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

April 3

If Japan attacked Russia instead of the USA during WWII

Supposing Japan had, instead of attacking Pearl Harbour, laucnhed a full scale attack on the Soviet Union in 1941 to support the German invasion from the west, do you thinkt he outcome of the war might have been different? I know we can never say for sure, and there will always be debate, but I'd like to know some opnions and reasoning. We are insanely lucky they didn't do just that and succeed.--92.251.179.38 (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of what Japan wanted and had planned to seize was to the south (oil, etc.), not in Siberia. Japan and Germany did not closely coordinate strategic plans, and the whole situation would have had to be rather different for that to happen, probably... AnonMoos (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The attack on Pearl Harbour wasn't really to support the Germans. While it isn't a coincidence that the attack happened at the same time as the war in Europe was going on, it was a separate conflict. Japan wanted to increase its influence and control in Asia and the US wanted to stop them. The attack on Pearl Harbour was intended to destroy the US Pacific fleet, which was the main way for the US to stop Japan's plans in Asia. Therefore, I can't see why Japan would want to attack the USSR. --Tango (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Aside from every other objection, the navy would have had little to do in a Siberian campaign and, given its intense interservice rivalry with the army and fear of the army grabbing all the glory, would surely have fought the idea tooth and claw. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Going with the premise of the question - any Japanese attack or threat of attack to the USSR would have affected the Battle of Moscow, which the Soviets constantly reinforced with fresh divisions withdrawn from the east. Alansplodge (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There was Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact and I find no reason Japan should attack USSR. Oda Mari (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There was also the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union and there was no reason for Germany to attack the Soviet Union. Yet they did. Japan had more reason than the Germans: to aid their allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.142.219 (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

From a global perspective (and one of hindsight), there may not have been a significant strategic reason for Germany to attack the USSR (except perhaps to secure the east flanks of Fortress Europe from an ambitious government equally unrestrained by effective democratic institutions), but - despite the two ideologies having much in common - the wave that Hitler'a Nazis rode to power was largely driven by anti-Bolshevik rhetoric. It was incongruous with this rhetoric that a war with a respectable and genetically commiserate race like the British should persist while the vile Jewish-controlled Soviets Slavs shared the fruits of the Polish occupation. History often isn't a game of Risk. All of the same historically under-cited influences that, for example, make health care reform so unexpectedly difficult and unpalatable in the United States today were equally in play during decisions that appear so outwardly military in nature.NByz (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I remember, it wasn't just an anti-Bolshevik thing but a racist thing in general. Ideologically, the Nazis regarded the Slavic-inhabited East European spaces as potential Lebensraum for the Aryan German people, which should expand and settle into it and rule it as the master race. In contrast, they didn't officially have such plans for the Western allied nations, since Western Europeans and Americans were regarded as equals or nearly equals, albeit Jew-infested.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Japanese did at least consider attacking Russia, but after an early incursion decided not to bother the USSR. As noted above, this contributed to the Russian victory at Moscow, which given the Russian commander at Khalkhin Gol has a fitting full circular feeling. 91.84.180.57 (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Question related to capital punishment in British India

When political prisoners were hanged, what did the British government do with their dead bodies? Would the government allow the relatives to bury/cremate the bodies? Or would the government dispose of the bodies themselves to avoid public anger? Has there been any case in which body of a political prisoner was disposed of by the government themselves?--117.204.84.193 (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to your last question, see shooting of the Romanov family. I know it's not British India, but if it can happen in Russia, I don't see why not in British India. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the British raj was not made up of semi-desperate revolutionaries with few restraints or inhibitions of morality in the middle of a rather unstable overall situation? AnonMoos (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, executed criminals were generally buried within the precincts of the prison where they were executed. I would be surprised if it was any different in British India. Capital Punishment Amendment Act 1868, Section 6: "The body of every offender executed shall be buried within the walls of the prison within which judgment of death is executed on him: Provided, that if one of Her Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State is satisfied on the representation of the visiting justices of a prison that there is not convenient space within the walls thereof for the burial of offenders executed therein, he may, by writing under his hand, appoint some other fit place for that purpose, and the same shall be used accordingly."[1]. There was a seperate legal system for India, but the English legal system was the basis of it. Alansplodge (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on your point of view, but generally you would have to do something more than have a political disagreement with the authorities to get yourself hung (like murdering people for instance). The exception might be mutiny by a member of the armed forces, but even then, few mutineers would have been given the death penalty (unless you know better). The exception was the aftermath of the Indian Mutiny, when I can only say that there was excessive and shameful barbarity on both sides. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

After the execution of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, their bodies were taken out of the prison and buried in secret. --Soman (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Shooting a policeman is likely to get you hanged in a number of countries, even today. Even in India. One man's political prisoner is another's terrorist. Alansplodge (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I doubt Soman's point. Firstly, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev were not buried but cremated. I don't know if that was done in secret. Bhagath Singh wrote to his brother or other kin about their taking possession of his dead body. If the practice was not to hand over the bodies, he wouldn't have written so. -117.204.93.142 (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The bodies of the three were recovered. They were surely given proper burials afterwards. --Soman (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

American Revolution

How would the American Revolution have turned out if Louis XVI hadn't supported the colonists? --70.129.184.122 (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably badly for the Americans, and probably better for the British. While the British commanders were legendarily idiotic during the early stages of the War, as soon as it became clear that the little uprising was gaining momentum, the shear weight of the British Navy and Army could have easily crushed the Revolution. Indeed, it was well on its way to doing so, after initial reversals, Britain gained control of New York and was busy harassing Washington's badly paid, poorly fed, and undersupplied band of soldiers with its well organized army all over New Jersey and Pennsylvania. France's involvement, especially in terms of naval help, probably was the deciding factor in the war. See France in the American Revolutionary War for a more thorough discussion over French involvement and the role they played in helping America gain its independence. --Jayron32 03:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And probably there would have been no French Revolution either. When French soldiers returned to their impoverished homes with with tales of a successful revolution caused only by a threpenny tax on tea leaves, you can guess what went through their minds. "The peasants paid taxes to the king, taxes to the church, taxes and dues to the lord of the manor, as well as numerous indirect taxes on wine, salt, and bread."[2] Although it has to be said, a lot of this taxation was to pay for the war with Britain. Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So basically, since the American Revolution is responsible for all other democratic governments, the world would still be under absolute monarchs if Louis XVI hadn't been an idiot? --70.129.184.122 (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No. These type of questions are of course impossible to answer with certainty. Surely a lot of things would have been different had Louis XVI had acted differently, but the main force that moves history is not conscious political decisions. The separation between British colonial rule and its colonies were bound to happen at some point, colonialism was a system that gradually became anachronistic. Likewise the feudal rule in France could not have lasted forever, either. Feudalism and mercantile colonialism were systems bound to be defeated by new emerging classes. --Soman (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember, France had a few more revolutions and other changes in government after the original French Revolution. It's impossible to know how things would have turned out if history had happened differently, but France would not be ruled by an absolute monarch. Buddy431 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think your premise that "the American Revolution is responsible for all other democratic governments" is just ever so slightly over-stated. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Britain was not ruled by an absulute monarch in 1777, neither was it fully democratic by today's standards. In an alternative reality with no successful American Revolution, it is possible to invisage the American Colonies developing self-government and independance in the same way as Canada and Australia. Alansplodge (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

But would Canada and Australia have been granted independence without Britain first learning the lesson that "opposing independence will lead to a costly war which we may very well lose" ? StuRat (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point; the war certainly caused a reappraisal of colonial policy. However that might have happened even if Britain had won; "Next to a battle lost, the greatest misery is a battle gained." (The Duke of Wellington)[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

True, and that would depend on how costly the war was. If the Americans had folded at the first sign of force, the British might well have responded to all future requests for independence in the same way. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The "no French Revolution without the American revolution"-premise is also very questionable at best. It was certainly another incentive, but most of the important factors for the French Revolution was already in place (or would be later anyway). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what they taught me at school (admittedly a while ago); a quick browse on the net shows that they're still teaching it[4]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a fairly common nationalist distortion. At school in the UK, we were taught nothing of the sort. Our own nationalist distortion attributes modern democracy to the 1832 Reform Act. But as well as the French and American revolutions, there was a contemporary democratic (and monarchist) revolution in Poland, which although unsucesful was highly influential. The picture is very complex, and the myth of America as the fountainhead of modern democracy is a fairly obvious simplification. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I went to school in the UK too. Alansplodge (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The link you gave does not say "no French Revolution without the American revolution". This kind of categorical "what-if" statements are usually avoided. Perhaps you have memorized your lesson in a simplified version.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say "no French Revolution" either, I said "probably no...". Let's change that to "possibly" and call it a day. Alansplodge (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

When the American Revolution had dragged on, with the British able to invade and control eastern ports and rivers, without the French aid it would likely have petered out into a backwoods insurgency, if the British had offered some redress of real grievances short of independence, which would have put the American merchant and financial class back on the road to prosperity. In the 1934 Maxwell Anderson play "Valley Forge," performed on stage in 1934 and made into a TV movie in 1975 [5] Washington, heading exhausted and starving troops during the bitter winter of 1777-1778, with widespread desertions, meets in a truce at an isolated barn with General Howe, who says that influential men in Britain agree that the colonists had some valid grievances, and that many of the demands can be satisfied, with a continued relation in some form to the Crown, if Washington agrees to an armistice. In the play, Washington is ready to agree to the proposal, but an expression of continued loyalty by some Virginia troops gives him the spirit to reject the proposal and continue the fight for independence. The U.S. victories at Cowpens and Kings Mountain were critical, and done by U.S. forces, but The French forces were necessary to the final great British defeat at Yorktown. Edison (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The entry of France in the war caused the British to make a radical change in general strategy. The theater of war had been enlarged to include all of North America, especially the Caribbean. For the British the stakes were not just the 13 colonies but the entire empire in America. The Caribbean was vitally important--more so than the continental colonies. So British strategy shifted from the continent to the Caribbean. The British seized a number of French islands, sought to engage and defeat the French fleet. The defense of Jamaica was strengthened. On the continent, in support of this change of focus, the British withdrew from Philadelphia, retaining a narrow enclave anchored firmly on New York City. Operations were shifted to the southern colonies were it was hoped that the capture of Savannah and Charleston would raise loyalist sympathies and create a strong base for further operations. This plan proved too ambitious. Savannah was taken, and much of Georgia, and, eventually, Charleston, but the widespread loyalist support did not arise as hoped. Operations became mired in bitter partisan warfare in the Carolina backcountry. Then Spain joined the war on the side of her ally France. Spain quickly captured West Florida. The British fleet was able to range boldly through the Caribbean, but it had little effect and before long a combined French-Spanish force threatned the Barbadoes and prepared to invade Jamaica. So, another shift in stragegy occured. On the continent the decision was made to abandon Carolina and shift troops to Virginia, with the hope of operating in some kind of conjunction with the forces at New York City. "But this was more a salvage operation designed more to hang on and harass than a means toward ultiamte victory, and it foundered on a momentary loss of naval supremacy to the French", which lead, of course, to Yorktown. (the above analysis and quotes all come from D.W. Meinig, The Shaping of America, Volume 1: Atlantic America.

So, how would thing have turned out if France (and Spain) hadn't joined against Britain? Who can say? One could argue that a decisive American victory would be far far less likely, with instead the war either culminating in a decisive British victory or a drawn-out stalemate. In either case it is unlikely, in my opinion, that the colonies would have been granted full independence. Pfly (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Personality Disorder Name

I have recently become interested in personality disorders and psychology. Today, I was reading a list of questions asked to determine personality disorder [6] when I came across the question, "Do you tend to be critical of loved ones, sometimes holding them to higher standards than you hold yourself to?" Most other questions I could place as relating to specific (or perhaps two or three) disorders, but this question seemed quite specific. My question is: what disorder or class of disorders would this question relate to? Thanks, 12.213.80.36 (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be a trait typical of Narcissistic, Histrionic, or (possibly) Schizoid personality disorders, depending on the answers to other questions. It reflects a tendency to to transfer blame/anger onto others, making them responsible for negative events in life. --Ludwigs2 05:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

But the thing is, people who do that probably don't realize it, so wouldn't check that box on the form. StuRat (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

With no irony, I would say that is standard human nature, so it sounds to me like you're reading one of those throwaway quizzes that try to get you to subscribe to Psychology Today. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not a good quiz. a professional therapist would might use something like this if s/he already had suspicions about a particular disorder, but it would be a survey specific to that disorder, and would be diagnostic, not conclusive in and of itself. I don't think even Psychology Today would stoop quite that low; maybe Elle or Cosmo?

It is actually a sign of an always-eventually-fatal brain infection. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

RGB color ranges for human skin, nails, hair, and eyes

Please see RGB color range for human skin and the next three questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing.
-- Wavelength (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed your link (was going to an edit diff). --Anon, 00:54 UTC, 2010-04-04.

Thank you for your good intentions, but I meant it to go there, so that readers could still read at least the question (by scrolling down) even after that discussion has been archived. However, it is not important enough for me to change it back. --- Wavelength (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, when it's archived (in another day or so) it will be RGB color range for human skin, so people can then go there. --Anon, 07:18 UTC, April 5, 2010.

