Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

May 15

Henry Corbin essay

I am having trouble finding an essay by Henry Corbin called “Eyes of Flesh, Eyes of Fire: the Science of Gnosis.” According to the Wikipedia article on him it was "presented" in June of 1978, but no mention is made as to where it was presented or where (or even if) it was published. -- noosph e re 01:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look here [1]. It was an address to the Université Saint Jean de Jérusalem, whatever that may be. DuncanHill (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's perfect. -- noosph e re 19:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Out"

I've been reading Mansfield Park, and there's a peculiar use of a word that I didn't get. Phrases like "his sister was not out", "She was then out", and "Miss Price is not out" [emphasis in original] use the word "out" as in a girl being out. What does "out" mean in this context? The only guess I came up with is that the girl has hadher first menstrual period and is thus a woman and ready to marry, but that doesn't make much sense since Miss Price is 18 years old! Sorry if I'm not familiar with the British social customs and terminology of the 18th siecle. Best, 76.230.146.50 (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be to do with coming out, or it could be to do with being "in" or "out" to callers - one might ask the footman to tell callers that one was "out" in order to avoid having to see them. I've never got on with Jane Austen though, hopefully a Janeite will be along soon to help further. DuncanHill (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a very good explanation of the ins and outs of the word's meaning. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means she hadn't yet made her debut in society. See the links DuncanHill and Clarityfiend have provided above. The word out is often used in Jane Austen and Victoria Holt novels.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jeanne Boleyn; you can read "out" as a short form of "out in society." --- OtherDave (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government/executive boycott election?

Chief Executive of Hong Kong Donald Tsang said that he and his politically appointed team will boycott the Hong Kong by-election, 2010.[2] Are there any cases in history where the head of government/ the executive would boycott a legitimate election held by that government? F (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much a "boycott" as such, but in Australia, not all the major parties always contest by-elections. Elections of all kinds, at the federal level, are conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission, a government-created and -funded body but one that operates independent of government and is answerable more directly to the Parliament of Australia. In a broad sense, however, one could say that all elections are conducted by the "government", but there have certainly been occasions when the government of the day has chosen to let the other parties slug it out. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The boycott in this case is by not voting. Traditionally, the Chief Executive and major officials would stage photo-ops such as inserting the ballot into the ballot box and by opening the ballot boxes at close of poll. They are refusing to do it this time. F (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked out all the elections listed in the article "Election boycott"? Gabbe (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regnal number of future Spanish monarchs

Regnal number seems to me to follow the Asturian-Leonese-Castilian monarchs in Spanish history. Is this true? I know that the Crown of Aragon was technically abolished in the aftermath of the Spanish War of Succession. So would a future heir to the Spanish throne named James or Peter follow the Castilian regnal number and be James I of Spain and Peter II of Spain or the Aragonese regnal number and be James III of Spain and Peter V of Spain?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been a precedent, so we won't know until a James or a Peter ascends the Spanish throne. I don't think there's a rule saying who is counted and who's not. I'd like to know whether the Navarrese monarchs will be counted from now on. If they were going to count the Navarrese monarchs, Charles III of Spain would've been Charles IV. But they might be more concerned about Navarre now than they were three centuries years ago, so Infanta Leonor of Spain might reign as Leonor II. Surtsicna (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Navarrese Crown merged with that of France and not Spain. See Henry IV of France. Spanish Navarre was conquered early in the time of the united crowns of Castille and Aragon; it was a bit of a side-conflict during the War of the League of Cambrai. See Spanish conquest of Iberian Navarre. There remained a "rump" Kingdom of Navarre (known as Lower Navarre) until Henry III of Navarre became Henry IV of France in 1589 (Paris being well worth a Mass, apparently also worth a LOT more than the puny Kingdom of Navarre). Navarre continued on in name in personal union with France until Louis XIII of France officially abolished it as a seperate kingdom in 1620. Numbering of Navarrese monarchs would therefor have little bearing on regnal numbers in Spain. --Jayron32 23:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ferdinand II of Aragon conquered a part of Navarre and assumed the title of King of Navarre by the right of conquest. Was that part of Navarre incorporated into another Spanish kingdom or did it remain seperate until the reign of Philip V like the other Spanish kingdoms? If the latter is true, numbering of Navarrese monarchs should have some bearing on monarchical ordinals of Spanish monarchs, shouldn't it? Surtsicna (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. I don't see where there is any evidence he claimed right to the title King of Navarre. The article you show states that he conquered part of the kingdom and annexed its lands to Spain/Castile, but I see no reliable sources which state he, from then, claimed the title to King of Navarre. Near as I can tell, the was never any Spanish claim to the title; there is no mention of the title King of Navarre being part of either the Crown of Aragon or the Crown of Castile. --Jayron32 15:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he claimed right to the title King of Navarre.[3] His immediate successors, Joanna and Charles I, used the title Queen and King of Navarre.[4] All their successors seem to have used the title as well.[5] What's most interesting, it seems that the Habsburg Kings of Castile actually held different monarchical ordinals in Navarre.[6] For example, Philip IV of Castile ruled over his part of Navarre as Philip VI.[7] Even after the Crown of Aragon disappeared, Spanish monarchs seem to have held different ordinals in Navarre (for example, Charles VI of Navarre [8]). The sources which mention Cortes generales and Charles as Charles VI are especially interesting. Do I need to cite more examples and more sources? Evidently, there are precedents and Leonor could reign as Leonor II. Surtsicna (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More then likely, the Castillian numbering will continue. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic or Sufi quote

I am trying to find a quote by an Islamic philosopher (or maybe a Sufi mystic), who said something like "when you put a match to cotton, it is not the flame that burns, but God." Does anyone know what the original quote was and who its author was? -- noosph e re 19:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was al-Ghazali in The Incoherence of the Philosophers, which actually has the passage about cotton quoted in the article, although it is uncited. Averroes criticized al-Ghazali in The Incoherence of the Incoherence, and quoted long passages so he could refute them, so the bit about cotton burning is also in there (see this translation of Averroes for example). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sugarloaf Mountain, New Brunswick memorial crosses

An IP editor just asked on the Help Desk about two white crosses on the side of Sugarloaf Mountain, New Brunswick. I was able to provide them with this link to a short account of their origin [9], but was wondering if anyone had any further information. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kemp and his idea of the "indigenous peoples" of the British Isles

This guy, Arthur Kemp, who has his own Wikipedia article and everything... he is asserting that the white Western native British people even if their ancestors have lived in Britain for centuries if not millennia... (that may be true sometimes but...) constitute an "indigenous people". Whilst his genetic findings may have some truth in that the British people may not have much admixture, that does not make the British an "indigenous people", regardless of their genetic heritage. Do the white British live in huts, caves, or so on? Do they hunt fish with spears? No. Do they obtain their food from Tesco and Asda... yes.--Lightsin (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they left an actual question in those caves? --- OtherDave (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheddar Man lived in Britain 9150 years ago, give or take a few, and people related genetically to him live in the same spot now. The Romans found Britons to be little natives who smeared their skin with blue clay and fought like hell. They lived much as you describe, and did not get their food from Tesco at the time. Edison (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably there are some people who were the first people to settle a land; even someplace like Britain, and they would therefore be "indigenous". The decendants of those people don't have to be living in caves to be indigenous, just that they are decended from those people. Indigenousness has nothing to do with economic status. That being said, I make no statement about the validity of his ideas; just that ones objection shouldn't be based on the use of the term indigenous to describe a population of people. --Jayron32 00:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary on the meaning of "indigenous". It doesn't mean "hunt fish with spears". FiggyBee (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree fully with FiggyBee. Indigenous peoples are any ethnic group who inhabit a geographic region with which they have the earliest known historical connection. --Lgriot (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood it, the earliest British people were the Welsh or Celts. They got driven back, or perhaps intermarried with, many waves of migrants such as the Romans, Saxons, Normans and so on. The ancenstry of British people is that of mixtures of migrants. 92.26.59.240 (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 16

sunglass removal and the police

This is not a request for legal advice. This is just me watching K-PAX and getting curious. If an officer asks you to take off your sunglasses, are you required to do so? If someone refuses to take them off and the officer takes them off without permission, is that legal? What about a hat? A coat? Gloves? How far does it go if it goes anywhere? Wrad (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me pose it to you in the opposite way. What constitutional right would protect you from that request? Shadowjams (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(So if a police officer told you to hum the theme-tune from Doctor Who you would be required to obey that instruction in the absence of a specific constitutional right to the contrary? Come off it.) ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 09:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've basically assumed this question has applied to the U.S. law because it's reference a scene in a movie that occurs in the U.S., and I don't know U.K. law, but yes, if a sovereign nation passes a law that says if you don't hum that tune you can be imprisoned, there's little "law" to dispute that. As a practical matter, in the U.S., state constitutions, as well as the federal constitution, will imply a rational basis test, and humming a tune may be one of the very few instances that fail that test. I can't comment on the U.K. But we should be very aware that sovereign nations are largely free to do what they please, as a practical matter. Free societies should always remember this. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the matter with you? "Free societies should always remember this." If you want to lecture about state theory, the Reference Desk is very much the wrong place. Your assertion that removal of glasses would be required unless there was a right to the contrary is clear nonsense, as illustrated by my example. Issues of sovereignty don't enter into it. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 09:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not the response I expected from you, but you feel strongly about this.

I stand by my point. Police power means what it is. And sovereign nations are free to exercise whatever control they want, with practical concern from what other nations may impose on them (i.e., war). In the U.S. the police power is relegated to the states generally, and in enumerated cases delegated to the federal government. There are restrictions on this, the most obvious of which are based in the U.S. Constitution, but perhaps controversially are also based in English common law. I would never support such an arbitrary law, nor would I ever believe a sane court could view humming a particular tune as a rational basis for a law, but if you want to understand how the rule of law works, that's it. Rational basis is a product of a legal system, it's not an a prior truth, and it certainly doesn't enforce itself on its own. Shadowjams (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sovereign nation may be able to pass whatever laws it likes, but the police aren't a sovereign nation. The police can't create new laws when they want to do something that is otherwise not allowed, they have to follow the existing laws. In the absence of any law authorising the police to remove somebody's glasses, doing so would be assault, which is as illegal for the police as for anyone else. The question, therefore, is whether or not there is a law that authorises police to remove somebody's glasses. I don't know the answer. The police have certain powers related to identifying people, but what exactly they are in the jurisdiction in question, I don't know. If somebody refused to remove a disguise and the police didn't have the power to remove it themselves, then I think they would at least have the power to arrest them (in the UK, at least, the police have the power to arrest someone for the purpose of identifying them). Once somebody is in police custody, there is probably something that would let them remove glasses (even if they have to call it a strip search). --Tango (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent answer. Shadowjams (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a defective argument in the US, where all the government's rights are granted it by the people, as is made explicit by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The government (and therefore the police) don't have, by default, the right to do anything they want unless a constitutional right circumscribes their power; it's the other way around. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not. The federal government's powers are limited to its enumerated powers, the 10th amendment is an express description of that; the States, however, have plenary police power. That power is only limited by the Constitution, or any subordinate law (such as a state Constitution). Shadowjams (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right the rights of all U.S. governments, whether at the federal level, or at the State level, are granted by democratic process, but there are wide ranging statues giving law enforcement officers wide discretion to investigate suspected crimes, at both levels. Notwithstanding the constitution, namely due process considerations, these rules would be relatively unrestricted. Let's say state X passed a law that said any resident had to comply with any and all orders issued by a law enforcement officer. If that were a law, on what basis might one object? Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the grounds that some of what they might order you to do might be unconstitutional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only trying to elucidate what the premise of this objection is. This isn't necessarily the world I'd design, but it's the world that is. Let's be clear about what the law actually is.

