--TammyMoet (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Smoking gives you wrinkles, bad teeth, bad breath, bad skin, makes you stink, costs a fortune and kills you. Actually, those are all true :) Or you could show them [:File:Cancerous lung.jpg] (I'm not cruel enough to post it here)--Jac16888^Talk 20:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

In the opposite direction, pro-smoking arguments use anecdotes to fight data. (ie: If I can show you one person who doesn't have all that and smokes, it means that all of your data is wrong.) So, I'm sure there is anecdotal evidence for anti-smoking arguments. If I show you one cigarette made at some point that had, say, rat poison in it, then any data you have showing that cigarettes don't contain rat poison is wrong. -- kainaw™ 21:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

'The next cigarette could be the one that gives you cancer'. Not forgetting heart disease, strokes, etc etc. 78.147.93.182 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This essentially Christian approach to truth was already recommended by Clement of Alexandria.--Wetman (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nononono, the above doesn't work at all, I've already said all that (including about wrinkles). I need a much, much more insidious and defamatory lie to cigarettes, and something that's effective and credible, and WORKS on SMOKERS. None of the above stuff works on smokers, or they wouldn't be smokers anymore. I need a real, effective lie. By the way I am not saying this is a new approach to truth or anything, lots of people practice it daily (though I assume the people who hang out at reference desks, not so much). I just need a real effective lie, post haste! 84.153.228.193 (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Smoking is an addiction. if you want someone to stop you need to get them to stop lying to themselves; lying to them isn't going to do a damned bit of good. sorry. --Ludwigs2 22:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that nicotine has its upsides, or why would people have such a hard time quitting? I say let the people smoke as they see fit. If they die, there's the old adage by Stalin: no man, no problem. Vranak (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

They have a hard time quitting because they are addicted. The upside to nicotine is that it alleviates the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. --Tango (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not read the psychological effects section of our Nicotine article and correct your ideas. Besides, if smoking is so awful then how come Gandalf was so fond of it? Vranak (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It is extremely hard for me to tell if Vranak is just trolling (here and elsewhere). The combination of ridiculous logical fallacies mixed with blithely wrong or confused opinions seems a little too calculated. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're just projecting 98, as per usual. Vranak (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Tell them smoking is responsible for 100% of puppy and kitten deaths in the world. It's exactly what you're looking for - a complete lie that, if believed, would make someone not smoke. If you don't like it, fine, but asking on a reference desk for a falsehood is silly. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have some quite legitimate lists of things that are not true, such as List of common misconceptions and List of misquotations; and articles about books on lies that are commonly taught, such as Lies My Teacher Told Me. So, it's not unreasonable that we could cite a lie-based strategem that has been used to influence people to quit smoking. I don't know of any, though. All I would contribute, as a now confirmed ex-smoker, is "The Truth About Smokers":

• Anyone who smokes is a filthy, disgusting pervert who eats babies for breakfast, is personally responsible for all the crime in our cities, and with whom any right-thinking, normal, civic-minded person would want nothing whatsoever to do.

They say ex-smokers are the worst; well, they might be, but that doesn't alter "The Truth About Smokers".  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If the smoker is male, tell him that smoking will make his protests fall off. Deor (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My approach has always been to sit down with the person, and in an objective and friendly manner, help them calculate how much money they spend per year on tobacco products. Once that's established, help them multiply that by their approximate life expectancy as a smoker to get the "bill yet to be paid." Then, you offer them a simple proposition: Quit smoking now, pay me half of the bill yet to be paid, and I'll murder you at the same anticipated age of death. You get all the benefits of smoking (early death), all the benefits of non-smoking (health), and you save 50%! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverse psychology might work. Tell the smoker that you want to encourage them to smoke even more than they do now, because the Social Security system will have a shortfall by the time you would both get to 65, and the more people smoke, the more money there will be left for those who don't smoke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That actually did work for a friend of mine. One evening in the pub, he lit a cigar and told me he'd just taken out a pension. I replied that that was a waste of money because if he carried on smoking cigars he wouldn't be using his pension! Some years later he told me why he'd stopped smoking shortly after our conversation - he'd realised I was right. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Given all the horrible things that smoking will do to you, but your friend doesn't seem to be convinced by, why on earth would you think there is any piece of evidence - true or false - which would convince them? Anything of sufficient power and immediacy ("I have proof that the next time you smoke a cigarette you will die") is likely to be so implausible as to be ridiculous. Can I remind you that, assuming your friend isn't a minor, everybody gets the right to make their own choices, no matter how dumb. Maybe you should just leave them alone. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

the one true answer (as selected by OP):

Studies have shown that the thing that affects people the most in this regard is not their possible deaths, or the possible future states of their lungs, but the ways in which it affects the appearance of their teeth. (One of the better uses of vanity, I suppose.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you so so so much! I gave your answer a special status. This -- THIS -- is why I asked the question. To get a LITTLE bit of information of EXACTLY this kind. Thank you so much Mr. 98. You are a godsend. 84.153.239.187 (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to award him a "Godsend Barnstar", if there is one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Except that his response was not a lie. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Cost of proposed UK Identity Cards

How many billions will it cost to implement them? What proportion of the necessary budget cuts would this be? Why has the media gone quiet on them recently? 78.147.93.182 (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

According to National identity card (United Kingdom), the LSE estimate the cost as £12bn to £18bn. What counts as a "necessary" budget cut is really up to one's personal political views - according to the Telegraph [19] the total deficit is predicted to reach £178bn - so, identity cards represent (at best) rather less than 10% of the total, but still a significant amount. Why the media are quiet about them at the moment is because they have other, more entertaining stories about politicians to amuse their readers with. Tevildo (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, ID cards aren't on the news agenda right now. The news agenda is shaped chiefly by two factors: events, and how "opinion leaders" try to shape it (events obviously being the prime mover). There hasn't been much in the way of real, news-worthy, events in this space - the home office has a few trial voluntary schemes, introduced with little fanfare and to little response. Things might change if some ID-card related event occurred (some outrage that could arguably have been stopped by ID cards, or some data-handling scandal that could arguably show how ID cards are a danger to civil liberties). Failing that it's down to the news agenda the various parties try to push. Conservative and Lib-dems are against, Labour nominally for, but clearly all three have decided the general election will be fought on the economy (and the usual "the other guys are obviously stupid and secretly evil" line). Nominally ID cards are still Labour policy, but clearly the costs and the increased public unease mean that mentioning them doesn't seem like a vote-winner; equally Cameron wasn't chuffed about David Davis' abortive "big scary government is coming to get you" campaign, and Conservative opposition to the cards is mostly based on a value-for-money objection. Lastly the SNP is (as always) aching for a nice constitutional bone to fight an obliging Westminster government over, and the imposition of such a scheme would be just the ticket (and if Labour does as badly in the forthcoming general election in Scotland as it did in the last election for the Scottish Parliament, it'll certainly lose). Given the costs, it'd be no surprise that (whoever wins the election) ID cards get kicked into the long grass. But whether someone drags them back out, in five or ten years, is down to events. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Felling trees in Conservation Areas, UK

I read that cutting down any tree in a Conservation Area is illegal, not just the ones with Tree Preservation Orders. What are the specific Acts of Paliament that specify this please? Are there any exceptions to this please? Thanks. 78.147.93.182 (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Act that governs Conservation Areas, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, does not mention trees even once, as far as I can tell. For this reason it seems unlikely that cutting down a tree in a CA is automatically illegal. However, felling enough to change the character of the area clearly would be. --ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Check with your local council. TPOs can apply not just to individual trees but to groups of trees, and may restrict lopping as well as felling. You are also required to inform the council in advance if planning to fell a tree over a certain diameter, so the council can consider applying a TPO to it. As I recall, Conservation Area Orders may include stipulations about tree management. DuncanHill (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Part 8, Chapter 1, Section 211.

"(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and section 212, any person who, in relation to a tree to which this section applies, does any act which might by virtue of section 198(3)(a) be prohibited by a tree preservation order shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Subject to section 212, this section applies to any tree in a conservation area in respect of which no tree preservation order is for the time being in force."

[20]. Of course, if you're concerned with a specific tree, you should seek appropriate legal advice - we're not allowed to give it at the Ref Desk. Tevildo (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Violating my above caveat (a little) - the main act that's prohibited by a tree preservation order is cutting the tree down without permission (emphasis added). How to go about getting that permission is definitely a matter for a lawyer, but there isn't an absolute prohibition on cutting designated trees down. Tevildo (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - if you can demonstrate that a tree is diseased or dangerous (for example, prone to dropping limbs, or obstructing a highway), a council is likely to approve lopping or felling. They may make a requirement for a replacement tree to be planted. Again, speak to your local council for initial information about specific trees or stands of trees, and to a lawyer if you want legal advice (as opposed to legal information). Your local Citizens' Advice Bureau may also be able to help. DuncanHill (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We're straying somewhat off topic here - I'm interested in trees without a TPO but in a Conservation Area. 78.151.155.128 (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It depends. Where I live you can;t just cut down trees in the grassy strip between the sidewalk and the curb. You have to apply for a permit, post a notice on the tree for a few weeks to give the neighbors a chance to complain, and plant a new tree to replace the old one. Different places will have different rules. PhGustaf (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Look on the website of your local council. Where I live, trees in conservation areas are automatically protected.[21].--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Even better, speak directly to someone in the local planning department for clarification. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

To whom should I report someone who has chopped down some trees in a conservation area? 78.146.242.196 (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Each local authority will have a tree officer, or some similar title, probably in the planning department or environment department - but the central switchboard at each council should be able to put you through to the right person, who can then let you know what the proper process in each case would be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Forestry Commission has considerable jurisdiction over tree felling. They're poorly named, as they control urban areas, not just over forests. Tree felling without permission should be generally regarded as prohibited, except for certain exempt areas, see this page. --Dweller (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

PhDs in Christian theology

I heard on the radio this morning that in the past people would write university thesis's on theological topics that pre-assumed the existance of God and the correctness of contemporary religious doctrine and beliefs. Do people still get awarded Phds for that sort of thing ("The Number Of Angels Who Can Dance On The Head Of A Pin")? Or how long ago did that stop? 78.147.93.182 (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There are theology departments at universities, so there must be theology PhDs. I think often they are interpreting religious texts and doctrine, so they are assuming it is true. There is nothing wrong with making assumptions, as long as you make it clear what you are assuming. --Tango (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You can get a PhD in mathematics by writing a dissertation that assumes that the Axiom of Choice is true. For that matter, take a look at the consequences of the Riemann hypothesis. Someday, someone might prove the Reimann hypothesis to be false, and all of that work would have been for nothing! Paul Stansifer 00:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

These notions go right back to Saint Thomas Aquinas. The notion of how many Angles on a pin refer to the fact that angels do not have bodies. Please see the five "proofs" of God's existence and the five declarations of the Nature of God. His Theology /his philosophy is still with us to this day and reflecting in modern Epistemological thought and movements. He lived a long time ago but his profound thought and reasoning is the basis of so many Schools of thought today. A PhD on Saint Aquinas would be very valuable.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The sort of reasoning given as an example this morning was, as far as I remember: God is perfect. Therefore God never changes His mind. So he only decides once if your soul is damned or saved. So you are either one of the Elect or you are not, and that cannot be changed. So if you are one of the Elect, then why should you bother to lead a good life. But people have the sin of thinking they are one of the Elect when they are not....and so on and so on, wheel within wheel. So do people still write PhDs with that kind of reasoning? 78.151.155.128 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

DD (Doctor of Divinity).
Sleigh (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

To respond to your statments/question would require a "preformed notion of context" -- in that someone will have had to already take a position in terms of which perspective they ascribe to in order to then answer you along their respective path. There's therefore no real sense in debating this in order to achieve any sort of resolution -- each belief system will have its own belief. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A DD is an honorary degree (I've known a few men who held them; all were eminent in the church but hadn't done academic work to get the doctorates); the earned degree is a Th.D. Nyttend (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, people still write that kind of stuff. --Tango (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would theology doctorates no longer be offered? Have a look at this page[22] to see examples of dissertation topics. -Pollinosisss (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but most of the topics listed there are historical, or related to literary or philosophical works. Of course it's not possible to be sure without reading the actual theses, but it seems to me that most of them would not require a presumption of belief in God or any other supernatural hypotheses, which was what the OP's question related to. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. Non-historical work seems pretty rare. That's also the case with philosophy doctorates right? -Pollinosisss (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I study C.G.Jung and have written on some of his associate pages. He, I believe, would be of your opinion, but not with your manner. He questioned Thomism, and these principles. So I study both. Yet I can be civil in my approach and respectful to all. No one, you will find, belongs to your School of thought; that of knocking down one form of thought to build up another, for Logic tells us that does not work.

Study Thomism and then study Epistemology and Philosophy and Jung and Theology and Scripture.

MacOfJesus (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is the "you" you are referring to please? 89.242.83.202 (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"You" has a name, no? or just a no. It is very had to please for a number! MacOfJesus (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If you, No., do not head the answer then there is no point in answering.MacOfJesus (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

February 26

How many layers of government in the UK?

From the parish council up to the European Parliament and beyond, how many layers of government are there in the UK? I'm not sure if we have Regional Assemblies in the UK - if there are any you never hear anything about them, thankfully. And what is the total number of politicians including councillors? Thanks 78.151.155.128 (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It varies. Some places have parish councils, some don't. Some have separate town and country councils, some have a combined "unitary authority". Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each have local parliaments/assemblies, England doesn't. It's all very complicated! If there is a specific place you are interested in, we should be able to produce a list for you. --Tango (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We do have Regional Assemblies in England - soon to be replaced by a new and equally obscure set of bodies. DuncanHill (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of the fate of Regional Assemblies (currently being superseded by Local Authority Leaders’ Boards), Government Offices continue to exist at the regional level in England. Although they are part of the central government structures, they have considerable powers and influence at the regional level and in many ways act as an unaccountable (or at least not directly accountable) tier of government. They are particularly important in areas like town and country planning, where they have a considerable influence on the levels of new development for which each local authority is required to make provision. Each region also has a minister, supposedly with some coordinating responsibilities, but it is not obvious what those are. This explains some more - we appear not to have an article on Regional ministers (or Regional minister (England)). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Which places have the greatest number of layers? 78.151.155.128 (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The places with the greatest number of layers in the UK would be certain areas of England. In some rural and suburban areas, you could have a parish council. Above the parish, you could have a district; above the non-metropolitan districts, a non-metropolitan county; and above that, the soon-to-be-replaced regional assemblies. Of course, above those assemblies, you have the UK government in Westminster. Another equally deep set of four sub-Westminster layers exists in some parts of England's metropolitan counties other than Greater London if you count the unelected joint boards of the metropolitan counties as a layer of government. In that case, you have parish councils in some parts of metropolitan counties other than London, above them the metropolitan boroughs, above them joint boards such as the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, above them the soon-to-be-replaced regional assemblies, and above them Westminster. I don't think that there are more than three layers of government below Westminster in Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland. Marco polo (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think using the term "layers" in relation to the split between counties and districts (in those areas that still have them both) is somewhat misleading. In most cases, there are now fairly clearly laid down divisions of responsibility between the county and the districts. It is now not so much a question (though a few years ago it was) of the county council trying to impose its will on the district council - it is more that the districts are responsible for some local services (such as refuse collection and local planning) and the county for others (such as roads and social services). Very confusing to many local residents though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is confusing! ... and one more "layer" with governing-type powers (though appointed, not elected) is a National Park Authority which seems to have almost draconian powers over any change in the landscape! (Sorry, this is really just a rant!) Dbfirs 21:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

One wonders what's supposed to be beyond the European Parliament?