Consanguinity

In Regency England, could a woman legally marry her half-brother's son, please? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.80.143.189 (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This was regulated by the "Table of Kindred and Affinity" which was an appendix to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. You can find the details here[7]. The commentary by a genealogist suggests that "half sibs are not mentioned, but I think the inclusion of half sibs is implicit in the general terms 'brother' or 'sister'." Alansplodge (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech during American Civil War

Were people's freedoms limited during the war? Like Freedom of Speech? If someone from Union territory expressed opinions favorable or sympathetic to the Confederates, were they ever arrested or killed? If someone was a vocal opponent of the war? Anything like that? ScienceApe (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Habeas Corpus was suspended in the Union, and Lincoln felt free to disregard the supreme court's decision in Ex parte Merryman because Judge Taney and the supreme court had strongly offended northern public opinion in their Dred Scott ruling, and respect for the U.S. supreme court in the north of the U.S. was at an all time low. People were not normally shot just for expressing opinions, but those like Clement Vallandigham who were seen as deliberately attempting to undermine the U.S. war effort did suffer consequences... AnonMoos (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

See General Order Number 38, which allowed the U.S. government to execute anyone in Ohio who opposed the war, as a traitor. It was also considered treason to criticize the order, and got you a trial before a military tribunal for having "disloyal sentiments, overall a policy any totalitarian regime could have been proud of. Edison (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever -- Lincoln was by no means enthusiastic over Burnside's actions, and quickly put the kibosh on any idea of executing Vallandigham. The situation of the time -- i.e. the complete and utter breakdown of public trust in the U.S. supreme court (due to Taney's very ill-advised past actions), and the use of effective martial law -- put powers into the hands of the U.S. federal government which could have theoretically been used in a toatlitarian manner, but the fact is that generally they weren't. AnonMoos (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln shut down a few newspapers and had their owners imprisoned when they printed (apparently) false information that he thought would lead to desertion. But on the whole there were plenty of expressions against Lincoln, the Union, for the Confederacy, etc. Basically Lincoln shut things down if it seemed like they were actually going to cause desertions, but only actually acted in a few circumstances. There was still plenty of anti-Lincoln, anti-war stuff published in the North during the entire war. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Some good information on this general topic is covered in this section of a wikipedia article about national emergencies:[8] The OP's question was about the Civil War, but the US government continues to stifle freedom of the press in terms of coverage of the wars it has been in. That's not to say that the government was unjustified. "Loose lips sink ships". In the DVD collection of essays by Walter Cronkite, he talked about WWII censorship, and how they could only publish information which was reasonably expected to already be known by the enemy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It was not just the Civil War, and it was not just information which could sink ships. In 1798 John Adams had the Alien and Sedition Acts passed to silence criticism during an undeclared war with France [9]. During World War 1, Wilson threw people in jail who criticized him, shut down newspapers which criticized him, and deported aliens who criticized him, via the Espionage Act, the Sedition Act, and the Trading with the Enemies Act. [10]. Edison (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are some strong arguments that WWI was much worse in terms of suppression of dissent. WWII had its own censorship/secrecy regime as well but it was much more voluntary on the whole than WWI. All of these things seem rather unimaginable today—post-Vietnam in particular, the idea that you could censor political critics in just a ham-handed legal way has basically gone out the window. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

is it true if you're poor you can't keep a really expensive gift or won item, you have to sell it?

Is it true that if you're poor in America you can't keep a really expensive gift or won item, or something really expensive that you came to legally possess in some other way, you have to sell it so you can pay the taxes on "the item"? I'm talking for someone with a very low (single-digits $k) income, if they were to win or be gifted or otherwise come legally to possess some item worth fifty million dollars (say) then they would be compelled to sell it, couldn't keep it despite any sentimental value the gift or winning would have to them, since there would be no way for them to pay the cash tax on the item, due even if they have no intention to ever sell the item or do anything with it but have it? I'm just curious; not asking for legal advice. Thanks. 84.153.209.78 (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In some cases, yes, that is true. The details are very complicated, but some gifts and prizes are taxable. If you don't have the money to pay the tax, you have to sell the gift or prize in order to get money. That doesn't just apply to poor people - most people wouldn't be able to afford the tax on a $50m gift/prize without selling the item. Not all gifts and prizes are taxable, though. I don't know the details (I'm vaguely familiar with the rules in the UK, but I know they are very different - lottery winnings aren't taxable here, for example, but I believe they are in the US). --Tango (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. US income taxes are always owed due to contest winnings, whether cash or other prizes. (Of course, the people running the contest could pay the taxes, but then that would also become a taxable benefit, forcing an odd little compounding problem.) Gifts are a bit more complex, and I believe that gifts below a certain value are exempt from taxes. There are also financial instruments that allow you to give money and property that are tax-free or tax-deferred. These are used for education money, inheritance, etc. Tips to waiters and such are also considered taxable income. StuRat (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is more complicated than that. If you win a US$2000 prize, then when it is time to file your annual income taxes after the year's end, you have to include that $2000 prize when you write out what your income is; so if you earned US$20,000 during the year, then when all is said and done, you'd be reporting US$22,000 of income. However, the poorest people in America pay no income taxes (it is a progressive tax), so for the very poor, it's likely that no taxes would be due despite the additional US$2000 of income. If we're talking about a US$1 million prize, then the person's income is now $1,020,000, and certainly a lot of income tax is going to be due. Off the top of my head, federal income tax on that amount of money is going to be around $280,000 (as a guess). This person is probably going to have to sell the item to raise the $280,000, yes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Another weird corner case is if the prize is a house. If the very poor person were to win a US$1 million house, then it may be possible for the person to move into that house and then when the tax bill comes, declare bankruptcy. Although in a bankruptcy the bankrupt person generally has to sell any valuable possessions in order to satisfy creditors (the IRS in this case), there are also laws in most places stating that you can't usually lose your house in a bankruptcy. I am not 100% sure this scheme would work, though, because the poor person knows going into the house that he is going to owe the money to the IRS and has no way of getting it; so it might be ruled that he was therefore already scheming to defraud the IRS, and fraud with regard to an asset generally nullifies the benefit that you'd get from bankruptcy, as it pertains to that asset. So, I would tell that very poor person to go ahead and sell that house, pay his taxes, and move into a smaller house. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Realisticly a house is a good thing to win and sell anyway because you could likely sell it for close to it's actual value, whereas with a car or something like that, it'll be difficult Nil Einne (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Realistically, houses and other real estate are generally considered to be rather illiquid investments, difficult to sell at short notice. I suppose it is going to depend on when the taxes are due as to how easy it would be to sell the house to pay the tax. Googlemeister (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you won a $1m house and owed say $300k in income-tax you could just get a Mortgage for the amount you owe the tax-man (though how you'd keep up repayments i'm not sure). Similarly in terms of gifts there are tax-efficient ways of giving - usually things such as Trusts or a form of insurance (if the gift is to be inherited) that pays the tax bill for the deceased's estate. ny156uk (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, there are rules that govern getting a gift from a family member. So if the poor person's parent gave them a gift/money then the person may not have to pay taxes on it. There's a limit to how much a child can be gifted in this way and I don't know what it is off the top of my head. Getting off the subject a bit, in the case of a parent giving a child a car, the parent will often sell the car for US$1. That way it is being sold and is not technically a gift. If the parent were to gift the car to the child, then the child would possibly owe tax on the blue book value of the car. If it's sold for $1, then the tax is negligible. I reiterate though that this depends on which state you are in. If I were to sell someone a car for $1 in my state of Vermont, the buyer would owe taxes on the value of the car and not how much they paid for it. So if the car is worth $2000, the buyer would have to pay a percentage of that $2000 and not a percentage of $1. Dismas|^(talk) 23:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Usually for those types of sweepstakes they offer you the option of taking the cash equivalent instead of the actual prize, and I think it is pretty common to take the cash. That's especially the case when the prize is something inconvenient to deal with, like your very own herd of elephants. The prize sponsor likes the spectacle and publicity of offering an attention-grabbing prize, but at the end of the day they'd really prefer for you to take the cash, so they can just write you a check instead of dealing with the huge hassle of delivering the actual house or elephants. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In Canada gifts aren't taxable unless they are a benefit of employment (and even then, employers can make up to two $500 gifts per year tax free). I find, in Canada, the rule that "if the giver can't deduct it for tax purposes, the receiver doesn't have to claim it for tax purposes" to be pretty apt (except for non-profits, government agencies or other non-taxable entities, I suppose). NByz (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(Not legal advice, just information from reference) In the U.S., if a rich person gave a poor person an asset worth $1 million, the tax obligation would be on the rich person or giver, not the poor person or recipient. If the poor person won a mink coat on a game show, or won a lottery, it would be taxable income they would have to pay. There have been cases where someone won a mink on a game show and sold it to pay the taxes. The valuation provided by the game show might be much higher than the amount they could readily sell it for. If a poor person were given a million dollar house, there might not be income tax, but in my town he would get a property tax bill each year for about $16,000. If he did not pay it, he would be evicted and the house would be sold for unpaid taxes. Bankruptcy would not stave off the eviction for unpaid taxes. Edison (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What Protestant denomination does Obama currently belong to?

After the Reverend Wright Controversy, Obama left Trinity Church which was associated with the Reformed UCC. Currently he attends non-denominational services at Camp David with a Southern Baptist chaplain. So is he still a member of the UCC? I know W-Bush also attended non-denominational service but was still a Methodist. Is it the same with Obama, is he still a Calvinist? Was Rev. Wright a Calvinist? There are major theological differences between the UCC and SBC, does this mean that Obama has changed his religion? Does Obama currently belong to any denomination? --Gary123 (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, it's the United Church of Christ, with no "Reformed", though it was established partly in the Reformed tradition. It's a liberal denomination with little fixed dogma. It's a "congregational" denomination in that each congregation mostly makes its own rules; it's hardly Calvinist.

Obama did repudiate the Trinity congregation. It's not clear whether he also quit the UCC. As far as his current denomination goes, he hasn't made any public statements, so we don't know. PhGustaf (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What city is this?

http://i39.tinypic.com/33bonxj.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.177.231 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Saint Petersburg; that's the Peter the Great Bridge. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The photo is taken from the Smolny Convent looking SSE over the Smolny Institute and the Neva River. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus spoke Arabic?

Did Christopher Columbus speak Arabic when he reach America? I heard this from some Arab Muslim scholar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.211 (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly doubt it -- but he did apparently take along converted former Jews who spoke Arabic for possible use as translators when he reached China. AnonMoos (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Right - the translator was Luis de Torres. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

He expected to find Arabic speakers in China?! 66.127.52.47 (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not? At some periods of history, Arabs had traded as far as China, there were Muslims in China, and the 15th-century "Cheng Ho" voyages were excursions of Chinese into areas where Arabic was a somewhat prominent trade language. At the very least, it would have been worth a try -- and if he couldn't find in Spain speakers of any languages from areas further east, then he had little choice.... AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

When will things in the U.S. seem to have been improving the most?

The recent employment recovery curves in the U.S. (the 2nd graph in this post) seem more symmetrical than most economic statistics, implying that about a year from now, the slope of the current (red, "2007") curve will be the steepest in a positive direction for this business cycle. Please assume that steepness relates to how much things seem to be improving economically.

So, if this recovery is perfectly symmetrical, will the peak year-over-year change in employment (in red on the first graph) be closer to the 3.5% increase seen in 1994, or the 5.5% peak seen in 1984? 99.25.114.221 (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Are there school and university classes in the USA

the Holy Week? --190.178.160.73 (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. PhGustaf (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The answer is yes. But if you mean, "Do all schools and universities hold classes during Holy Week?" the answer is no. Wikiant (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Public schools in the US will have classes. They generally only take time off for Christmas and, depending on the area, some of the Jewish or Muslim holidays. But the school districts don't call these breaks "Christmas break" or anything specifically religious. They'll call it a "winter break" or "holiday break" since Hanukkah, Christmas, and Kwanzaa are all reasonably close together. Catholic schools will often take Good Friday off in addition to Christmas. Dismas|^(talk) 23:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Mnay U.S. schools will have either the week before or the week after and Good Friday off. And even some public school will refer to their winter break as Christmas break. Rmhermen (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, many religious schools cancel classes; my alma mater has no afternoon classes on Holy Wednesday and no classes at all on Holy Thursday, Good Friday, or Easter Monday. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It is customary for U.S. schools to have a spring break when no classes are held. In many but far from all cases, this coincides with Holy Week. John M Baker (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

April 4

V-shaped job creation diagram

The office of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives just posted a beautiful V-shaped diagram, which shows that we've safely arrived at the other end of the gorge of job losses. But if that were a Wikipedia article, it wouldn't meet our criteria, because it cites no sources whatsoever. I tried to find the data at http://www.bls.gov/data (green "one-screen" button after "Labor Force Statistics"), but when I use their numbers of employed people (seasonally corrected), I get a different table, namely the following:

year	month	employed	diff to previous	
2007	12	146173		-310
2008	1	146421		248
2008	2	146165		-256
2008	3	146173		8
2008	4	146306		133
2008	5	146023		-283
2008	6	145768		-255
2008	7	145515		-253
2008	8	145187		-328
2008	9	145021		-166
2008	10	144677		-344
2008	11	143907		-770
2008	12	143188		-719
2009	1	142221		-967
2009	2	141687		-534
2009	3	140854		-833
2009	4	140902		48
2009	5	140438		-464
2009	6	140038		-400
2009	7	139817		-221
2009	8	139433		-384
2009	9	138768		-665
2009	10	138242		-526
2009	11	138381		139
2009	12	137792		-589
2010	1	138333		541
2010	2	138641		308
2010	3	138905		264

(Numbers in 1000s.) Does anyone know how the Speaker got her numbers, and why the official employment data are so different? — Sebastian 00:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that graph may have originated with Steve Benen.[11] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; his "homemade chart" is indeed similar, but it is different, too. (See in particular the almost even rate between Feb and July 08.) In his articles, he refers the NYT; most recently to this, which says "Employers added 162,000 nonfarm jobs last month", citing [this page http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm] by the Labor Department. But that doesn't have the monthly data for the diagram. The diagram, though, is displayed in the sidebar with the note "Source: Bloomberg", but a search for "Change number jobs site:Bloomberg.com" (for the past week) doesn't yield that diagram, either. It remains mysterious. — Sebastian 04:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You could probably send Benen an email asking details. Or call Pelosi's office. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I submitted a request for Pelosi's office via their website, but I haven't heard back. — Sebastian 00:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

major convention deadlock in the U.S. - provisions?

Inspired by an interesting alternate history I'm reading on an online forum (though it deals with a deadlock for months and months in the House over who is elected President), I got to thinking. Especially at the 1924 Democratic National Convention, there have been times when both parties have had major problems nominating someone. However, there is obviously a deadline in each state for filing a name for election.

So, have there ever been discussions about what to do if a convention is deadlocked till, say, late September? Did they ever discuss it in 1924? I imagine one could argue that one side would just walk out, as happened a few times anyway. Or, they would just agree to each run their respective candidate.But, it seems like that would be a sure admission of defeat - unless, of course, the other party was having the same problem.

Oh, one other short question I'm pretty sure I know the answer to: The House can only vote for the top 3 candidates of nobody gets a majority of electoral votes. But, I presume that if 2 candidates are tied for 3rd, the House gets to pick from 4?