So, which Constitutional provision? Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this, and I don't have any particular case law at hand; but I would first reach for the way the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states, as discussed in Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The 9th and 10th amendments make it clear that the government's rights, as you say, are granted to it; and the 14th has applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states; so if a particular power hasn't been granted to a cop, then he doesn't have that power. If a cop walks up to a person in the US and tells her to jump up and down on one leg for 60 seconds, she can, and should, tell the cop to go to hell, because Americans haven't constitutionally granted the government the ability to harass Americans at will. Now, if the cop has a reasonable need to see behind the sunglasses in order to fulfill his public duty, that's a different matter. (I also don't know if reasonableness is the standard.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comet: Practically I think you're right. Reasonableness is the standard, and it's reasonableness in carrying out the duties that are either permitted or legitimized by a democratic law (not one made up on the spot by an executive official, an officer). But the 9th and 10th amendments are rarely discussed in this kind of scholarship and because they're more structural I don't think it makes sense to talk about them as being incorporated by the 14th, nor have they. Our articles on both of those amendments are very good. Shadowjams (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if the policeman ordered the subject to confess or he would be shot? Obviously, a violation of the Fifth Amendment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of the 5th amendment if by federal officials, 14th if by state officials, and murder in every jurisdiction. Shadowjams (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming we're talking about being pulled over, there are certain things the cops can do and certain things they can't, but one thing they can certainly do is to verify that you are licensed to drive. As part of that, they have to verify it's you, and in so doing, they would likely tell you to take off your sunglasses or anything else that's hiding your face sufficiently that they can't make a positive ID. Driving a car on a public thoroughfare is not a constitutional right, it's a privilege granted by the state, and in getting that license you agree to abide by the driving laws. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the latter is correct, the original poster didn't mention driving. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They also never say that they're US American. Dismas|^(talk) 07:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, see Terry stop. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, in the UK, specially-authorised police can require anyone to remove anything which it appears is worn solely for the purpose of disguising themselves. ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 09:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my local area, there's a sign at the entrance of all local banks, requesting people not to wear hats or sunglasses in the bank, since they obstruct security cameras. AnonMoos (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to OP -- No, of COURSE you are not "required" to do so. The only conceivable exception would be if a legal search (which, absent arrest or warrant, is limited to a search for weapons) involved examination of the glasses or the area they covered, but that is almost impossible to imagine. If checking an ID, no arrest would result for refusal (though the cop might find other ways to hassle you, at the risk of a lawsuit or formal complaint); contra BasballBugs, your lack of an inherent right to drive does not grant the cop the right to absurdly doubt your ID's picture unless you remove your glasses, and certainly doesn't create any right to order you to remove them. Shadowjams's answers are inaccurate improvisations -- just making stuff up. "Police powers" have nothing to do with the police per se; that is, states could exercise police powers even if there were no police at all, as indeed they did for the first couple of centuries that the "police powers" concept existed. "Reasonable/rational basis" has absolutely nothing to do with what the police can or can't do -- it applies exclusively to legislation. The Constitution doesn't enter into it at all, 9th or 10th or nth amendment. The police can't order you to take off your glasses (unless you're in custody) any more than anyone else can. All of the irrelevant references to police powers and reasonable basis and the constitution would only apply if a) legislation was interpreted to give police the power to order you to take off your glasses, or b) a policeman was defending himself against a lawsuit or complaint resulting from forcing you to take of your glasses by claiming an implicit right to do so. But neither of those hypotheticals exists, and the OP's question presents no such hypothetical. Again: Can ANYBODY order you (an adult not under arrest or a minor not in school or otherwise under quasi-parental authority) to take off your sunglasses, except on private property (in which case the remedy is "you must leave," not "you're under arrest")? NO. Can the police do so? NO. It's as simple as that. Of course, a control freak policeman might respond to a refusal by arresting you on trumped-up charges, but the charge would not be "failure to take off glasses." 63.17.51.114 (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my "improvisations" are inaccurate at all. In fact, yours appear to have some problems, most obviously your assertion that the police under no circumstances can force you to remove your sunglasses. That's an absolutely remarkable claim, and anyone who's ever practiced a day would recognize that assertion as such. If you want to attack my ideas that's fine, but explain your basis for doing so. The OP is way gone at this point anyway... Shadowjams (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you refuse to take off your sunglasses to allow the cop to verify that you are the one pictured on the license, then he might well take you in on suspicion of driving with a stolen license. Now, are you going to go through that hassle? Or are you going to doff your sunglasses? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP specifically said "required." (Meanwhile, I specifically mentioned the possibility of being hassled on something trumped-up for refusing, and also the risk the cop takes of being sued or formally complained about for arresting you on obviously bogus charges.) Here's the same question: can anybody walking down the street walk up to you and legitimately order you to take off your sunglasses? Can anybody pull up next to you at a stoplight and shout a legitimate order at you to take off your sunglasses? The answer is no, and the answer has nothing to do with police powers or rational basis or the constitution. 63.17.51.114 (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the police have reasonable cause to question you, then they have reasonable cause to demand identification. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think my comment above contains the short answer to the OP's question. The cops probably cannot "make you" take off your sunglasses as such. But they have authority to confirm that you are who you claim to be on the license, and if you won't cooperate, they would have reasonable cause to believe that you've got someone else's license, and could take you in. Then, someone could probably "make you" take off your sunglasses. So if you want to go through all that, let us know how it turns out. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if you had a full beard but had been clean-shaven on your ID picture, the cop could order you to shave? PLEASE. 63.17.51.114 (talk) 04:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Your honor, the suspect was tall, skinny, young, caucasion, male, and had black hair; his license read 6-foot-3, 170 pounds, 23 years old, male, and black hair, and the photo showed a white person. However, I couldn't tell if he had blue eyes or brown eyes or green eyes, and his license said 'brown,' so I arrested him for driving with a stolen license." 63.17.51.114 (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On suspicion of driving with a stolen license. And you don't have a constitutional right to drive on a public roadway. You have to abide by the traffic laws. And if one of those laws is that you must confirm you're the guy on the license, then you must do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually kind of the flip side of some Muslims who wanted to be photographed for their licenses with only their eyes visible. As the states pointed out, you don't have to have your eyes visible in general, but the state doesn't have to give you a license if you won't cooperate. The drivers license rules are defined by the individual states. The Illinois Rules of the Road[10] indicate that there are serious penalties for presenting someone else's license as your own. So if you refuse to let the cops identify you to their satisfaction, they would have reasonable cause for arrest on suspicion of license fraud. And if you tried to claim "constitutional rights", they would probably take your license away anyway, on the grounds that you're too stupid to be driving. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*looks at ID photo... short curly hair, glasses, full cheeks, white skin... *looks in mirror... long straight hair in a pony tail, no glasses, skinny face, well tanned skin. Add in the coloured contact lenses I've worn on occasion. I doubt sunglasses would make much difference. Anyway, if a copper asks you to remove your sunglasses, it'll be more because xe doesn't like talking at someone who's eyes they can't see than identifying you. Say you've shown ID, if the age matches, the ethnicity matches, the appearance is plausible and you answer to the name on the ID the cop has no reasonable reason to suspect you're concealing your ID. If you haven't shown any ID and you're not under arrest there's even less excuse for an order to remove the specs. --203.202.43.54 (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked, on going through a UK Airport security, to remove my shoes. I refused. The demand was repeated. Then I said that I was not wearing shoes, so I could not take shoes off! The security staff said: Oh, what ever! I felt clearly that if I said more I'd have been arrested! I did remove my sandals. That is as far as I could go in, "bucking the system"! MacOfJesus (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being pedantic isn't exactly "bucking the system." It's more just being rude to the people in line with you, not just the security folks who are doing this because a guy tried to blow up his feet on a plane. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question: yes, you can refuse to remove your glasses/hat/whatever to the officer, but that may give the officer reasonable cause to suspect you of wrongdoing (depending on the situation). That can then lead to searches of your person or car, and possibly arrest. Remember these, are men and women who have a job that regularly involves people threating to and/or physically attacking them. They're going to be a bit paranoid, with reason. Removing your sunglasses not only helps them verify your ID, but it also lets them see if you have red eye or dilated pupils from drinking, drugs or lack of sleep (all of which can impair you to the point of threatening other's safety). Refusal to remove your glasses causes suspicion that you may be hiding that fact. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali surnames

Is there a website where it shows the surnames in Bengali language in terms of which religious community uses which surnames? So far I know that all surnames that are Arabic are used by Muslim community. So far, I know that Mazumdar, Sarkar, Chowdhury, Biswas, Halawdar/Haldar, Aich, Bhuiyan and Talukdar are used by both Muslims and Hindus. So far, I know that Acharya, Adhikari, Aich, Ain, Ash, Baag, Bagchi, Baidya, Bandyopadhyaya/Banerjee, Banik, Basak, Burman, Bhadra, Bhanja, Bhar, Bhatta, Bhattacharya, Bhowmik, Bhuiyan, Biswas, Bose/Basu, Brahmachari, Chakraborty, Chanda, Chandra, Chandratre, Chandratreya, Chanda, Chattopadhyaya/Chatterjee, Choudhuri/Chaudhuri/Choudhury, Daam, Daha, Das, Dasgupta, Dasbiswas, Dastidar, Deb/Dev, Debnath, Dey/De, Dhar, Datta/Dutta, Dutta-Gupta, Dutta-Ray, Duari, Gangopadhyaya/Ganguly, Gaur, Ghatak, Ghosh, Ghosh-Dastidar, Ghoshal, Goswami, Guha, Guha Neogi, Guha Roy, Guhathakurta, Gunin, Gupta, Haldar, Hazra, Hor, Hui, Jana, Kabiraj, Kar, Karmakar, Kolapatra, Kumar, Kumhor, Kundu, Laha, Lahiri, Maitra, Maity, Majumdar, Mal, Malla, Majhi, Malakar, Mallick, Mandal, Manna, Maulik, Misra, Mitra, Mukhopadhyaya/Mukherjee, Munshi, Nag, Nandan, Nandy, Naskar, Neogi, Pal, Palit, Pathak, Poddar, Poriya, Porel, Pradhan, Pramanik, Rakshit Ray, Roy/Ray, Raychowdhury/Ray Chaudhuri, Rudra, Sadhukhan, Saha, Samaddar, Samanta, Sana, Santra, Sanyal, Sarbhan, Sarkar, Sen, Sengupta, Sensharma, Sharma, Shastry, Shikdar, Sinha\Shingha, Som, Sur, Swar, Talukdar, Talapatra and Thakur\tagore are used by only Hindus. So far that I know that Barua is used only by Buddhists. Is there any Hindu or Buddhist Bengali surnames that I should know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.170 (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi surnames

Which Punjabi surnames are purely Muslim? Which Punjabi surnames are purely Sikh?

Male Sikhs almost always have "Singh" as their middle name, after a first name and last name is usually caste. In females it's "Kaur" Jon Ascton (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which Punjabi surnames are both Muslim and Sikh?

Very few. "Chaudhry" comes to mind. Jon Ascton (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which Punjabi surnames are purely Hindus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.133 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu names derived Sanskrit

Is there a website is shows the Hindus names, both male and female that derived from Sanskrit like Dilip, Prakash, Rani, Raja, and such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.133 (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US spending a lot on military aid

Why is the US spending $2.55bn a year on military aid to Isreal, according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8681919.stm ? A surprisingly large amount of money. Why so much money, and why Israel and not some other country? 78.149.199.79 (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first two paragraphs of Israel – United States military relations pretty much describe the two main and one minor reasons: they share (some) security interests, there's a strong pro-Israel lobby in Washington, and less importantly, they help develop better weapons. Plus the U.S. would suffer a blow to its prestige if it were to abandon its longtime ally. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for why not some other country, no other country has such a powerful lobby in Washington pressing for military aid. Marco polo (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the most important "lobbying" that was ever done in this respect was the Arabs' pathetic performance in 1967, a year when they combined irresponsible grandiose aggressive sabre-rattling and frequent bloodthirsty bombastic wannabe-genocidal threats to "throw the Jews into the sea" etc. etc. ad nauseam magnam before the war, together with an ignominious abject shameful complete military collapse when it came to actual fighting. This created a wave of support for Israel in the U.S. -- before 1967, the U.S. government supported Israel in some ways, but it always carefully avoided the appearance of any kind of direct U.S.-Israel military alliance. After 1967, this reticence was tossed aside, and Arab-Israeli conflict became part of the U.S. Soviet cold-war confrontation, with the U.S. heavily backing Israel militarily and in other ways -- and the Arabs didn't really have anybody but themselves to blame... AnonMoos (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did blame bome into this from? Also I think it's questionable of the US support would remain so strong were it not for other factors. This is 2010 not 1968. Also your answer doesn't really explain why the amount to Israel is greater then other countries, but some of the above answers start to Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To 78.149.199.79 -- 1) It would be nice if you could actually spell "Israel" correctly. 2) I wonder why you don't object to U.S. aid to Egypt, which is also in the billions per year range? AnonMoos (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so paranoid - the OP was not aware that the US paid any aid to Eygpt. 78.147.140.229 (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about objecting to the money? The OP seemed surprised and asked why, while perhaps they object to it although as someone apparently living in the UK, they may not care and in any case they definitely didn't say anything about objecting to it. Finally since the OP spelt Israel correctly once ([11] in case there is any doubt), it's surely not that big an issue that they spelt it incorrectly once as well something which could easily be a result of typing to fast or any other number of things. Proofreading your posts to ensure there are absolutely no typos is not a requirement for participating in the RD. Furthermore, although the OP's IP looks up to the UK, there's no guarantee that English is even their first language. Definitely if someone talked about Malaysai or New Zaeland I might correct them but usually wouldn't get so worked up about it. (Even then I probably wouldn't bother if they did it one time but also spelt it correctly another time.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood: infernal blood in the Angevins

> After seeing ROBIN HOOD, I researched the history of the times.......and > I saw the statement that there was 'infernal blood in the > Angevins'...........I have tried to check that statement out....with no > luck... > > WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT THERE WAS INFERNAL BLOOD IN THE DYNASTY?? > > > Dave Gaefke >

email address removed, answers will be posted here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.141.116 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked out this article: House of Plantagenet?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it doesn't mention the contemporary legend that the Counts of Anjou and by extension, members of the Plantagenet dynasty were descended from the devil. It was just a popular myth at the time, just as Elizabeth Woodville was said to have been descended from Melusine, the fairy-witch.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And we have an article on Melusine, of course. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that, thanks Adam! The family of Lusignan was allegedly descended from the enchanting Melusine. Oh, and have you ever heard of the medieval malady water elf sickness? I read about it in a book that was set in 14th century England. It was a popular mental illness at the time in which afflicted people were said to be possessed by nixies, kelpies and water elves.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Novel in Heaven

I can't remember the name of this book but the key theme is it all takes place within heaven. The character dies (before the novel starts) and the beginning describes his arrival and what happens as he explores the place. Any ideas? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Five People You Meet in Heaven? (The summary says the protagonist dies at the beginning, but this was a bestseller.) Category:Bangsian fantasy is a trifle thin, but have a look. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Dreams May Come by Richard Matheson? But apparently the protagonist dies early in the novel. dlempa (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK coalition government

What is the best name for the new UK coalition government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.240.208 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Condems" has been suggested. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her Majesty's Government appears to be the official version. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Conservatives? Unsurprisingly I'm not the only one to think of it [12] Nil Einne (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what is meant by "the best name". The Cameron ministry covers it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian Military Defense