In practice three to four in most areas given the divisions of responsibilities mentioned above. Parliament is also Sovereign insamuch as it sets the statute law, some of which will be embodying transnational agreements based on treaty obligations, ie the EU doesn't impose laws, the UK parliament enact the policies of the commission, hence the different ways that these tend to be enacted across the member states.

Number of politicians is also a little tricky, since district and county councillors are unpaid and acting on a part time basis without directive powers whereas in central government they are full time and some of them have directive powers.

ALR (talk) 10:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no prohibition on an individual holding elected positions at more than one level - a parish councillor can be a district or county councillor as well. DuncanHill (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the total number of politicians, this site of the Local Government Association states:- "There are over 21,000 elected councillors serving on 410 local authorities in England and Wales. In addition there are many more councillors serving on the 10,000 parish, town or community councils, which generally exist in rural or semi-rural areas." Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Metropolitan counties

All the metropolitan county councils were abolished under Mrs Thatcher, along with the Greater London Council. The GLC has been (sort of) reincarnated in a different form as the GLA with an elected assembly and an elected Mayor. Was there any push to reintroduce elected bodies for the other metropolitan counties, and if so, why was this not done? --rossb (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Not for Metropolitan Counties, but there were plans for elected regional assemblies. DuncanHill (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Unitary authorities fulfil a similar function, and some of them take on a cabinet model of local government.

ALR (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons regional elected bodies were not reintroduced for the met counties was the pride of the individual metropolitan boroughs, who felt (and feel) that they are large enough to take care of all local government functions without the need for a "higher level" of government, and that they are distinctly different places from other boroughs in the same met area. The met counties often tended to be politically dominated by the largest cities in each area - Liverpool in Merseyside, Birmingham in the West Midlands and so on - so that places like (in those cases) Wirral or Wolverhampton had no interest in seeing such area-wide authorities re-established. Generally, there was no electoral support for putting in additional tiers of local government either. In many if not most cases, there remained (and remains) some technical cooperation at the met county level, for example over joint transport policy, waste management and information sharing, with political oversight being given by boards of elected councillors appointed by each of the constituent authorities. Here is just one example. In London, there was a more obvious need for coordination over a wide range of functions at the "greater London" level, which eventually led to the reintroduction of an elected London-wide assembly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Socially awkward/inept mentor

In mentoring relationships, if one person is socially awkward/inept/shy, then it's usually the mentee that's like that. But there may be rare cases where it's the opposite. Do you think such a relationship would work, and will the mentee benefit from such a mentorship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.120.162 (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Depends what they're being mentored on (I know, I know, unhelpful answer) Library Seraph (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

True, though. If they are simply being mentored on how to do some technical thing then the social skills of the mentor don't necessarily matter. They need some teaching skills, which are closely related, but you can be a good teacher while being generally awkward socially. --Tango (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I had an amazing teacher that managed to teach me some of the basics of programming; something I'd failed to learn alone, or with anyone else's help. She was quite possibly the shyest person I've ever met. So it's certainly more than possible. Of course, it wouldn't be widespread as most people that shy would (probably) not voluntarily apply themselves to a generalised teaching position. Vimescarrot (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions that start "Do you think" are not usually appropriate questions for the Wikipedia Reference desk. --ColinFine (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Know that encountering THAT attitude is what cured me of being a Holocaust denier. -- TheEditrix2 18:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh? —Tamfang (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know but a mentee will definitely benefit from a mentor who actually fulfills the requirements, regardless of his/her social skills. [23] If the mentor is unable to fulfill the requirements for whatever reason then they should inform the people responsible for the program as soon as they can, regardless of the reasons for their inability. Nil Einne (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Holocaust & Compensation

Say you were a Jewish person in Nazi Germany and all of your assets, your business, your property, your wealth etc had been seized. You're now in Auschwitz and have been deemed fit for work and somehow you survive until liberation. Did the postwar German government do anything to help such individuals rebuild their former lives or just to help them start afresh? --Thanks, Hadseys 02:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind that there was not one postwar German government for awhile, and even then it was a West and East Germany government, and even then it was some time before West Germany was really independent (1949) and financially solvent enough (e.g. had built itself up from the rubble). If you go to Holocaust reparations it redirects you to an article about the West German government's negotiations with Israel to pay reparations for the Holocaust that began in the early 1950s. I imagine that what was done with Holocaust survivors before then varied with whatever occupation zone they ended up in. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

West Germany "was declared "fully sovereign" on 5 May 1955." Rmhermen (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, but that doesn't affect anything I've written, really. All I meant is that it was no longer being principally run by the Allied forces. --Mr.98 (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Allianz#Controversy might be of some interest. Woogee (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Disputes over ownership of art works that went to litigation?

I am looking for some leads to controversies over who was the rightful owner of a piece of art (painting, sculpture, etc.), but particularly am interested in those cases where the parties ended up in litigation in the United States to resolve their dispute. Particularly "famous" cases or cases that provide references to other notable instances of this would be most appreciated. I am less interested in cases that depend solely on the interpretation of a will (is the brother or sister entitled to the work?) or cases that somehow hinge on determining who the creator of the work was. Instead, I'm interested in cases where we know who created the work, we know who currently has it, and probably even how they obtained it, but another party believes they are the rightful owner and seeks to have it returned to them. 67.102.65.245 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuits over paintings owned by Holocaust victims are quite common:[24] Georges Jorisch suing Leonard Lauder over a Gustav Klimt,[25] Claude Cassirer seeking his grandmother's Camille Pissarro from Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza,[26] Claudia Seger-Thomschitz vs. the Boston Museum of Fine Art,[27], the heirs of Jacob and Rosa Oppenheimer against the state of California.[28] Clarityfiend (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Another case involving Klimt paintings was Republic of Austria v. Altmann. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Japanese police procedures

Hi, can anybody explain me these things of the Japanese police? On June 8, 2008 Tomohiro Kato killed a lot of people in Akihabara and I don't understand these things of that day. This sequence, here the cop is threatening him with a stick?, and here he is arrested, just with the help of that stick?. And last question, why aren't the handcuffs shown?. Thanks all! --Maru-Spanish (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In the first picture the cop is drawing a gun, in the second he is putting it back in his holster. No idea about the pixelation in the third. Rmhermen (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Handcuffs have connotations of guilt so someone who has not been proven guilty, and is thus assumed innocent, cannot be shown wearing handcuffs under Japanese libel law. Therefore, the pixelate them out. It is ridiculous, but the law often is - in Japan and elsewhere. --Tango (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, according to Handcuffs#Miscellaneous, it's about getting a fair trial, rather than libel. That's even more ridiculous... --Tango (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, and America, that's the same reason you "dress up" to stand trial. Appearing in criminal clothes implants the suggestion to the jury you're guilty. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 15:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a suggestion, it's a certainty - in the UK remand prisoners are allowed to wear their own clothes (perhaps excluding maximum security prisoners), so you would only have prison clothes while on trial if you were already serving a sentence for a previous conviction and the jury wouldn't usually be allowed to know that (they aren't allowed to know about past criminal record). --Tango (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: your amazement at the police stick - Bear in mind that not everybody is quite as trigger happy as Americans - the Japanese police will in most cases not carry guns, and even when they do, use them only if it is absolutely necessary, which is not often, since almost no regular Japanese carries a gun anyhow. Somewhat unrelated, but I watched both Rec and the American remake, and one point I found interesting was how a scene involving a cop shooting someone was handled in both - in Rec, the cop has second thoughts before firing, and when he does shoot, he seems regretful and everyone around him gives him reproachful stares. In the American remake, on the other hand, the cop just shoots, no questions asked and everyone, including the cop goes: oh well, business as usual. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Going from movies to reality, I've seen far more non-US police or police-like forces carrying assault rifles that I've seen US police carrying the same. The gun culture of the US is one thing. The gun policy of US police is something else. The two shouldn't be equated. — Lomn 14:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(Getting off-topic and onto a soapbox) part of the problem with the routine arming of police officers is that if they have a gun, they more or less have to use it; it's not safe for them to grapple with a suspect with a gun on their belt (1 in 5 officers killed in the line of duty in the United States are shot with a police weapon, usually their own), and once the gun is in their hand, they don't have many options if the suspect won't come quietly. FiggyBee (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, pushing things onto the soapbox is my fault. But my point still stands: the OP is amazed at the police pointing a stick at a spree killer, and my point (albeit soapboxy and not too clear) is that in Japan, pulling a gun at an obviously dangerous suspect is not the first thing that will pop into a cops mind - and this is due to different public views on firearm use. To an extent, gun control does play a part as well - if gun control weren't as stringent as it is in Japan, the suspect might have gone on his killer spree with a gun rather than a knife/car combo, and in that case, the cop couldn't really afford to wave a stick at him. And with this, I intend to cease and desist from my European pinko agitation / non-permitted refdesk discussion. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, American police carry and use batons just like the one shown in the image. USA cops do not draw their guns unless they're being threatened with a weapon. Many cops I've talked to claim to have gone their entire career without ever drawing their gun while on duty.

I am no expert on police procedure, but I'd be surprised if an American cop reacted very much differently than the Japanese cop shown in the images.

Perhaps you're basing your perceptions of USA cops on Hollywood? APL (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Most probably so. But then, the OP seems to do so, as well. If I offended anyone, I apologize. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You also seem to have misinterpreted the pictures. The cop is not disarming with a nightstick. He is using the nightstick to keep distance between himself and the knife while in the process of drawing his gun out of his holster. Rmhermen (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

DuPont market shares in India

Hello. Is there any way to find out the market share of Dupont in India in any of the major industries that it operates in? I have been looking for hours but there's no info. Thanks ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's one: 33 per cent of hydrofluorocarbons in 2009.[29] You might find more by going through the other press releases on that site? Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Actually the hydrofluorocarbons business was the ones we were most sure about in the beginning (my subject group), but just we were about to begin work, we found a bizzare news items that an Indian company and bought dupont's entire hcfn business. It was covered in quite a few known indian newspapers, and we didn't have time to corroborate or disprove it... so we went for the seeds business. It worked out okay for us.

Thanks a lot for your help :-) ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

can dead people be fined?

Can dead people fined or otherwise have criminal or civil proceedings done against them? If not, what's to stop someone stealing a lot of money, then getting out of having the law take it back by simply dying? Thanks. 84.153.239.187 (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know dead people cannot be sued (because there is no hope of any restitution, and hence the case would be pointless) or prosecuted (for similar reasons). However the estates of dead people can be sued. Also stolen property can be returned to its owner no matter who has it - as various cases of art stolen by the Nazis and currently owned by people who bought it in good faith. Finally, it seems fairly pointless to plan on escaping justice by "simply dying". DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are only dead in a legal sense and not a physical sense... Googlemeister (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

...as in faked death.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

...or the character in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy who was "spending a year dead for tax reasons". DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hotblack Desiato Mitch Ames (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What's that Indian association of the fraudulently dead? —Tamfang (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, Association of the Dead. —Tamfang (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Illegal acts can receive restitution even after the death of a criminal. worst case, if someone dies and has a lot of money or property in his estate that was gained illicitly, then the estate can be sued and restitution made before the property is transferred to any heirs. Of course, if some penniless person steals a thousand dollars from you, spends it all on fried chicken and french fries, and then dies of a heart attack, then you are probably out of luck - they have no estate to sue, and dead people generally have little in the way of future earnings to take a lien on.--Ludwigs2 17:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless it was Elvis. I think he is the highest earning dead guy for the past 20 years or something, though MJ might give him a run now. Googlemeister (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

John Lennon probably earns quite a bit. --Tango (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, who knew? Yves St. Laurent led the way last year by a country mile, with MJ and Elvis only third and fourth respectively.[30] Clarityfiend (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Posthumous execution used to be (or still is) a form of punishment. According to our article it's practised as recent as 1986. --Kvasir (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The tagline for the sequel to The Sixth Sense: I sue dead people. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's nothing. What about Posthumous birth?  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that's not as punishing as normal childbirth. pun intended --Kvasir (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I swear, you guys are going to be the cause of the zombie apocalypse. there's only so much a dead person can take, you know... --Ludwigs2 03:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This goes to prove:

1. You cannot take it with you.

2. You have to die!

3. From there; these questions are very unimportant.

4. Our efforts here should be redirected.

Socrates said that it is better to suffer murder than to murder. He held the soul / spirit is such regard!

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Read: Answer to Job, by Jung, and of course: The Book of Job. It has been aired.

The answer? Study Socrates. Or, lest I forget, The Gospels. Only God can sue, dead people.

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

On a legal (eathly) point of view: American law can differ from European law here, as if one is missing for more than 4 years, one can be considered dead (financially) by USA law. Not so by European law, some 12 years, and can still be overturned if a reappearence occurs. So, if you are declared dead (USA law), then you cannot own anything (from the previous life).

This is as I understand it.

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about other legal systems, but at least insofar as the Federal Criminal law works in the United States, death extinguishes all criminal actions. For example, when Ken Lay died, prior to sentencing, the fines that would have been imposed as a result of his sentence were extinguished (technically, never imposed). Tort actions can survive, depending on the action. At common law all actions (or at least most) were extinguished at death. In most modern systems, the estate is vulnerable to all non-personal claims. But some claims, like defamation, privacy, and criminal actions don't survive death. That's at least true in the areas I know about. Other countries, and even other U.S. states might vary in their individual interpretations. Shadowjams (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this was aired very well in the film, whose name escapes me, referring to The Fidex chief who was stranded on a desert island for over four years and did come back to find all gone.

I think in Europe the estate of the deceased can be claimed against, for finances. Hence, if a criminal dies (As the case of Dr. Shipman), his estate can be claimed against for restitution. Dr. Shipman (Harold Shipman) had this very thing in mind when he killed himself.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Harold Shipman situation is particularly apt here as, after his death, an establishment of which families belonged to which jewellery was aired. More than was understood belonged to known relatives came up, so a time was made for others to claim their belongings. (As I remember it).

MacOfJesus (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Trade directories and trade organisations in the UK?

I'd like to look up the bona-fide trade directories and trade organisations and bodies for a particular type of business in the UK. Where could I find them listed please, online or otherwise? Thanks 78.146.242.196 (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

One option is the Yellow Pages - or online at Yell.com. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've given your suggestion a go but unfortunately it did not give any useable results. Just to make clear - I do not know what their names are, that is what I want to find out. Thanks 78.146.242.196 (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't need the company name to search Yell.com - you put in the type of business, and the location (eg UK if you want the whole country), and it lists the results. If you could give more information on the type of business, or the location, we could provide more useful answers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not looking for a business or company, I'm looking for trade directories and trade organisations specific to a particular business type. 89.242.83.202 (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Would any of these help? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

They are better. That did give me the idea of looking for trade directories on Google Books, and I found some possible leads. But I'm still looking for information about trade organisations and trade directories too. 92.29.32.229 (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

To the OP: if you tell us which the particular industry is we might be able to point you at the publication you seek. In the meantime, maybe the industry has an Institute or a Governing Body, which you could search for? I'm thinking of the Institute of Civil Engineers, or Federation of Holistic Therapists ([31]) ... you get the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TammyMoet (talk • contribs) 09:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

britishchambers.org.uk is a website for various different chambers of commerce in the UK (there are scores of them, from Aberdeenshire to York). Or; search “chamber of commerce” and the name of a city or product / industry, and specify the URL end in .uk. A list is at britishservices.co.uk/associations.htm. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sodomy in Dante's Inferno

I read the Inferno a few weeks ago, and I'm curious about something. When the term Sodomy is used, does it just refer to a man raping another man, or does it have a broader meaning? I'm only asking because both Wikipedia and the footnotes in the version I read refer to the sodomites as "Those violent against nature" and I don't think that the term sodomy is ever actually used in the text (or at least in the text of my translation) Anything that could shed light on this would be greatly apprecciated Library Seraph (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Technically speaking, sodomy refers to any socially/religiously unacceptable sexual act (for instance, in some US states oral sex falls under sodomy laws). The modern world uses it almost exclusively for homosexuality, but in older usages it was as likely (if not more so) to refer to bestiality. Dante probably was aware of both senses, and probably did not distinguish between them.