Thanks in advance.209.244.187.155 (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Look up the 1860 Democratic National Convention... AnonMoos (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd always thought the sides split apart before the convention even convened the first time..209.244.187.155 (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

satyagraha

is satyagraha applicable in 21st century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.80.50 (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly! Satyagraha spawned a wide range of Nonviolent resistance movements across the word, continuing in our century; while few of the movements listed on that page would fit a strict definition according to the principles laid out by Gandhi, they all build on Gandhi's ideas. — Sebastian 06:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Rabindranath Tagore and canvassing for Noble Award

Rabindranath tagore asked many for canvassing for his noble award including dr.radhakrishnan. If this is true then furnish documentary evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugalkumar (talk • contribs) 08:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any suggestion in our current article Rabindranath Tagore that he canvassed anyone in order to gain his Nobel Prize in Literature. If you believe he did so, and you want to add information about it to the article, then you'll have to find your own reliable sources to support such an assertion - volunteers here are unlikely to have access to any sources unavailable to you. You're probably better off asking about this at the article's talk page. Karenjc 16:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The word 'Robotics'.

Is the word 'Robotics', that is, in reference to the study of robots, at all copyrighted in any way?--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 13:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Words don't have copyright. A written work has to be of non-trivial length to be eligible for copyright. A single word is definitely trivial. --Tango (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

...that is, unless the word is a copyright name for a unique product: Coca-Cola, for instance.--Wetman (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen any qualification attached to "robotics", so if it's copyrighted, the copyright holder isn't protecting it very well. "Coca-Cola" is a brand name. "Robotics" is a normal English word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyrights and trademarks are completely different thing although both may be called intellectual property in modern parlance. You can't copyright a name, you can trademark one.

In the US, there appear to be 3 trademarks for robotics by itself, all dead [12] [13] [14]. In the Canadian database (couldn't work out how to have a permanent link) TMA306456 is an abandoned trademark (although you seem to have to search all abandoned rather then all to find it). Can't find anything in the UK database although there seems to be none that are withdrawn, dead etc whether that's true or I'm having problems with the database I don't know (I'm also having problems viewing the trademarks). Also can't find anything in the NZ database. The Indian database evidentally requires payment.

In all cases when I can search, there are numerous trademarks including the word robotics. Note that the fact the word is already in widespread use doesn't necessarily prevent someone from trademarking it for a specific purpose (although trying to trademark the word robotics to refer to anything commonly understood by the word robotics nowadays is likely to be difficult to say the least). Otherwise we wouldn't have Apple (at least two of them!), Windows, Sun, Java, Oracle, Mini (or MINI for SB's sake), Virgin...

Also note this isn't legal advice, I'm not an attorney of any sort and don't have much experience or knowledge about trademark searches so most likely missed a lot of relevant stuff. For example TMA628116 in the Canadian database may or may not trademark the word robotics by itself (M770824 is a similar trademark in the UK but as I said, I can't actually view it).

Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no copyright protection on "Coca-Cola". It is a registered trademark, but that is a very different thing. You can't do anything with a copyrighted work without permission except within the very narrow exception of fair use. With trademarks, you are only forbidden from using them for trading and even then only if it your product is sufficiently similar for there to be a significant chance of confusion in the market. (I have just summarised the whole of copyright and trademark law into two sentences, so obviously I have over simplified it. If you want to actually use this information for anything then you need to talk to a lawyer and get the details.) --Tango (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

according to robotics The term "robotics" was coined by Isaac Asimov in his 1941 science fiction short-story "Liar!". As such it is not a trademarked or licensable phrase, and can be used however you like (short of spray-painting it on other people's property). --Ludwigs2 17:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

When and how it was coined in completely irrelevant. "Apple" has been an everyday word for centuries but it is still a registered trademark (both in relation to music and to computers - owned by different companies). --Tango (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Tango is correct, and it's particularly easy to trademark it if it's applied to a different field and therefore not even arguably "descriptive" in nature, like if I start a company called "Robotics" that harvests oranges. Certainly trademarkable. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks alot!--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 19:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

the history of massage and prayer and ritual

i am in massge school and am writing a paper on how massage has been integrated in ritual a prayer. where it started, the different cultures who have used and what the ritual were. can you help me?

many thanks, eva —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baphometk (talk • contribs) 15:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Massage is used in Tantra and if you want to learn or write about ritual techniques that would be the best place to read. The Tarahumara Indians also perform ritual massage as part of shamanism. Shii (tock) 17:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd look up ayurvedic medicine, which is traditional indian, yogic medicine and has a specific style of massage that integrates with their mind-body theory of health and spirituality. I don't know of any specific prayer rituals that involve massage, but it ayurveda medicine and prayer are not always distinct.

You might also, along the lines of shamanism, look up native american rituals, as I have a hunch that some touch was incorporated therein.

Lastly, though not strictly massage, some religions practice the laying on of hands whereby the spirit of their god is transmitted by touch. Its not massage but still suggestive of the importance of touch for spirituality. 68.171.233.151 (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Reiki has a connection with the laying on of hands as well, and is more likely to include a massage component. Steewi (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably more true to say that Reiki practitioners usually offer a range of different modalities, including massage, to help keep themselves in business; but that Reiki itself is not massage, just laying on of hands. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

How was Ulric of Denmark murdered in 1633?

The page on Anne Catherine of Brandenburg states that she had six children with Christian IV of Denmark and that the son, Ulric, was murdered in 1633. This son is not mentioned on Christian IV's page and I could find no reference to him in general internet searches. Does anyone know how he was murdered or know of any resource that might tell the story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozarth (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently shot in the back by the bodyguard of General Piccolomini, while visiting Wallenstein's camp during a truce.[15]—eric 20:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to know more about him then the Danish Wikipedia has a biography at da:Hertug Ulrik (søn af Christian 4.). If you don't know Danish then you can try a free machine translation service like http://translate.google.com/. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

April 5

Quotation about vampires credited to "Rousseau"

In the novel Twilight (chapter 7), a quote

If there is in this world a well-attested account, it is that of vampires. Nothing is lacking: official reports, affidavits of well-known people, of surgeons, of priests, of magistrates; the judicial proof is most complete. And with all that, who is there who believes in vampires?

is credited to a "Rousseau" (Jean-Jacques Rousseau?) Is there a source for the citation, or is the citation purely fictional? --Bensin (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

According to this site it is "Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Lettre a l'Archeveque de Paris, quoted in: Voyslav M. Yovanovitch, "La Guzla" de Prosper Merimee (Paris, 1911), p. 316.". That's not the most direct citation, but hopefully it helps. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a start. Thanks! --Bensin (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

All this secondary quoting made me suspect it wasn't real, but here is a reference to an actual edition of his letters: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “Letter to Beaumont” in Christopher Kelly and Eve Grace, ed., The Collected

Writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 2001), 9:68. (Not on Google Books, unfortunately.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's on page 494 of "The Social Contract" (in French).[16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice. (Of course that is actually an edition of the Social Contract with some letters appended to the end of it, just to be clear.) Adam Bishop (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I added the quote to Wikiquote here. --Bensin (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Experimental psychology effect - can't remember name

I'm trying to find the name of a psychological effect I remember reading about a while ago. (It might have been in SuperFreakonomics, a book I no longer have.) The effect was that people tend to prefer to work for free over working for a small amount of money, because working for free feels like charity but working for very little feels like devaluing your accomplishments. Anyone know what the name of this effect is, or a citation for the experiment? « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 00:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind - answered at the science desk. « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 23:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Legal question

In a criminal case I read about, a judge told a police officer not to mention the defendant's prior criminal record when she testified. One of the lawyers asked her how she found out that the defendant had once lived near the site of the crime. She said she found out from reading the police report on one of his prior arrests. The defense lawyer made a big issue of this violation of the judge's order.

The witness was sworn to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and apparently did so. Should she have objected to the question on the grounds that a truthful and responsive answer would violate the judge's order? (This took place in Minnesota.) Michael Hardy (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not legal advice, but I think the defense counsel should have immediately stood up and objected. The witness shouldn't have said anything, and talking about the prior arrest was definitely the wrong thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.155.65 (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question though. The witness was ordered to answer questions, and to tell the whole truth. Are you saying the defense lawyer should have objected to the question, which was not about the prior record, or to the answer? If the latter, specifically how should the witness have answered, consistently with telling the whole truth? Should the witness herself have objected to the question on the grounds that the answer would violate the judge's order? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could find a link so we could read more about the case. I would say, Yes, the defense attoreny should have objected immediately to the question. The policewoman probably should have hesitated before answering, and maybe looked toward the defense attorney, with a look like, "Well, are you going to object or not?" Since the defense attorney failed to object, the policewoman's comment presumably is on the record. I would also like to know under what circumstances the judge was advising the witness on what to say or not say. My guess is the judge was reminding the witness that such information is prejudicial. One rule of thumb when testifying is to only answer what you're asked. So in describing the arrest, she might not have said, "We knew about this guy from before." But the prosecutor, knowing facts the jury would not know, tried to open that door by raising the question. Since the defender didn't object, she was compelled by her oath to answer "Yes". Basically, it sounds like the defender messed up. But without having a link to the case, it's hard to tell for sure. For one thing, the prosecutor knows full well it's prejudicial. Possibly, the judge should have told the prosecutor not to ask a question like that, and then if he did anyway, he could be held in contempt. But there could be nuances to Minnesota law that are not clear here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

She wouldn't have looked at the defense attorney for guidance, obviously. She should have looked at the prosecutor with a look like, "Do you realize what you're asking me to say?" Easier to judge after the fact than in the heat of the moment, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure who asked the question. But the question, "How did you know he had formerly lived near the crime scene?" or something like that, didn't explicitly mention the prior arrests. Nor have I seen anything to indicate that the officer knew of the prior arrests at the time of the arrest. It seems the officer found out about the defendant's former address by reading a report on a prior arrest. It appeared that the defense lawyer objected to the answer by moving for a mistrial, but didn't object to the question until after hearing the answer. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Then the prosecutor was a smart cookie. If the policewoman somehow volunteered that she knew the accused had formerly lived near the crime scene, she basically opened the door herself. It sounds more like the witness was not properly prepared. That's show biz. So was the accused found guilty or not guilty? And on appeal, was the prejudicial information considered? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

... "What's up", I'm puzzled by something you wrote. You said "Since the defender didn't object, she was compelled by her oath to answer 'Yes'." But the question was not yes-or-no; the question was how she knew about the former address of the defendant. Nothing in the question itself said anything about prior arrests. That's the problem here: it may not be evident from the question alone that the answer will mention prior arrests. How then can the witness answer and tell the whole truth without violating the judge's order? One can imagine situations with the lawyers on both sides and the judge don't know, just from hearing the question, that the answer would mention prior arrests. Should the witness object in such a circumstance? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, witnesses themselves are not allowed to object. That's the attorney's job. The judge might also jump in if necessary, but the lawyers are supposed to be vigilant. I would be interested to know what action, if any, was taken against the witness, beyond being "taken to task" as you note below. If the witness spoke the truth, I don't see how they could be in contempt. But I could certainly see how a mistrial could be declared, as it potentially "poisoned the well" for the jurors to hear about prior arrests in court. In general, a case has to be judged on its specific merits. Prior record is up to the judge to consider, at sentencing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A mistrial was declared after the defense lawyer asked for it, but not immediately after. The judge said his declaring a mistrial was his own initiative rather than a response to the defense's request, and consequently new charges couldn't be filed. An appeals court took the officer to task for mentioning the prior arrests, and also said she violated a witness sequestration order by being present when the prosecutor talked to a witness. (The officer later said she showed up on that occasion simply because the prosecutor asked her to.) Bottom line: the defendant walked. But now he's doing a life term or two, for murders committed later. (So is that enough for you to figure out which case it was, using google?) Michael Hardy (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically the prosecutor and the prosecution witness messed up. So they weren't so smart after all. And the defendant later committed murder. I don't know the specific case you're referring to, but prosecutors do screw up cases from time to time. O.J. Simpson's murder trial is one example. Also the Duke Lacrosse Team case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

So getting back to my question: How should the officer have responded when asked a question that didn't mention prior arrests, when a truthful answer was that she'd read a prior arrest report? Michael Hardy (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's why I asked what action, if any, was taken against her. My guess is that she was told she messed up by introducing prejudicial information. But there's also an old axiom that an attorney should never ask a question he doesn't already know the answer to. If he knew she got the information from a prior arrest record, he shouldn't have asked the question at all, because he should have realized there was a risk she would tell the truth! If he didn't know the answer, he shouldn't have asked either, because who knows what she might say. I don't know the law, but if I'm on a witness stand, and I get asked a question, I'm going to answer it as best I can. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In short, ethically speaking, Yes, she had to answer the question. She had no grounds for pleading the 5th amendment, obviously. So morally and ethically she was right to answer the question honestly. Whether she was smart in the way she answered, is another story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Layman here — I note a conspicuous lack of citations above — but the witness could have told the judge "Your Honor, I have to ask a question of you privately, about how to answer this question while keeping in mind your instructions." The judge probably told the witness to do this if the witness was going to have to violate the judge's instructions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everything here is speculation, including your own question (which I should point out is certainly reasonable speculation on your part). If the judge failed to tell the witness what to do if asked a question of that nature, then the judge also messed up - because when you're on the witness stand, if you're a fundamentally honest person, you're going to try to answer a question - especially when you're a witness for the state, and the state is the one that just asked you the question. So we need to know more about what the judge told her to do or not do, if anything. The tragedy of the case, obviously, is that the accused went out and committed murder later. Bad things happen sometimes. Also, I get the sense that Mike is being coy, but if it's a well-known case that's already been concluded, I don't see any reason for keeping it "confidential" here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, maybe you can't find out from google plus what's above (I just tried it for a few seconds....). The defendant was Philander Jenkins. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of him. Is there a google link to an article that answers the various questions raised here, including possibly your own question? Because it's obvious that, at the moment, we know no more about this case than you do, and probably less. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's something on it. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC) ....and now I'm going to crash for the night, so anything I write in response to further comments here will not be immediate. Good night. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That makes for some interesting reading, and illustrates why speculation is risky. Summarizing the way I read it, the comment about "prosecutorial misconduct" explains why the judge dismissed the case and barred further prosecution of it. In effect, they're saying the prosecutor and the witness colluded to try to force a mistrial because they thought their case was going poorly. The judge saw through that shenanigan, and instead of following the defense's calls for mistrials, which would have resulted in a new trial, the judge effectively denied those motions and instead imposed a mistrial "against the wishes of the defendant", in order to foil the prosecution's game, as it meant he could not be retried due to double jeopardy rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