Does the United States contribute financially or otherwise to the defense of the Scandinavian countries? If the US suddenly spent much much less and scaled back a huge amount on the world scale a(hypothetically take the US out of the picture for a minute)would the Scandinavian countries have to increase their military financially and in man power? I wonder because I know they don't spend much for military and while some of their armies are compulsory service they don't seem very large in size, so, how do they effectively protect themselves and if they did have to increase efforts would that put a financial burden on the countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.251.203 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political neutrality goes a long way towards decreasing a nation's defence needs. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden and Finland are more or less neutral, but Denmark, Norway, and Iceland are members of NATO and as such count on US assistance in the event of any attack. Looking at our List of countries by military expenditure, Sweden and Norway spend similar amounts on their militaries. Sweden spends $5.2 billion, or 1.4% of its GDP in its military, while Norway spends $4.8 billion, or 1.5% of its GDP. Denmark spends 1.3% of its smaller GDP on its military. Finland spends 1.2 % of its GDP. Iceland has no true military. It is doubtful that countries as small as these could hope to defend themselves against a massive invasion from a much larger power such as Russia or the United States, no matter how much of their GDPs they devoted to military spending. (I know that the latter scenario seems implausible.) The most they can do is try discourage invasion with a promise of inflicting damage if invasion were attempted. Beyond that, small countries such as these have always relied on alliances, diplomacy, and the balance of power between larger powers. Since Sweden and Norway spend such similar amounts, and since all Scandinavian countries (other than Iceland) all spend similar proportions of their GDP on their militaries, I don't think we can assume that a US withdrawal from NATO, for example, would change the military budgets of Norway or Denmark. Marco polo (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The icy mountainous geography of Scandanavia largely precludes a thrust through there by the Russians, who would logically concentrate their main attack through the centre of Europe. The military domination of the North Atlantic by the US Navy and Royal Navy, (and don't forget the Marine Nationale) precludes any seaborne invasion of Iceland. The US isn't going to be withdrawing from NATO any time soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.16.248 (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in List of states with nuclear weapons, which explains that some countries that have nuclear weapons may or may not actually have control over them. None of the Scandinavian countries are mentioned in our article on that subject, but you might consider NATO status as something similar. Shadowjams (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 17

Released Confederate Prisoners in the US Civil War

I have an ancestor who was released from the Union Prison at Point Lookout, MD in June 1865. This is about when the prison was closing and emptying out due to the end of the war. I'm curious how soldiers would have gotten home after being released. My ancestor was sick at the time and had a long way to travel (but he made it). Wrad (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, as you may be aware, there were at least rail roads in the North, but once he got further South, they may have been beggared up by General Sherman, and it would not have been a priority for the Yankees to care whether or not one of their ( former ) foes made it anywhere. People can be quite resourceful if need be - reminds me of the scenes in the movie Cold Mountain, where Jude Law's character is trying to get home by any means. I suspect also that as much as Andersonville was a hell on earth for the Union men there, the Northern run prisons could not have been much better, based on what I understand about how Dr. Samuel Mudd had been treated upon being falsely accused of being confederate with Booth and the others, when all he had done was what a doctor would be nature do. I have pondered and researched the idea of writing a novel about the idea of a Confederate trying to get across country like that in those days with no transport other than train or horse. I guess in those days people - especially the hard working farmers and labourers of the South, were tough and could put up with anything if it meant finally getting back to their family. You could be sure your many greats grandfather had like minded Southerners who would have helped him. Who's to know if even a few Northern ones might have? Although any thought of them wanting to be charitable may have been pretty much dashed once Mr. Booth did his dirty deed. Not in any way to liken the two too much, but it is known that the Nazis had the ODESSA network, which got people away from the custody of the Allies to escape justice by heading out to mainly South America, and it is also believed - Australia and New Zealand, which is why we have had the occaisional trial over the years for those hunted down. It would be interesting to know whether or not there was some similar sort of set up eighty years previously for characters a lot less odious, most of whom had only fought for what they saw as their rights not to be dominated by a far away capital. Depending on where your ancestor had to get to - better if he only needed to make it to Virginia, as opposed to all the way to Texas - but I suspect there must have been ways to ask for help if they could from whom ever would give it, travel by rail, horse or even just walk. Then boat would be a good idea for some journeys also. There must be books on that sort of thing. I have one on the major battles, published over twenty years ago, and I also owned one called the Divided Union, but I know not whether they had any hints on how soldiers may have made it home. History Channel could also have something on that. 202.36.179.66 (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He had to get to Northern Alabama. I suspect he had dysentery or something from bad water. He never owned any slaves. His mother was a widow and very poor and destitute throughout the war. As far as I can gather he had grown up picking cotton in someone else's fields alongside his three brothers, one of whom was killed and another crippled for life in the war. My ancestor was relatively unscathed. Wrad (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People were a lot closer to the land in those days, and had a better clue of how to survive outdoors than we would. Keep in mind that Lewis and Clark and their party walked 2,000 miles or so in each direction, and only lost one man along the way. Another factor to consider is that many men might have found themselves in your ancestor's situation, and maybe he was one of the lucky ones who made it. Unfortunately, no one has so far answered your specific question with certainty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that this was true of most Confederate soldiers, regardless of their personal views on Negroes. This is the age old story of nobs getting normal people to fight their wars for them. My understanding is that the South was rebelling on the principle of not wanting to be told what to do by the North, and it was just that slavery was one of the issues within that. It is also a fact that President Lincoln did not emancipate the slaves - in effect only then making the war about slavery - until the first of January, 1863. Certainly the defeat of the South led to the end of legal slavery on a national level - but no one can legislate personal opionion. The mal treatment of blacks continued in many other ways for over a hundred years thereafter - and it can be said, still occurs to this day. My thought on why individual people did fight for the South is that they are as varied as there were people. One could parallel the plight of the South in terms of their thoughts on not wanting to be ruled over by others to that of the Americans daring to take up arms against his most glorious Majesty, King George the Third. It is interesting that the same reason justified back in 1775, leading to the skirmish at Bunker Hill, did not seem valid in 1861, nor also does it for the anti government militias of today. I am not defending them - especially where acts of violence occur - but it is interesting that a nation that founded itself on the idea of liberty and no taxation without representation should now become one that sometimes - not always - tramples individual rights, and yet on the other hand, is also a country that sticks up for the oppressed of other lands, as mine is too. As for King George, it has to be said, that although he was America's anointed leader, he did not help the situation, and other means could have been found that could have been fair to both sides. But I digress. Amazing how a question on one subject can end up all over the place. As for the idea that people were closer to the land - yes - that makes sense, and due to that, your ancestor may even have known about some natural cures for dysentry in the form of plants and such on the way home. Certainly getting out of that camp was a start. I suspect if he did have help, ( and why shouldn't men who had been through like experiences, and who still felt a bond of loyalty, not assist one another ? ), this would have been desirable, with safety in numbers, and as long as they could make their long journey not bothered by vengeful Northerners, and with the good will of people on the way in places like Virginia or Tennesssee, even if through some of those mountains, then the journey would be, if still dangerous, long and draining, still manageable. The Russian202.36.179.66 (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southerners have often tried to deflect the slavery issue and defend the Confederacy by saying "the war was not about slavery". That is flat out, dead wrong. It was not the only reason for the war, nor for what kept the war going, but it was a prime ingredient in the stew that had been simmering since the Constitution was written, and after a number of compromises, it finally boiled over when we got a President who was anti-slavery and wouldn't kiss up to the South. The Emancipation Proclamation did not immediately free any slaves, but it was a brilliant stroke politically, as it took away any remote possibility of the British helping the South, as it would have compelled them to overtly defend slavery. Lincoln had been anti-slavery for a long time, and this was his chance, his foot-in-the-door, to start to put an end to it. The Emancipation Proclamation was a major step in ensuring the defeat of the South and in the abolition of slavery. None of these responses answer the OP's question definitively, though. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ with you Bugs on this issue as I had several maternal ancestors who fought for the Confederacy and they were from an area in Northern Arkansas that did not have slaves. In point of fact, those ancestors in question (2 of my great-great-grandfathers) had never seen a black person in their lives. One was wounded, the other killed (it says on his tombstone that he was killed in the War of Northern Aggression). The Ozarks, in the beginning, did not wish to take part in the Civil War for that very reason; however, they were eventaully persuaded to do so on the grounds that the conflict was really over states rights. I was taught in school that the south were the bad guys, but remember it was the northern slavers who brought the slaves to America in the first place and many of the northern soldiers mistreated blacks as well as whites after they invaded and pretty much destroyed the south, leaving it impoverished and deeply angry and resentful. In fact, many of the guys in blue uniforms were conscripts who had just arrived in the US. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for an instant justifying the heinous institution of slavery, but it's wrong to say all southerners donned the grey uniform because they upholded slavery.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs clearly states that slavery wasn't the only reason but that it was the main reason. I suspect that the majority of Confederate soldiers fought to protect their family, property, way of life, and their rights; the most important one being the right to own Black slaves. Flamarande (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for the war and the reasons why individual soldiers fought are two very different things. The vast majority of Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves and were fighting for a variety of other reasons: loyalty to their state, anger at "Northern aggression", etc. But if you look at why the Southern states seceded as stated in declarations passed by state legislatures, they all named the preservation of the institution of slavery as the primary reason for leaving the Union. To put it in a modern context: if most U.S. soldiers fighting in the Gulf War didn't own cars, would that mean the war wasn't about oil? (I'm not saying it was, only that the motivations of the troops is irrelevant.) Soldiers don't declare war; national leaders do. —D. Monack ^talk 07:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many people joined the Confederacy due to family and/or community pressure. As I had poined out before many people of the Ozarks felt it wasn't really their fight, but were pressurised into joining for fear of being ostracised by the community; in point of fact, the famous Hatfield-McCoy feud allegedly resulted over the two families having taken opposing sides during the Civil War.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's always the same old story everywhere all the time. Your national leader(s) leads your nation into war. You enlist in the military because it is your duty as a citizen to fight for your country and your people. If you don't join then the majority will consider you a coward or a traitor (failing sensible medical - and perhaps religious - reasons of course). These basic principles can be applied to most soldiers in most conflicts. Flamarande (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not take the word of the vice-president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, as to what the war was mainly about? See Cornerstone Speech#.22Peculiar_Institution.22... AnonMoos (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You all are talking about the big picture of the war from the point of view of people who were wealthy and had slaves, or, for that matter, could read and write and argue well and understand arguments and political issues. I'm interested in that, but I'm more interested in the views of this individual man who had no slaves and who was probably illiterate. I don't have anything written by him about why he went to war. I suspect it was for money and a chance to get out of a very bad situation. War life for him seems to have been better than life at home. I also suspect that there may have been community reasons for it, tied to the fact that many in his church were going. I have a memoir written by a man who fought in his company who was a bit wealthier and educated. The letter constantly emphasizes secession, but never mentions slavery. I imagine my ancestor would have known the writer of this memoir and heard him talk quite a bit, but I have my doubts as to how much he would have understood fully.

In any case, here's the route my ancestor would have taken if he had used google maps in his trip from prison camp to home:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=Courtland,+AL&daddr=Point+Lookout,+Severna+Park,+MD+21146&hl=en&geocode=%3BCdRQcu3e_dbaFalDVAIdQkVv-yk1bZPoVfq3iTGRpnS5hmYXoA&mra=ls&dirflg=w&sll=36.844461,-81.958008&sspn=9.823011,19.753418&ie=UTF8&z=6

Wrad (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrad, I'm sorry that no one has answered your question about how your ancestor might have gotten home. Your Google map shows a route taking Interstate highways, which of course didn't exist at the time. According to this source:

"Beginning in February of 1865, prisoners who swore an allegiance to the Union were classified for release. Subsequently, groups of approximately 500 were each given a food ration, money and or transportation vouchers and placed on a train for City Point, Virginia. City Point was the major Union army supply depot in northern Virginia and from there each prisoner was provided assistance to his home destination. However, due to the fact that the war was still ongoing and the overall condition of transportation in the South was poor it is very conceivable that these men had a difficult time reaching home

"Those soldiers who survived were released in groups at the end of the war and provided the same assistance for returning to their homes in the South. By the end of 1865, the camp was fully closed, all buildings torn down or moved to nearby locations."

This source describes the procedure at a different camp than the one where your ancestor was held, but probably the procedure was the same at all Union prisoner camps. So your ancestor could have traveled relatively comfortably, by train and steamer and other conveyances, back to his hometown. Here is a railroad map of the Southeast as of about 1865. Point Lookout is not far from the main line between Baltimore and Washington, and I would guess that prisoners might have been taken by wagon to the main rail line or else taken by steamship or sailing ship from Point Lookout to Baltimore, where they could transfer to a train. From Washington, released prisoners could catch a ferry to Alexandria, Virginia. As you can see, rail lines connect Alexandria with Decatur, Alabama, through Lynchburg, Virginia, and Chattanooga, Tennessee. From Decatur, it would not be a long wagon trip to Courtland. Alternatively, if your ancestor was processed in City Point, Virginia, as described in the source above, City Point is located on an arm of the Chesapeake Bay outside of Petersburg, Virginia, so it would have made sense to send batches of men from Lookout Point, Maryland, by steamer or sailing ship directly to City Point. There, they would have been processed and then taken by wagon to Petersburg, where your ancestor could have taken a train through Lynchburg along the route I've just described. Marco polo (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wrad (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading our article on City Point, I see that there was in the mid-1800s already a rail line linking City Point with Petersburg, so that would have made that stage of the journey that much easier. You can see why they would have used City Point to process released prisoners: It was both a seaport and a rail depot. Marco polo (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for turning your question about your ancestor into a debate about the reasons for the Civil War. That was not my intention. I understood right away that naturally there are many about who had great great grandfathers and such on both sides of the conflict, and that although the result of the war did pave the way to ending slavery, and slavery may have been one of the major issues about it, I did not believe that all Confederates believed in, or practised, slavery, and their personal reasons for fighting could be far removed from those of others. Even some Northerners would not have cared about the Negroes, and may well have joined up to " Put those Rebs in their Place ", rather than care about freedom or other lofty ideals. I probably have ancestors who fought in the Revolutionary War against the Continental Army, since I know one at the time was a wheelwright, and his job may even have been to supply carriages and wheel bases for cannon to be shipped across the Atlantic to deal with that minor insurrection. That was history. I do not believe every Red Coat was evil, as portrayed by Mel Gibson, although some obviously were, but that applies to both sides. The thing is, knowing how our ancestors battled each other in the past - or how yours did so against the Union - and even some cousins of mine I believe also live in the US, this should serve as a lesson to us to avoid further destructive wars - war just for the sake of war. Some are necessary from a certain point of view - but that is only because their always exist those who provoke war. As for your original question, I am glad it was answered to your satisfaction, and that a missing part of your family's history can be filled in, because where we all come from is important to us. Members of my family had written a book on how they settled in Templeton, west of Christchurch here in New Zealand, from England, in 1863, and it never ceases to be intruiging. Keep up the curiousity. The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which date was which ?