Interestingly, the idea that the inhabitants of Sodom had any odd sexual behaviors is contested, and suspect. basically, it all stems from one passage which says a mob of people gathered outside of Lot's house in Sodom and demanded to see the three strangers/angels that Abraham had brought with him, so that they could 'know' them. the word 'know' was interpreted as a sexual innuendo, basically because Lot offered his virgin daughters to appease the crowd in the next line, and that is pretty clearly sexual (incidentally, these are the same virgin daughters that get Lot drunk and have sex with him in the cave outside of the ruins of Sodom - Lot's family needed some serious therapy). But the mob doesn't ask to 'know' Abraham or Lot, and refused the virgin daughters (which you'd think might appeal to a crowd of sexual deviants). My own sense is that they were worried that the three strangers were spies of some sort, which - given the whole fire and brimstone thing that followed - might not have been an unjustified worry. --Ludwigs2 17:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In the Hebrew Bible, the term translated "know" often has a sexual sense — consider the following quotes from Genesis 4 in Young's Literal Translation (not very good for converting the text into English, but it's great for converting individual words into English):

(v. 1) And the man knew Eve his wife, and she conceiveth and beareth Cain, and saith, `I have gotten a man by Jehovah;' (v. 17a) and Cain knoweth his wife, and she conceiveth, and beareth Enoch (v. 25) And Adam again knoweth his wife, and she beareth a son, and calleth his name Seth

Abraham isn't an option for the men of Sodom, since he lives far away, and Lot is a man of reputation in the community, so it's not as likely that they'd want to rape him. Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the other two parts of the Comedy? There are also some Sodomites in Purgatorio; they're in the seventh and highest cornice of the mountain, where the lustful are cleansed. In Canto 26, you see two groups of souls: one that cries out "Sodom and Gomorrah", and the other that speaks of Pasiphaë. As the annotations in my edition note, there's a clear distinction in Purgatorio between the Sodomites and those who engage in beastiality, so I'd assume that the same is true in Inferno. Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I just want to point out that sodomy does not imply rape. It often refers to mutually consensual activities. "Violent against nature" just refers to something that violates the supposed laws or attributes of nature. Marco polo (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

True, but in the case of Sodom, the angels obviously wouldn't have consented to it, so in that specific instance it would have been rape. Nyttend (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The concept of raping an angel (!), i.e. the angel having no say in the matter or any means of escape, eludes me completely, I have to say. What's the point of being an angel if you can't just dematerialise at will, thus escaping any would-be rapists? Being raped by an angel, now that would be a different story. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Can angels consent, if they don't have free will? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the text says that the angels told Lot to take his family to the mountains, but they changed their minds and agreed to let him go to Bela/Zoar when he asked; the main thing is that angels aren't able to violate God's will. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless they really want to. Matt Deres (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

When you're dealing with fantasy, you can make up whatever rules you want. And if angels don't have free will, then what are they, slaves of God? So much for benevolence! Vranak (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've always figured angels were manifestations of God is some sense, a form of God comprehensible by humans, not truly separate from God. Because if they are separate, it raises questions about the veracity of monotheism. Regardless, being immortal and presumably impervious to harm, the Sodom situation would not have been a problem for them. It would be like the Klingons thinking they had killed off the Organians, when in fact they hadn't been harmed at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, assuming Dante used the term "sodomy" (I don't know the original Italian), in 14th century English "sodomy" meant any kind of outre sexual practice, as far as I can tell from the OED. It didn't necessarily mean anal sex between men and it didn't necessarily mean rape. However as our "sodomy" article points out, its exact mean varies a lot by language, and probably varies by time period, and assuming that it means the same thing in every language leads you into trouble. (It is a "false friend", as the linguists say—it resembles a word we know but has a different definition.) --Mr.98 (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Socrates said it is better to suffer murder than to murder, to be robbed than to rob. He held the spirit / soul in such regard.

All these things "weigh down the spirit".

Angels do have freedom for there are good angels and bad, i.e. "fallen angels".

MacOfJesus (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all! (In answer to Nyttend's question, I haven't read the other two yet; my libray doesn't have the other ones, which I might use as an excuse to get a big swanky omnibus vesion ;))Library Seraph (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Look up telephone number tariffs, UK?

Is there anywhere online where you can type in a telephone number in a box and be instantly told how much it costs to call it? The information given by BT http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayTopic.do?topicId=25502&s_cid=con_FURL_calls_tariffs is byzantine in its complexity and takes a long time to find a number. I wanted to find the cost of dialling an 0845 number but I gave up. Such a site could be a nice little earner for someone. 78.146.242.196 (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's crazy isn't it? I was thinking of complaining to the OFT over the difficulty of working out these prices. Other phone companies are just as bad.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Freakily complex, but the info is there. 0845 numbers are charged at the "Local NTS" rate, which is described as 3.948p/min (daytime) and 1.000p/min (eve, night & weekend). The hard part comes if you have a calling plan. In that case, the charge is 0.0p for calls inside the plan's time; and 2.0p/min (daytime) or 0.5p/min (eve, night & weekend) for calls outside the plan's time or after the first hour of the call. There is also the "call setup fee" of 9.3p (which is waived if the call tariff is 0p). All prices include VAT at 17.5%. There are exceptions for ISP dial-up services still on 0845 numbers and people on the "low-user" scheme.

Interestingly, the list the OP provided is copyrighted. IANAL, but you might get into trouble if you created a derivative work (ie. a website to do the hard work of looking it up for you). Astronaut (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that I can copy all the information I want in my country. Nyttend (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Erskine May Parliamentary Practice

Does anyone know of an online service (preferably free, but for-fee if necessary) where I could access the complete text of Erskine May? Perhaps the Lexis site? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 19:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It is an expensive book to buy, but I’d still be surprised if it were not freely available online these days. The Australian counterparts are freely available online: Odgers' Australian Senate Practice and House of Representatives Practice (both updated to January 2010). You can also buy these in hardback, but then you lose the continuous updating, and a week is a long time in politics. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is an online site. The book is published by Butterworths so there is a LexisNexis link, but I think it's too specific that they don't put it online. So far as I remember it's not on the internal Parliamentary website either. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Correlation between Sloboda, Slobodan and Slobodian

I am trying to research the Family surname Slobodan. From what I have found, it was dirived from the word Sloboda which ment freedom or Peace. I know that the name Slobodan is a very comon first name but from what I read and understand from speaking to people in the so called "Old Country" the name Slobodan is rare as a last name. All I know is they came over from Galicia, Austria in 1909 and setteled in Canada. Can someone please more information on the last name Slobodan and where it may have originated. I have found information on the name Slobodian and most of the reference are from approx 1650 and refer to the Slobodian Kozakc(Cossacks) as an army. Did the name Slobodian come from a person or some other ref. Is there any correlation between Sloboda, Slobodan and Slobodian. Thanks very much, Terrill Slobodan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slobodan1 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

For a start, have you read our articles, Sloboda and Sloboda Ukraine? — Kpalion^(talk) 19:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have and the information has been great. I am guess I may be looking for something that can't be found. I have not found anything that confirms or indicates that Slobodan was a person, or if the name Slobodan came from a person who lived in a Sloboda settlement or if Slobodan is refering to the individuals (Cossacks) who freed the settlers of the villiages. I am new at doing this sort of searching and appreciate any information of lead. Thanks again.Slobodan1 (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Begin with the known full names of your immigrant ancestors as they entered Canada in 1909 and see what additional information about them is given in the registers. Name-chasing won't help you, but the Galician village where the individuals were born may be noted in the Canadian records. The Ships List may give you some guidance. --Wetman (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If your family came from Austria, I think you might consider the origin to be Serbian - Austria had more connections to (granted, at the time Ottoman) Serbia than Ukraine. Slobodan is a common first name in Serbia, the most (in)famous bearer of it being Slobodan Milošević (as you no doubt know), and it does in fact mean something along the lines of Freeman. Not sure I heard of Slobodan as a surname, though. TomorrowTime (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Slobodan does sound like a Serbian name, but don't agree that the Austrian Empire had more to do with Serbia than with Ukraine. All of Eastern Galicia, also known as Western Ukraine, belonged to Austria. It's far from Sloboda Ukraine, but it has had Ukrainian population nonetheless. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

One of my great grandfathers, Harry Zablotsky (Zablotski), born in 1892, came to Canada in 1904 from the village of Hryhoriw, Halychyna. I am unable to fine the Village of Hryhoriw on any map. It is hard to pinpoint places of birth due to the changes in territories and variations in possible spellings of names due to translations. Back in time around 1187, the Kyiv Ghronicle is reported to have coined the term "Ukrain" to define the southren area of what was know as Rus Land. This area included the provinces of Kyiv, Pereiaslav, Chernihiv, Halychyna, Volyn and Podilla. These areas have been under the control of Poland, Russia, Austria and Serbian rule at one time or another in its history. I found these ref on this site; Slobodan (Serbian Cyrillic: Слободан) is a South Slavic given name which means "free" (Serbian: Sloboda/Слобода means Freedom, Liberty). AND http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloboda_Ukraine refering to the Sloboda Cossacks: http://books.google.ca/books?id=-t8RAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=Slobodian+Regiments&source=bl&ots=KovJOMg86d&sig=jbQknwp55g6dUva5D21v0vVTCEA&hl=en&ei=xWSJS4_0PIP2M-mM6aYB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Slobodian%20Regiments&f=false: http://books.google.ca/books?id=HkANAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=Slobodian+Cossacks&source=bl&ots=XC0kF0o0w0&sig=FqAUc4WopyoVFoHJc0fSfawTRnE&hl=en&ei=FmaJS-38HIP-NZSh0aYB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Slobodian%20Cossacks&f=false

If Slododa is a settlement and Slobodian Cossacks refer to the warriors who gaind the freedome for the peoples of those lands, could Slobodan be a ref to a single Cossack(Kozak), hence Slobodian is multiple warriors and Slobodan being a single warrior.

From what I have read, this leads me to believe that the name Slobodan was given as a first name to either honor the Cossacks who fought for these settlements or people that lived in theses settlements.Slobodan1 (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This person claims to have been to Hryhoriw. Check out Zakarpattia Oblast. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two villages called Hryhoriv (Григорів) in Western Ukraine; see articles in Ukrainian Wikipedia: Hryhoriv, Rohatyn County, and Hryhoriv, Monastyrys'ka County. In Polish they probably would have been called Hryhorów or possibly even Grzegorzów. As to the origin of the name Slobodan, I wouldn't be sure whether it's related to Sloboda Cossacks. In Ukrainian, the adjectives derived from Sloboda are Slobids'kyy and Slobozhans'kyy, but not Slobodan. I Google search for Слободан in Ukrainian returns mostly Ukrainian-language websites about Serbs. Zablotsky would have been spelled Zabłocki in Polish and Заблоцький in Ukrainian. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So Slobodan could be Ukrainian, Serbian or Slavic in origin. (SLOBODAN, Gender: Masculine, Usage: Serbian, Macedonian, Croatian, Other Scripts: Слободан (Serbian, Macedonian)From South Slavic sloboda meaning "freedom".) (Slobodan, Gender:Male,Meaning: The Free [man],Region of origin: Former Yugoslavia)

One would think that somewhere on the WWW I would find someone with the last name of Slobodan prior to the 1900's. So far the only references have been Sloboda and the Slobodian Cossacks and those date back to around the 11th & 12th Centuries.Slobodan1 (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Music Sales Data

Can anyone suggest a source for data on consumer music sales volumes (and/or $s) over the past 10-15 years? Global would be fantastic, but regional would be fine too.174.6.8.42 (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC) ]

Our well-cited article on the music industry to the rescue. If anyone's interested: [32]174.6.8.42 (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Help about ships

I was wondering if I just don't know what it means, or if it's actually wrong. But I've noticed on a lot of pages for ships in the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II that it shows a date for when the ship is struck and then a date for when the ship is sunk. What I don't understand is why almost every single ship has a sink date before the stuck date. For example, on the page for the Japanese destroyer Kasumi, the struck date is 10 May 1945, while the sink date is 7 April 1945. If that's correct in the way that it was struck by something on 10 May 1945 and then sunk on 7 April 1945, it doesn't make sense. I'm thinking (and hoping that I'm not just too stupid to understand this), that there is some other meaning for the word "Struck".

--ABickerstaff 23:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ABickerstaff (talk • contribs)

Naval Vessel Register says (about the US navy, but I guess the Japanese was similar) that "struck" means being removed from the register of ships. That's when it officially ceases to be a ship in the fleet. I guess they wait a little after the sinking to be sure the ship actually sank and didn't just lose contact. --Tango (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. See Struck off. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Seigneurs of Sark

I am aware that the husband of a female ruler of Sark (the Dame of Sark) is a ruler (Seigneur) himself, ruling iure uxoris. I am a bit confused, however; when the reigning Dame of Sark marries, does she cease to reign or does she continue to reign alongside her husband? A user claimed that the Dame ceases to reign when she marries at Talk:Sibyl Mary Hathaway. I also recall reading somewhere at Wikipedia about it but I don't know where. It's neither Sark nor List of Seigneurs of Sark. I am also curious about the succession rules; does Sark apply male-preferance cognatic primogeniture (daughter inherits if there are no sons) or Austrian-like succession rules (daughter inherits if there is no male agnatic relative)? Surtsicna (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is the "ruler" of an island with 600 people of any encyclopedic significance? Edison (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it meets our notability policy, with hundreds (if not thousands) of news and scholarly articles on the subject. How is the last remaining feudal state in Europe, in the 21st century, not of any encyclopedic significance? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 15:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone doesn't have to be of encyclopaedic significance to ask a question about them on the ref desk, so I'm not sure your question is relevant. If you wish to dispute the notability of an article subject, you know where AfD is. --Tango (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Was there even a rule? Before Sibyl Hathaway, there had only been two previous Dames of Sark - both had bought the Seigneurity (?) not inherited it, and reigned for only 2-3 years. If both were widows, the situation had never come up before. That said, there's a book out there, published before the reforms, that might have the answer: The Constitution and administration of Sark. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Interestingly, the book is written by the present Siegneur. Anyway, I don't understand why Edison put quotation marks around the word ruler; de facto, the present Siegneur was until 2008 (and probably still is) more powerful within his/her dominion than any European monarch (save perhaps for the Prince of Liechtenstein). Surtsicna (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt the Seigneur's as powerful as the brothers Barclay... ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 16:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I've taken out my own quotation marks.WikiJedits (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

February 27

US Federal Government pay scales

How does this work? I've got the fact that a college degree starts you at GS-5, but what are the "Step __" columns and how does one progress up this most confusing chart? If an example is needed, try someone starting in this position and working their way up to this position...i.e. what steps does this person go through moving up the pay scale until they reach their full salary? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing the specifics and purely looking at the table I would assume that you progress through the steps whilst within your current 'role' and that you only move up 'grade' when you are promoted to a new role. In one of my previous roles I was in a position of 'admin' level - it had pay-levels up to 16k but I started on 10k, every 6 months if I met certain criteria I could 'step' to a higher pay amount (say 10.5k) within my salary band. I suspect this setup is the same. ny156uk (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's most likely that your job determines your grade and your time in that job determines your step. There will probably be other factors affecting step as well (qualifications, experience, etc.). --Tango (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You go up one step after each year of service, until you reach the maximum. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily true. I work for the DoD, and my understanding is that the first three steps are yearly, the next three are every two years, and the last three are every three years. Kingsfold (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What determines your starting step? --Tango (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Starting step is usually 1. Sometimes they'll put you higher, the most common reason being that you're being transferred to a new job at a low grade and they don't want to explicitly cut your pay. There was a program for step increases based on performance, but I've never seen it used. Grade is determined by the position description, and most positions have multiple grades where you're automatically promoted based on time in service.