And to try to address your original question, the general answer is, Yes, she should have answered, because she was bound by her oath. But according to document you found, the cop was not some innocent lamb in all this. It looks like the decision to throw out the case was fair, and it's unfortunate that the freed defendant didn't take that as a "gift from God", an opportunity to change his ways. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, for the moment I'm still here..... Not clear how innocent the cop was, but it seems to me more blame belongs to the prosecutor. He says to the cop: please show up while I talk to the witness. He's the one who should know the rules. He asks a question whose answer he knows involves the prior arrests even though the question itself doesn't mention those, so superficially the question seems innocent. He provides no explanation that makes the cop look innocent because that would make him look like the one who should be blamed. So maybe the cop passively played along and is not innocent. Actually it looks to me as if Tuttle's suggestion above might be the way to solve the problem. That's probably what I'd do if I were the witness. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

....oh, I see you're suggesting something similar to what Tuttle said: "She should have looked at the prosecutor with a look like, 'Do you realize what you're asking me to say?'". Except Tuttle was saying she should have been completely explicit. I prefer explicitness under the circumstances. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I said that before I had read the case. Yes, she could have done that. But if they were colluding, there would have been no reason to. If they were colluding, logic would tell you that both of them probably should have been disciplined in some way. But I don't know what the Minnesota laws would have to say about that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that the witness was not a disinterested party, she was an agent of the state, as opposed to a passerby who just happened to see a crime being committed. And I'm inclined to agree that the prosecutor should have been taken to task also, and possibly more severely. Because they both knew that such testimony would surely lead to a mistrial. And the court's opinion was that's exactly what they were trying to do. So that makes the answer to your question a little more complicated. I doubt a judge would tell a disinterested witness what to say or not say. But he would probably have no qualms about warning agents of the state not to bring up certain things. I don't think the document mentions anything about the witness having been told to attend those other hearings, so we don't know if it's the prosecutor's fault or if the cop was trying to save face. I tend to fall back on the Nifong case, because it illustrates the point that while the state may try to "defend its own", up to a point, there's hell to pay when you screw things up so badly that it makes the state look bad. The judge appears to have realized that this was a shenanigan, and he put a stop to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Michael Hardy: There is a major, crucial error in your question. You write: the "judge told a police officer not to mention the defendant's prior criminal record when she testified." In the USA, the judge doesn't give prior warnings to witnesses. As the case explains, the warning was given NOT to the witness but to the prosecutor (who, indeed, was told to pass along the warning to the witness -- but it was still the prosecutor's responsibility, in preparing the witness, and not the witness's responsibility, in answering the question). So your question (as follows) is senseless: "Should she have objected to the question on the grounds that a truthful and responsive answer would violate the judge's order?" First, witnesses don't object -- the attorneys do. Second, the witness had no obligation to anyone, and could say whatever she wanted to ... BUT, a prosecutor's witness, especially a cop, will be "prepped," so presumably she "should have" (as opposed to "was obligated to have") gone along with the prosecutor's instructions (the prosecutor WAS OBLIGATED to obey the judge's instruction in the sense that the judge had made clear what the result of disobedience would be; but not legally obligated). In other words, to answer your specific question: the answer is, no, the witness had no legal obligation to truncate her answer; but the prosecutor had a practical responsibility to coach the witness (and form the proper questions) in accord with the judge's instructions, given that it was obvious that the result of doing otherwise would be bad for the prosecution. 63.17.74.63 (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No idea what case, or context this was, but looking at a retrospective case, the Federal Rules of Evidence rules you might be interested in are specifically 404(b), 609, and 803(8). Those are the likely relevant provisions, assuming it's a federal case, and even if it's not, many states have adopted very similar rules. Shadowjams (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As per 63.17.74... I know of nothing to support the claim that "In the USA, the judge doesn't give prior warnings to witnesses." The judge is well within his or her prerogative to warn the witness about any number of procedural issues, including this one. Shadowjams (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I was on a Jury (In Salem, Massachusetts) where the judge absolutely gave warnings to some of the witnesses before they testified. He explained as much to the jury. At one point the witness violated one of these warnings, the trial was stopped, and the jury box was cleared for some period of time. When we came back we were told that the witness had been told not to say the last thing he had said and that we should ignore it.

I was correct in stating "In the USA, the judge doesn't give prior warnings to witnesses" -- but I phrased it ambiguously. I meant the judge doesn't give "prior" warnings in the sense of "before the witness is called." Yes, once the witness is called, the judge may warn the witness against inapproproate testimony, and can thereaten to hold the witness in contempt. That didn't happen here. All the warnings were given to the prosecutors and only the prosecutors. 63.17.63.219 (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally, if I was put in the position described by the original question, barring any other instructions, I would have turned to the judge and tried to get some guidance from him (or her). I mean, the witness is often sitting right there next to him (or her). APL (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"63.17.74.63", I see that you're contradicted by someone who claims some experience as a juror. But I confess at this point I'm not actually sure whether the judge gave the instruction to the prosecutor or to the witness. "Shadowjams": It wasn't a federal case, as I thought the link I posted made clear. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"63.17.74.63": If it's the lawyer rather than the witness who is ordered by the judge to avoid the topic of prior arrests, then why does the appeals court seem to blame the cop who testified? Michael Hardy (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the appeals court explicitly states that it has no ruling on whether the cop was deliberately provoking a mistrial (see the final lines of the judgment). The TRIAL court is, however, extremely outraged that an experienced policewoman would give such testimony. Nevertheless, unless and until she was warned while on the stand or threatned with contempt (which she wasn't), the cop had no legal obligation to do anything but tell the truth. She obviously had a practical obligation to do as instructed by the prosecutors while being "buffed," and some would argue she had an ethical obligation not to testify as she did (the trial court believed she was deliberately forcing a mistrial, in the hope that a new trial would be called because the current trial was going badly for the prosecution; if so, double jeopardy prevented her strategy from working because, as a cop, she could be considered an agent of the state, and her misbehavior attributed to the state itself, thus preventing a retrial after the mistrial). 63.17.63.219 (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"In every generation" quote

I can't seem to remember the rest of the quote, but I think there's a frequently-parodied quote from some play or poem or something that goes like "Once in every generation, a young poet.." or something like that. Does that ring a bell? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.155.65 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a typical movie trailer (as read by Don Lafontaine), although that is also how the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV show originally began ("into every generation a slayer is born"). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No it definitely wasn't a movie trailer. It's a famous quote from literature somewhere I think. And definitely not buffy :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.155.65 (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The first thing I thought of was the hymn "Once to every Man and Nation" by James Russell Lowell. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've thought about it some more and I think the quote is something like "once in a generation, at most, a great man is born who can alter the course of history". Does that help? 71.176.155.65 (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried a phrase search in Google Books on "once in * generation * a great" and got about 50 hits in different variations of the phrase (some referring to things like "a great ritual" that were clearly irrelevant). But one early use stood out because it showed up in multiple books and is fairly close to the "course of history" version -- although it actually describes a different kind of greatness.

This is George Frisbie Hoar's speech on the occasion of the death in 1900 of John Sherman, as included in Hoar's book An Autobiography of Seventy Years, and it reads in part:

It is rarely more than once or twice in a generation that a great figure passes from the earth who seems the very embodiment of the character and temper of his time. Such men are not always those who have held the highest places or been famous for great genius or even enjoyed great popularity. They rather are men who represent the limitations as well as the accomplishments of the people around them. They know what the people will bear. They utter the best thought which their countrymen in their time are able to reach. They are by no means mere thermometers. They do not rise and fall with the temperature about them. But they are powerful and prevailing forces, with a sound judgment and practical common sense that understands just how high the people can be lifted, and where the man who is looking not chiefly at the future but largely to see what is the best thing that can be done in the present should desist from unavailing effort. Such a man was John Sherman, for whom the open grave is now waiting at Mansfield.

Would that be it? --Anonymous, 07:57 UTC, April 5, 2010.

Yes thank you! I mean, I don't think I've ever seen that exact quote, but "once or twice in a generation" is the phrase I'm looking for. I must have seen it used somewhere (700,000+ google results) and been struck by the way it sounds (like it's a quote from something). Thanks. 71.176.155.65 (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Two writers, Same name.

What do you do if you are creating a page for a writer, but there is another writer who publishes under the same name? I currently have added the Writer A's middle initial, but the problem is that neither writer actually uses the middle initial on their publications. Will they both show up when people search that name?

Thanks.

Purplerabbit

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplerabbit13 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Your email id has been deleted. Come back here to see responses. - manya (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Normally you disambiguate the authors by year of birth: Joe Smith (1957-) 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This question is really better asked on the help desk; nevertheless, it would be a lot easier to answer if you just came out and said what articles you're talking about. If, for example, one author were Irish and the other were American, the titles might be best be rendered as "John Smith (Irish author)" and "John Smith (U.S. author)". However, if one is much more famous than the other, the article for that one should be named just "John Smith", with a parenthetical disambiguation phrase used for the article on the less-well-known one. Without knowing what articles you're talking about, no definitive answer can be offered. Deor (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh! You meant wikipedia pages. Yes, using the author's birth year is a librarian thing, not a wiki thing. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

After checking Purplerabbit's contributions, the author in question is Dawn Atkins, and the article Purplerabbit wants to create is Dawn M. Atkins. The latter doesn't seem particularly notable, but neither does the former, and she has an article, so what do I know. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Welfare, race, and the drug war

I have heard it said that AFDC (or pre-reform Welfare in the U.S.) created a disincentive for impoverished African Americans to marry since the receipt of welfare benefits required that men and women live separately; presumably, this then created a number of unintended unfavorable sociocultural consequences. I have also heard that, because of the American criminal justice system's problematic treatment of race, a disproportionate amount of African Americans are imprisoned and family breakups occur with similar sociocultural effects. I would not be surprised if both were true, but I'm curious as to how much either has contributed to such family breakups. I'm not sure how where to go about searching for an answer to this question. Anyone know who or what I should look to? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 07:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The book that started the whole debate on the topic was "The Negro Family: The Case For National Action" (also further discussion on the Daniel Patrick Moynihan article). AnonMoos (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That book was written in the 60s and more-or-less predicts what others now say has passed in regards to AFDC. This paper by Haney & Zimbardo (1998) argues that this sort of thing has already occurred from the criminal justice system's racial disparities. I believe I'm familiar enough with the points of the arguments, but I'm curious about the statistics. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 19:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Another argument I've heard, is that slavery created an anti-marriage culture among blacks, as couples could be broken up at any time, when either person was sold. However, welfare certainly does seem to have been a disincentive to do anything productive, since you got more for being unmarried, unemployed, and having lots of kids. StuRat (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

just as a pithy aside, please note that arguments like this begin from a logical contradiction, and once you assume a logical contradiction you can (literally) deduce anything. The contradiction is that the argument assumes (on one hand) that African Americans engage in sophisticated forms of economic rationality (making judgements about complex social interactions and evaluating their long-term economic impact for maximal profit) but it also assumes (on the other hand) that African Americans do not engage in the relatively simple calculations of economic rationality that would allow them to bypass these "unfavorable sociocultural consequences" (by which I assume you mean broken families, jail time, and etc.). They can't be both rational and non-rational, so there is something deeply flawed in the analysis. --Ludwigs2 16:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why any long-term thought is required. "I won't get my check this month if we get married" isn't particularly long-term thinking. This seems very similar to the short-term thought process behind buying things on credit: "It's only $99 a week, I can afford that", without any thought given to the total cost of the purchase. StuRat (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell has taken on the claim that "slavery created an anti-marriage culture among blacks", arguing that the black American marriage was in relatively good shape before the modern welfare state began doing damage. Walter E. Williams agrees, writing about "The Legacy of Slavery Hustle". —Kevin Myers 21:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why "...and the drug war." is included in the title. Just wondering since it wasn't included in your question.Killanotha1 (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Drug law enforcement is one of the strongest aspects of the criminal justice system's racial disparities. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And the dope laws themselves began with fear of racial contamination (and/or as a handy tool of racial repression): cocaine, marijuana, opium are respectively symbols for Negro, Mexican, Chinese. —Tamfang (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

australian war medal/hat medal found

Moved from the Village Pump

hi we found a brass or copper medal withwhat looks like a belt or hat band holder on the back, on the front is a ausiie digger resting on a cricket bat the uniforma nd hat i think is 1st or 2nd war, does anyone know what it could be?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.71.12 (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

small wooden huts off Miami

Resolved

On Miami Vice you would sometimes see these small wooden "huts" built on poles off the beach. What are they called? And are they for fishing or something else? Finally, what is their legal status? In particular, is the land beneath them private property? Thank you in advance. 83.81.42.44 (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If you mean things like this, they're for life guards. They afford the life guard some shade, give them somewhere to keep rescue and first-aid equipment, and their height allows them overwatch over the foreshore. They're the property of the municipality that manages the beach (and may "own" the beach; ownership of beaches is often a slightly complex matter); ones I've seen have signs on them saying they're city property not open to the public. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 12:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Some are leggier, and simpler, than the one I linked to above, like this one. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 12:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. The lifeguard huts were not what I meant, but I did some extra searching on Flickr and via that I arrived at Stiltsville. Eureka, as some Greek guy once said. 83.81.42.44 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

10, downing street

Is it true the entrance door of 10, downing street, the official residence of the British PM can only be locked from the inside? Why would a door be made this way? Is it to convey the message the house is NEVER uninhabited and that there's always someone inside the house? Is it the same with residences of other Prime Ministers and Presidents? Are there any documented instances of 10, Downing Street being empty at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragrantforever (talk • contribs) 12:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It is true. Google will find you dozens of reliable sources in a second. The question I can't find an answer to is whether there is another door somewhere round the back. Do the servants go in and out the main entrance? Do lorries pull up there to make deliveries? It seems unlikely. If there is a back door, then that can probably be opened from the outside if necessary. I expect the building is completely evacuated following a fire alarm, just like any other building. Although, maybe some people stay inside in a fire-proof bunker. --Tango (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's true, though there are other entrances (inside, it's connected with all the other buildings in Downing Street, plus the Cabinet Office on Whitehall), so they'll never get locked out!! ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 13:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Who needs an outside lock when the place is guarded 24/7? This article asks this very question, alas without any better answer. Now I wonder, was it perhaps common for 1770s era doors not to have outside locks? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not the same door as it was in the 1770s. It was replaced with something more substantial after the Downing Street mortar attack. Alansplodge (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

An armed guard beats a locked door any day. Googlemeister (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just wondering, assuming that outside locks were uncommon back then, if they would have kept the same style for tradition's sake. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference letter vs. Recommendation letter compared to German system

As I come originally from Germany I have some problems to adopt the system of reference/ recommendation letters into the Anglo-Saxon areas. In Germany you have generally two types:

• “Empfehlungsschreiben”, can be drawn by everybody, still unusual in Germany, no binding form.