I am aware of the difference between the Old and New Styles of Calendars, with regard to the introduction of the Gregorian which we use now. When I entered the date 3 September 1651 into the Wolfram Mathematica website for finding out significances of dates in History and the future, I saw that this was given as a Sunday, being the Gregorian date for the Battle of Worcester. Now I know that the 3rd of September 1651 was a Wednesday (O.S.), but this site was suggesting that the date 3rd of September is the one we would now give to the date the battle was fought on - that is, to look at another example, in the sense that on the day that was to England within 1642, Isaac Newton was born on Christmas Day, but the Gregorian date, as it would have been in France at the exact time he was getting his bottom smacked to help him breathe, was, I understand, 6 January, 1643. So my question is, have a lot of dates of old battles such as that been changed to what they would be now under the Gregorian Calendar, or did say the Battle of Worcester occur on what was to those who were actually there, Wednesday the 3rd of September, 1651, which would have been a different day and date had England by then already adopted Gregoria, which they did not do for another 101 years to the day, I think, or was it a different date, which would have been 3 September under the New Style ? My thought is that if September the Third is the New Style date, then the battle would have been fought on what was actually about August 23rd or so to those who were there at the time. The Russian202.36.179.66 (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I found some books online published in England before 1752 that give the battle's date as 3 September. So I can say with reasonable confidence that 3 September is the Old Style date. The New Style date would be 13 September. In my experience we don't usually convert historic dates from Julian to Gregorian. So it is understandable that when you ask Wolfram what happened on September 3 it tells you the Battle of Worcester happened. There are some exceptions, for example Washington's birth is always given as 22 February 1732 (as Wolfram will tell you) even though at the time of his birth it was reckoned as 11 February 1731. --Cam (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The exceptions are always for people who lived through the calendar change. Otherwise, the dates are not (or should not be) updated. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An example of a famous battle commemorated in the New Style is the Battle of the Boyne which actually occured on 1 July 1690, but is celebrated annually by loyalists in Northern Ireland on 12 July. In point of fact, the Calendar was 10 days behind in England and Ireland in the 17th century, so the actual Gregorian date for the Battle of the Boyne was 11 July 1690.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A similar case is when Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia celebrated her birthday on 11 June instead of the correct 10 June date after 1900. She was born on 29 May 1897 by the Old Style Calendar.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There've been many such cases, Jeanne. A couple that come to mind are Vladimir Nabokov (it's explained in detail in the Notes section); and Sergei Rachmaninoff. Let me quote from the booklet accompanying the complete edition of Rachmaninoff' recordings, issued by RCA Records in his centenary year 1973:

1873 - Born on March 20 (o.s.)/April 1 (n.s.)*
* In the 19th century the difference between the Julian calendar (O.S.), still in use in Russia, and the Gregorian (N.S.) was 12 days. In the 20th century this difference grew to 13 days and thus technically Rachmaninoff's birthday fell on April 2 (my highlighting; I circled these words in my copy, and wrote the comment "CRAP!"). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some encyclopedias which give Lenin's DOB as 9 April 1870 which is the correct OS date, but he celebrated it 22 April when it was actually 21 April seeing as he was born in the 19th and not 20th century. It's all so confusing and terribly annoying to put it mildly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it needn't be. It's an incredibly simple concept. The difference between the calendars at the time of the date in question is the only factor that needs to be taken into account. The difference between the calendars at the time the calculation is being done is utterly irrelevant, otherwise people like Ivan the Terrible would have 4 different death dates by now, depending on whether the person converting the date was living in the 16th, 18th, 19th or 20th century, and that's just a ridiculous concept. He died on 18 March 1584 (os); at that time the difference was 10 days, so the NS date is 28 March. End of story. It doesn't "become" 29 March in 1700, 30 March in 1800, or 31 March in 1900, but stays at 28 March forever. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. One calculates from the century in which a person was born/event took place, not the century at the time of calculation; otherwise George Washington's birthday would be celebrated now on 25 February instead of 22 Feb. As an astrologer, I do a lot of proleptic Gregorian calculations and it's very simple to arrive at the correct date.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of the Boyne, according to some calculators, was in the Gregorian Calander the 8th of July. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You all, that clears a lot of things up. What we want to know as historians ( amateur though I might be ), is what happened to people then, when it happened to them - that is, the date THEY acknowledged at the time. Calculators should show a certain date is so many days ago, that it really is, taking into account the two major Calendar shifts. I have studied this a bit and come up with perpetual calendars and adapted a formula to find the day a given date of history was, taking these things into account. I did this because most perpetual calendars generally tried to cover only the last 200 years, perhaps deeming it more difficult to contend with the change overs. I worked all that out eighteen years ago. All I was concerned about now was the idea that what I thought were the actual dates for battles and such for those then, may not be what we regard the date to be comparing it to now. Thanks Again. The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To go back to the beginning of calenders, as we know them; The Julian Calender, was calculated as 365 days divided into a year. However, as time proved, it was out 1 day in 4 years. Hence, the Gregorian Calender calculated the 1 day extra in four years. Hence, there was a time when, on looking at the days in the interim period, we attempt to calculate what those days would be in the Gregorian Calender.

Logically speaking it is not a correct step for the days, then, were of the Julian Calender in History; that is: to go back and substitute another date than what is of History, may be an information point but hardly Historical. So they remain "cemented into" the Julian Calender.

However, if you are going to celebrate a day of the past, such as the Battle of The Boyne, then it would be more logical to have it as the 8th rather then the 12th, for that would be truer to time as we calculate and have it now.

I hope this helps to clear up the point. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But contemplate; The beginning of the new Millennium is actually; 1st of January 2001, not 2000. There is no year Zero! Yet politicians missed the point! MacOfJesus (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely pro-choice philosopher

I have heard of a philosopher who held that parents should be allowed to kill their children up to two years of age as a sort of post-birth abortion. Who is this philosopher, and where can we find these views espoused? dlempa (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Peter Singer is who you're thinking about. Shadowjams (talk) 03:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis de Sade? Wrad (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is bad enough this practice is allowed at all, and now some want to extend it, to the point that even pro choice people would have to say that that is not on. The Russian. 202.36.179.66 (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there isn't a parent alive that hasn't thought about whacking their two-year-old. Most of them resist that temptation. Peter Singer's own parents, for example. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Singer's book Practical Ethics features this argument. See also Groningen Protocol and child euthanasia for more info. Gabbe (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Ethical Debate

I wonder how he would have liked it if his parents had decided to kill him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell does someone who advocates the killing of newborn children obtain a postion to teach at a university and thus receive a higher wage than dedicated workers at hospitals who tend ill and dying babies doing their best to ensure their survival? Delightful people we share our world with. Jesus wept!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is any of this helpful to the OP? 212.219.39.146 (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comments by Shadowjams and Gabbe are helpful. Otherwise, WP:NOT#FORUM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't at all. Jeanne; God forbid anyone (least of all a professional philosopher!) should espouse ideas which may offend the moral majority, particularly those members thereof who haven't actually read anything he's written but are willing to be outraged on hearsay. :) FiggyBee (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professional philosopher is it? Oh well, I suppose if he holds that exalted title, he should be regarded with due respect. Don't worry, guys, I won't comment further, lest I be accused of being a moral person. Heaven forbid.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that this is a reference desk, where people from all parts of the world, with all sorts of backgrounds and values, come for answers to questions. It is not a forum on which editors should discuss their own opinions, however widely they may be shared. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morals are irrelevant here. 212.219.39.146 (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) And my point is that it's stupid to be morally outraged at things you know nothing about. I don't necessarily agree with Peter Singer, but I have at least read and studied a lot of what he's written and understand where he's coming from. In fact, I'm not sure that "Extremely pro-choice" isn't a mischaracterisation of Singer's argument; basically, Singer argues that if we value a person on how "human" they are, then babies aren't properly "human" until they're old enough to develop language and a sense of self; if there's no difference in humanity between a foetus and a newborn, there's no moral difference between killing a foetus and a newborn. So (and this isn't Singer's argument), if we think killing a newborn is wrong, perhaps we should think killing a foetus is wrong too? FiggyBee (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO Peter Singer is simply being a Devil's advocate (which is a worthy and valuable position in serious academic debates). There is a major moral difference between killing/aborting a foetus and killing/murdering a newborn. Almost all of us know it and I'm pretty sure Peter Singer knows the difference. Just don't ask me loaded questions asking explain the precise difference (Sadly I'm not a philosopher - I work for a living). Flamarande (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>There isn't any difference at all between murdering a fetus or murdering a newborn. There are subtle strategies going on where first they legalize abortion; then they legalize partial-birth abortion; then they legalize "abortion" of young children; eventually they eliminate anyone they don't like. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is your assumption based on having read anything written by Singer? Gabbe (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a healthy dose of "you should read Singer before throwing him out the window" here. I don't agree with everything he's written but he's not a moron at all—he's probably one of the most important and brilliant philosophers alive. His conclusions are often exceptionally counter-intuitive but it is very hard to find good logical arguments against them. And unlike most philosophers these days, the questions he is preoccupied with are actually moral questions that actually matter to most people these days (e.g. is abortion moral, is eating meat moral, what is the moral response of those who have wealth to those who do not). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was Peter Singer, but this is an oversimplification of his stance: he didn't advocate the killing of children, but instead put forward an argument based on preference utilitarianism, which effectively argues that the right action in any given circumstance is that which brings about the most good, in which "good" is defined as the meeting of preferences. A foetus has no preferences, and a new born child has few preferences. Thus, in a simple equation, it is possible that their preferences will be overridden by that of a parent. However, the equation becomes more complex, as there may well be the preferences of other people to take into account, and thus this doesn't mean that he's advocating the random killing of two year olds. His stance is complex, and utilitarianism, while not an approach I support, is a significant attempt to try and understand ethics. I've always thought that what Singer brings is a willingness to accept the logical outcomes of the approach, even though those outcomes may be counter-intuitive. Anyway, you probably want Rethinking Life and Death as a source. - Bilby (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved around the above messages based on indenting and what seems to make sense. Particularly given the collapse box, the discussion was rather confusing the way things were before [13] Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the responses; I think Peter Singer must be who I had heard of. dlempa (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, if you're allowed to lock up a person for fifty years for killing his child, then you're also allowed to kill a child. Vranak (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2010

Responsibilities of an LDS prophet

I am writing in regards to the LDS prophet Thomas S. Monson. I am not sure what his day to day prophetic responsibilities are as they are not articulated in the article. Also, there is no information regarding what prophetic acts he has carried out. As we attempt to describe Monson in the most encyclopedic (not necessarily Mormon) way, it is pertinent to understand his prophetic conduct and functioning through a global lens. Tkfy7cf (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the articles "Prophet, seer, and revelator", "President of the Church" and "Revelation (Latter Day Saints)"? They expand on what "prophecy" means in the context of Mormonism. Gabbe (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. Unfortunately, those articles do not speak of the day to day responsibilities of the president of the Church or the prophetic revelations of Monson. Do you have any insight on those issues? Tkfy7cf (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

national emblem of United kingdom

The origin of national emblem of the United Kingdom and ite symbolic significance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majian1ma (talk • contribs) 09:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article "Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom"? Gabbe (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the royal coat of arms, the United Kingdom does not have a national emblem. Its constituent countries of England, Scotland and Wales each have their own national symbols. The position in Northern Ireland is more complicated. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The symbol for Northern Ireland is the Red Hand of Ulster, which is not accepted by everybody in the North.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is a misrepresentation of the position discussed in the article to which I have linked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The United Kingdom DOES have national emblems: Britannia [14] (a woman with a Roman helmet, a Union Jack shield and a trident) is the personification of the nation, much as Marianne is for France, although she has a few years on her French counterpart, apparently dating from 1672. Also a royally crowned lion passant - the British lion - as used on the emblem of the British Army. Otherwise Ghmyrtle is correct; the Royal Arms, the Royal cypher (EIIR) or a stylised representation of St Edward's Crown all have their uses. Alansplodge (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, Britannia (one 't', two 'n's) is a personification of Great Britain, rather than of the UK - perhaps a point of detail, unless you live west of the Irish Sea. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I was let down by the link still working with my rubbish spelling! Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but in general terms "British" usually means the UK - the British Army doesn't exclude Northern Ireland and in the Olympics we have "Team GB". Alansplodge (talk)

"British" definitely means "of the United Kingdom" (or "of Great Britain", but usually the former), but "Great Britain" is never (correctly) synonymous with "United Kingdom". Britannia is "the personification of Great Britain", not "a British personification", so you can't interpret it as referring to the UK. Yes, the terminology is very confusing and rather arbitrary. Confusion and arbitrariness are probably much better emblems of UK than anything else! --Tango (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although what you say may be technically correct, I still believe that Britannia represents the whole nation. Did this cartoonist[15] mean to specifically exclude Ireland? I don't think so. Doesn't she have a Union Flag on her shield? Just my opinion though. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we invent an emblem comprising confusion and arbitrariness and include it on the UK article? ;) Jack forbes (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a snarling Sylvester the cat?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Alan. When they sing "Rule, Britannia! Britannia rule the waves; Britons never, never, never shall be slaves" these days, they're thinking of the whole British nation (i.e. the UK, including NI), although the writer of the words in 1740 would have had a narrower scope in mind since at that time the crown of Ireland was in personal union only with the British crown but the people of Ireland were not in any sense Britons. That all changed in 1801 when Ireland became part of the UK. It changed again later when the bulk of Ireland became independent, but NI remains British. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People may sing "...never shall be slaves", but the original is "never will be slaves". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Duchamp

sculpture work of marcel duchamp a symbolism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpollarco (talk • contribs) 11:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for information on Marcel Duchamp and Symbolism (arts)? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sculpture work of Marcel Duchamp a symbolism , pragmatism,or formalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpollarco (talk • contribs) 11:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked to articles for you. --Lgriot (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School Years For UK & America

It has been something iv always wondered, what are the differances between the uk school years and the americian school years, like what is 5th grade for uk schools.