For example, a job I'm familiar with allows you to be hired as a GS-5 (straight out of college), GS-7 (Master's), or GS-9 (higher qualifications). Once hired, the employee is automatically promoted through the grades on an annual basis until the employee reaches "journeyman" level at GS-12. After that, they receive steps on a scheduled basis (1-3 at one year intervals, 4-6 at 2 year intervals, etc...). The step increases can theoretically be denied based on employee performance, but I've never seen this actually happen. SDY (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That clears up alot of my confusion...thanks much! Only one other question...taking the examples above, say a person had reached GS-10 at the intern job and then took the MIC job. Would he then return to the GS-7 level (assuming a master's degree) as a starting pay, or would he continue at GS-10? In other words, can taking a promotion result in a pay cut like this, or do you continually move up the pay scale even if you gain a new job title? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In general, once you've held a higher GS-scale position they will not downgrade you, but if they do they will bump you up a few steps to equalize the pay difference. I'm not sure if they're required to do so (may be OPM rules, may be an agency-specific decision). It's unusual that any desirable transfer would lead to a lower GS position, the only time I've seen people take lower positions is so-called "hardship transfers" where their spouse is moving or a similar non-work reason that forces a geographic move where their old position is not available. SDY (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

When promoted to a higher grade, what step would you move to? If you start from step 1 again, that would often be a paycut, so that wouldn't happen, but if you stay in the same step you were in the lower grade then anyone that has been in the service more than a few years would be at the top step and the system breaks down. Presumably you would be moved to a step that corresponds to a small pay rise, but who determines the size of that raise? --Tango (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Proportion of the population (not households) of the UK without car transport

If for example a household has one car, but that car is used by one member of the household to drive to work, then the other members of the household are car-less during that time. Also, children, the very elderly, and the unemployed do not have a car. So what proportion of UK individuals would walk or use public transport to get around?

This could be estimated by the number of cars in the UK divided by the total population, unless anyone has a better idea of how to do it. Thanks. 78.149.201.215 (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The number of registered private vehicles subtracted from the total population might give a better measurement of the numbers without a car - which could then be calculated as a proportion of the total population. You might also want to take into account that those aged under 17 are not permitted to drive in the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

On the basis of the figure below of 29,101,000 registered motor vehicles, and the 2007 total population of 60,975,000, there would be 31,874,000 without the possibility of driving a car at any point in time - that is, 52.3% of the total population. In reality the proportion would be higher, because some registered vehicles are not in private ownership, and some single-person households have more than one car. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Roughly 30 per cent (of households) are carless, according to this BBC article from yesterday. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
:P.S. I'm sorry - just realized that wasn't what you were asking for. My apologies. WikiJedits (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite a lot of us walk, cycle or use public transport even if we do have access to a car. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a better answer.

(1) EU statistics from 2007 (see the "means of Transport" file) say there are 476 cars per 1,000 inhabitants, or 29,101,000 registered motor vehicles in the country.

(2) You can also get a UK-specific file. There's a table called "1.4 Trips per person per year by main mode1 and purpose: 2006" which says that out of every 1,037 trips made, 249 are made on foot, 658 by car and 103 by public transit. (This doesn't add up to 1,037 because you didn't ask about bicycle and other methods). Anyway, your proportions look like 63 per cent of all trips are made by car and 34 per cent by walking or transit. Keep in mind as AndrewWTaylor said that there are probably very few people who use one method exclusively. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, I'd forgotten about bicycles - I should have included cycling with walking and public transport. 78.149.201.215 (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What about Dad's taxi? "Dad, drive me, to...., boy-frind's" etc. Famales are versatile. & Statistics do lie! You cannot depend on them!

MacOfJesus (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Highest award for successful entrepreneurs

What is the highest award for successful entrepreneurs/businesspersons? Nobel Prize is not awarded for business, is there any equivalent international award? --Gortpok (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not being subjected to antitrust suits? Seriously though, I know they give out awards of this type to young entrepreneurs, but seasoned veterans of industry? I really hope not. Just helming a successful business is all the reward these guys need, I should expect. Vranak (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, entrepreneurs sometimes get knighthoods or other honours (OBEs and CBEs usually). I don't know of any international awards specifically for entrepreneurship and business. The usual reward is earning lots of money... --Tango (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have said "there is no such award because the generated money is the reward, and things like the Nobel Prizes are intended to incentify behavior not normally directly associated with money", but a quick googling shows lots of entrepreneur and business awards — granted, I never heard of any of them, so maybe they're obscure. The Stevie Awards are allegedly awards for individuals and businesses. Googling "entrepreneur awards" shows many such awards; the first hit is an award that Ernst and Young gives out. I've no idea how 'genuine' the awards are, or whether any of them are essentially bought and paid for. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

They're genuine, but as Vranak says, they are usually for young entrepreneurs. The E&Y award you mention is called "Young Entrepreneur Of The Year", for example. --Tango (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Business Person of the Year? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Queen's Awards for Enterprise is according to that page the highest award for British businesses, although it goes to companies rather than individuals. Category:Business and industry awards may have something. --Normansmithy (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Metric city blocks in Melbourne?

City block says that downtown Melbourn has a grid measuring 200m×100m. Since the city was founded long before the metric system was implemented in Australia, why is there a metric grid? Was the entire downtown somehow reorganised after metrication? Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the metric measurements are approximate. See Hoddle_Grid#Specifications for the layout of the oldest part of the city - it is defined in terms of chains, an imperial unit commonly used in construction. It just happens that 10 chains is 201.16800 metres, which has, apparently, been rounded to 200m in the article. --Tango (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --Anonymous, 10:15 UTC, February 28, 2010.

£ v. $

Would a decline in the exchange rate for the pound mean that it was expected that US interest rates would be higher than UK interest rates in the future, and vice versa? Are changes in expected future interest rates responsible for the great majority of the change in the £:$ exchange rate? Thanks 89.243.151.239 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Interest rates are a large factor in the currency markets due to the carry trade, but there are plenty of other factors. Even with just interest rates it is complicated. The carry trade is determined by the interest rates charged by banks and brokers (which is usually related to the LIBOR), not the rate set by the central banks, so if you are looking at the central bank rates you need to also factor in the difference between that and LIBOR (which is far from constant). Also, a decline in the exchange rate doesn't necessarily mean the US rate is expected to be higher than the UK rate, just that the difference between the two is now expected to the higher than the previous expectation of the difference. Changes in market prices result from changes in expectation, not from the expectations themselves. Apart from interest rates, things like inflation, economic growth and international trade all play a big role. --Tango (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This is partly covered (no pun intended) in the article Interest rate parity. Jørgen (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Simplifying the factors causing exchange rates to move is an excellent way to get into serious financial trouble. Trillions of dollars move around the world at a pace and volume that creates its own momentum, and can easily swamp any interest rate or other policy initiative. In theory, but rarely so cleanly in practice, capital is encouraged to flow to where interest rates are higher relative to the risk or cost of devaluation, depreciation, capital controls, taxes and other nasty surprises. The theory works just fine until some currency trader on the other side of the world has a bad day, and decides to take it out on your favorite medium of exchange. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding another user to work on the same new article

Hello,

I am a new user attempting a new article. I'd like to have my colleague access the same space to work on our draft. How do I do that? Thanks! Pamsmith30 (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Create your article at User:Pamsmith30/Sandbox. When you and your colleague are finished writing, you can move the sandbox page to the title you want your article to have. In the future, if you have questions about using Wikipedia, you'll likely get a faster response if you go to the Help Desk. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

One point - when you're happy with the page, _don't_ list it at WP:RM (as the link posted above might imply). Instead, add the {{move draft}} template to the top of the page when it's ready to go live. Tevildo (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason not to just copy and paste the article since it's moving from userspace to article space? I don't see a ton of value in this case in preserving the history. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It is necessary for attribution purposes. If only one person has edited the draft, there is no problem, but the OP is talking about sharing a draft so it is necessary to keep track of who wrote which bits. --Tango (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

May '68 - Quotes

These quotes are listed in the Wikipedia-article:

• Boredom is counterrevolutionary
• We don’t want a world where the guarantee of not dying of starvation brings the risk of dying of boredom.
• In a society that has abolished every kind of adventure the only adventure that remains is to abolish the society.
• ...

Who said that and what's the source? -- 89.247.73.34 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

By "the Wikipedia-article" you of course mean May 1968 in France.

Wikiquotes suggests that the first may be Guy Debord, but the quote listed is "Boredom is always counter-revolutionary. Always" (emphasis mine), and says that it's from 1963 in a work titled "The Incomplete Works of the Situationist International".

I couldn't find either of the other two you listed with a quick google search, but I think that that's going to be the way to go (though a lot of anarchist blogs and such pop up as well. Good luck). Keep in mind that it is just graffiti, so not all of it may not have a known or notable author (that is, the kids may have just made it up on the spot). Also, seaching any of the phrases listed will pull up sites that have lists of even more phrases than are listed in the Wikipedia article, in case you're planning an anarchist riot right now, and are short on slogans. Buddy431 (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the article. It bothers me when questioners will refer to an article without telling us which one it is or assuming we know which one they were reading. Dismas|^(talk) 13:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You might have better luck searching for the French version of these quotes. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What book?

Character names include Cornelius Barrington, Muriel Arbuthnot and Godfrey Tudor-Jones; and the obsessively catalogued tokens of class and status which preoccupy all but the working class. - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

To Cut a Long Story Short by Jeffrey Archer. - Nunh-huh 23:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is To Cut a Long Story Short. -- kainaw™ 23:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

is the bit of water in the Pope's ...

question designed to be insulting rather than productive. No answer needed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
on narrow, and technical, theological grounds, I have come up with the conjecture that the water in the Pope's toilet must be holy, and I was wondering if this is the commonly held belief among theologians? 82.113.106.199 (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC) No, it is not a commonly held belief. - Nunh-huh 22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC) can you give some clarification? I'd like to see where my argument failed and it would help if you gave some details as to why not. 82.113.106.199 (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Not every object that the Pope touches or touches him is "holy"; they have to be explicitly blessed. Otherwise the CO2 he breathes out would be holy, his soiled underwear would be holy, his faeces and urine would be holy, the coffee he drinks in the morning would be holy, and the ivory keys on his piano would be holy. Need I go on? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Read Holy water for more insight on the matter. I wonder if holy water is kept in holy buckets? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC) ...all this changes once the pope has been canonized: then everything he has touched becomes a relic of the second class.--Wetman (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Not necessarily. I doubt this sort of thing transfers does it? I.E. It's not like everything that's been touched by something the pope touches is a relic. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't make it a habit of touching the water in the toilet without reason. In other words, his toilet may be a relic, but does it mean the water is? Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Perhaps he did an extremely large dump and some of the water splashed up and hit his backside before dripping back into the bowl. --Tango (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC) That would only be a tiny bit of water though. There would be far more urine as a relic if you want relic water. (Although the article says items he wore or he used, not anything he touched unlike the OP, so it's not clear if urine would qualify even under a liberal definition. His toilet still would. I guess you could argue he used the water since he drunk it and used the toilet water presuming he flushes but it's a bit of a stretch.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that 82.113 is missing out on the fact that theologians are generally interested in matters of propriety, piety, and salvation, not the minutiae of what is holy and what is not. Vranak (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoever squished it thought that the questioner didn't miss the point, he was just being provocative. Blessing the water is part of a religious ritual. Mundane activities are not generally religious rituals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

February 28

carrier

Do you have any job in pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdsr md (talk • contribs) 05:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. We are a reference desk, staffed by volunteers all over the world, and we don't have any inside information on jobs in Pakistan, sorry. To look for jobs in Pakistan on the Internet, I would use a search engine. This link claims to list Pakistan-specific search engines, where you can type things like jobs Karachi and it'll come up with web pages about this. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation, which is based in the USA. It employs a small number of people at its headquarters, and current job vacancies are listed here. The Foundation has no base in Pakistan. There is the possibility of remote working in some limited cases, apparently. Karenjc 11:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not have any job in Pakistan. More's the pity. Edison (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thankfully, I don't have a job in Paksitan!DOR (HK) (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

New police in Spain

I've recently noticed a new type of police officer walking around the cities of Spain, wearing all black and quite a heavy, authoritative appearance. Their job, as far as I can tell, is to go around picking out anyone who looks remotely foreign and demand papers and documents to prove legality. What has spurred these new officers and how long are they expected to stay around? Because they are certainly out of the norm and I'd like to get as much information as possible. Thanks for any help 87.111.102.76 (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly the Cuerpo Nacional de Policía (Spain). Maybe just a new uniform like this[33]? Alansplodge (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your reply. It's definitely not your ordinary Policia Nacional, the uniforms are different and their sole purpose seems to be to check the legality of visas and papers for foreigners. It's a very heavy and persistent new force and they've been around since the start of the new year. 87.111.102.76 (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

NAACP/NAAWP

Has there ever been a group that was like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People but for whites? I'm not talking about an organization built on white supremacy or segregation. Just something that tries to give scholarships and whatever else to whites. Basically nothing hateful. I thought it might be the NAAWP but that seems to have taught segregation and such. Dismas|^(talk) 13:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of one in North America. It seems to me that the most likely not-quite answer would come in the form of a more specific ethnic or nationality. For example, here in Canada there are German clubs and Newfoundland clubs (and Portuguese clubs, etc.) that are completely non-racist, but they're really not the same thing. The NAACP functions as a political organization and I don't think there's terribly much call or need for advancing white people politically. The people interested in whites having more political clout are probably looking for a "final solution" kind of thing, which would obviously be pretty heavily steeped in various kinds of race hatred. It's kind of like how you can get t-shirts that say "Gay Pride" or "Black Pride" or even "Irish Pride", but the "White Pride" ones only come free with the purchase of a hood. Matt Deres (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree when you say that "I don't think there's terribly much call or need for advancing white people politically". Reverse racism does exist, also. There was a recent high-profile US Supreme Court case (Ricci v. DeStefano) where several employees were denied promotions simply because they were white (i.e., not minorities). As such, I disgree with your statement ... at least, the part that I quoted. Thanks. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC))