As far as I understood this seems comparable to a Recommendation letter.

• “Arbeitszeugnis”, must be drawn by the employer (statutory duty) at the end of working contract and includes his areas of work and responsibility, his performance and his social behaviour on the working place (the form, grammar, use of words, etc. is very strictly regulated to not discriminate the employee) and are not directed to somebody

Can this be compared to a Reference letter (besides the legal obligation)? Are there different systems in the US and Britain? Can I request any kind of “Reference letter”, “confirmation of work” or similar from my employer in the US or Britain? Or can they just refuse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.149.9 (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any legal obligation on a British employer to provide any kind of reference or confirmation (beyond the mandatory stuff with HMRC). It's common for employers to be asked to confirm employment, and sometimes salary, for purposes of the employee renting or buying a home, but every time I've seen this or done it it's been an ad-hoc form, not some kind of official document. When someone leaves an employer they're supposed to be given a P45, but this is intended only for continuation of PAYE code and not really as confirmation of employment or salary - and it's not uncommon for an employer to fail to issue a P45 or for the employee to not have it for some other reason (and the consequences for hiring someone without a P45 aren't very difficult). It's not uncommon for someone to embiggen their current salary when negotiating compensation with a new employer. You can of course ask an employer for either a letter of recommendation or to act as a referee (which means a future employer writes to or phones the current one, and they discuss your performance); the times I've been a referee for someone I've never been asked, nor would I answer, a question about someone's pay level. The UK seems to be gradually following the US where it's common for someone to decline to give a reference rather than give a negative one, for fear of being sued by the unhappy candidate. A few years ago a junior British doctor was given a good reference by his health authority, despite that authority actually being very unhappy with his performance - when he went on to be found to be negligent, I think there were repercussions on the former employer (darn, I can't find the case in Google, although it was quite widely reported). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in the UK gives bad references these days. You would have to be able to prove in court that everything you said was true, which just isn't worth it. Either you give no reference (which is equivalent to saying you fired them, really - that's how it will be interpreted) or you give a very short reference which just states the facts about how long they worked for you and what their job was. You can tell how good an employee someone was by the length of their reference, you don't need to actually read it! --Tango (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

They may not give a reference that says something like "XX is a poor employee who never does any work" since, as you say, that's a matter of opinion that could be challenged. However one that says "XX was dismissed for gross misconduct" could quite well be given, since it neutrally states a fact. --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll confirm Finlay's assertion that a UK employer does not have to provide any kind of reference. For reasons given by Finlay, many employers don't provide any references beyond "I can confirm that Mrs X started work here on 1/1/01." For those who wish to provide more informative references, this site [17] gives sample letters. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The situation is similar in the United States to the UK, except that I have never heard of a "P45" or anything similar in the United States. In the United States, I think that an employer or former employer is legally required to confirm whether a given person is or was an employee. An employee can also request that his or her employer release his or her salary (typically to banks for mortgage approval, not to prospective employers). There is certainly no standard letter or form documenting the employee's performance that would be released publicly. Most employers have a policy of not releasing information about former employees beyond their dates of employment. The reason, as Finlay has stated, is that this could be grounds for a lawsuit either by the new employer (if the letter was fraudulent) or by the former employee (if the letter unfairly harmed his or her employment prospects). It is in fact difficult for employers to get impartial information about a prospective employee's past performance. The prospective employer will ask for "references". These are not written statements, but names and contact information (phone number and perhaps e-mail address) for former supervisors. The prospective employer may try to have a phone conversation with the former supervisor, because the supervisor is more likely to be candid on the phone, especially if he or she is assured that the conversation is confidential and not being recorded. Marco polo (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The P45 is basically to say how much you have earned so far this tax year so your new employer knows what tax rate to apply to your earnings under PAYE. --Tango (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. In the United States, a new employer does not take into account the employee's earlier earnings in withholding taxes. It is the employee's responsibility to make sure that the government gets adequate tax payments. If an employee took a job at higher pay, the new employer would withhold as if the employee had earned that amount all year. This would result in excess withholding, and the employee would get a large tax refund the next year. If an employee took a job at much lower pay well into the year, then he or she might be required to make quarterly tax payments in addition to the amounts withheld by the new employer. In practice, though, it would be unusual for this to happen, since U.S. tax rates are relatively flat. It would probably take going from an income above $373,000 to an income below $82,000 to push the difference in withholding above the threshold at which quarterly payments by the employee would be required. Marco polo (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think Marco polo's first comment here is partly correct. In the US, I am not aware of any duty that a former employer has to even confirm that a person has worked there in the past. It is expected as a courtesy, surely, and it would, at least, be a "dick move" for a company to not even confirm employment dates. What actually happens is that the hiring manager at the new job will ask for "references" meaning "the name, company, title, and phone number of a person you have worked for". The hiring manager will then call these references on the phone and ask a lot of questions about the candidate. (Many lazy hiring managers don't, which is amazing, but that's another topic.) Obviously the candidate will not list anyone at his current job as a reference unless something weird is occurring (like the candidate having been given notice already). Workers are paranoid that their current employer may find out that the worker is seeking employment elsewhere. Now, at every company these days, the managers are endlessly exhorted by the Human Resources department to not give any information out whatsoever when contacted for a reference, except for the confirmation that the person worked there, and the dates of employment. The fear of HR is that if a bad reference is given ("Oh, yeah, that guy — he was always late for work, never finished his projects, and I think he stole some laptops"), then in some states, the worker can sue the former employer for slander or under a special law such as the one in California that prohibits you from preventing someone from receiving an income. In practice, people like to gossip, and it's usually not difficult to get good information about the candidate. Some candidates do have pre-written letters addressed to "To Whom It May Concern", and extolling the virtues of the candidate; but I don't think these are usually considered very reliable or important. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

War of Attrition original speech by President Nasser

On 30 March 1969 President Nasser made a speech to the Arab Socialist Union Congress, in which he justified shelling on Israelis and the Suez Canal. I'm looking for the entire text of that speech. At mfa.gov.il I was able to find extracts of it, but not the full speech. I checked nytimes and bbc archives (usually good places for full texts) but can't find the speech. Any suggestions? I'd certainly appreciate if someone could put me back on the right track, which has recently gone cold. Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Baroque music

How do I make Baroque-style music? --Natrium-23 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

At a first approximation (which means "pretending to be Bach") use lots of harmonic minor with the same short phrase repeated over and over, moved up and down by regular intervals, a few overly-ornate runs and arpeggios, and lots of banging on the tonic. You won't really succeed in sounding like Bach, who is a far subtler and more melodic stylist than he gets credit for, but you will sound like Yngwie Malmsteen, which is enough to fool a surprising large number of people. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are 5000 Bach-like midi files composed by a computer program written by David Cope. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What happens ad the end of The Ax by Donald Westlake?

Does Burke Devore get caught or does he succeed in killing off all his competition?20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Loathing of the USA

Are there Wiki articles on the international loathing of the USA? Just finished reading an article on US broadcasters' mispronounciations of foreign cities/countries. Of course, there were numerous not-so-nice comments on US ignorance, etc and I, as a US citizen, is weary of all of this. --Reticuli88 (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone who writes "I...is weary..." complaining that they should not be called "ignorant". Hmmm... Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There are all manner of articles about international relationships, both official and informal, across Wikipedia. However, I'm not aware of any single "what does the world think of the US" article (I suspect because the topic wouldn't really fit in one article). Additionally, if you're already "weary of all this", why search for more? Enjoy your Americaninity, gosh darn it, and remember that we've already beaten every other country by the time the World Series starts! On a more serious note, our article on international public opinion on the war in Afghanistan looks well-referenced and should provide a good starting point for a current major issue. — Lomn 19:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We have the anti-Americanism article. It could do with a major overhaul though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's all due to jealousy. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

British broadcasters aren't great at foreign place names either - it took a week or two after the earthquake for the correct pronunciation of "Port-au-Prince" to filter through (interesting, our article gives the incorrect pronunciation as the English one with the correct one as the French pronunciation, but everyone on British TV and radio now is using the French one). We have a fairly good article on the opposite topic than you ask for: American exceptionalism. (I think American exceptionalism is actually one of the major causes of anti-Americanism.) --Tango (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Shortly after the earthquake, I saw a Dominican news broadcast whose caption said that the reporter was reporting from "Puerto del Príncipe". At least English language broadcasts try to keep the city in its mother tongue. Woogee (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's kind of pathetic that the "American exceptionalism" article doesn't even mention "Why there is no Socialism in America" by Werner Sombart, which was extremely influential at a scholarly level... AnonMoos (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Who says there isn't? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There clearly is. Medicaid, for instance. --Tango (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, Sombart's essay was published in 1906. In any case, much of what Sombart referred to then is still valid -- e.g. in many European countries, one or more of the largest political parties is often a socialist party, while there's no major socialist party in the United States, and explicit socialist ideology is often viewed as either quaint Scandinavian exoticism or despotic Communistic tyranny, which in either case has no connection to American political traditions, and does not have any real solutions to offer to the problems America faces. Creeping administrative welfare-statism does very little to counteract such political realities. AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There IS a major socialist party in the USA -- the Property Party, which has two wings (Republican and Democrat) and never ceases to champion socialism for the rich, and the "free market" for everyone else. In 1980 the upper 1% had less than 20% of the nation's wealth; now it is more than 40%. (Thanks, Reagan; thanks, Bushes. And an honorable mention to Clinton.) If that's not socialism for the rich, redistributing wealth UPwards, what is? What is the Pentagon but socialism for the rich? No other form of government spending produces fewer jobs while transferring more wealth in a never-ending gush UPwards. (Thank goodness we saved OUR FREE SPEECH by fighting Korea, Vietnam, Guatemala, Iran, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Iraq ... feel free to add a few more examples of the Pentagon's protection of free speech since 1946). 63.17.74.63 (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet people from other countries keep trying to come to the USA to live and work. I wonder why that would be? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet . . . this tells us that there is net emigration to Canada, UK, Italy, and France from the US. Lots of immigrants from Somalia and lots of emigrants to France is a no-brainer, right? Keeping in mind that the US doesn't collect any emigration figures, and that this estimation was made in 2006 from old census figures, used incomplete international data, and (mostly) didn't include dual citizens. I think it's fair to say that emigration from the US is much higher than these statistics show and has probably increased quite a lot in the 10 (and more) years since emigration counts were extrapolated from the old census figures. Also, to make the immigration statement really fair, one would have to analyse how many emigrants, of total emigrants from a country, chose the US. The numbers are difficult to find, but I'd be willing to bet that the number of British people emigrating to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand is consistently higher than the number emigrating to the US. Maedin\^talk 09:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. has had exceptional immigration pressures for a lot of reasons, including liberal civil liberties (for those that make it in) and relatively widespread economic opportunity relative to other possible destinations. You mention "net" immigration, but I'm almost certain the numbers you cite are country-by-country national-to-national numbers, from developed countries with largely similar cultures. Where's the cite for the proposition that the U.S. doesn't keep emigration figures? That's an extrodinary claim that I'll be seriously amazed if you can produce a cite about. In any case, that's irrelevant. This isn't the place to flesh out offenses and defenses about particular countries. Shadowjams (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The net emigration from the US to developed countries with similar cultures was kind of the point. Asylum-seekers, for example, will take wherever will accept them; more discerning migrants with options might not be choosing the US and are quite possibly leaving in thousands, too. I wasn't intending for it to be an offence/defence against or for the US, only attempting to balance the remark regarding immigration somehow indicating widespread "popularity" (which, granted, is only how I interpreted it and quite possibly not how it was meant). The cite for that information is in the document that I linked to, which was produced by the statistics division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs for the United Nations. Maedin\^talk 09:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

IF the USA does not have numbers for emigrants (assuming that's true), it might be because the USA generally doesn't stop anyone from leaving unless they're evading the law. In general, our attitude is, "Don't let the door hit you on the way out." In contrast, just try to leave Cuba, for example, and see what happens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, there's an implication here that people leave the USA to go to places where there's stronger socialism. They're in for some sticker shock when they see that socialism has a price... in taxes. As for the "asylum" part, I assume he's referring to those seeking asylum in the U.S. Seeking asylum from the U.S. would make no sense, as the U.S. does not hold its citizens hostage like some other countries do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to those seeking asylum in the US, correct. Seeking asylum from the US is...only marginally unrealistic, ;-) P.S. I'm a she. Maedin\^talk 08:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a remark I encounter quite often these days: "If we're so bad, why are so many people coming here?" Here are two hints: 1. because there are many even worse countries than you, and you have contributed greatly to making them worse by your interventions and right-wing foreign policies (hence the blue-collar immigration from the Third World); 2. because your education system is failing to produce all the experts you need, and experts are paid highly (hence the intellectual immigration from Europe). Nobody but a few extremely rich (and extremely greedy) people is coming to avoid "socialist" high taxes.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Free market for everyone else" presumably means the non-rich are free to enter any trade and operate any kind of business without political interference. Sounds great! —Tamfang (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess one of the obvious considerations is they did eventually learn. Did the American broadcasters learn? I don't know, perhaps not, perhaps that's why the article still has the English pronounciation. Having said that, it's rare to hear anyone pronounce Sepang right in Formula 1 broadcasts (most of the people involved being British) and Carrefour has a lot of odd pronounciations thorough the world including in the UK (in Malaysia they did seem to try to pronounce it close to the French at one stage but are not always consistent) Nil Einne (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the context, I should tell you that, even though the verb is "pronounce", the noun is "pronunciation" (not pronounciation), and is pronounced accordingly.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the pronunciation of "pronunciation" is variable. Plenty of people do use the vowel from "cow" - enough people that you can't just dismiss it as a mistake. --Tango (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many do speak and spell it "pronounciation". Which is logical, if you think about it, but English is not necessarily logical. For example, numbers with "four" in them, when written out, usually spell it "four-something"... except "forty". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the very popular game "bacebawl" or "bacebaul" (cf. lace, mace, awl, haul).  :) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