NB: Reception is the UK's version of kindergarden by the way

Age	England & Wales Year	USA Year
0-5	Nursery school	Pre-school
4	Reception	Pre-school
5	Year 1	Kindergarten
6	Year 2	1st Grade
7	Year 3	2nd Grade
8	Year 4	3rd Grade
9	Year 5	4th Grade
10	Year 6	5th Grade
11	Year 7	6th Grade
12	Year 8	7th Grade
13	Year 9	8th Grade
14	Year 10	9th Grade
15	Year 11	10th Grade
16	Year 12	11th Grade
17	Year 13	12th Grade

so could you fill this table in, thanks Sophie :# 12:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the USA: "7th Grade through 12th Grade", don'cha know. 1 through 8 traditionally were Primary School, also known as Elementary School. 9 through 12 were Secondary School, also known as High School or Prep School, i.e. preparatory for college. Grades 5-6-7-8-9, or a subset thereof, are now often Junior High School and/or Middle School. 9th through 12th are also referred to (echoing college usage), as Freshman, Sophomore, Junior and Senior. For the time prior to 1st Grade, there is also "Pre-School". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I went to school, grades 7th through 9th were known as Junior High, and grades 10th through 12th as Senior or just plain High School. For the first semester of the 9th grade I went to a private junior high school called a Free or Middle School, although the latter term was then rarely used.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was brought up in the Scottish education system so I can't speak for the rest of the UK. At 5 years old we started Primary School. This went from primary 1 to primary 7 when we would move on to secondary school. At secondary school we started from 1st year through to 5th year, or 4th if you decided to leave school. Jack forbes (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same as England when I was at school, though they now seem to number consecutively through secondary schools. I think that the UK column is one year out, with year 1 starting at 5 and reception at 4. See Education in England#School years -- Q Chris (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the system in the table the prevailing system in England and Wales, for state education purposes. The UK ages given are for the age the vast majority of the year are at the end of the year, not the beginning. (I don't know about the US.) Traditional systems vary widely, but Year 12 is still fairly commonly called Lower Sixth and Year 13 Upper Sixth, which you've missed. For a while, Year 11 was the last compulsory year of education, but starting with one recent year's Year 7, Year 12 will be. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have added that I am a middle aged guy and that things may have changed since I was a nipper. Time rolls on. :( Jack forbes (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two of my kids attended school in Ireland, where they start at 4 in a class known as Infants. Here, in Italy it's different, where they begin at 6 in Scuola Elementaria; at 11, they move on to Scuola Media, then at 14, which is the legal age in which a child can leave school, they move up to Scuola Superiore which is usually a liceo (Italian school) , where they choose a school adapted to each individual's own particular scolastic ability. They normally leave at 19, such as my son, who's 19 and in his final year. However, he has a friend and classmate who is 22.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should also have read the link I gave you to Scottish education which gives the school years for all parts of the UK.[16] Jack forbes (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. I've Corrected the table. All the pages we have on the American system suggest the intention of the table was the age of the majority of pupils at the beginning of the year, and so I've adjusted the English system to this effect. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be pedantic but I've changed it from UK years to England & Wales years. Jack forbes (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ahh, so it seams that the us is one behind the uk school years because our "reception" is the usa's kindergarden Sophie :# 13:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, American kids normally enter kingergarten at about 5, although it depends on which time of the year a child is born. For example, if a child was born in December 1956, he would have entered kingergarten in September 1962 not 1961 because September is the cut-off date for births in any given year.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the cut-off date in England and Wales too. The child's nominal age is the age on 1st September. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just about made it, since my birthday is 1st September! My Welsh education ran (1963-76) as ages 5-6 "Infants", then ages 7-10 Standard 1-4 in primary school, then switch to secondary school at 11 with Forms 1-5, then Lower Sixth and Upper Sixth, and so to university the month I turned 18, and graduate at 20... -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schools were & are (more so) structures to program children to become slaves to the coporate world. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Literacy is a corporate conspiracy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what literature they give you. Jack forbes (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

"Books are fatal: they are the curse of the human race. Nine- tenths of existing books are nonsense, and the clever books are the refutation of that nonsense. The greatest misfortune that ever befell man was the invention of printing." -- Benjamin Disraeli. Vranak (talk)

You obviously didn't go to my British comprehensive in the 1970s - it was largely staffed by Marxist-Leninists (they were the moderate ones!). Alansplodge (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. In 12th grade I had one of those (even looked like Trotsky!) who tried to get me to watch the film on the Russian Revolution he was showing; I merely held up my copy of Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra, which I was reading at the time, and he shut up-very quickly|--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I've forgotten most of my schooling (too much time bunking off) and have spent the last couple of decades educating myself to the degree where I can now string two sentences together. I know, that was only one sentence but I'm working on it! Jack forbes (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was at a direct grant school in the 1960s, and was taught economics by a (very good) teacher who claimed to be a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. But this is getting dangerously off-topic, so watch out I don't tell you off... Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

California has recently changed their law so that you can't start Kindergarten unless you've had your 5th birthday as of September 1 of that year. It used to be sometime much later in the year, I'm thinking December 1, but I'm not positive on that. I know that that would have prevented me from starting school till I was almost 6, even though I was already reading at the age of 4. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start kindergarten until I was fully six years of age: I have a birthday in the summer. I've known several people in my grade who are over a full year younger than I am, which is a little weird. Buddy431 (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Economics qualifications of UK chancellors

...during the 20th. and 21st. centuries? I bet lots of them had zilch. 78.147.140.229 (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list here which contains wikilinks to biographies you can read. Gabbe (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the Wikipedia biographies for post WW2 chancellors gives the following results:

John Anderson, economics degree. Hugh Dalton, no specific mention. Stafford Cripps, none. Hugh Gaitskell, economics lecturer. R. A. Butler, none. Harold Macmillan, none. Peter Thornycroft, none. Derick Heathcoat-Amory, none mentioned. Selwyn Lloyd, none mentioned. Reginald Maudling, none. James Callaghan, none. Roy Jenkins, degree in Politics Philosophy and Economics. Iain Macleod, none. Anthony Barber, none. Denis Healey, none. Geoffrey Howe, none. Nigel Lawson, degree in Philosophy Politics and Economics. John Major, GCE "O" level economics, non-graduate. Norman Lamont, degree in economics. Kenneth Clarke, none. Gordon Brown, none. Alistair Darling, none. George Osborne, none.

Nearly all of them are from Oxbridge, even the Labour ones, and the average tenure is less than three years. Nearly 80% of them have no economics qualification. 92.26.56.233 (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Sigma motto

A.E.K.D.B. ("Adelphoi En Kardia Dios Bous,". Meaning "brothers in the heart throughout life" or "brothers in the heart forever.") On the talk page the Kappa Sigma editors want to delete the long form and the translations on the ground that is is "unreferencable". This seems odd to me. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it doesn't mean what it's said to mean, it probably is unreferenceable. "Throughout life" might be "dia biou" (διὰ βίου), but "dios" looks like the adjective meaning "divine" (or it could be the genitive of "Zeus"), and "bous" means "ox" or "bull". Normally, one would have some articles in there, as well. Deor (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doer, can you confirm that the English transliteration for "Αδελφοι εν καρδία διὰ βίου" is "Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou" so that there are no more mix-ups? =) Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the fact that the motto is Αδελφοι εν καρδία διὰ βίου" is *still* unreferenced.Naraht (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether this is indeed a motto of the organization in question, and it would certainly need to be referenced before it could be included in the article; but to answer AEKDB's question, the five words with diacritics included (and with the word for "heart" in the dative case, as the object of the preposition ἐν) would be Ἀδελφοὶ ἐν καρδίᾳ διὰ βίου. A transliteration might be "Adelphoi en kardiai dia biou" (I'm not really sure what the usual way of transliterating a vowel with an iota subscript is, so "kardiai" may not be standard). As I implied before, this isn't terribly good Greek, though. Deor (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonably tolerable "Telegraphese" or "Headlinese" Greek... AnonMoos (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who was Leibowitz in A Canticle for Leibowitz?

Does anyon know whether there ever was an electronics engineer to which the book, A Canticle for Leibowitz refers? Or was it just a made-up name? --78.148.127.191 (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it would be very difficult to prove that there was no such real-life electronics engineer as Isaac Edward Leibowitz (Liebowitz is in itself a conventional Ashkenazi Jewish surname), I've never in over 35 years of active SF fandom heard it suggested that there was, and in the era the book was written it was usual practice to avoid deliberate or inadvertant references to identifiably real people in case they took real or simulated offense and sued. However, SF and other writers sometimes use the names of acquaintances for characters (a process called "Tuckerization" after the SF fan and author Bob Tucker who popularised the practice), and more recently some authors have actually sold the privilege of having one's name so used, often donating the proceeds to charitable causes. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of auctioning a name for charity, see Kick-Ass (comics)#Promotion. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

H. P. Lovecraft named one of his characters Klarkash Ton in honor of his friend, Clark Ashton Smith. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bloch also featured as "Robert Blake", if I recall correctly. This was indeed a game that members of the Lovecraft circle mutually indulged in. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. See Robert Harrison Blake. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional author Kilgore Trout ?= real author Theodore Sturgeon.Edison (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was Agatha Christie Anglican or Catholic?

Thanks in advance! --92.74.123.203 (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This says "strong Anglican faith". Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest U.S. National Parks

Can someone please give me a list of the oldest U.S. national parks? - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 20:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "oldest," I assume you mean the earliest to be designated National Parks. If you visit List of National Parks of the United States and sort the table by "Date Formed," you'll be able to answer your question.Annish33 (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If by "oldest" you mean physically oldest, then my first guess would be Keweenaw National Historical Park given that it is on the Precambrian Shield. 24.68.50.170 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 18

Mystery Location

Please let me know where this is. thanks! Reticuli88 (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oberhofen Castle on Lake Thun in Switzerland.--Cam (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cam. I am an American. If I wanted to visit this place, would I have to learn a lot of Swiss(?) or could I get by with my English? Does anyone recommend anything? Reticuli88 (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oberhofen am Thunersee is in the Canton of Bern, a part of Switzerland which uses both German and French, so if you have either of those languages you should manage fine. Oberhofen itself is mainly German-speaking. Many English-speaking people visit Switzerland and manage without much knowledge of any of the languages of the country (there isn't a Swiss language - German, French, Italian and Romansch are the principal tongues). DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certain that you can get by with English there. Especially with people under ~45, English will be a near-universal skill for the people at least on a utilitarian level. Of course, if you speak local languages you will be able to more fully participate in local events and experience more of the culture, but for simple sight-seeing don't expect any trouble. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I speak both English and German, but rarely needed to use my German when I visited Switzerland. Most of the tourist sites that I visited had both English and German printed materials. Often if there was a guided-tour, the tour was only in German, but you could get an English pamphlet that more or less (sometimes a lot less) told you what the tour guide was saying. Hotels and car rental agencies pretty much always had English speaking staff. The only time my wife and I ran into trouble was in a small French speaking village on Lake Biel, where everyone in the cafe wanted to talk to us, but no one spoke either German or English. I really enjoyed Switzerland and highly recommend going to visit. If you are interested in other castles, check out the List of castles and fortresses in Switzerland, though there are a lot of red links. Tobyc75 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the opposite of a pyrrhic victory?

Are there any Generals who were the opposite of Pyrrhus IE lost major battles or multiple minor battles, but lost their way to victory? Lost battles but won the war? --Gary123 (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who lost to Pyrrhus, I guess - Publius Decius Mus. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So a Music Defeat? Haha. Wrad (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

France in both World Wars. East of Borschov (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pyrrhic victory article has several more examples - so perhaps the opposing leaders in those battles will also work here. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The militias in the battle of mogadishu seems like another example. --Jabberwalkee (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Polish historians often use the term "moral victory" to describe a lost battle where those defeated have shown to be militarily weaker, but morally superior (yes, it's just nationalist propaganda). Anyway, that could be called the opposite of Pyrrhic victory. And then, there's also what Polish sports journalists call "the victorious draw" – that is, when Poland kicked England out from World Cup eliminations in a 1:1 match in 1973. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like those fun, low intensity conflicts where the goal of one side is to just draw the war out so long the other side decides to go home because the whole thing seems pointless. Googlemeister (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae might qualify. Matt Deres (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a single neat phrase, but it does remind me of a section from Hagakure --

Narutomi Hyogo said, "What is called winning is defeating one's allies. Defeating one's allies is defeating oneself, and defeating oneself is vigorously overcoming one's own body. It is as though a man were in the midst of ten thousand allies but not a one were following him. If one hasn't previously mastered his mind and body, he will not defeat the enemy."