If a promotion is denied on account of race, that's against the law. Hence it was struck down. Reverse racism exists here and there, anecdotally. Not enough to justify an entire organization devoted to fighting specifically about discrimination against whites. In a country that's dominated by another race, and if whites were a small minority, I could see it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

All people (yes, whites included) have interests (political and otherwise) that need to be protected. Being white or being a majority does not negate that. You state that reverse racism occurs only anecdotally, "here and there". (Really?) I would argue that it is much more systemic than a mere blip on the radar screen. Indeed, the Supreme Court needed to intervene on this very issue! You claim that "[there is] not enough [reverse racism] to justify an entire organization devoted to fighting specifically about discrimination against whites". Yet there is "enough" to require Supreme Court intervention? That seems odd. Also, when is "enough" enough? In today's climate, it is very "PC" to hire / promote minorities over whites, despite qualifications (the very definition of reverse racism and the foundation of affirmative action). So, the Supreme Court had to intervene to say that what is politically correct (PC) is in fact illegal. Why can't a private organization promote similarly? Just as racism against Blacks is illegal (and countered by the NAACP), racism against a majority is no different. Just my opinion. Well ... and the opinion of the US Supreme Court, too. Thanks. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC))

Wow, we have a dubious article angry white male. Why do we have that? Anyway, you might want to look at this section, although the article could do with improving White_privilege#Employment_and_economics. White privilege is not your fault, but it is pervasive and part of privilege is being able to know nothing about it. Just like men can be completely blind to male privilege, because it doesn't seem to affect their lives: they think their experience is 'normal'. Not the fault of anyone living, but something everyone needs to be consciously aware of, to an extent. If you read nothing else, read this article, although page 3 onwards of this one from the '80s is what completely changed how I thought. 86.177.121.239 (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, white males were used to getting everything their way, and when that default advantage began to be eroded, "white pride" stuff started to turn up. White males were spoiled, and you know how spoiled kids are: they always want things their way. Sharing is not in their vocabulary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So, the answer is to discriminate against white males? The very act that minorities (purportedly) find offensive to begin with (i.e., the discrimination). So, two wrongs make a right? Or the minorities only find discrimination to be offensive when they are on the receiving end of it? If they are on the giving end, it's now somehow OK? An interesting double standard. Come now. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

No, the answer is for whites not to presume that they are a privileged race that should get everything their way all the time nowadays, the way they once did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous comment which does not merit a response ... and which completely avoids / sidesteps all of the meritorious issued raised above. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

"White Pride" is basically code for "White Supremacy". My pals Sven and Ole wear T-shirts that read "White Pride". The problem is, the lettering is also in white, so it's invisible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If I were to channel someone from the NAACP, my response to the question would be that "any scholarship program" in the United States already favors whites because of their already-dominant place in the culture. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

They may well say that. It doesn't make any sense, though. --Tango (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain in what way it doesn't make sense, or would that be soapboxing? 86.177.121.239 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be a rather warped definition of "favour" if more whites getting scholarships simply because there are more whites counted as favouring whites. (Assuming that is what is meant by "dominant" - any other meaning would need to be backed up. Even the president is black (well, mixed-race) now!) --Tango (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see how if that was what it was saying, it would make no sense. But dominant culture is not the same as majority of people. It is not that there should not be more white people at university if there are more white people in the general population, it's that the proportion of white people at university should be proportional to the proportion in the general population. And, given that white people in many cultures (including the US, the UK, etc) have White Privilege, they are going to end up being disproportionately represented at university, in good jobs, in leadership positions, unless people do things to actively counteract that privilege. One way of doing that might be by targeting a scholarship programme at an ethnic group who are disproportionately under-represented at university, to try to correct for the various nudges that keep them down.

Incidentally, you might want to read the studies linked in this article. I remember reading them at the time: Obama being president leads many white people to make more racist decisions, on the same principle as McDonald's listing salads made people eat more burgers: people see the 'progress', and that lets them off the hook. 86.177.121.239 (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you get in touch for counsel in the most recent case and for Bakkee v. U.C., Davis. My field is civil rights law. Some people were so interested in litigating the issue that they parted with funds to subsidize the suits. Frankly, my perception was antiBakkee until I read all the amicus briefs in the case for a U.S. Senator. There were no answers then and I doubt they exist now.75Janice (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)75Janice

75Janice is referring to Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So, I guess the answer to my original question is "no". Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 03:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Over a period of 40 years (1967-2007), the ratio of black university students as a share of all blacks aged 18-24 rose from 18% to 31.7%. Among whites, the ratio rose from 27.1% to 40.9% during the same period. Hence, the share of age appropriate blacks vis-à-vis whites increased from 66.4% to 77.5%. In other words, the period under which affirmative action was the norm reduced the under-representation of black students in (US) universities from one-third to one-quarter. Source: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/xls/tabn204.xls. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There was the Delaware-based National Association for the Advancement of White People, an incorporated organization whose charter was revoked by the state of Delaware. As our article on this group notes, David Duke tried to revive the name in the 1980s. He no longer uses the term on his web site. On WhiteCivilRights.com, he's the head of EURO: "the European-American Unity and Rights Organization. It defends White interests and rights in the same fashion that the NAACP works for the advancement of Colored People'.'" The apparent scare quotes are bolstered in the next paragraph, in which he says that the NAACP promotes racial discrimination while EURO "seeks equal opportunity for all, with preference for the hardest working, most talented, and best qualified." --- OtherDave (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sand art

My question is about the sand art work that is shown in the following You Tube video: [34]. I watched the video and it was beautiful. But, the video and background sounds (music / lyrics) are not in the English language. As a result, the story or plot line went completely over my head. (Though, I think that I did get some small bits and pieces here and there.) Can someone explain the general story / plot line of what the woman is drawing pictures of? Also, what is the English translation for the few words that she inscribes in the sand at the very end of the video? And, by the way, in what language is this done? Thank you. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC))

The language sounds like Russian. But sorry, I don't understand. Oda Mari (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

From a friend:

• it's the history of ukraine, specifically WW2, and from the perspective of a woman, gets married, her soldier goes off to fight, she has a baby, and possibly never sees him again (but possibly does)

Vimescarrot (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's Ukrainian. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

According to our article it's about the Ukrainian Great Patriotic War. Matt Deres (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Another friend:

• Words at the end loosely translate to "You're always nearby"

Vimescarrot (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The language is Russian, not Ukrainian. The performance may have taken place in Ukraine, but most, if not all, Ukrainians understand Russian, and many of them are native Russian speakers. Besides, the the story of the Great Patriotic War – which is what the Soviets called the part of World War II when they were no longer allied with Germany – is probably more appealing to Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians, especially in Western Ukraine, are more likely to support Ukrainian nationalists who opposed the Soviets during WW2 and even sided with the Germans as long as it helped them get rid of Soviets, Jews and Poles. — Kpalion^(talk) 23:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh and WHAAOE: Kseniya Simonova. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC) P.S. Just noticed that Matt had already provided a link, albeit in an Easter egg fashion. Still, "Ukrainian Great Patriotic War" bewilders me. There was one GPW for the whole Soviet Union, althogh it's true that the Ukrainian and Byelorussian SSRs bore the brunt of it. — Kpalion^(talk) 00:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This is the OP. I now somewhat "get" the plot about "a woman, [who] gets married, her soldier goes off to fight, she has a baby, and possibly never sees him again (but possibly does)" as explained in a posting above. But what then exactly is happening in that last scene? It almost appears as if the woman and the baby are looking at the man through a window or touching through a glass? I am still confused. Is that the woman merely having a dream? Thanks. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

It being art, the interpretation is up to you. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much to all for the input ... it was very helpful. Thanks! (64.252.68.102 (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

Achievement seen as insubordination

I am very interested in Ludwig2's comment from above: "...from a SD viewpoint, 'achievement' looks like 'insubordination' and suggests competition for status or position." Does anyone know where I could read more about this particular aspect of bullying? I have heard this idea before. What particularly interests me is the bully seeing working hard and taking the initiative as a kind of cheating, and being disloyal. Thanks 89.242.47.252 (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just discovered Social dominance orientation and Social Dominance Theory which are relevant. Perhaps it would also explain criminality and people prone to jealousy. 89.242.47.252 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama and Palin dancing photo

A few hours back, I just came across a photo in flickr which shows Obama and Palin dancing together. I want to know if the image real or fake? --Toutuolog (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a fake, very obviously. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 17:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? You can't tell if that is fake. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks fake to me ... it seems like the heads (of Obama and Palin) are pasted onto bodies of other people. Just my opinion. (64.252.68.102 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC))

Completely fake. The above IP is right, it being their heads on others' bodies. It's done pretty well, but the lighting is still wrong, and Palin looks rather muscular, all things considered. Besides, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I'm yet to see it. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like that extraordinary a claim. They are both politicians, I wouldn't be surprised if they have been to the same social events numerous times. Just because you are in different parties doesn't mean you can't share a dance. Politicians often get along very well with their opponents personally even if professionally they are always arguing. (Of course, that doesn't change the fact that this particular photo is fake.) --Tango (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be a PR disaster, no doubt (unless they could do it well). I don't think I need to remind you of the baseball cap incident, and many others. Prime ministers and Presidents generally go down better if they stick to what they're best at. Appearing in Strictly Come Dancing, or its American counterpart, is pretty unusual in my book. You'd expect it to make the news both sides of the Atlantic, i.e. we'd know about it. (I know the phrase I used is more theological than that really.)- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 21:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I hadn't actually followed the link - dancing on stage like that would be unusual. I was thinking more of social dancing. --Tango (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Fake. It even says it's fake. There's a link on the photo's flickr page that takes you to an iphonesavior site, which explains the fakery thus:

"The original "Dancing With The Stars" photo was skillfully remixed by a Tampa Bay graphic designer named Martin Rice. Rice sent over his Photoshop image to three friends featuring Obama dancing with Palin. Days later the photo has traveled electronically around the globe and back." Karenjc 18:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

All other considerations aside, you'd never wear glasses like that on Dancing with the Stars, duh. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a pity that you cannot be president and a dancer if you want to - convention forces you to choose one or the other. 89.242.47.252 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If there's been an [ex-]actor, why not a dancer? There's nothing stopping them. More dancers to stand, methinks.- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

George Murphy, earlier best known as a song-and-dance man, served as a US Senator from California from 1965 to 1971. Not quite president, but pretty good for a man of his talents. PhGustaf (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, George Murphy... a Tom Lehrer song is echoing in my head now (there's nothing to stop it). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty good for a man of his talents - what does that mean? Are actors and dancers somehow inherently less equipped to be politicians than lawyers, used car salesmen, astronauts, evangelists, wrestlers and serial adulterers? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he meant getting to be a Senator was pretty good for a song-and-dance man. Although it does remind me of this one: In Israel there's a Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. A Jewish tourist visits it, and on it says the man's name as plain as day. He asks the guard, "What's this about?" The guard says, "Ah, as a tailor, he was known. As a soldier? Mneh!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

But what does that mean - "getting to be a Senator was pretty good for a song-and-dance man"? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There aren't that many entertainers who become public officials. Most of the major ones seem to be lawyers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who saw Obama attempting to dance on the night of his inauguration would know that this photo is a fake. The question is, whose bodies did they paste the head-shots onto? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the source photo of the dancers, which I found on Google images by entering ["dancing with the stars"]. I don't watch the show, so I don't know who they are.[35] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mario (entertainer) and Karina Smirnoff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's another photo from that set. It was in Season 6: [36] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

March 1

Matt Morrison

Is the signature in the top left "Matt Morrison"?174.3.99.176 (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

At 500%, that's what it looks like, but I have no source. Bielle (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is Matt Morison (Canadian snowboarder). [37] --Cam (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Article about a London park with a "protected" view

I am trying to find a article about a park, which I believe is somewhere on the outer edges of London, that has a hill were the view from that hill cannot be obstructed or changed so that it looks the same as it did in a painting that was made quite a long time ago. The hill also overlooks a river from what I remember. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.112.106 (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly Richmond Park where it is bordered by the River Thames. "The view from the top of Richmond Hill, a source of inspiration for artists and poets throughout the years, has been protected by an Act of Parliament since 1902." [38] Our article on Richmond Hill, London gives more info. Is this what you were looking for? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Other candidates are Parliament Hill on Hampstead Heath, and Greenwich Park which is a World Heritage Site. Planning laws are very strict in the UK and any well known view will have legal protection from development. Alansplodge (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also see the article on Protected view. Alansplodge (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Restaurant Laws in Western Australia

Is it true that a BYO restaurant DOES NOT have to supply you with tap water while dining in their establishment? I was in a restaurant last night with my friend who is pregnant. She asked for a glass of water but was refused saying that they were not required to supply customers with tap water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.208.198.141 (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Western Australia, but there is no such requirement in the UK (despite many people thinking otherwise). Some licensed premises (mainly clubs, I think) have it written into their licenses that they must supply free water as a precaution against ecstasy users getting dehydrated (the main cause of death from ecstasy), but I doubt many restaurants do. Certainly one that didn't serve alcohol wouldn't. --Tango (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that responsible service of alcohol laws in QLD dictate that you must serve non-alcoholic beverages but I don't think they have to be free. As for WA I don't know.203.217.33.23 (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, this rumour first gainer credence after the moral panic caused by the death of a teenager who had drunk too much water, not too little. See Leah Betts. 130.88.162.46 (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This matches up with what is said about ACT clubs, but I can't find any legislation from a cursory search. Steewi (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the law, the correct way of handling that would be to stand up and walk out. "Due to the lack of simple tap water, which traditionally accompanies every meal, I refuse to pay for what I've ordered so far and am leaving now. Unless you rectify this situation." They have a tap. The have glasses. They dislike customers making a scene that will be seen by other customers. --203.22.236.14 (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

US Politics - Definition of "top tier candidate" or "first tier candidate"

In US Politics, what is meant by the concept "top tier" candidate or "first tier" candidate for offices such as State Legislator (Senate, Assembly, etc) and US Congress? I assume that this is some kind of rating system. I've heard the terms "top tier" "first tier" and "lower tier" candidates but I have no idea who creates these ratings or how the ratings are arrived at. I've used wikipedia many times, but this is the first time I've ever tried to ask a question using this reference desk. I'm not even sure if this is the right place to ask my question. Is there a way to create a page with this question and ask people to provide answers? What is the best approach?

Thanks for all you do.