People around here are constantly making funny good-natured generalisations about Americans that they know aren't true. You all speak with some hastily invented southern sounding accent, or you're all fat, or you're all extremely guillible tourists etc. They do that about every other county and about people from other parts of this country.--92.251.159.250 (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

For some good stereotypes about the British, watch any old Monty Python's Flying Circus episode. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't loathe the USA, I "loathe" (not really) "their" whining about "being loathed". It's wearisome, "americans" (i. e. US-americans) whining about why "we" (rest of the world) "hate" (their expression) "them" (see before) when all "they"'ve done was "help" us. An unbiased look into the history of US-american involvement abroad should answer that question. Unbiased here means to not concentrate all the good that has come to other places of this world (there has been plenty), but where things went wrong. People will give a damn wether they got help from anyone when that helper then proceeds to accidentally drop a bomb on their wedding. Also, of course there will be a lot of "hate" if everytime one feels criticized, or not as appreciated as one expects to be, one starts throwing the word "hate" around. As to american mispronouncements, well - considering the fun Westerwave and Oettinger just provided, an honest american newscaster certainly will be a credible example of well-pronounced names. Long as whoever uses the term understands that "Der Waffle House" is only vaguely related to German ... :) --G-41614 (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a real dichotomy between, on the one hand, all the countries in far-flung places that the Americans have helped (and there's no denying they have), and, on the other hand, the stereotype (not always untrue) of Americans having little knowledge of the rest of the world (e.g. Austria and Australia often being confused)? The two things just don't hang together. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Forget Austria and Australia, too many Americans can't even find America on a world map. I don't think Americans whine that much, though. Don't take Fox News as being gospel. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears the answer to the original question is "no, but there ought to be a Wikipedia article on this topic; but it should probably be named something other than Loathing of the USA." Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism already exists, as mentioned above. I assume it currently looks like a collage of rant posts from different forums, but it is supposed to be about the issues that the OP was asking about.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Rick Mercer Talking To Americans (7:13).  :-D
(1) Not all non-Americans are anti-Americans.
(2) Half the reasons some people loathe America is why I like America. (example: Iggy Pop - Wild America).
(3) America is a bully, or at least elements of it.
United States and the Haitian Revolution and United States occupation of Haiti
Philippine–American War
1953 Iranian coup d'état
Contras
United States invasion of Panama
Gulf War
Iraq War

Foreign relations of Azerbaijan
"Azerbaijan has formal involvement with senior US government officials including James Baker and Henry Kissinger as they serve on the Honorary Council of Advisors for the U.S. Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce. The U.S. Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce is co-chaired by Tim Cejka, President of Exxon Mobil Corporation, and Reza Vaziri, President of R.V. Investment Group and Chairman of the Anglo Asian Mining Plc (LSE Ticker: AAZ)."

US says flights resumed at Kyrgyzstan base
"The status of the base, which is key to supporting the international military campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, has been a significant strategic question since the uprising Wednesday.

Opposition figures in the past have said they wanted the U.S. base, at the international airport serving the capital, to close."

I wonder if the US will allow that country to be truely democratic and independent.

Marc Emery's Marching Orders - Goodbye for now
Tommy Chong: America's Most Wanted?
Ann Coulter, Canada, & Vietnam Ann Coulter contradicts fact of Canadian TV host.
The Fugs - CIA Man
Rammstein-Amerika
Ministry The Land Of Rape And Honey
70.54.181.70 (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

How managers are motivated?

People like Duncan Bannatyne own several large companies and employ managers to run them. How are such managers motivated? My fear/nightmare with employing managers, even for much more modest companies, is that they would simply not bother to do any work.

Perhaps they are motivated by wishing to avoid the sack, hence would do just enough to avoid that. But how do you motivate them beyond this? A business owner is motivated because they own the business. But a manager is just an employee. What are the actual methods used to motivate them? Thanks 89.240.59.32 (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Money. I think it is typical for a manager to work with his superior to define several objective measurements for his progress, and there's a bonus tied to hitting each objective. "If your group can reach a revenue target of 1 million pounds this calendar year, you get a 10,000 pound bonus; and an additional pound for each 100 pounds of additional revenue." That would be most common in the sales department, and would be less common in departments like engineering or customer service; but other metrics could be devised as objective measurements of how the manager's group is performing. In the US, small companies often grant stock options to managers, so the company's overall profitability can benefit the manager at some point. Googling "managing managers" seems to yield lots of hits. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You set expectations during the performance review, including defining goals that can be measured for the next review. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec x2) Performance related pay. The easiest way to do that is to make a portion of their compensation either shares in the company or options for shares in the company. --Tango (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As for how to evaluate the managers, it should be a combo of how productive their group is and how their employees rate them. Productivity alone could be misleading, as some groups may be productive despite a bad manager, and others may be unproductive for reasons having nothing to do with the manager. And, to get true feedback from the manager's employees, those ratings must be anonymous. Maybe do them online so they can't be tracked, in case the manager tries to figure out who "told on them" and then tries to get even. StuRat (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Our article on the latter is 360-degree feedback. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Also don't under-estimate the very common desire that people want to do a job well. I don't get paid a huge amount, but in all my jobs I have always wanted to do the job well. Why? Well it was probably instilled in me as a child, but it's pretty common to see people wanting to do a good job. Sure i'm hopeful of promotion, more pay and so on but that's not the only reason I do it. I wanted to do a good job when I was washing pots in a restaurant - it wasn't a career, I wasn't going to get a pay-rise, but if i'm doing something I want to do it right. Motivation comes in many guises - money/bonuses are among the most crude (and are effective) but they're not the only motivators by a long way. 09:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk)

It depends on how much they are already worth. Any good banker will inform you that in order to get poor people to work harder we pay them less; in order to get rich people to work harder we pay them more. As simple as that; as they are happy to prove to us – providing we pay them enough!--Aspro (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Christianity, Judaism, Islam

How would the hostility of the three pairings and six directional-links of the above be ranked? Which pair or link would have the greatest hostility and why? Thanks 89.240.59.32 (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The mainstreams of all three religions are entirely peaceful to each other. Apart from the situation in Israel, there isn't much conflict between religious groups and even that is more racial than religious, there just happens to be a strong correlation between the races and religions. --Tango (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of conflict between these religious groups, in different parts of the world, for different reasons. In many cases, it is often political/ethnic more than religious, but religion is certainly involved. Just because Israel gets the most press doesn't mean it's the only place where conflict occurs. Off the top of my head, I've got:

• Nigerian sectarian violence: Muslim vs. Christian.
• Former Yugoslavia. Lot's of conflict, some of it with religious overtones (Muslim vs. Christian).
• Israel, as mentioned previously (Jews vs. Muslims, with some Christian interests to boot).
• Copts in Egypt: Muslims vs. Christians.
• Cyprus dispute: Muslim vs. Christian, but largely political causes.

That being said, many people of all of these religions manage to get along with each other. Buddy431 (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

All six directional links have been both hostile and friendly in various places and eras. Even today, there is both friendship and antagonism among the groups depending on the circumstances. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Theologically, Islam and Judaism have in common a simple monotheism (while Christian monotheism is somewhat complicated). Scripturally, Judaism and Christianity have in common revering a particular written text (the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible), while Islam has no scripture in common with the other two (and in fact, Muslims have traditionally insisted that Jewish and Christian scriptures are "corrupted" whenever they don't fully agree with Islam). In a broad historical perspective, Christianity and Islam have been two competing and often combative "civilizations" ever since the first Caliphs attacked the Byzantine empire (and reduced its size in half) in the 630s A.D., while there wasn't really any fully sovereign Jewish state between 63 B.C. and 1948 A.D... AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

actually, that's not true. Islam teaches that it is the successor to judaism and christianity, and in fact it explicitly includes many jewish and christian texts and teachings as part of its canon. the 'corrupt' bit has more to do with the fact that the older faiths don't recognize the teachings of Mohammed (and other details, such as the christian claim that Jesus is god, where muslims see him as merely another prophet). all three religions share a central core in (parts of) the old testament, all three have the same basic outlook and premises; the difference is in the details. Believe me, from the perspective of a buddhist or hindu, islam, christianity and judaism are largely indistinguishable. --Ludwigs2 00:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Islam simply does not "explicitly include" any Jewish or Christian texts, in the sense that any canonical/authoritative Christian or Jewish scriptures would be recognized as canonical/authoritative Islamic scriptures. And some Hindus, at least, have seen analogies between the figure of Jesus and certain aspects of Hinduism, while there is much less in common between Hinduism and quasi-orthodox Islam (though there has been some commonality on the popular level between Hinduism and a kind of heavily Sufi-influenced and saint-"worshipping" form of Islam...). AnonMoos (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Compare them also at Proselytism and see Apostasy in Islam#Apostasy in the recent past. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-04-06t10:21z

• When tallying up your religious violence, don't forget Christian v. Christian (The Troubles), Muslim v. Muslim (Shia-Sunni tension) and Hindu v. Muslim v. Sikh v. Christan (Modern India). Also, the article on Religious persecution is good for a reminder that every group (even atheists) has skeletons in its closet. --M@rēino 21:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Every religious group? The Quakers, for instance? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"every group (even atheists)" um right. When exactly was the last atheist violence sponsored by the atheist organisation? --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Or put another way atheism isn't an organisation. It isn't a group. Sure there are atheist groups and atheist organisations but you simply can't categorise groups united by belief with people more or less (mostly less) united by a lack of belief. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

April 6

Wearing opossums?

In this music video, the man on the right hand side appears to be wearing an animal pelt on his right shoulder. What animal is this, and was it ever common for the gentry to wear such pelts, draped over one shoulder, as in the video? --78.151.31.95 (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not an opossum. Opossums are wider and not very soft. At a guess, I'd say it's a mink. Dismas|^(talk) 01:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Minority Concentrated Districts in India

When I was reading Murshidabad district, at the bottom of the page, there was Minority concentrated Districts in India. Does this mean the districts has most non-hindus concentrations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.123 (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's unclear what the criterion for this category is. The category includes Wayanad district, which has a large Adivasi population, but the Adivasi are mainly categorized as Hindu. So the category may include districts with large populations of non-religious minorities. Since you have read the article, you know that Murshidabad district has a majority of Muslims. Marco polo (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Bach for bass

Where can I get 'Bach like' music written in bass clef for double bass?--79.76.156.101 (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The obvious answer would be at a music shop. There appear to be any number of online stores, too. For example: [18]. --Phil Holmes (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

the idea of 'question and answer' as elements of classical Indian architecture

I saw something related to this in one of WP's Indian architecture articles, but like a fool didn't bookmark it. Can anyone help me? Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What painting is this?

This face looks familiar. I think it's from a famous painting. Does anyone recognize it? http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/8189/10905904.png 71.176.155.65 (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

TinEye led me to this page describing an internet meme which features this image (it comes from a yaoi).--Cam (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Mail-Order Brides Relationship

There are American & Canadian men who have gotten mail-order brides such Filipino wives, Russian wives, etc..and they have sponsored them to their western countries. The couples only knew each other for a short time. Do a lot of these mail-order bride couples end up in divorces or in happy marriages later? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Mail-order bride#Divorce rate, 20% of such marriages end in divorce, much lower than the average (however the reference that supposedly backs that claim doesn't work). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This article notes that the remaining 80% (if that is the right figure) may not necessarily be happy marriages (at least in the U.S.): "After two years, the couple may jointly petition the INS to adjust their status to that of permanent resident. These laws put mail-order brides at the mercy of their husbands by giving the men control over their wives' immigration status. Mail order brides often lack the language skills or knowledge about their new home to negotiate the immigration system or even to support themselves without their husband." Clarityfiend (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm always disappointed when my mail-order brides arrive ... because they keep forgetting to punch holes in the box before they ship them. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Me too. That's the last time I'm ordering from Necrophiliacs-R-Us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

When does the speed limit apply?

Is it as soon as the speed limit sign appears in line of sight or as soon as a car passes the sign?ExitRight (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It begins at the sign.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 05:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

But it works against the driver both ways:

• when the sign coming up allows you to speed up, you must not start to do so until you reach the sign. This is where the speed cameras will be placed, to catch the drivers who start to speed up as soon as they see the sign up ahead even though they haven't reached it yet;
• and when the sign requires you to slow down, you must start to do so before you reach the sign, so that by the time you reach it, you're going no faster than the sign says. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Speed zones are presumed to work for the driver, in terms of safety. In the USA, at least, when a speed zone is coming up, typically there will be a warning sign, "Reduced Speed Ahead" or words to that effect. Theoretically, if you take your foot off the gas when you see that sign, you should be down to the reduced speed by the time you get to the actual speed limit sign. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, when the speed zone is ended, the sign may say the normal speed limit and/or it might say, "Resume Speed" or "Resume Safe Speed". Obviously, at the point the sign is posted, not before. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

When I said "against the driver", I meant against what a lot of drivers would naturally do if it were not illegal, and what many do anyway. I wasn't condoning speeding. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all who answered. ExitRight (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, nobody who answered has cited any sources. It's nice that everyone agreed with each other and I daresay they all are right, at least for most jurisdictions. But I just looked through the driver's handbooks for California, Ontario, and the UK, and I found nothing in any of them that actually addresses the question asked. The Ontario and UK ones just said things like "this sign indicates a change of speed limit", without actually saying that it changes at the same place where the sign is; and the California one didn't talk about signs at all as far as I could see. --Anonymous, 10:12 UTC, April 6, 2010.