Of course what we can see here is that there is no enemy, except perhaps self-delusion. Vranak (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. The guy trying to run me through with a sword, he's my enemy. Vimescarrot (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's how you treat with your enemy that's important. Running him through might seem convenient, but surpassing one's fear through diplomacy tends to make things easier in the long run. Vranak (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he's one of the multitude of leaders in history who have fought wars only through greed. I would like to see you negotiate with darius of persia.--92.251.177.200 (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greed is just a pejorative term for pro-active go-getting. Nothing wrong with it. And as such I would find no quarrel with Darius, nor he with me. Vranak (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just trying to get a rise out of people? Rulers of many places throughout history, including Europe at its bloodiest, could be better described as warlords or thugs than "diplomats". You would find no quarrel with Darius unless he wanted something you had, in which case he would take it if you couldn't defend it. That is the mentality of most of mankind's leaders throughout most of history. TastyCakes (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Are you? Vranak (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I'm not the one that's quoting things that don't seem to have any bearing on the question asked and saying that in war "there is no enemy". TastyCakes (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you live for wars and insist on fighting them, you'll certainly find someone to call your enemy, no argument there. However it's not exactly the pinnacle of enlightenment and temperance, such an approach. Vranak (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you have said here seems to relate to the question at all. TastyCakes (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I think I'm just grouchy today. Sorry to snap at you, you wouldn't have to go far to find me going way off topic on one of these discussions. TastyCakes (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy named George Washington. Also the Russian generals who fought Napoleon in the French Invasion of Russia. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This shows clearly that there is no victor in war, or perhaps they who were forced into war to defend: "This was their finest hour!" MacOfJesus (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary123, is "hollow victory" the phrase you're looking for? DOR (HK) (talk) 09:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Gary is looking for someone who lost a battle, but in the end won the conflict. While possible, it's very unlikely to happen from a single battle. Probably the closest would be a war of attrition, where the "victors" didn't really win any major battles, but exhausted their (more successful) opponents to the point where the opponent withdrew from the war. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the ~~Hertz~~ Alamo ! StuRat (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, war of attrition may be a term for situations where both sides suffer terrible losses, but it seems to leave others out. I'm thinking specifically of Vietnam, which I would call a rope-a-dope victory for them. TastyCakes (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity had mentioned Washington, and he came to mind here also. He had loss after loss, but still managed to win the war, albeit with a little help from the French and other countries who wanted to help stick it to England. Things went so badly in the battles in New York City that one writer, discussing the future site of the Empire State Building, said "George Washington schlepped here!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Overland Campaign from the American Civil War might qualify. Every major battle is described as either "inconclusive" or a "Confederate victory", yet by the end of the campaign, Grant had pinned Lee down at Petersburg and greatly weakened his army. --Carnildo (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Road Maps of the US

Where can I find historic road/trail maps of the US prior to 1850? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old almanacs, probably at the library. I don't know where they'd be online, although since they're out of copyright, I'm sure some exist. Is there a specific trail map you're looking for (I wonder the extent of actual roads prior to the 1900s / car) Shadowjams (talk) 08:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm generally looking to see what the major connections between US cities on the East Coast were during the late 18th and early 19th century. For example, what was the main land based trail between New York City and Philadelphia? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can find some decent historical maps just by searching Google Images with terms like "historic map new jersey". For example, here is a map of the area around New York and Philadelphia from 1749. You can see that the main route at that time between New York and Philadelphia was to travel by (sail) ferry from Lower Manhattan to the port of Elizabeth. The exact route that a traveler would have taken through Elizabeth is difficult to determine looking at a modern street map. I'm guessing that the landing would have been near the foot of present-day Elizabeth Avenue, and that the route from there would have headed up Elizabeth Ave. to the main route coming south from Newark, or Broad St. Having crossed the Elizabeth River on the Broad St. bridge, the route would have headed south to what is now Route 1. I'm guessing there was a no-longer existent road from the Broad St. bridge to Washington Ave./Edgar Rd. which merges with what is now Route 1 south of downtown Elizabeth. (I think that Route 1 north of this point is a modern road built to bypass downtown Elizabeth.) From there, looking at the map, I would surmise the following route using modern street names and route numbers: Route 1 to Rahway, then Route 514 (Woodbridge Rd., Rahway Ave.) to Woodbridge, then Route 514 (Main St., Woodbridge Ave.) to Highland Park, then Route 27 through New Brunswick (possibly crossing the Raritan on a ferry) and Kingston to Princeton, then Route 206 to the edge of Trenton, then Lawrence Rd. to Brunswick Ave., then Broad St. to Ferry St. At the foot of Ferry St., a traveler would have taken a ferry across the Delaware, then continued on East and West Philadephia Ave. to Bristol Rd. (all of which was then probably called Bristol Rd., which would haver run in a straight line where its route is now deflected by the railroad) to Main St. in Tullytown to Radcliffe St. to Market St. or Mill St. to Old Route 13, to Route 13 (with a ferry probably crossing Neshaminy Creek), continuing on Route 13, then continuing into what is now the Northern Liberties of Philadelphia on Frankford Ave., which probably merged with Front St., which continued to the waterfront of Philadelphia. Parts of this are speculative (though based on many years of studying maps and exploring old routes) but it all fits the historic map that I've linked. Marco polo (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit before the period that TheFutureAwaits is interested in, but in Chapter 2 of his autobiography Benjamin Franklin describes his journey from New York to Philadelphia in 1723. He went by boat to Amboy, walked across New Jersey to Burlington, and then took another boat down the Delaware River to Philadelphia. Deor (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you look at the map that I linked, you can see that there is an alternate route from Perth Amboy to Burlington. Marco polo (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the period that you are interested in, the main routes between the main towns along the east coast of the United States were no longer "trails" but were instead a loosely connected network of dirt roads and ferry links suitable for wagons or stagecoach travel at times of year when mud was not a problem. Because land travel was dirty and difficult (very difficult when it was muddy), travelers during your period often preferred sea routes. Even though sea routes involved greater distances, they were easier and often quicker because sailing ships could often travel faster than horses or people traveling on foot. So a merchant traveling from New York to Philadelphia would be likely to board a ship in New York, then sail south around Cape May and up the Delaware estuary to Philadelphia. Marco polo (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maps from American Memory might be a good place to start.—eric 18:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is another good resource. Marco polo (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page in particular. Marco polo (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best online source for early U.S. maps is Davidrumsey.com. Rumsey has digitized hundreds of maps from his ridiculous collection. There are some early road maps (similar in style to today's AAA strip maps) there. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God

What is the argument for the existence of god that goes something like, regardless of whether he exists I can perceive the possibility of a God. This God is perfect, and since in order to be perfect he must exist (corollary: non existence is an imperfection) therefore god exists. I think that Dawkins deals with it briefly in his book, but I don't have it to hand. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.39.113 (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ontological argument. Algebraist 13:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... it's called reification. It argues existence on the basis of personal imagination. Not terribly compelling logic, suffice to say. Vranak (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

as per Vimescarrot's concern

In my imagination, the Cubs will be the World Champions this year, but that won't make it so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That just implies that the Cubs are not perfect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor are the Yankees, yet they won last year. The answer to the OP's question is that what he's imagining is his own "reality construct" of God. So that particular God "exists", but only to the OP. Get enough folks imagining the same thing, and you can start a religion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been done. Religions have been founded on the basis of one single passage in the Bible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is all this helpful to the OP? Vimescarrot (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of the OP's question appears flawed. Just because you imagine God, doesn't have anything to do with whether God exists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the argument. The argument is as follows: By definition God (capital letter justified here ;-) is a perfect being. Existence is a necessary precondition for perfection (because a non-existing thing lacks the property of being, and if it lacks something, it cannot be perfect). Thus God has to exist - because otherwise He (male pronoun also justified, this argument is usually used by the GodIsAWhiteBeardedMale fraction) would not be perfect, which contradicts the definition. q.e.d. Note that I'm only describing this, not endorsing it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OP: excellent, Ontological Argument is what I asked for, but the reification article is far more useful for the purposes I had in mind. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.39.207 (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

majority government Canada

What is the maximum number for a political party to win a majority government in the federal level? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.251 (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are 308 members of the House of Commons of Canada, so 308 would be the maximum number of MPs for a majority government. The minimum number would be half that plus one, which is 155. Gabbe (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo and Juliet Project

For my literature class the teacher is having us do a project and romeo and juliet, (were currently reading it) and..... i hav absoulutely no ideas for it and its a third of our grade!!! any ideas? and btw it cant be too complicated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 15:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of project? What level/grade? You could stage the play, or write an essay on the setting (renaissance Verona), or on the history of the piece, or on the current use of the theme in tourism, or compare it to other love stories over time. You could research typical food and bring it for "taste and tell", even... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could compare it to the Franco Zeffirelli movie, or to any of the other movies, for that matter. Do a paper on the period dress or on some of the various costumes used in some performances, or, if you can sew or draw, design costumes for some of the roles. Rewrite the balcony scene or the death scene in modern English and then recite your version. Research all the art that has been based on the themes of the story. Bielle (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on Bielle's comparison idea, you could make a video showing the balcony scene from the 1936 film and contrast it with the balcony scene in Romeo + Juliet (or possibly West Side Story, if it's close) and have the class take a vote on which they prefer. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the trouble with Shakespeare is that he was a gigantic hack. Yes I have sources on that -- including Leo Tolstoy, and Beksinski. So try to figure something out that doesn't have you pointing this out, or you will get people's backs' up. It's hard I know. Just try to pick on something you found silly or annoying or interesting and insightful and talk about it. The teacher just wants you to express some ideas in a sensible and sane fashion, in the end. So do that. The topic is hardly important, but it should be something that interests (or bothers) you. We can't tell you what that might be, but it would help if you read at least some of the play. Vranak (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could talk about how R&J are idiot teenagers who don't really know anything about love and that the major theme of the play is the foolishness of youth. But, er, it's hard to see that if you are also a teenager... Adam Bishop (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which illustrates my point nicely. Romeo and Juliet are nothing but sockpuppets for Shakespeare and his world-weary point of view. It's a pessimistic, nihilistic, and depressing play, at its core. The primary message seems to be 'love conquers nothing'. Which is true, of course. It's also bleak as hell. Vranak (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mercutio had the best lines. Zoonoses (talk) 23:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WEll its ninth grade, and it has to be under 30 minutes , the whole "presentation process" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 03:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could talk about real life events that have been compared to Romeo and Juliet (like Boško and Admira or Rossana and Ettore). Or how about this idea: The dominant underlying theme is "forbidden love", right? So many modern adaptations will make a new twist on the old story by simply replacing the youths in Verona with contemporary "forbidden couplings", like Puerto Ricans and "true" Americans. But does the story require the forbidden love to be sexual in nature? What if there was a deep sense of (strictly platonic) adoration between two couples that were "forbidden" to even like each other? Like Glenn Beck and Al Franken (or something more loopy and far-out, like Sam Harris and Jesus)? Would it be interesting? Would it still be the same story? What would be different? Gabbe (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how serious you want to be, you could 1) do an examination on the "romance" of suicide in literature (ie. people who think it's the ultimate expression of love) versus the reality (suicide tears families apart, causes major psychological problems for friends & loved ones of the deceased, etc.); or 2) do a less serious send-up of the story as an inspiration for the kind of "forbidden love" found in Twilight novels and other teen-angst stories. Sources for the latter are going to be less scholarly but, played well, could be fun for your peer audience. The teacher might

Facepalm though. *

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe convert the balcony scene or other scenes into texting. An example is at [http://claudia.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/2004/11/romeo_and_julie_1.html}: "(Where4 art thou? Outside yr window.)" Edison (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe you could do a piece on the tradition, apparently alive and well, of school performers assuming, incorrectly, that Juliet is asking where Romeo is, in her "Wherefore art thou Romeo?". In fact, she's asking why is he from the Montague family, a family with which her family, the Capulets, were feuding. 'Wherefore' means 'why', not 'where'. And there's no comma before 'Romeo'. So, the sense of it is "Romeo, Romeo, why art thou Romeo". Sorry to break this distinguished and honoured tradition, but somone's gotta step up. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Vonnegut

In this link, what does the star mean? Reticuli88 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Vonnegut's classic Breakfast of Champions, he sprinkled many drawings throughout the book which he appears to have drawn with a felt-tip pen. Toward the beginning he writes, and this is from memory so it won't be exact, "To illustrate the maturity of my drawings, here is a picture of an asshole:", and then he draws that star. So, the star is, in fact, an asshole. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bahahahaha! Hysterical! Love it! Thanks! Reticuli88 (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I recommend the book, highly. Do not watch the 1999 film under any circumstances, though. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should read the book before buying this awesome shirt, right? Reticuli88 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably think carefully before appearing in public with an asshole on your tit. The young woman in the ad can get away with it; dunno about you. Second the recommendation for the book. PhGustaf (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a vapid book -- but it's not quite Catch-22 calibre, if I recall correctly. Vranak (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

It's not necessarily one of his better works, but it's amusing. I should point out that the fine print in that ad says something about what the star is, but in a way that kind of assumes you already know what its significance is. There was another book where he used stars. I think it was Galapagos. If a character was about to die, he would put a star after its name just beforehand. He said it was supposed to be a warning, to soften the blow, but it really had the opposite effect, which I imagine he would have known. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characters from many other Vonnegut books (as well as Vonnegut himself) make appearances in BoC, so it may have more appeal those who've read his other works. I made the mistake of reading it first, and it turned me off Vonnegut for several years until I happened to read an earlier work of his and became hooked. I've always considered BoC to be an inside joke between Vonnegut and his fans.124.157.249.26 (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. Slaughterhouse Five could have been a better one to start with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken and recall correctly, it's particularly an asterisk. -- Deborahjay (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, also sometimes known as a Nathan Hale. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I only regret that I have but one asterisk for my country." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you're willing to lay your asterisk on the line for it? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic diseases in medieval times and such