Sincerely, William Cerf WilliamCerf (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You are in exactly the right place and you asked the question correctly, by just creating a new section on this page. There isn't any legal basis for the judgment that someone is a "top tier" candidate. This is just an opinion that someone has offered, presumably for candidates who are well-known enough to be electable. If you have a web link to demonstrate an example, we might be able to offer more specific comments. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a subjective judgement, usually taken by media outlets as to which candidates have the sufficient combination of money, recognition, support (typically in polls) and other factors to be considered reasonably likely to win the election in question. 130.88.162.46 (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the only time this concept is used with actually consequence is in regard to providing Secret Service protection to the top level candidates during the Presidential campaign. Rmhermen (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I never heard the term in Political Science classes. Recently, I've heard it discussed within party circles as the highest office the party is sponsoring. Obama was the top tier candidate. A state rep would be low tier in comparison. A dog catcher would be lower tier. They want the top tier to be a big enough draw so people continue to vote along party lines. A very popular lower tier candidate might increase the turnout for a Presidential or gubentorial candidate.75Janice (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)75Janice

Figure Skating

I've seen elements done in figure skating done on roller skates (i.e.: salcow on roller skates). Is this possible with inline (in line) skates?174.3.99.176 (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There are even several how-to books! Best, WikiJedits (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

How does inline skating differ from roller skating?174.3.99.176 (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality images in Wikipedia

Why sexuality related images in Wikipedia are computer generated images instead of showing real humans? For example, the images in Oral stimulation of nipples and Mammary intercourse do not show real humans. Why? --DogNoDog (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Could be a free-content issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's likely because nobody has uploaded a free image, as Bugs suggests. If you look at Pearl necklace (sexuality), you'll see that not all the sexuality articles only have line drawings. Dismas|^(talk) 07:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And while the OP could upload a PD-self image, I wonder what it would tell us (other than TMI about the OP) that the current illustration does not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The current images are more tasteful as well, I think. -Pollinosisss (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The illustrations in the articles you cite seem to demonstrate the ideas involved adequately. In what way would photographs improve the clarity of the articles? wikipedia is not censored, but it's not here to provide pictures you find pleasing, either. PhGustaf (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a free-content issue—you'd be surprised how many professional and amateur pornographers are willing to contribute their nudity pix. I think it is more a compromise over trying to provide "encyclopedic" images on a controversial subject. Many people (myself included) find a drawing of sexual intercourse far less problematic than a photograph of it, when we are trying to explain rather than titillate. Obviously opinions vary quite a bit, and there are many who are die-hard "no censorship, no matter what!" who would disagree just for the sake of disagreeing. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the difference between a photograph and a computer generated image? How can an image show real humans? Are they going climb inside my computer? Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Come now, don't play daft, adults are trying to have real discussions about encyclopedic content around here. Surely whatever anti-censorship argument you want doesn't have to rest on the ridiculous notion that people perceive drawings and photographs to be exactly the same thing, especially when it comes to medical/sexual subjects. Google "penis cancer" and try to tell me that the photographs do not generate a radically different emotional response than the diagrams. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) A photograph usually conveys authenticity (though not always, see Obama-Palin question above :-). A line drawing is immediately perceived as an artefact, before we even know what we are looking at. In addition to the ick-effect, a line drawing is also often a clearer way to communicate structure and functional relationships within the depicted object(s). I remember when I had to study and memorize hundres of plant species for exams, I found the books showing (coloured) illustrations much easier to process and much more helpful than photographs of the various plant species in their natural habitat. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The reference desk is not a place for discussing Wikipedia policy. If anyone wants to continue this, take it to WP:VPM or something. Algebraist 14:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Roller Skates

The title of the video says Gold Coast. Was this competition held in gold coast? 174.3.99.176 (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As there is a reference on a 'banner' to Australia, do you mean 'Gold Coast', Australia?, as gold coast goes to a dis-ambiguation page. Googling "2007 rollerskating championships" (text inserted) gets "2007 Artistic Roller Skating World Championships LOCATION: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia VENUE: Carrera Indoor Sports Stadium". The answer seems to be yes.220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Service books

The wikipedia article Robert Service (historian) mentions he has written a book named Comrades: A World History of Communism. But in amazon, I found two books: Comrades!: A History of World Communism and Comrades: Communism: A World History. I want to know if the two books I linked are same (just paperback and hardbound) or different? And why the wikipedia article mentions a false title? --Compuhog (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Both titles are listed in paperback and hardbound(but not currently available in both). From the similarity of names I would hazard a guess that they are the same book with slightly different titles. Possibly "Comrades: Communism: A World History" is a later edition as it also says "the international best seller" on the cover. The other is available as a collectible adding weight to my assertion. The published date Amazon gives for both is May 2007. Therefore it does seem it is the same book.
It's a bit harsh to assume "a false title" for what could well be a mere mistake! It seems to be a combination of the two titles. 220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A simple Google search shows the exact Robert Service title, Comrades: A World History of Communism on Amazon.--220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I did a Google Books search on the word "communism" with author "Service". The first hit was on Comrades!: A History of World Communism and provided a limited preview which included the full table of contents. This is a US paperback edition from Macmillan. The second hit was on Comrades: A World History of Communism. This is a UK edition from Macmillan. This hit showed me three chapter titles (that contained the word "communism") with chapter and page numbers, and they exactly matched the table of contents. So these two titles refer to the same book. After a few irrelevant hits, there was one on Comrades: Communism: A World History. This is a UK edition from Pan. Google Books would not display any content from this book but it gave the number of pages as being the same as the other two. Also, the front covers of all three books are displayed and those of the two British editions are very similar. Conclusion: they are all the same book (the Pan edition might have minor changes since it is dated a year later), and it has been published under three different titles. (Note: The amount of content that Google Books shows you may depend on what country you're in.) --Anonymous, edited 08:09 UTC, March 2, 2010.

what caused the 1962 Burmese coup in the first place?

The article Burmese Way to Socialism does not explain it at all, but Burma prior to 1962 was on its way to becoming prosperous and stable, something akin to Malaysia, or Thailand on a good day. It seems there were a lot of little things, but no real kicker that caused the coup. What keeps the momentum so long? The ideology doesn't seem to be coherent, is it just power for power's sake, like African coups? Anyone? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at this result on Google Books[39]. Alansplodge (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Econ question

I've begun a new disambiguation page, Congruence principle, which could use some feedback, particularly under the Economics entry. My last Econ class was a hundred years ago, and I no longer recall the terminology that criticises economic theories that operate only within a theoretical closed system and don't translate to real-world economies. Help? -- TheEditrix2 17:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"creative accounting"

Is this a common or known fraud otherwise called "creative accounting"?

• The seller knows that an item will not work with 60hz and that for all practical purposes is defective when used with 60hz.
• The seller sells an item anyway to buyers without warning of the 60 hz issue and under terms that buyer pays return postage to have the seller verify the item has a factory defect. The seller assures the buyer a refund of purchase price and postage upon verification.
• The seller stipulates that in absence of a factory defect at sellers determination buyer will not be refunded postage and will be charged a 15% restocking fee.
• Seller's goal is to make 30% profit on sale of any item that is returned as defective.
• The item price is $27.99 including $3.29 real postage and undeclared handling fee of ~20% of price minus postage or $5.82. A total of $9.10 is then declared as postage.
• The buyer finds that the item does not work and returns it to the seller at a cost of $3.29. The seller plugs the item into 50hz and declares that it is not defective.
• The seller then deducts the postage fee of $9.10 to get $18,89 and then applies the 15% restocking fee to get $2.83 which he deducts leaving $16.05 as the refund.
• The seller's initial income is $27.99 from which he deducts $3.29 for postage and $16.05 for the refund costing him $19.34 in expenses and leaving him $8.65 or 30% profit.

71.100.5.197 (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In other words, you wonder whether a guy who Ebays defective crap and charges large "restocking" and "handling" fees, can be held legally liable, or forced to provide a full refund?

Nope. Not if he disclosed all his terms up front, and you fell for it. That's why the term Caveat Emptor was invented. Check the feedback ratings before you buy. -- TheEditrix2 17:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We had a neighbor who is now in prison because he was sort of obsessive compulsive like that female astronaut that went bonkers. He tracked down the seller that did something similar to him and that's why he is in prison. The seller, unfortunately despite his disclosed terms is now enjoying eternal rest at Forest Lawn. 71.100.5.197 (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That isn't creative accounting. As for whether it is illegal or not, you'll need to ask a lawyer. We can't give legal advice. --Tango (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The question has nothing to do with law but with morality and in this case the lack of morality resulting in mortality. 71.100.5.197 (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As for checking feedback ratings, have you ever visited eBay lately? Feedback is not handled like it was at the beginning of eBay because it hampered sales. Now its just a guise that's part of the disguise that eBay has become. 71.100.5.197 (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, just bought a couple of cell phones on ebay last week. But not 'til I'd very carefully examined the seller's feedback ratings. I begin by assuming sellers are crooks, so I would NEVER do business with someone who charged "restocking" or "handling" fees, or who had a rating of less than 97 percent positive. Just my own rule of thumb. -- TheEditrix2 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

One day then you will probably make a purchase from a guy who has the restocking fee posted on his web site but not on eBay and when it comes time to ask for a refund he will point to that. What are you going to say then? Gee I didn't look on your web site or that his restocking fee does not apply whether declared or not if you the customer can not use the item because the item does not work. In other words the emphasis has to be on the morality of the transaction rather than on some small print. 71.100.5.197 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is sort of getting into the uncomfortable area of "legal advice", which we do not allow ourselves to give; but I am going to say that when you state "the emphasis has to be on the morality of the transaction rather than on some small print", it would be nice if that were the case, but it's not true. When you agree to a contract, you're agreeing to all its terms. Now, if the "fine print" you are objecting to is over on his web site, then you may have an argument, in court, that you never agreed to those terms; but as a practical matter, when you buy stuff on eBay, you never want to go to court. For what it's worth, from what you have said above, I think this guy should give you a refund; but I don't know if he's legally obliged to. If you're really angry and you have a lot of time on your hands, you may be able to sue him in small claims court, even if he is out of state (depends on the rules for small claims courts in your locality). Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I never look at the ratings, I look at the actual feedback. If there are any negative responses, I find them (which ebay doesn't make easy) and see what actually happened. --Tango (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To the very first question, we have an article called creative accounting. A telling line at the top says that "Cooking the books" redirects to "creative accounting". Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Caveat Emptor. As they say in most places except Texas and maybe Tennessee, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me [40]. One would have thought that the Windows CD key fiasco was enough to learn to be careful with eBay sellers... Nil Einne (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to mention that my comment that I made here yesterday has disapearred. The comment briefly said that the OP previous question with responces from others, which I guess the OP did not like, on the Science desk had (also) disapeared, but you can find it here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=347004838&oldid=347001486 I think its against etiquette to delete other people's comments. I've kept a copy of this paragraph in case it disapears again. 78.149.112.209 (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Last U.S. Vice President to rule from the Chair of the Senate

Which was the last U.S. Vice President to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian from the Chair of the Senate? Logoth (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer but wanted to save other editors time by writing that the constitutionality of this sounded doubtful to me, but I looked into it and it's definitely constitutional and plausible. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Senate procedure and practice (publ. 2008) by Martin Gold says, "It is often misstated that the parliamentarian makes rulings. The presiding officer rules after having received the parliamentarian's counsel. Although the presiding officer has the power to ignore the parliamentarian's advice and simply rule on his own, it would be extraordinary for him to do so" (emphasis added). That suggests that hasn't happened since the Senate parliamentarian office was created in 1937. Abecedare (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: It did happen in 1949 when Alben Barkley disregarded the parliamentarian's advice. However the Senate overruled Barkley's ruling 41-46. See the article The Constitutional Option to Change Senate Rules and Procedures: A Majoritarian Means to over Come the Filibuster (pages 24-25) for details. Abecedare (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Also, in 2001, the Senate Parliamentarian got the ultimate overruling: the Republicans fired him when he made a couple of rulings that benefitted the (then-minority) Democrats. --M@rēino 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Art

I have an original oil painting of a hunting scene and I am not sure of the artist. I believe it reads either A or Q Folquet or maybe Falquet. I am not sure of the date of the painting and was wondering if anyone has come across the artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.152.65 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a "Folquet" of any initial on Artprice and the only "Falquet" is a "Joseph". There were no auction photos available and the one work listed for "Joseph Falquet" had not sold, so I have no prices for you either. One "Alexander Falquet" did live in Cincinnati about 1820 and is listed here. I could find no examples of his art or any prices. Sorry; that's a lot of negative by way of an answer. Perhaps someone else will have better luck. Bielle (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you maybe take a closeup photo of a portion of the painting containing the signature? That might help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Coffe With Puree

Are the any drinks with coffee and fruit puree (so with these 2 ingredients mixed together)?174.3.99.176 (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I know we can make these ourselves, but are there restaurants (these include starbucks type establisments) that sell these? How about retail (such as grocers).?174.3.99.176 (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think fruit puree (as opposed to syrup) reacts well to being heated. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've never tried it, but apparently you can make a powder out of the berries that coffee beans grow in, and then mix or bake that fruit. These guys are selling it as a juice drink, mixed with some other fruit. Again, never tried it, but it seems up your alley. --M@rēino 14:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2

Sheriff's house an official residence?

Henry County sheriff's residence, with the county courthouse in the background

I'm currently writing an article on the building in the foreground of the picture: it was built as the jail and the home of the county sheriff for Henry County, Ohio. Since the sheriffs of old lived in this house while they were in office because they were in office, would it qualify as an official residence? Official residence seems to say no, but it has no sources discussing what is an official residence and what isn't. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that the article (well, list really) has a definition which would exclude it. Sheriff is a high office. Mayor's residences are listed, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Given no contrary sources, I can't see calling a residence provided by a county to its sheriff an "official residence" as a major violation of WP:OR. You might even add your building to the parent article.

Nice house. PhGustaf (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This was one of the first instances of houses featuring bars in the basements. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I can understand a chap having a bar in the basement for when his chums come around for a snifter, but to have bars in the basement make it look like the sheriffs were a bunch of old soaks. DuncanHill (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe your eyes can see it, but I can't see the border where the courthouse ends and the sheriff's house begins. Thanks for the input. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that the structure in the foreground with the mostly solid brick walls is the jailhouse, with its passageway to the ornate courthouse background right. The more fenestrated part of the building background left is the sheriff's posh digs. (after a look at the full-size pic) with the big windows and the fireplace chimney is the house, with the small-windowed jailhouse behind it. There's apparently a covered passageway connected to the ornate courthouse behind. Are you close enough to the building to check it out yourself? PhGustaf (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not close enough; Google Maps says that the trip from my home should take about two hours, and the day I took this picture was the only time I've ever been to this city. Nyttend (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

An official residence is a residence made available to whoever the current occupant of a particular office is. This seems to fit that definition. --Tango (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As I Lay Dying

What is the climax of As I Lay Dying (Faulkner)? It's not homework or anything, I'm just curious (it used to be, but I already turned my report in--any answer can't help me now :) 76.230.227.178 (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Bill

This question is a fish. SDY (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A fish that lay dying, at that. As I Lay Dying (novel) doesn't shed much light on it in the plot summary, but here's a tip: Read the book. Reading a given book will often answer questions one might have about the book. Or at least read the Cliff Notes version. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

never recommend Cliff Notes as a primary source. Cliff Notes are great if you're cramming for an exam and need a review, but there's nothing quite like reading for developing your mind. Honestly, the people I meet I can class into groups by their reading habits, because their reading habits dictate their thinking habits: average people, who read magazines or other 'light' reading, and who reason almost exclusively in emotional/interpersonal terms (what does it say about person A that they went to to party X with person B, wearing clothes by Q); smart people, who read history, news, and science books or other 'serious/factual' material, who reason in hard nosed and generally pugnaciously factual manner (this is factually true, and that is poppycock, so don't be an idiot); brilliant people, who read philosophy and 'heavy' fiction, and reason with depth and nuance. Faulkner makes you think, but Cliff Notes on Faulkner do not make you think, and that makes a huge difference.

don't get me wrong, I have no objection to people relying on cliff notes if that's what they decide to do; janitors are just important to society as doctors. but I don't think we should recommend it to people as though it were an equally viable alternative. --Ludwigs2 07:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As for bibliophile janitors, or concierges rather, I recommend reading The Elegance of the Hedgehog (ad not just to our resident hedgehog expert). ---Sluzzelin talk 08:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Might I take the opportunity to refer to a cartoon ([41]) from one of my favourite artists (no longer active, I'm afraid)? Tevildo (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

NOTE - Possibly NSFW if your boss has _extremely_ uptight views on the issue of lack-of-clothedness. Tevildo (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

BMX?