Every state has its own laws. Here's a summary of the Illinois signs.[19] It doesn't do a very good job of being explicit, but consider this: A speed zone is bounded by signs that define what the speed limit is within that zone. It's the driver's responsibility to drive no faster than the posted speed, within that zone between the signs. That's a no-brainer. Let's say 65 MPH is being reduced to 55 MPH. How you get from 65 down to 55 in time for the 55 sign is your problem, but obviously you have to do it safely, i.e. don't jam on the brakes at the last second and risk an accident, e.g. if your car skids into another lane. And you can't legally increase speed until you're out of the speed zone, because the speed is 55 within that zone. Some drivers will gun it, to get back to 65 ASAP, as soon as they've left the zone. But, again, it has to be done in a safe manner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That answers the technical question. As for what actually happens if a officer catches you speeding, that's a bit different. The following are my own personal oberservations: Unless you run into a particularly hard-nosed officer, they will let you off with a warning if you are approaching a faster speed zone, the new higher speed limit sign is within sight, and you are accelerating to that speed. In the US, in many areas there will be two speed limit signs. They're usually separated by 100' or so (depending on the terrain, space for signs, etc). So, if you are going from a higher to a lower speed limit zone, then the two signs come into consideration. If you are still traveling at the higher speed by the time that you reach that second sign, then even more lenient officers will often ticket you since you have now passed two signs telling you of the new lower limit. Dismas|^(talk) 10:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering something similar. There is a 2 lane non-divided road near me that has a speed limit of 35 going east, and 45 going west. Which is applicable? It does not seem to make sense for having 2 different limits for the same part of one road. Googlemeister (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the lower limit direction headed into a built-up area and the other headed out of it? That is true of one similar set of restrictions I personally know. Each applies to the direction to which the sign is facing. Bielle (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the higher speed side is going into town, and the lower is leaving town. And the distance where they are disimilar is about 2 miles. Googlemeister (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

When does a speed limit apply ? Whenever there's a cop around. :-) StuRat (talk)

That's where radar detectors come in. Just don't get caught with one, especially in states (like Virginia) where using a radar detector is illegal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Those things are pretty spotty anyway. They detect a lot of things that are not cop's radar, and many types of police radar are undetectable no matter what kind of equipment you're carrying. APL (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And it's important to remember that there is equipment that can detect radar detectors. So the safest thing to do is to drive the speed limit and/or go with the traffic flow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Or become really good friends with the cops and or judge. Googlemeister (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And hopefully not to become "friends" simply due to too many court appearances. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Band of Brothers" at Mont Saint-Michel on 2009-06-05?

On behalf of someone else, who was in Mont Saint-Michel in France on 2009-06-05 during the 65th anniversary of D-Day, where medal and award presentations were made. They want to know if soldiers from Easy Company who were portrayed in Band of Brothers were there, and if so their names; and if the other USA soldiers there were from the 101st Airborne Division. I've found [20], but don't know where to look for the specifics. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-04-06t09:24z

The Nature, Origin And Purpose Of Man On Earth

Explain ῌThe nature, origin and purpose of man based on the various religious beleif. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisosas (talk • contribs) 10:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

See Meaning of life. That should answer, as well as inspire, some of your questions. Dismas|^(talk) 10:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Or possibly 42. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll tell you if you can pass the infamous General knowledge exam: -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Details

Instructions: Read all questions carefully. Time limit is 4 hours. You may begin when you are ready. History: Describe the history of the Papacy from its origins to the present day, concentrating especially but not exclusively, on its social, political, economic, religious, and philosophical impact on Europe, Asia, America, and Africa. Be brief, concise, and specific. Medicine: Behind your desk you will find a razor blade, a piece of gauze, and a bottle of scotch. Remove your appendix. Do not suture until your work is inspected. You have fifteen minutes. Public Speaking: 2500 riot-crazed drug addicts are about to storm the room. Calm them. You may use any ancient language except Latin, Greek, or Phoenician. Biology: Create life. Estimate the differences in subsequent human culture if this form of life had developed 500 million years earlier, with special attention to its probable effect on the English parliamentary system. Prove your thesis mathematically. Music: Write a piano concerto. Orchestrate and perform it with flute and drum. You will find a piano in the closet. Psychology: Based upon your knowledge of their works, evaluate the emotional stability, degree of adjustment and repressed frustrations of each of the following: Alexander of Aphrodisias, Ramses II, Gregory of Nicea, and Hammurabi. Support your evaluations with quotations from each man's work, making appropriate references. It is not necessary to translate. Sociology: Estimate the sociological problems which might accompany the end of the world. Conduct an experiment to test your theory. Engineering: The disassembled parts of a high-powered rifle have been placed in in a box under your desk. You will also find an instruction book printed in Swahili. In ten minutes, a hungry Bengal tiger will be admitted to the room. Take what actions you deem necessary. Be prepared to defend your actions and justify your decision. Economics: Develop a realistic plan for refinancing the national debt. Trace the possible effects of your plan on the following areas: Cubism, the Donatist Controversy, and the Wave Theory of Light. Political Science: There is a red phone on the desk next to you. Start world War III. Report at length on its socio-economic impacts, if any. Epistemology: Take a position for or against Truth. Prove the validity of your position. Philosophy: Sketch the development of human thought. Estimate its significance. Compare with the development of any other kind of thought. General Knowledge: Define the universe. Give three (3) examples. Describe in detail, being objective and specific. Alrighty then, let's give this a go: History: Describe the history of the Papacy from its origins to the present day, concentrating especially but not exclusively, on its social, political, economic, religious, and philosophical impact on Europe, Asia, America, and Africa. Be brief, concise, and specific. The Papacy began on a high note, with Peter. Since then, it has petered out. Medicine: Behind your desk you will find a razor blade, a piece of gauze, and a bottle of scotch. Remove your appendix. Do not suture until your work is inspected. You have fifteen minutes. OK, I razored the appendix out of my textbook. Now what? Public Speaking: 2500 riot-crazed drug addicts are about to storm the room. Calm them. You may use any ancient language except Latin, Greek, or Phoenician. Hold up a sign showing food and/or women, with an arrow pointing to the nearest exit. Biology: Create life. Estimate the differences in subsequent human culture if this form of life had developed 500 million years earlier, with special attention to its probable effect on the English parliamentary system. Prove your thesis mathematically. OK, I have revived Life magazine. To the second part, if Life were first published 500 mega years ago, we obviously would have had the printing press sooner, and Parliament could have printed a lot more hot air. Music: Write a piano concerto. Orchestrate and perform it with flute and drum. You will find a piano in the closet. a piano concerto I'll get back to you on the other. Psychology: Based upon your knowledge of their works, evaluate the emotional stability, degree of adjustment and repressed frustrations of each of the following: Alexander of Aphrodisias, Ramses II, Gregory of Nicea, and Hammurabi. Support your evaluations with quotations from each man's work, making appropriate references. It is not necessary to translate. They were all loonies. And they admitted to it. Sociology: Estimate the sociological problems which might accompany the end of the world. Conduct an experiment to test your theory. Even now I'm negotiating with Dick Stuart to activate the Doomsday Machine. Engineering: The disassembled parts of a high-powered rifle have been placed in in a box under your desk. You will also find an instruction book printed in Swahili. In ten minutes, a hungry Bengal tiger will be admitted to the room. Take what actions you deem necessary. Be prepared to defend your actions and justify your decision. Stand behind at least one of the other students, decreasing the likelihood that you will be attacked by the tiger. Economics: Develop a realistic plan for refinancing the national debt. Trace the possible effects of your plan on the following areas: Cubism, the Donatist Controversy, and the Wave Theory of Light. Print more money. That should fix everything. Political Science: There is a red phone on the desk next to you. Start world War III. Report at length on its socio-economic impacts, if any. See the question about the Doomsday Machine. Epistemology: Take a position for or against Truth. Prove the validity of your position. Philosophy: Sketch the development of human thought. Estimate its significance. Compare with the development of any other kind of thought. I paraphrase Will Cuppy: "In the beginning, people were not very bright. They've been getting brighter and brighter ever since, until they're like they are now." General Knowledge: Define the universe. Give three (3) examples. Describe in detail, being objective and specific. The universe, by definition, is "everything". Also known as the complement of "the empty set". A "parallel universe" is actually a subset of the universe, because the universe, by definition, is "everything". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

lol bugs that's brilliant.--92.251.159.250 (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Rates of abject poverty in the past

My friend argues that starvation/malnutrition are "modern" problems, for the reason that owing to far smaller populations food was never in short supply, and similarly with housing, there was plenty of space. I'm skeptical, to say the least. To what extend have global (and regional, if anyone has any info) rates of starvation, malnutrition and homelessness changed over the last 2,000 years or so?--Leon (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is an observation bias -- we don't have reliable data very far back in time, so we're more aware of recent poverty than we are of historical poverty. What seems to be the case is that starvation and malnutrition have (on a per capita basis) been in decline for the past fifty plus years (on average). So, your friend would have to argue that poverty steadily increased from year 0 to 1960 and then went into decline. He'd have to argue (a) why poverty rates would behave like that, and (b) how he knows that poverty was increasing from year 0 to 1960. (Also, where housing is concerned, "space" is irrelevant. What matters is developed space. The latter has been growing over time.) Wikiant (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Our Famine and List of famines articles mention many famines, ancient and modern. Starvation is not a modern phenomenon. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I don't know if it's possible to give specific figures, but these problems certainly existed in the past. Any place and time where there is agriculture and urbanization will have crop failures, homelessness, and joblessness. We have an article about the Great Famine of 1315–1317, for one example. Some of the early English Poor Laws dealt with the homeless. There is a book called "Home And Homelessness In The Medieval And Renaissance World" by Nicholas Howe that might be useful. Further back than that, I think homelessness, at least, might not have been such a problem in Greece and Rome, partly because anyone that poor (especially debtors) would probably end up as a slave. For famines, Wikipedia also has a list of famines with numerous ancient and medieval examples. One major theme of Roman history is the need to find enough food for everyone. Tiberius Gracchus was killed for trying to implement agricultural reforms (but his brother was more successful). Rome took over places like Sicily and Egypt mostly because they were such rich sources of food. Ha, we even have an article, Grain supply to the city of Rome. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above) I'm not sure about the last 2 000 years, but I known that Jared Diamond has argued that when people lived in Hunter-Gatherer societies (~10,000 years ago), they were better off than when they moved to farming (better diet, etc.). It at least seems reasonable, though I haven't seen any data: people were eating a more varied diet, had a more egalitarian society, etc.

I don't buy that malnutrition is a modern problem (last couple hundred years) though. You look at what the poor were eating in Europe say 1000 years ago, and you feel that they had to be deficient in things (in fact, I asked a similar question a while ago, archived here). Buddy431 (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that even hunter-gatherer societies, once they had become numerous enough not to be able to migrate without impinging on others' territories, almost certainly would have faced starvation during a severe drought. Drought and plant disease, along with the population outrunning agricultural productivity, certainly led to famine in premodern agricultural societies. Marco polo (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) There are two things that can cause starvation/malnutrition. Not enough food being produced, or the food being produced not getting where is it needed. Not enough food being produced is usually a short-term problem caused by drought, war, etc.. I think those problems have reduced over time because of better irrigation, hardier crops and the ability to transport food long distances if needed. Food not getting where it is needed may be a bigger problem now than it was, since over the last 2000 years the proportion of people living in cities and towns has increased. 2000 years ago a lot of people would have grown their own food, so nothing can go wrong. If you need an economic system to move food from the rural areas to the cities, there is room for corruption, etc., which can stop the food getting there. --Tango (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Another potential nutrition problem is eating food which doesn't fulfill all our needs. For example, low protein foods. This can be caused by eating one type of food only, and such monocultures are also vulnerable to disease, as in the Irish Potato Famine. StuRat (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

People's diets seem to have got worse in very recent times - the saturated fats and high salt of junk foods leading to heart disease and stokes, anmd obesity-related cancers. Fats, excessive calories and perhaps salt would not have been so readily available in the past. This is masked by the reduced incidence of lethal infectious diseases and medical and hygiene advances. 78.149.173.243 (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, those foods would be fantastic in a famine. Googlemeister (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

April 7

Sexual assault

I've been looking through the state's sex offender database. There are a number of entries where, under the convictions, it lists "VOP" and then there isn't a date of conviction. What does VOP stand for? Dismas|^(talk) 02:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I found some that do have a conviction date. So that doesn't seem to help. Is it Violation of Probation? Dismas|^(talk) 02:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Might it help for us to know which "state" you're talking about? Which country, even? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm usually better about that. I'm in the US state of Vermont. Dismas|^(talk) 05:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Violation of parole, maybe? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Good guess. It's "violation of probation", according to this. —Kevin Myers 09:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Names for Different Positions in Companies

I've been given a research assignment, but I'm not sure if I'm doing it right, (and my boss isn't helping to explain it when I ask him questions). I need to find the Chief Human Resources Director and the Chief Research Officer for a few different life sciences companies. What are some other names for these positions? Is the "Chief Director" of Human Resources also the "Vice President" of Human Resources? Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.16.95.123 (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I would expect the name would change with the size of the company, from Supervisor or HR, to HR Manager, HR Director, HR Chief, VP in Charge of HR, and President in Charge of HR. StuRat (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be that some of the companies in question use the older term 'Personnel' rather than 'Human Resources'. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

And "research" is often paired with "development", as R&D. StuRat (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Table for comparing religions - similarities and differences

Is there a table available anywhere that 1) has the religions as columns (such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam) and the religious texts as rows, to show which texts are common to more than one religion? 2) Similarly, with kinds of beliefs as rows - things like one god only, heaven, and so on? Thanks 78.149.173.243 (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Like this? I Googled "comparison religions" and that's the first thing that came up. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See The Association of Religion Data Archives. -- Wavelength (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr 98s link is relevant to Question 2. Wavelengths link is an index to a large site - where can I find a table please? 78.149.173.243 (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been unable to find a table on that website. I apologize for any inconvenience. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See this page. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Belief Comparisons of the World's Religions has religions in rows and beliefs in columns. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As to the first question, I don't think a table would be useful or easy to find, because few of the more prominent religions have holy scriptures in common. When several religious groups share some of their holy books, they are more commonly considered sects of a single religion. The case of Christianity, which managed to incorporate the entire holy scripture of another religion and yet to become clearly distinct from that religion, is more of an exception than a norm.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible (which has no table). -- Wavelength (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

See Biblical narratives and the Qur'an (which has no table). -- Wavelength (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comparative religion has a link to The God Contention - Comparing Religions, Faiths and Worldviews (which has religions in columns).