What did people do with themselves if they had allergies, coeliac disease, dyslexia, asthma or other kinds of not-immediately-life-threatening chronic diseases in times when the disease nor their treatments hadn't been identified yet? Despite what they thought it was; I can imagine they tried lots of horrible/silly/useless things to fix it, but would any have been able to alleviate it? Or is the simple answer 'suffer'? Lady BlahDeBlah (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good question. Dyslexia was probably just seen as illiteracy. It's possible that not enough people could read for it to be a problem! I'm not sure about the others, but they did know all about asthma, and there were different treatments for it in different time periods and places. Maimonides actually wrote a medical treatise about it, which you can read about here. Basically it was considered an imbalance of humours, like any other disease, so they would fiddle around with your diet and lifestyle until something worked (which is also often true of modern medicine, really). Adam Bishop (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In his book Bad Medicine David Wootton says that it wasn't until fairly recently that medical treatments actually started helping people, and that prior to the 19th century physicians were with few exceptions just making their patients worse off. If you accept his argument then I think "[trying] lots of horrible/silly/useless things" is a pretty apt description for the whole of medical "science" in the Middle Ages. Gabbe (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the time. Certainly the doctors of antiquity and the renaissance were great. Sure there were a lot of really outlandish theories then, but they could treat most wounds and injuries, and many diseases. I would rather break my leg in ancient greece than medieval europe. Of course, medicine in the muslim world was quite good during the middle ages.--92.251.177.200 (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Certainly the doctors of antiquity and the renaissance were great." According to whom? Gabbe (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it depends on the time and place. Muslim doctors consider medieval European doctors to be basically lunatic quacks, and with good reason. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were all sorts of "treatments" in medieval Europe for chronic diseases. Mercury for syphillis, for example, is a well-known one, since it is featured in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, if I recall. There are lots of other sorts of things. Most of them are what we would now categorize as "highly ineffective and potentially detrimental in their own right." A few of them are not so bad/actually helpful. It's important to note that the modern medical system—where you actively search for new cures and then do fairly rigorous testing to see if they actually work or not—is something that only emerged out of the late-19th century or so. Before then you have a hodgepodge of passed-down knowledge mixed with theories-of-the-day, much of it considered to be quite incorrect by any kind of modern standards. (And in 300 years, they'll find our tooling around with pharmacological chemicals to be rather primitive too, I imagine.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be mistaken about any reference to mercury as a treatment for syphilis in Chaucer. To the best of my knowledge, there are no confirmed references to syphilis prior to 1492 - leaving it an open question whether it originated in the Americas. Syphilis got its modern name from a work by Nahum Tate, as recently as the late 17th century. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a point of dispute by scholars, apparently. If you put "Chaucer syphillis" into Google Books you get a number of (dull) disputes over what the illness depicted was... --Mr.98 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of silly to suggest that medieval European doctors didn't know what they were doing (and that medieval Muslim ones always did). So somehow ancient medicine and renaissance medicine were great, and it all fell apart during the Middle Ages? What kind of medicine do you think they were using the whole time? Everyone, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, were all using the ancient stuff, through the medium of Galen mostly. You wouldn't necessarily be any better off breaking your leg in Paris than you would have been in Cairo. Sometimes a Muslim doctor might have given you a treatment that would have killed you, and would have been inferior to a treatmeant a European doctor would have given you. Sometimes the Muslim treatment would have been better. One was not automatically worse or better than the other. We cannot continue to have this discussion if everyone assumes Middle Ages = bad. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generalising, certainly there were very knowledgable medieval doctors, but mostly you'd be better off in antiquity or later on. It's been argued that the Romans had the best medicine until the 19th century.--92.251.177.200 (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It's been argued that the Romans had the best medicine until the 19th century." By whom? Gabbe (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we can't say one was automatically worse or better then the other, or you were guaranteed a better treatment in one place then the other, we can talk about averages. For example it is probably the case that on average you would likely have been better off in Cairo then in Paris when it came to medical treatment in the middle ages. Your individual case would depend on many factors (including semi-random ones), probably including how well connected and wealthy you were (although I'm guessing being better and being more wasn't always a good thing) and it's possible/likely that with certain diseases and conditions you would be better off in Paris then in Cairo. Nil Einne (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have neglected to link to Medieval medicine (and Islamic medicine and Byzantine medicine), which may be helpful to read. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the hygiene hypothesis, being exposed to dirt in formative years makes one much less likely to obtain autoimmune disorders, asthma, and allergies. In addition, literacy was so low that dyslexia (which is not technically a disease) wouldn't be so detrimental to functioning in everyday life as it is now. So these things are, in a way, modern problems. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 04:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the amount of rote memorization that occurred in medieval education, a dyslexic person might be able to pass by unnoticed...although I guess it depends on what they needed to memorize. Or on the other hand they might be considered too dumb to learn, and shuffled off somewhere like a monastery where memorization and repetition of prayers was more important than reading and writing. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People in past ages who had chronic diseases might see a witch doctor, or "healer" who rattled a gourd, or cut their flesh, or gave them a charm, or prayed for them, or prescribed some penance, or acted to remove a curse someone had placed on them, or sacrificed an animal to a god, or gave they herbal tea, and told them that the act kept the pain from getting worse, and that they should come back every week with more money. Things have not changed that much in the present time, with people going for treatments every week of no proven relevance to their chronic conditions, in the superstitious belief that the acupuncture, or the herbal supplements, or the megavitamins, or the diets free of some supposed allergen or irritant, or the "spinal adjustments," or the massages are staving off some intermittent problem or are preventing some chronic problem from getting worse. Edison (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lady BlahDeBlah. You might try "history of ___ treatment" as your search term:

*Allergies: this claims that although allergies are mentioned in ancient texts (it refers to a King Menses of Egypt being killed by a wasp sting and Britannicus having a severe reaction to horses), they weren't really a medical issue until John Bostock studied hay fever in 1819. It seems avoidance was the main strategy.

*Coeliac disease: here's an interesting history from the University of Chicago. It says Aretaeus of Cappadocia (first century) recognized the condition but the correct dietary treatment wasn't figured out until the 20th century. See also this.

*Dyslexia: History of developmental dyslexia starts at 1881 :). See also [17] (pdf).

*Asthma: the 1550 BC Egyptian Ebers Papyrus mentions an asthma treatment: inhaling the steam from heated herbs. This asthma history from the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America also mentions (unsourced and undated,sorry) a similar historical treatment method in China: inhale steam or smoke from herbs containing ephedrine. It also refers to Moses Maimonides as mentioned above; he apparently prescribed a dry climate, losing weight, getting enough sleep, reducing alcohol intake and sexual activity, getting out of the polluted city, and chicken soup.

Finally, answers here have mentioned European and Islamic medical traditions, but you might also look at Traditional Chinese medicine and Āyurveda and the historical texts linked from those articles. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry VIII of England's wife

He killed two of his wife Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, all who were only commoners or member of English nobility. Would Henry have dared to kill his other more connected wives Catherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not! How could he dare kill the aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor? He couldn't even have their marriage annulled. Having a foreign princess executed would've been a major mistake for Henry VIII, especially in the case of Catherine of Aragon. She was aunt of the Holy Roman Emperor, of the King of Portugal, of the King of Hungary and Bohemia, of the Queen of France, etc. Having her executed is no where near to having an Anne Boleyn executed. Surtsicna (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do remember that he could do this with a word as Henry II did: "Who will rid me of this turbulant priest?", but as was already said he would have the whole world on his back if he did. Henry II did repent at the grave of Saint Thomas a Beckett. Henry VIII had to provide for her befitting for a queen, so well connected. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16th century England wasn't the medieval Byzantine Empire where Catherine would have most likely been poisoned or (and this is a more likely scenario) Catherine herself would have given orders for Anne Boleyn's nose to be cut off or her eyes put out. Henry, although he did rule as an absolute monarch, would not have dared execute Catherine as she was the aunt of the emperor. However, I don't think he would have had any qualms about executing Anne of Cleves had she not acquiesed in his demands for an annulment. The Duchy of Cleves was in no position to make war against England, whereas Charles V would have probably attacked England, had Catherine been executed or murdered. As it was, had Charles not been kept busy engaging the Turks, there is little doubt that he'd have launched an invasion to restore his aunt to the throne.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about Anne of Cleves?--85.226.45.162 (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about her? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God and free will

My question is does the bible or any other religious scripture give any detail as to why God would do something as stupid as giving humanity free will. After all God is all knowing so he knows that with free will we're capable of causing vast destruction to all of his creations the planets animals ourselves. Surely as an omnibenevolent god as well it would be better to have just you know kept us under his control and limit the things that we could do to ensure stability? If the bible doesn't provide any answer, does anyone have any thoughts? --Thanks, Hadseys 21:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're presuming that the Bible says God gave us free will. I'm not sure that it does. Seems to me that free will isn't something that can be given. It has to be present from the beginning. Free will is the ability to choose one's own desires and thoughts. Free agency is the ability to act on those desires and thoughts. Under these definitions, does free agency more closely fit what you are getting at? Wrad (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it says so in the Bible but it is Christian (or possibly just Catholic) doctrine that God wants to be loved, and if humans did not have free will they would not be able to choose to love him. (Now I'm sure you will ask why God wants to be loved.) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the only things that 'get destroyed' are those that warrant destruction. It's better to have destruction than to have limitless stagnation and gruesomeness. Death and decay is the friend and provider for all things nice and pleasant. You just want to be sure that you're on the side of correctness, and not some horrible little creature getting pecked at by vultures. Vranak (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking as a student of Scripture, the text that springs to mind which hilights this thought in a head-to-head conversation with man is: Genesis Ch. 18, particularly verses 16-33. Also in the judgement statement of God on Adam and Eve and the devil at the beginning of Genesis. MacOfJesus (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some Christians are determinists (typically, they believe in predestination) and think free will doesn't exist. Some believe in free will and not determinism. Some are compatibilists (they believe that free will and determinism are both true), who typically assert that the idea of a sentient being without free will makes absolutely no sense.

I can't think of any place that the Bible addresses this issue directly (there are a lot of assertions of God's omniscience, though, and some people say that the existence of omniscience requires determinism), but see Free will in theology#In Christian thought for lots and lots of doctrinal discussion. Paul (Stansifer) 00:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have a look at Plantinga's response to the problem of evil. While his whole argument is not fully accepted, he starts with the assumption that a world in which there are creatures who freely choose to do good things is a more valuable world than one in which the occupants have no free will, and thus don't freely choose to do good. This runs into the compatibilist's line as mentioned above, whereby it may be possible to imagine a world in which people both have free will but in which they never perform evil acts, but it seems that the basic assumption that Plantinga is offering is at least a possible explanation. - Bilby (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above: Plantinga's argument rests on the assumption that if I did something solely because I was forced to, through no choice of my own, then I would not be responsible for the good or evil nature of that action. Thus if I donated $1000 to charity, but didn't choose to do so - I was forced to donate that money - then you might say that I did a good thing, but not that I was a good person. Similarly, if I was forced to kill someone, and nothing I could do could prevent the death from happening by my hand, you might say that I committed an evil act, but that I wasn't necessarily an evil person. Thus the argument is that God wants good people, not merely people who committed good deeds through no choice of their own. The basic questions for philosophers of religion are whether or not that outcome - people who choose to do good things - is worth the suffering caused by people who don't; whether or not it is possible to have the first without the second (compatibilism); and could God have limited the extent of the evil while still permitting people to freely choose good acts? - Bilby (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rule out the possibility that all this stuff is made up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I lean that way, but then I'm more of a compatibilist or determinist anyway, so justifying free will is less of a concern. I've always figured that this becomes easier if you just give up on having an omnipotent, omniscient God in the first place - then you don't need to explain away evil, or justify free will. However, there seem to be a lot of people who disagree with me. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best evidence we have is that we choose to do what we do, barring issues such as mental illness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You only think that because you were fated to think that. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That might be true, but it's only hypothesis, like the postulated "ether". There could, in fact, be such a thing as the ether. But we've never detected it, so the best evidence we have is that it doesn't exist. The only "evidence" for determinism is necessarily anecdotal, so it's insufficient to demonstrate that it's for real. The best evidence we have is that we choose what we do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And logically speaking, if it's pre-destined, then the future has already happened, and we're just flowing along a time line. However, there's no evidence to support that, either. As scientists, we can only rely upon what we can observe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a science question and this doesn't help answer the question at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying religious concepts are not logical, I can't argue with you there. As regards the original question, "free will" as an expression doesn't appear in the Bible, but it's plainly evident that God gave man free will, or Adam and Eve not only would not have disobeyed, they wouldn't be able to disobey. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the LDS Church, agency (LDS Church) is taught as an essential part of the plan of salvation; see 2 Nephi:5-16 for a specific portion of LDS scripture that explains this point. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

God did give us free will, since if He created us, He would leave nothing out. This is to show us He could allow us to choose Him, rather than follow Him unthinkingly, which gives Him no glory. The fact that God knows in advance all of what will occur and the choices we make, since He has to, to be all knowing, does not mean we have no choice in what we do - even though it is pre determined in the sense that God knows it in advance. One could argue therefore that if it is predetermined, what choice do I have, or no matter what I do, such and such will happen, because it is always going to happen. Yes, but this does not mean we do not have a choice. Say a con man sets up a mark in such a way he knows, by his research, what this person will do, and knows the con will succeed - this does not mean the mark cannot decide what to do. Although here it is the con artist who is engineering a few things to occur - but then so does God - but ultimately, He still leaves the CHOICE to us. The Russian. 202.36.179.66 (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legal freedom in the US, UK

Is it true that in the US you only have a right to do those things listed in the American constitution and its amendments? Whereas in the UK by contrast, I recall a lawyer saying that you have a right to do anything you like, unless it was specifically unlawful. 92.26.56.233 (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the US Constitution (& amendments) is not a list of things you can legally do. Mostly, it describes what the government can and cannot do. Underlying the creation of the US system was the belief that you get all of your rights from God simply for being human (natural rights), and that government cannot infringe upon these rights without consent of the people. —Kevin Myers 02:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it was regarded as implicit in some ways, the 9th amendment was meant to address this concern. Implicit in due process is the notion that things that are not prohibited are permitted. Shadowjams (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious gross exception was the Prohibition amendment, whose chief benefit was the furthering of the Mafia and such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A minor correction to Kevin's post. There are certain rights that even consent of the people can't take away. If that were the standard, gays wouldn't be able to marry--oh wait... — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage is not defined or even referenced in the Constitution as such. That's generally been a state matter, with occasional "assistance" by the feds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition [...] chief benefit was the furthering of the Mafia and such. - that's why we've now legalised all the psychoactive substances that are less harmful than alcohol... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol was in widespread use before Prohibition. Taking away something the public is used to having can create a significant black market. Dope of various kinds were "headed off at the pass", or at least that was the intent. The feds use "regulation of interstate commerce" as the wedge for prohibition of dope. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But it still creates a large black market that certain people profit from. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, it puts more money into circulation, since black market items generally cost more. At this point I'm trying to recall what the original question was. But I think it comes down to, "You can do anything you want unless prohibited by law", and the U.S. Constitution says very little about prohibiting things, beyond prohibiting the suppression of basic rights. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you seem to be thinking about is the difference between a common law system, as in the UK and US and a civil law system, as in France. In a common law system generally that which is not prohibited is permitted in a civil law system that which is not permitted, is prohibited.