What sport is portrayed? It doesn't look like bicycle motocross because there are brakes on the bike.174.3.99.176 (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be a BMX stunt bike, which may have brakes - depending on what the rider wants. It is more likely that the photographer and model just grabbed a bike from WalMart for the photo shoot. -- kainaw™ 06:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fake Snake Loop Earring

I am looking for earrings; where can I get pierceless earrings?

Specifically, there are those earrings that are worn at the pinna on the top. This loop earring has like a spiral around the loop. I think it is colored blue. (do you guys know what I'm talking about? You guys can give me a picture.)174.3.99.176 (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And worn by males.174.3.99.176 (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be precise (as this is an encyclopedia), a spiral is a planar shape -- perhaps you meant a helix :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, oops, I did mean helix.174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Incest among animals

As we all know incest i.e. making love to one's mother or sister or daughter is taboo among almsot all cultures. But what about animals ? I mean dogs, cats, cows, horses etc. For example a pup becomes sexually mature in a few months, while its mothers is still ready...what happens normally , does it do it with her if offerd ? Is there any biological/psychological barrier...?

This is a very good question, that I never thought about.

Some species, such as elephants, or polygynous species, probably don't practice incest. For example, bull elephants have to leave the family when they reach maturity, so they can't mate with their family.174.3.99.176 (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Dogs and cats certainly do. "Taboo" is a human concept. Animals don't have "moral laws". That's a human thing. Animals do what they're "programmed" to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It does happen, but usually only if they don't have much choice of mates (eg. due to being kept in captivity by humans in small numbers). Most animals have an instinct to mate outside their group. This usually works by either the males or the females leaving the group when they reach sexual maturity and joining a new group (in some species it is the males that leave and in some the females - I think males is more common, though). Obviously, that only applies to social animals - solitary ones have similar instincts, though. --Tango (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Presumably natural selection would favor those that instinctively seek genetic diversity (not that they have any conscious understanding of that fact). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Incest article seems to be primarily about humans. The Inbreeding article has some information about animals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would note that while avoiding excessive inbreeding, it doesn't prevent it. If the males usually leave, the females who stay behind will potentially be the daughters of the remaining males. Presuming the males remain breeding with the same group long enough and the female start breeding soon enough enough, I would guess it's likely at least single generational if not multiple generational (e.g. daughters of daughters) inbreeding occurs. Of course if there is more then one breeding male in the group, the chances are reduced. Some/most may have evolved additional mechanisms to reduce inbreeding. Some refs that may be of interest. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

From a genetic perspective, incest is a multi-generational problem, not an immediate problem (i.e., the probability of non-advantageous mutations expressing themselves is small in a single generation, but increases significantly if incest continues over several generations). Humans have a relatively small gene pool, so the issue is a bit more pronounced in human breeding, but is still not a significant issue until two or three generations have passed.

That being said, humans are incredibly social animals, and the social/psychological problems caused by inbreeding are much more pronounced. Think of it as a cultural form of heritability - what we learn as children is passed on to our own children through experience and education, and mixing across different family groups is important to neutralize unhealthy family/social dynamics. Note that cults almost invariably insist on in-group marriages: this is to prevent outside influences from influencing child development, and thus give the cult leader greater influence over family dynamics.

Incidentally, incest is not gendered - sex or marriage with a father, brother, or son is just as much incest as with a female relative. --Ludwigs2 06:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The small gene pool is an important issue with all species. Apparently, humans were close to being wiped out at some point. Kind of like with the American bison, which was driven close enough to extinction that a number of varieties disappeared and bison basically all look alike now. But that was artificial selection. In general, natural selection would tend to weed out the genetically weak over the course of time, and (possibly) retain genes that would make an animal less inclined toward incest. Animals are very diverse, though, and we sometimes have a tendency to ascribe human moral standards. Such as those who think animal species that mate for life are somehow "better" than animal species that are "promiscuous". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

. Please use references and not half-remembered claims. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was summarizing common knowledge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Incestuous breeding of animals is not uncommon to achieve desirable traits (like in the pet industry). Desirable traits often come from recessive genes that can only be achieved through breeding close relatives. In the aquarium trade for example, many species have been bred to the point they are weaker (genetically and in immunity) than their wild ancestors. --Kvasir (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. In my industry, which is agriculture, field corn is inbred to produce "pure" lines that all exhibit pretty much the same traits. They are also rather weak in a sense. But when you cross them the right way, you get an 8-foot corn plant with a huge ear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Animals when young have sensitive periods and critical periods during which they undergo filial imprinting and sexual imprinting. Broadly, the result is that animals seek mates that are quite different but not extremely different from their filial "type." Therefore, incest with very close "relatives" -- as opposed to, say, third cousins or whatever -- is likely to be repellant to their imprinting and therefore unlikely to occur. I believe this is very nearly universal. See, e.g., Bateson. 63.17.35.207 (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Real estate bubble effect on the larger economy

I've gathered that a real estate bubble can have a devastating effect on other stronger parts of the economy. But why is this the case? Even if a real estate bubble burst, wouldn't the value of the stronger parts of the economy still be recognized?

Illaskquestions (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

When a real estate bubble bursts, many home owners are in trouble because their houses are worth less than their mortgages (bubbles are usually debt-fuelled). So people will cut spending and that means trouble for the rest of the economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As well as the above, when people start defaulting on their mortgages, financial institutions that thought they had plenty of money suddenly find they don't. Worse, when mortgage debt is parcelled up and sold off as investments, those investments suddenly become worth a lot less than they were. Institutions that didn't even realise they were buying doubtful mortgages find themselves without as much money as they thought.

It's also important to realise how small a shift it takes to turn from growth to recession. The 'catastrophic' times we are in are caused by a shift from a couple of percent growth to shrinkage - i.e. if only three percent of the economy stopped working that would do it. Likewise the 'terrible' increase in unemployment was maybe three percent of the population. The economy is a fragile thing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Because of its scale and momentum, a nationwide real-estate bubble tends to affect other parts of the economy. For example, the construction industry, the financial sector, and even the retail sector (supplying new homeowners with paint, furnishings, etc, etc) all experience booms during a real-estate bubble. Tradesmen such as plumbers and electricians have lots of work. Highway construction and the development of commercial real estate (to meet the needs of newly developed residential areas) also take off. When the bubble bursts, all of these areas experience severe contractions. Many thousands of people are thrown out of work. They are no longer able to purchase goods and services produced by other sectors of the economy, which accordingly suffer as well. Homeowners may be laid off from jobs as a result or may find that their house is worth less than they owe on their mortgage. As a result, they, too, cut back on spending, with unhappy results for productive sectors of the economy. More layoffs result. At the same time, lower income and consumption (sales, VAT) tax receipts mean that government revenues fall too. Either governments have to lay people off, or they have to go into debt to maintain their funding. Government debt can ultimately lead to a sovereign debt crisis (such as Greece has narrowly avoided for the time being) which would have very dire effects on the whole economy that I don't have time to describe. Finally, the collapse of the bubble, as DJ Clayworth has pointed out, leaves banks' money tied up in bad loans. As a result, they have much less money to lend to businesses. Without money to fund expansion, businesses are unable to hire people. Businesses with existing high debt burdens and unable to refinance that debt may have to lay off more workers to free up cash for debt service or to maintain profitability. This all feeds into a vicious cycle affecting virtually every economic sector. Marco polo (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Monopoly game used during WWII

Howdy folks,

I recently saw a news report regarding the use of the game of Monopoly during WWII. They said that a special group of people assembled sets of Monopoly for the Red Cross to send to POW's behind enemy lines that had maps and currency along with contact information for escape routes. I would like to see more information about these incredible people, there names and there contributions.

Thanks for your time,

Calvin Starritt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.16.193 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In the UK I imagine it would have been the Special Operations Executive - see Special Operations Executive#Equipment. Hopefully someone will give you better links soon - I'm sure there are some internet resources in this area, although I doubt that you'll get many names. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The recent book "A genius for deception" by Nicholas Rankin (Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19-538704-9) discusses spying, camouflage, black ops, impersonation, propaganda, etc by Britain in World Wars 1 and 2. It discusses the things hidden in packages sent to prisoners of war held by Germany on pages 354-355. The trick goods were not in official Red Cross packages, but in those sent by other "voluntary and charitable" organizations" such as the "Licensed Victuallers' Sports Association" or the "Welsh Provident Fund." Waddington's manufactured the special Monopoly sets. Silk maps of Germany useful for escape, created by Clayton Hutton of MI9, were concealed under the London streets shown on the board. Hutton wrote "Official Secret : The Incredible story of Escape Aids Used During World War II Told Here for the First Time" Crown Publishers (1961), ASIN: B0018B5JQ0, which is apparently hard to find. Concealed in innocent looking games, sports equipment, puzzles, books, and records Hutton sent batteries, crystal sets, wire cutters, maps, German money, and blankets made from carefully selected fabrics which could be tailored into civilian clothing or German uniforms. Escape movies in the 1950's kept secret these practices, in case they needed to be used in a later war. I wonder if these practices were violations of the rules of war? Would a history of such contraband shipments justify captors in future wars from refusing to pass along packages from home to POWs? Edison (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a recent Snopes article about the issue. It contains additional info and a reference at the bottom. --Xuxl (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know whether any of these materials ever aided in an actual escape. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite probably. Having devoured very many escape memoirs when I was younger, the abundance of silk maps, compasses, money, materials for making clothes, etc was astonishing...and usually accounted for in the books by vague comments of "being smuggled in" or "we had our sources". Of course, monopoly games weren't the only source: Lakeland pencils held maps and compasses; sports equipment was hollowed out, gramophone records had maps inside.... Gwinva (talk)

See this. The special games were made by John Waddington Ltd. They specifically did not ask the Red Cross to smuggle the special games into the POW camps, because they didn't want the Red Cross to get blackballed if the Germans ever discovered what was going on. Woogee (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Gregorian Calendar

When did Poland go to the Gregorian calendar? Googlemeister (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

See here. Deor (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I googled ["gregorian calendar" poland] and many entries turned up placing it at 1582, such as this one.[47] It's implied that when they became part of Russia, they reverted to the Julian calendar, presumably until Russia adopted the Gregorian calendar. Poland was largely Roman Catholic, and it stands to reason they would go along with the Pope. Russia would have been Eastern Orthodox, so it stands to reason they would have ignored the Pope, until international pressures (and the revolution) impelled them to switch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Poland was actually one of the first countries to adopt the Gregorian calendar. According to our Wikipedia article, Gregorian calendar #Adoption in Europe, "Spain, Portugal, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and most of Italy implemented the new calendar on Friday, 15 October 1582, following Julian Thursday, 4 October 1582." The Julian calendar was imposed in the parts of Poland under Russian rule (in official use at least), but in the Austrian and Prussian partitions, the Gregorian calendar continued to be used. Central Powers brought the Gregorian calendar back to Russian Poland when they occupied it in 1915. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't find more reliable sources at the moment, but according to a Polish history forum, the "Congress" Kingdom of Poland (created in 1815, in personal union with Russia) used the Gregorian calendar which was gradually replaced with the Julian one after the failed January Uprising of 1863–64. — Kpalion^(talk) 16:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that Poland ceased to exist as an independant state in 1793, when it was fully partitioned between Austria, Prussia and Russia. Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So in Warsaw during the time period I am most interested in, (1800-1820), it looks like it used Gregorian, and in the 1860s switched back to Julian for a few decades? Googlemeister (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. In 1795, Warsaw fell under the Prussian partition and Prussia had already switched to the Gregorian calendar in 1700. In 1806, Napoleon created the Duchy of Warsaw, which also used the Gregorian calendar. In 1815, Warsaw became the capital of the "Congress" Kingdom of Poland, which also continued to use the Gregorian calendar. Even after 1864, the changeover was gradual; initially it was restricted to double dating of newspaper editions. I suppose it was pretty much complete by the outbreak of World War I. — Kpalion^(talk) 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Status of E.E. Cummings Poetry

What is the copyright status of the E.E. Cummings poem "I Thank You God For Most This Amazing"? Specifically the use of it as lyrics set to music, to be sold for profit in the UK. As far as I can ascertain, it was first published in 1958. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.123.144 (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly life + 70, so the work of E. E. Cummings will remain copyrighted until 2032. FiggyBee (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case, who should one contact for permission to use his work? The U.S. Copyright Office? It is unclear who manages his estate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.123.144 (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly not the U.S. Copyright Office. Why not look in the front pages of a recently-published edition of his works, and see if there's any acknowledgement there? AnonMoos (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This page, which provides an existing arrangement for the poem, says that the copyright is held by the Trustees for the E.E. Cummings Trust. The publisher of any in-copyright book by Cummings should be able to provide contact information. John M Baker (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Disputation.jpg

Does anyone know where (paid or free online service) I could find a high-resolution version of this picture? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 16:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Searched and all copies I found come from the Wikipedia source. -- kainaw™ 18:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Could write to the "B. M. Ansbacher Collection" (whatever that is, apparently in Jerusalem). AnonMoos (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal status of embassy-related building

Official residence of the ambassador from Guinea to the USA

According to the image description, the building in this picture is the official residence of the ambassador from Guinea to the USA, but it's not the Guinean embassy; presumably the two buildings are not physically connected. Is it reasonable to expect that this building is included in the extraterritoriality provisions discussed at Diplomatic mission? Or does that apply only to embassies and consulates themselves, not the residences of the people who work in the embassies and consulates? Nyttend (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that the section refers to the Japanese embassy hostage crisis as an example of violation of extraterritoriality, even though it took place at a building such as this rather than at the embassy. However, I'm not so sure that this is a good example, since those who took over the residence were rebels, not the Peruvian government, and (unlike with the Iran hostage crisis) the government definitely wasn't encouraging those who took over the residence. Nyttend (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Article 30.1 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) [48] states: "The private residence of a diplomatic agent shall enjoy the same inviolability and protection as the premises of the mission." In fact, the Ambassador's official residence is considered equal in status to the chancery itself: "The “premises of the mission” are the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of the head of the mission." (article 1.i). --Xuxl (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that answers that question then, well done! --Tango (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

man-in-the-waiting-room theory

What do they mean by " man-in-the-waiting-room"?