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone might start the Wikipedia article Table of beliefs and religions, based on information gleaned from the official websites of various religions. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be very hard! Most religions (and many religious denominations) aren't unified under one earthly organization to have an official website. Even Scientology has practitioners who are not organizationally affiliated with the Church of Scientology. It's also very hard to chart out what religions believe. For example, Christian doctrine (typically) asserts that Christianity is monotheistic. But the Qu'ran may assert that Christianity is polytheistic. Paul (Stansifer) 04:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Name for economic concept ?

I would like to describe an economic/regulatory concept, then have you tell me the name, and point me to any articles we have related to it. First, let me start with some examples:

1) Ships are allowed to register in any nation, so choose the nation with the lowest fees and least regulations.

2) In the US, credit card companies were originally required to abide by the laws where each customer lived, which led to fairly restrictive laws against usury (absurdly high interest rates). Then, a decision was made to allow them to operate across state boundaries, and to apply the laws from their home state to wherever they did business. This led to them all moving to where they could get the best terms, which seemed to be Delaware. Thus, they were able to charge much higher interest rates than before the decision.

3) Free trade allows businesses to relocate to where the taxes, wages, benefits, and environmental regulations are lowest, effectively forcing all those items lower everywhere.

So, there are two parts to this economic concept, that competition will result in businesses (and consumers) choosing the "lowest common denominator", but also that every other nation or state will then be forced to lower it's standards to compete. So, do we have a name for this concept ? Do we have any articles ? StuRat (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally, the economic term associated with moving around to find a more advantageous environment is "mobility," as in "labor mobility." You might use the term "jurisdictional mobility" to refer to behaviors like those you list. A related concept is regulatory shopping, where parties have some choice in regulator, although that's not necessarily associated with physical location. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Race to the bottom. Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent work in location theory, a branch of economic geography, addresses these issues. Marco polo (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I, too, would say "race to the bottom". (Side note: Flag of convenience is phenomenon #1.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that you're starting from the assumption that this phenomenon is an economic concept in the first place. My interpretation of what you've described is that it conflates a number of issues. Each of the things that you describe contributes to strategic choice for business leaders.

Essentially the cost of regulation is a cost to the business, but leaders need to make a decision about whether they are aiming at cost leadership, quality or a Niche market. Businesses aiming at a cost leadership position may choose to reduce the cost of regulation, but have to balance that with the cost of relocation and service delivery at range. The type of service delivered is apposite, in the example you mention there is little cost of distance.

Your extension to that assumption is that regulatory authorities, governments, will also make choices about their cost of regulation as a means of attracting business to trade. That can be done in two ways, minimise the regulation or maximise the efficiency of the regulatory framework.

Add to that the customer facing element, your assumption is that the cost leader will also price gouge. In the customer facing sphere not every service provider will take a price leadership position.

Put simply, the concept you're after is competition, but you're then applying that to the strategic environment.

ALR (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers so far, looks like some good stuff here. StuRat (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hemidemisemiquaver

Please see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Hemidemisemiquaver. -- Wavelength (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

effect of monopoly power on price discrimination

In The Armchair Economist, Steven Landsburg considers why popcorn costs so much at the movies. He explains that the obvious answer is wrong, that is, cinemas don't charge because they have a captive audience. This strategy wouldn't work, because patrons know the price of popcorn anyway, and can include it in the cost of going to the movies. He suggests instead that this is an example of price discrimination - poor people will be happy to just see the movie, richer ones will pay for the enhanced experience of movie plus popcorn. The problem, in his estimation, is that this only works if there is a monopoly, so the retailer can set prices. Otherwise, a competing cinema could simply charge a bit less for the popcorn, and the same price for the movie. He uses the analogy of wheat pricing - farmers can't charge $2 a bushel for regular customers and $1 a bushel for senior citizens, because in the perfectly competitive market of wheat production, a rival could easily start selling for $1.90 a bushel to everyone, and take most of the market, minus the senior citizens.

I don't quite get this argument. I know it would work if there were no fixed costs, but everyone knows the cost of just opening a business is so high that it can run at a loss for several years as it recovers the cost of equipment. In the wheat example, if someone were to start giving a seniors discount, the assumption is that the sale price for each bushel is still above its marginal cost, but there is no assumption that $1.90 a bushel would be above the average cost, because this would depend on many factors, including the number of bushels sold. Competitors would drop their prices, destroying profits, and the one who started the price war might be the first to go bankrupt.

Can anyone tell me whether price discrimination in the form of expensive popcorn depends on monopoly power? The article on p.d. states that high fixed costs are a cause of price discrimination, even in the presence of competition, but it doesn't give any further details. Are the fixed costs for running a cinema unusually high, or is the cinema market best seen as mono/oligo-polistic? Thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

First, as I understand it, movie theaters only get a very small portion of ticket sales, and there is also an oversupply of theaters, such that most of the seats are empty for most showings. Thus, the theaters need to charge a lot for concessions to make any money. Therefore, no theater can offer cheap popcorn, or they would go out of business (there are exceptions for theaters which show non-first run movies, etc.).

Now, price discrimination is certainly more effective if you have a monopoly (or price fixing), but still works without it. Just offering the convenience of getting the popcorn there versus waiting until they get home or smuggling some in makes some people willing to pay the high prices, to avoid the inconvenience. StuRat (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I once read about this at howstuffworks.com -- theaters make almost no money off of the movies and almost all of their money off concessions. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the way to think about this is to consider a movie theater that has a counter that sells popcorn, but the movie theater also contains 2 competing, non-colluding popcorn vendors that are not owned by the movie theater. These vendors would compete in the normal fashion and popcorn prices would fall dramatically; and this was only possible because the movie theater abandoned its monopoly on the selling of popcorn within the theater. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

But maybe movie theaters don't assume that their patrons are completely rational. Factoring in the cost of popcorn before going to a movie sounds like a great example of something that people don't do, even though rational choice theory says they would. After all, marketing sweepstakes to sell soda and stuff make no rational sense: you'd prefer that the cost of the soda just be lower, rather than have a big contest with all the administrative overhead that entails. Unless you actually are aware of the relative popcorn prices of multiple theaters in your area, and think about that ahead of time, I'd say that each movie theater has its own sort-of monopoly on concessions by virtue of being aware of some simple cognitive biases. (By the way, why isn't there a rationality (economics) article?) Paul (Stansifer) 21:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

To that last question, clearly the economists have finally come to the realisation that there is no such thing --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

business law

i am 13 years old and i would like to know, what does a business lawyer do? thanks x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagedanny1234 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The exact nature of their work will vary somewhat from one country (and system of laws and legal codes) to another. We have an article, Commercial law, which provides an introduction. If you wish to read more, many subtopics of business law are listed at Index of business law articles. See Contract, Tort and Corporate law. You might find Intellectual property and Property law interesting. Tax law is a specialty. In many countries, preparation for a career in business law requires Law school following a four year college undergraduate degree, then usually have to pass a Bar exam before being authorized to practice law. People with many types of undergraduate degree enter law school, but Pre-law is a particular course of preparation for later law study. Business lawyers (in the U.S.) may or may not go to court, in large firms, where there are specialized litigators. In very small firms or solo practices, one lawyer may do business law one day, and criminal law the next, defending someone against charges, but specialization is common. Edison (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Lots of business lawyers don't work in regular law firms or appear in court, but they work for an ordinary company (or own or run the company) and they take care of protecting the company from legal problems. They make sure that the way the company hires and fires people is legal, that the company complies with all the complicated financial reporting regulations and environmental regulations. And they write, read, argue about, check, and occasionally agree to contracts that the company gets into - they make sure that the contracts are favourable for the company (and yes, again that the contracts are legal). So if you were the business lawyer for a car company, you'd write the contract with the tire supplier, and you'd worry about what happens if the tires you ordered don't come on time (who pays for the delay - you built all those cars, but you can't sell them because they've got no tires), or about what happens if the tires explode and the car tips over on the freeway killing the people in it. You'd worry about what happens if the dealer staff go on strike, or if the delivery company sends the cars to the wrong dealers. And you'd worry about what company gets paid what, and when, and how much they don't get paid if something goes wrong. And because a lot of these things are negotiable, the business lawyers often take the lead in the negotiations. A really good, and really easy to read and understand, book about this subject is Mark McCormack's What They Don't Teach You at Harvard Business School. Although a lawyer by profession, McCormack worked as an agent for lots of very successful golfers and other sports players - he negotiated the sponsorship deals they had with sportswear companies. And he took care of clearing up if problems happened - what happened if a player was injured and couldn't show off the company's clothes on the golf course like he'd agreed to, or if a tennis player found that his sponsor's racquets didn't suit his style of play and wanted to change to another brand. Much of it isn't about lawsuits or threats of lawsuits, but about how he dealt with all the different companies and people and agents, and how he managed to fix things up so everyone got a deal that they were reasonably happy with. You should be able to find What They Don't Teach You at Harvard Business School at the library - in addition to being easy to read for normal people, it's also nice and short. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's an interesting read, but I didn't think of it as particularly pertaining to a law career. It's been a while, though. I agree with Finlay McWalter: in my experience, most of the work that's done by a business lawyer who works at a company is about contracts. The lawyer spends a lot of time reading these very long documents and imagining ways to poke holes in the logic. It's analytical work and requires some imagination and the ability to concentrate for a long time on detail that many others find mind-numbing. To randomly pick a contract, here is a software licensing contract between AT&T and the University of California (found on Groklaw). This is a really short contract (I'm surprised it's only 8 pages). Probably a general business agreement was reached between the business managers at AT&T and at the UC — those managers may or may not have been lawyers — and then the business lawyers employed by each side hammered out all of the details, and this contract is the result. Business lawyers do a lot of other work, but I think contracts must be far-and-away the most common employment for them. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

As someone a bit older, who is one of those [in a vague way], I'd suggest you figure out what you like to do. That's the most important. When I was 13 there's no way I would have known I'd want to be a lawyer. I wasn't in my 20s until I had that thought. Instead, figure out generally what it is you like. A good indication is, when you have free time, what do you like to do?

As a practical matter, very few people in the legal profession will ever describe their practice as "business law". The better distinction would be "transactional" and "litigation". If you like business, then take economics or some business version as a major. Pre-law is a waste; you don't need to know anything about the law before law school.

I'm analytical. I like computer programing, math, but I also like history and philosophy. Certain areas of law are perfect for that. Tax law, ERISA, etc. There are plenty of technical areas for lawyers that are incredibly rewarding intellectually. If that's something you're interested in, then you should go for it, but I wouldn't expect you to know it right now. The worst thing you could do is to make up your mind now, and never change it. Instead, right now, you should figure out what you like, what you do intellectually when you're bored. Those are the things that you'll want to do day in day out. Shadowjams (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Heir whatsoever?

An heir general is the heir according to male-preferance cognatic primogeniture and an heir male is the heir according to agnatic primogeniture, but what does heir whatsoever mean? For example, it is said that the Dukedom of Hamilton descends to the heirs male of the 1st Duke's eldest daughter and, if they all die out, to nearest heirs whatsoever of the 1st Duke. Who exactly would become Duke of Hamilton if all legitimate agnatic descendants of the 3rd Duchess die? Would nearest heir whatsoever mean geneaologically closest descendant of the 1st Duke (something like proximity of blood?

What does heir whatsoever mean anyway? Surtsicna (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The peerages were created with remainder to the heirs whatsoever of his body, which means that the titles can be passed on through both male and female lines.

This is what I've just read in a Wikipedia article. It suggests that heir whatsoever is actually heir general? Is that true? If it is, the Dukedom of Hamilton would pass to the heir general of the 3rd Duchess after the death of her last legitimate agnatic descendant, right? Surtsicna (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a nice explanation here - it means the same as "heir", and was originally used in documents to more clearly distinguish this, general, use from other classes of heir. Judging by the eighteenth and nineteenth century legal texts referring to disputes over the term, it singularly failed in this aim. Warofdreams talk 10:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The way I read that last quote is that in this particular case "whatsoever" means "both sexes included", and "of the body" means "direct descendants only". "Whatsoever" seems to mean simply that "something that usually goes without saying does not apply". Could it be then that "nearest heirs whatsoever" in the Hamilton stipulation means males are not preferred, as opposed to "heirs general" among whom males would indeed be preferred? I should note that I am not a lawyer and most certainly not an expert in English or Scottish inheritance law.--Rallette (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

April 8

sales etiquette

can someone please link to general, international advice for how a salesperson is supposed to behave with customers in an upscale retail setting. I assume the specifics would be slightly different from country to country, but maybe there are some basics that are universal. I don't mean general obvious advice like "don't be a douche. don't lie." and so on. I mean very specific, "etiquette" or "protocol" type advice, as specific as specific table manners advice. I don't seem to be able to find that, if it even exists.

Does no one write these things down, is it just oral history/training or what?

Thank you. 84.153.190.242 (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

One thing different in an upscale setting is that you shouldn't mention the price unless asked, although this may vary by nation. Upscale places also may offer freebees, like coffee, so be sure to do that if available at you store. Any salesperson should also know how to gauge the customer's response and react accordingly. Ask "May I help you ?", and, if they say "no" or "I'm just looking", say "OK, I'll be over there if you need anything", then leave; don't hover or stare at them. StuRat (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Motorcycles

In westren countries there are very very heavy motorbikes, like Harley Davidson, that weigh as much as 300 kg, or even more. If the machine falls on its sides, it must be impossible to make it stand it up. How do they stand it upright ? Is there any mechanism to make it stand if fallen ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to lift it clear off the ground. To merely pivot it up using the wheels as fulcrums and the body as a class 2 lever requires much less strength than that. Perhaps someone else will run the numbers for you. StuRat (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

you are right, but certainly Harley Davidson also has a mechanism for dead-lifting it back up to the ground if someone rides it clear off the edge of the earth? I assume in that case it would kind of hover slightly below the surface of the earth, but off its edge. You would have to dead-lift it in that case. 82.113.106.35 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)