I took it from the New Yorker: "There is little agreement about what causes depression and no consensus about what cures it. Virtually no scientist subscribes to the man-in-the-waiting-room theory, which is that depression is caused by a lack of serotonin, but many people report that they feel better when they take drugs that affect serotonin and other brain chemicals." ProteanEd (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems likely that they mean it in the same sense as "man-in-the-street," a layperson's view. While anyone you ask might say that depression is caused by a serotonin deficiency, experts in the field would disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.123.144 (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he is trying to take "laymen's view" one step further and using "man-in-the-waiting-room" to refer to a patient's self-diagnosis. The problem with this particular author is that he puts too much effort into trying to sound witty. In the end, he sounds confusing. -- kainaw™ 18:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If that is what he meant, "man-in-the-waiting-room's theory" (with a possessive apostrophe) would have been clearer. --Tango (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

the sad thing is that the lay theory is almost entirely derived from advertisements by pharmaceutical companies that distribute serotonin reuptake inhibitors - basically a commercial effort to dictate scientific opinion through public pressure, all in the name of profit. disturbing trend, that... --Ludwigs2 19:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In the US, maybe. The rest of the world is baffled by the idea of advertising prescription drugs to the public. --Tango (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the world is baffled by most things to do with US healthcare. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So is most of the population of the US for what it is worth. Googlemeister (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

and therein lies the great fubar of America. the people in power have figured out that the easiest way to control an ostensibly democratic regime is to foster ignorance and confusion as much as possible, thereby reducing 'public opinion' to a statistically predictable random function. --Ludwigs2 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Conjoined twins and the law

What would happen in the most unlikely circumstance that one half a set of conjoined twins murdered somebody, against the wishes/consent of the other twin? How would the law function in this situation to penalize the twin who committed murder without penalizing the second twin at the same time? (This question was inspired by this.) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We had this exact question about a week or two ago. I don't have time to check the archives now, but I suggest you look for it. The answer was, essentially, "there is no way to know until it happens", but there were some links to examples of times it has happened (there was no consistency in how it was dealt with). --Tango (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks...I was rushed by the end of class and didn't have time to check the archives...I'll check them now though. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be unlikely to occur, psychologically. If one twin were so aggrieved as to commit murder, surely the other would have borne witness to all injury, real or imagined. He would either comfort his twin and help resolve his anger, or he would be A-Ok with the murder, in which case he may be prosecuted with aiding and abetting. And besides, if you are the angry twin, how much success can you have in carrying out a murder if there is someone joined to you that has other ideas? SortedButter (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is assuming mental sanity. Granted, mental sanity is generally needed to be fully prosecuted by law anyways. Googlemeister (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The origin of knee-slapping

What is the reason and origin of hitting one's thigh as a reaction to something funny? How recent and global is the phenomenon? Ruhtinas routa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

I have never done this, nor have I seen anyone do this. However I think there is a traditional German dance similar to this that they do in leiderhosen. And that reminds me that Prince Charming reportedly slaps her bare thighs a lot, often in hotpants, to draw attention to them, in pantomime. 84.13.29.241 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, thighs are temptingly within slapping range of dangling palms. That might play a part. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Media regulation during elections in the U.S.A.

Hi! I can't find an article about media regulation during elections in the U.S.A. in Wikipedia and elsewhere in the web. Can anyone help me, please? Thank you! --62.98.46.232 (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are many of them. This document states only that stations must provide "reasonable access" to advertising for candidates, and that it must do so equally. There are no restrictions on neutrality, on limits of advertising, or any of the things a European might expect to find regulated. This article might also be helpful. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I had already found the second article (aceproject.org). Anyway, your sentence "There are no restrictions on neutrality, on limits of advertising, or any of the things a European might expect to find regulated." is clear enough. I'll take a look at the first link (fcc.gov). Thanks, again! --62.98.46.232 (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, the above should be 'as far as I've been able to determine'. Please don't quote me in a journal. On the other hand a quick look at what is broadcast in a US election should be enough to convince you that regulation is minimal. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

One self-imposed regulation of the TV networks is that they don't broadcast their forecast of the winner of the U.S. presidential election until the polls have closed in the lower 48 states. This section of our Exit Poll article says this began after the 1980 U.S. Presidential election, when NBC called it for Ronald Reagan while the polls were still open on the West Coast, which probably disincentivized people from bothering to go out and vote. Again, though, this is self-imposed and voluntary (although I think there would have been legislation prohibiting it if the policy hadn't been adopted). More generally, I would expect political advertising regulation to be in the bailiwick of the FEC, not the FCC. Our Campaign finance in the United States article will be of interest. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So Alaska and Hawaii are deemed, too small to matter then? Googlemeister (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that "equally" is the usually contentious part of US media regulations, in my observation. If I recall, there was a big bruhaha during the 2008 elections about whether a negative TV "special" on Hillary Clinton counted as a political ad, for example, and thus would require the network to give equal time to a response. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiny countries' defense

I'd like, for instance, if the Republic of Kiribati, the Federated States of Micronesia or Tuvalu just to name a few were attacked. Who would defend them?. They have no military :S. --190.178.155.8 (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You would like it if they were attacked? What did they ever do to you? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No no no sorry, that was a mistake, I would never wish any of the 203 independent countries of the World to be attacked, that was a mistake. --190.178.155.8 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It says on the articles for some, I imagine its the case for all countries without armed forced that they have protection treaties and agreements with larger countries. Kiribati- "Security assistance would be provided if necessary by Australia and New Zealand", Micronesia - "...the United States, which is wholly responsible for its defense", etc.--Jac16888^Talk 20:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably, the best answer would be "The nations in whose economic/political interests it would be to defend them." Qatar Kuwait doesn't have much of an army, but it was more-than-adequately defended when the situation demanded. Tevildo (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is true that they have no military, it does not take much pondering to imagine why that would be the case. A small island or archipeligo hundreds if not thousands of miles from any imperialistic power has so little strategic value in the modern era that it would profit no one to invade. Moreover, imperialism has largely been succeeded by a more respectful practice of not invading other countries for no good reason. Leaving aside the Iraq issue. SortedButter (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Should have informed Japan of that a few decades ago. Googlemeister (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Six decades ago if I am not mistaken. And that was a different zeitgeist. SortedButter (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

See conscription for a possible solution to this problem. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would think you would already need a military force to conscript, otherwise who would force them to join up, keep them there and train them?--Jac16888^Talk 20:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Training might be a problem, but they'll have a police force of some description that can do the rest. --Tango (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Conscription isn't very effective these days. With the prevalence of high-tech warfare, it takes quite a long time to train someone to a decent standard. A country may have no choice but to use a large number of poorly trained soldiers, but they wouldn't stand much chance against a modern army even a fraction of the size. The only way such forces can hold out against a modern army is to hide behind civilians the army aren't willing to kill (this is how the Taliban work in Afghanistan) - if the modern army is willing to kill the civilians, then you have no chance. --Tango (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Costa Rica has no military (although it is admittedly not tiny). It does however have an armed police and coastguard, who are trained in at least counter-terrorism operations and may well have some training in military operations. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that those small-island nations are more worried about annihilation by rise in sea level than by invasion. Dbfirs 00:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Footballers good, bankers bad

Why does nobody criticise "fat cat" footballers (note to our American chums: I'm talking about soccer) in the same way they do bankers? Footballers probably earn more money than bankers, and their salaries may have driven at least one club out of business and put others under strain.

Bankers on the other hand could be said to do a lot for the economy of Britain's "insivible earnings" as it used to be called by earning foriegn revenues and helping the balance of trade.

Now I think of it, why could not the same be said of film stars? They can earn many millions for just a few days light work on a film set - many people would do the same for free just for the pampering and adulation they get as a bonus. (Hmmn...film stars who act for free just for the advertising deals they can get - now that's an idea!)

You cannot say that bankers do not have "talent" while the other two do. To become a banker requires years of study and passing a lot of banker's exams. The working condition of bankers that I've seen on tv look unendurable - they are squeezed in on rows of desks like battery hens. 84.13.29.241 (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Supply and demand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The premise of your question is rotten. People do criticise "fat cat" footballers. Here's one such criticism. If you care to look, you'll find plenty more. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I call BS, because you cannot honestly tell me that you've seen anywhere near the same amount of criticism of each group in the media. As to why? The One True Answer is simple. The reason why the media does not show much criticism of footballers is because if George Clooney made a film on a pro bono basis, but to Hollywood standards, then ticket prices would NOT go down as a result. But the same does not apply to bankers: there are just a few super-high-paid footballers and Hollywood celebrities, but literally tens of thousands of ultra-high-paid bankers and brokers, if not hundreds of thousands. These people literally leech off of the wealth that accrues even by itself by means of the stock market. I mean they suck its blood and ingest it, and grow fat and muscle using the calories and nutrients in it. They literally leech off of real growth. Are they too highly paid? Let me put it to you this way: I am attracted by the oligarchic/cartel wages the bankers ensure for one another, and seriously consider doing a few years of training to be able to join their ranks (which I can because I have the requisite high IQ - the only factor, other than years and years of training, which it takes to join the cartel). Would someone in my position, but instead of IQ say have the requisite basic physique, be equally attracted to pro sports? Not on a rational basis, no: the average profits of a pro athlete just don't come anywhere near matching, in oligarchic/cartel surplus, what I've just been talking about. Therefore, nobody cares: the public is not being robbed, unlike by the bankers. It's quite simple really: if there is a huge windfall that is protected by means such as maximum-hours laws; by decades of time-investment made in terms of pieces of paper (not ability; there is no way to skip it even if you know three times as much as the graduating bankers, since the point of the training is not to acquire skill, but rather to artificially restrict supply); and other such nonesense. None of this outrageous economic reality is present in the pro football arena. If tomorrow I woke up with by far the greatest skill at football on the face of the Earth, then all I would need to do is show it to a coach and I could get signed within 2 days. On the other other hand, if tomorrow I woke up with by far the greatest broker accumen on the face of the Earth, then I would have to put in four months of on-the-job training to even be able to take the General Securities Representative Exam, which itself costs $265. Four months and $265? That is a simple ploy to raise a barrier of entry, much like medical school (4 years and $266,400, above an already reduced pool of applicants having a BA). If you want to know if a professional is employing shady market-chokeholds it's very easy to see. Just imagine what your position is if you woke up tomorrow with by far (say, by many times) the greatest acumen in that profession on the face of the planet. If you woke up tomorrow by far the most skilled doctor on the face of the planet, it would take you until 2018, and an investment of some $400,000, to be in a position to get 'signed'. That is why people are outraged. If you wake up tomorrow by far the best football player, you'll be on international TV in a few weeks, and be balling. No reason for outrage; public not getting robbed blind. It's That Simple.84.153.249.56 (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Very simple, indeed. SortedButter (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If I may state the obvious, footballers are generally not fat. For better or for worse, we tend to give a free pass to healthy specimens that get their paychecks from entertaining others. It may have something to do with the great lengths people go to to avoid boredom. SortedButter (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But bankers arrange the money for various big projects that the public use - eg transport, utlities, many others. 84.13.29.241 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is very true, and a good point, but generally speaking, no one cares about bridges or hospitals unless they are closed, falling apart, or decrepit. They are taken for granted. While a John Terry goal in the 91st minute is not. Again, this is all highly dubious prioritization, but that's how it is. People are emotional creatures, and there's little to get excited about when it comes to public works projects. SortedButter (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In simple terms, footballers provide entertainment (not to me, but that's not the point...) whereas bankers are boring. Also, bankers are dragging the world's economies into ruins while stuffing themselves with our money, while footballers simply earn – normally corporate money, not directly consumers' – without messing up other people's lives as well. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 21:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To add to the above points, bankers are largely viewed as being responsible for a large portion of the current economic troubles. Wouldn't you be annoyed if your highest paid footballer messed up the entire sport, and still got a "performance bonus" ? Googlemeister (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to all of the above, footballers are not asking for government handouts in order to support their bonuses. Also footballers' salaries don't affect you much if you never pay to see football, whereas bankers' salaries are paid for out of bank fees that almost everyone contributes to in some way. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, most people wouldn't think that far. I think it's really just as simple as people liking footballers because they like football. Who likes banks? Logical explanations are certainly possible, but I'd be surprised if they carried the majority opinion. Vimescarrot (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

They may not think along these lines consciously, but there's a lot going on behind the scenes, so to speak. SortedButter (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea - a 'tabloid'-style logic that people who are liked are therefore morally good, and vice versa. This rule seems commonplace in everyday life. 78.149.176.122 (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mother-son marriage in South Korea

Was mother-son marriage formerly legal in South Korea? --88.76.18.70 (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Divorce and Credit Card Debt

My mother is having her wages garnished from a judgment because my father stopped paying for a joint credit card they had together when they were married, but was supposed to be paid-off by him (according to the court) when they were divorced.

The attorney's office NEVER served us correctly, they always served all the documents that were supposed to go to my mother to my fathers address because they did not know about the divorce. Its very clear that they did not know about it based on the paperwork (the documents still say "MRS" before my mom's name. I told the attorney that we are not responsible unless they set aside the judgment and refile it because we were never served correctly so we had no way to fight it (someone suggested saying that). But the attorney said that she does not care, they served who they had to (they didn't), etc... All the addresses were my father's addresses (like his business addresses or his home addresses) and my father never told my mother.

Also, the "division of property" section of the divorce says all debts belong to my father, but he never paid them. The attorney just said that the family court said that and what they say has nothing to do with civil court and my mother still has to pay. Is there any way out of this? I mean this is like 19 years later.

Sorry for the long post and thanks for your time and for the help!!  :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.30.156 (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We cannot give legal advice. You need to ask a lawyer. --Tango (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the page saying so. It's for ethical reasons — we are random people on the Internet, and not your lawyer — what if we gave you advice and you acted on it and we were wrong, because we're random people on the Internet? See a lawyer. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Prussian regiment in painting

Attack of Prussian Infantry, June 4th, 1745. Painting by Carl Röchling (1855-1920)

Me and my friend are having an argument over this painting showing some Prussian troops in action. I am trying to say that they are just grenadiers, (as even the page Grenadier features the painting). He is suggesting due to the title that they are different type of infantry, such as Royal Guards, who wore similar hats. I am having difficulty finding information regarding the painting however, the flag especially might be helpful. Anything would be appreciated.

The painting is here: [49]

67.86.248.43 (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Some better information here, though it does not answer the question: File:Hohenfriedeberg.Attack.of.Prussian.Infantry.1745.jpg. Attack of Prussian Infantry, June 4th, 1745. Painting by Carl Röchling (1855-1920). --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Which in turn takes us to Battle of Hohenfriedberg --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And I wonder if they are the Prussian Dragoon Regiment Number 5 Bayreuth Dragoons - the essentials of the standard in the picture match that shown in the Dragoon's article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There were certainly grenadiers present at Hohenfriedberg, according to this order of battle. (Prussian Grenadier regiemnst were named after their CO). The uniforms in the painting match this plate by Richard Knoetel of the 6th Grenadier Guard Regiment. This source has poor reproductions of the regimental colours (flag); it's possible one of the grenadier colours is similar. Gwinva (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The 6th Grenadiers seems a good bet, given this miniature enthusiast's post here. Gwinva (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

and here we have an article on the grenadier guards: [50], complete with uniforms, flags, and Rochling's painting. No reference to the "6th" designation, though. Perhaps the "6th" I noted on Knoetel's painting is a plate number, not a regimental number??? Gwinva (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Succesful towns that look horrible?

In the UK, at least, the towns or cities that look unattractive are the ones that have high unemployment and high crime. Whereas the places that look attractive invariably have low unemployment and low crime.

Are there any examples of exceptions to this rule?

I'm wondering if a town that looks unattractive leads to the educated job-makers moving somewhere else. So the best way to lower unemployment and crime in the long-run would be to spend money on making it look nicer. 78.151.146.204 (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)