In practice most legal frameworks are a balance of the two, predominantly Common in the UK and US, with some Civil elements, although frequently application of Civil or statute legislation is embodied in common law.

ALR (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the other way around (sort of). The distinguishing feature of civil law systems (such as France) is that an act is illegal if and only if there is a statute making it illegal, whereas in a common law system (such as the UK and US) an act may be illegal even if there's no statute prohibiting it, as long as there's precedent in case law. In common law systems it is possible for acts (called "Common law offences") to be illegal solely by virtue of such precedent, which is not the case for civil law systems. See stare decisis and nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali. Gabbe (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the implementation of rule of law training that I've done considers precedent as part of the corpus of material that identifies prohibited, for exactly that reason. The challenge becomes recording and promulgating the decisions when establishing a legal system; such as Bosnia in the 90s.

ALR (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious case in the US where "anything is legal unless specifically prohibited" is in anti-discrimination laws. There they must keep adding to the list of protected classes and we get "there shall be no discrimination in employment based on race, gender, ethnic background,...". A more sensible way to do it might be to simple state "there shall be no discrimination in employment based on any factor which does not directly affect the ability to perform the job". StuRat (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that that could lead to arguments like this: "My customers don't like black people, therefore I won't hire any because their skin color directly affects their ability to make a sale." Marco polo (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can racially discriminate if it's directly pertinent to the job. For example, you wouldn't hire Queen Latifah to star in the life story of Brooke Shields. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I think if you could demonstrate that white employees earn you more money than black employees, simply by virtue of their skin colour, you could hire only white people. It would be difficult to prove it and it would be very bad PR (even those customers that won't buy from a black salesperson would protest against such a policy). --Tango (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"UK law" may not be a coherent concept in this discussion, as Scots law is significantly different from English law. --ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, you certainly cannot discriminate against people on the basis of their skin color except (maybe) when their skin color is an obvious disqualification, such as Queen Latifah playing the role of Brooke Shields. No US court would accept a store manager's argument that he is entitled to turn away all black applicants because his customers prefer white salespeople, even if he could prove that that was true. Marco polo (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No question it's a slippery slope. But looking at the flip side, if you were a white guy operating a store in Harlem, you might consider it to be in your best interest to hire black people to visibly operate the store. Whether any of that would stand up legally is questionable. Right now I'm trying to figure out how this relates to the OP's question? The "equal protection" amendment (14th, I think) covers most of this ground. So the Constitution implicitly forbids arbitrary discrimination. But it does come down to cases. There aren't that many men working in women's clothing stores, for example. And in the ag industry, where I work, there aren't all that many female or non-white salespersons. The ones who do, of course are really good, since they have had to overcome inherent skepticism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is actually fairly clear-cut in most cases. Taking your example of the store in Harlem. You are likely to have more black than white applicants, so most of your staff will probably be black anyway. But let's say you have an opening, and two applicants apply. One is a black woman whose past experience consists of a single part-time job as cashier in a different type of store. The other is a white woman with years of experience doing retail sales in stores very similar to your store. If you give the job to the black woman, the white woman would probably be able to win a discrimination lawsuit. Let's say the same relatively inexperienced black woman applies to work in a women's clothing store down the street, also in Harlem. A black man with years of retail experience selling women's clothes applies for the same job. If the woman is hired, the man could probably win a suit for sex discrimination. It is not clear-cut only when the employer has some grounds other than the protected category (race, age, sex, etc.) for preferring the applicant who is hired. For example, the employer could argue that the person hired was more articulate or more outgoing. But the decision can never be based on one of those protected categories, with the possible exception of the category clearly disqualifying the person. The Queen Latifah example comes to mind. Another would be a man applying to work as an attendant in a woman's locker room. Marco polo (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think refusing to hire a man as an attendant to clean women's locker rooms simply due to his sex would count as illegal discrimination in Sweden. Kronobergsbadet, for example, has signs on their entrances noting that "locker rooms might be cleaned by members of the opposite sex." Gabbe (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sales tax on auto purchases?

As I'm preparing to buy my first car, I was surprised to learn that I'll be paying sales tax, even though I'm buying it from a private individual. I know that we don't normally pay sales tax on private transactions here in Ohio, so I was rather surprised. Is Ohio abnormal in requiring sales tax on private auto purchases, or is this a common practice? Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty common if not unanimous (in states that have sales tax). Here are some sources: [18] Sales taxes in the United States (one of the top google hits is on the spam blacklist apparently). Shadowjams (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, some states charge sales tax a second time if you move to the state and bring with you a car you purchased out of state. In cases of which I am aware, it doesn't matter that you can prove that you paid the sales tax already. The point is that you paid the tax to a different state. Wikiant (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically this wouldn't be a sales tax, it would be characterized as something else... I can't remember what it's called right now, but a state needs some nexus with the purchase to charge sales tax. There are of course taxes like this. Shadowjams (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about use tax here. --Anon, 06:00 UTC, May 20/10.

By the way, I don't think that it's true in most states that sales tax is not due on transactions between individuals. It's just that the state doesn't bother to collect it on most transactions other than car purchases because the cost of detecting the transaction would exceed the tax that could be collected. Marco polo (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Michigan there's an exception for immediate relatives, who can sell cars to each other without sales tax. StuRat (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I bought a truck from a private party in Tennessee, I had to pay sales tax. When you sign the title over, the amount that you pay is written on it and you're charged sales tax on whatever that number is. Whether that number accurately reflects what you actually paid is another matter entirely since nobody comes to check up on these things. Things work a bit differently here in VT though. When you buy a car from a private party and go to register it, that's when you pay the tax. At the DMV, they look up the blue book value and charge you sales tax based on that number and not what you actually paid the seller. And getting back to the "sales" tax when moving to another state, I did that as well when I moved here to Vermont. Let's say that I paid 5% sales tax on my Jeep in TN. I then moved to VT and registered it here. VT's sales tax is 6%. So they would have had me pay the extra 1% that I didn't pay before. Luckily, I didn't have to pay anything since TN's tax was the same or more than VT's. Dismas|^(talk) 21:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was a crime comitted here?

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/education/23591043/detail.html

I read this story on Yahoo, and I don't understand what he did that was illegal. It isn't illegal to lie on a resume or application for a job or admittance to a university, is it? The people who took out subprime mortagages or liar loans were not prosocuted, so why is this guy? Or is this just Harvard leaning on the police to take action, where no real crime has been comitted? Count Westfall (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This BBC article says he has been charged with, amongst other things, larceny and identity fraud. Dalliance (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having only read part of the article, I think the major concern was obtaining "$45,000 in financial aid, grants and scholarships" to which he was not entitled. IANAL, but that sounds like fraud to me. Astronaut (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud, yes. But I think the plagiarism part was the lynchpin. Had he somehow proven himself worthy, strictly by his own skills, maybe he could have gotten away with it, or at least gotten forgiveness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism is not illegal (except as maybe a copyright violation). Fraud is illegal. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is plagiarism not fraud? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the details, I think. You would have to prove damages, for example. In some cases, that could certainly be done, but not in all cases. Who is damaged by me quoting Wikipedia too much in my university dissertation without attribution? Wikipedia might suffer a slightly reduced reputation due to its association with plagiarism and my university might suffer a slightly reduced reputation due to giving degrees to people that don't deserve them, but neither of those would be easy to prove in a court of law and would probably be dismissed as de minimis. --Tango (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The legal definition of fraud is much more specific. Some plagiarism could be fraud, to be sure, but there generally speaking needs to be a victim with damages. Plagiarizing your senior thesis is probably not within the legal definition of fraud. (Of course, as with all legal things, the legal definition is complicated.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really not illegal to lie on a resume or application for a job in the US if you commit fraud in the process? This would be highly surprising to me, it definitely is here in NZ, see [19] [20] for two high profile cases.

Of course the likelihood of you being prosecuted (and the sentence may received) would probably depend on several things, including what sort of job you're applying for and how much a different the lie makes or is likely to have made to you getting the job, how big a lie it was and also whether you were successful or not. If you lie about having a Doctorate from Oxford when in reality you don't even have a undergraduate degree from any university nor have ever studied in one and didn't even receive your secondary school qualification yet your lie was persuasive enough that you were made the CEO of Apple you can expect a greater likelihood of being prosecuted then if while applying for a job flipping burgers at Burger King you claim you worked for 3 months at McDonalds when in reality it was only 2, something the manager realises since he/she was working at McDonalds at the time and hires you anyway after chastising you for lying.

I would also strongly suspect that if you commit major fraud in obtaining a loan there's a chance you will be prosecuted. Obviously if you take out a loan, provide the bank with full and honest details on your financial circumstances, they decide to offer you a loan anyway then you lose your job and can't afford to repay your loan there isn't likely to be fraud involved. But if you claim you are paid $100,000 a year and give a forged letter to the bank allegedly from your boss saying you are an excellent worker who is vital to the running of the company but in fact you are only paid $25,000 a year and the only thing your boss had provided you was 2 written warnings I wouldn't be surprised if the police get involved.

(Refined my comment on loans above 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC))

Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is playgerism illegal? I remember a while back Jayson somebody was caught playgerizing at the NYT and wasn't procecuted ( I don't believe), and the CEO of radioshack who had obtained his job fraudelently was not prosecuted, so what did this guy do that was different? In both of the above cases the people profited from their lies as did the guy at Harvard. How could he be charged with idendity fraud if he didn't represent himself as someone else? I thought that only applied when you try to fraudently impersonate the identity of someone else? Count Westfall (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism is not illegal. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I thinking of but neglected to mention is it probably depends a lot on whether the party you defrauded has any desire to see you prosecuted. While I think in many countries, you could still be prosecuted even if the party you defrauded doesn't want you to, unless perhaps you are continually defrauding people you'd probably get off if the party you defrauded doesn't complain to the police. For a civil service job, given the general expectation from the public you'd generally expect that in any major case of fraud you'd probably be prosecuted. For private companies, the company may prefer to avoid a trial because of the embarassing publicity and other things that may result Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line on every 'is it illegal?' question is this -- is it in the public interest to serve warning that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable? Plainly this holds true for the story you presented. It would be a disservice to the culprit himself not to put your foot down and say no, this will not do, you need to repent for your misconduct. Honesty is the best policy, and those who aren't quite clear on that need to be made well-aware, by hook or by crook. Vranak (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the bottom line on questions of whether something should be illegal, not whether it is illegal. --Anon, 06:04 UTC, May 20/10.

There was a case in Scotland of a 32 year old man changing his name to Brandon Lee and enrolling in an academy. He fooled everyone into thinking he was 17. [21] The education authority weren't too pleased but there was no prosecution. Jack forbes (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on the school for not insisting on transcripts sent directly from the registrar of the previous school, or for not getting SAT scores directly from the testing service. They sound like they were extremely lazy and irresponsible in taking an applicant's word for his grades and test scores, or in accepting copies he mailed in. The transcripts should at least have had to have the school's seal embossed. For all the application fees a college charges, they could damned well afford to have a clerk verify credentials and reference letters for those applicants who fall on the "accept" side of the scale, while ignoring those clearly in the "reject" slushpile. Many government loan forms have the warning, if I recall correctly, that it is perjury to make any false statements. I feel sorry for honest applicants whose places get taken by craven liars and cheats. Edison (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with higher ed is that they rarely check credentials if they "seem" right. The idea that people might be lying or faking is not followed up on regularly. This guy had a pattern of systemic lying and plagiarism and it's amazing it took this long to catch, since some of that stuff would have been discovered with a simple Google search. But at places like Harvard they assume that the students really are that amazing and checking up is rare. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism is not generally illegal but it can get you kicked out of school. In some cases it does constitute copyright violation. Lying on your resume can probably be considered a form of fraud, though, if you are applying for something that will give you money. That's illegal. There are other laws that are probably more local that come into effect, like falsification of documents, identity theft, etc. What does and does not constitute these things probably varies a huge amount with jurisdiction.

Lying on a mortgage application or agreement is certainly illegal, but in cases where you are talking about legal contracts, the case of outright "fraud" in a legal sense is probably low. (The contracts probably made no agreements that would have constituted fraud, even if the intentions of one of the party were contrary to what was being insinuated. A smart lawyer can make very "safe" contracts.) But that's a more general legal question and not connected with this case at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original question, several crimes were committed (or at least alleged). As a link within that article states, these offenses number 20. They include: identity fraud; larceny; falsifying documents from Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Phillips Academy, and other prestigious schools; and pretending to a hold a degree. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Citizenship

If someone is a US citizen and he or she wishes to leave and have citizenship somewhere else, what is the easiest nation to get citizenship from? Count Westfall (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Law of return might interest you. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Law of return works only for US citizens who happen to be Jewish. For those who aren't Jewish but have parents born in some other country, their parents' country of birth may accept them readily as citizens, depending on the country. A few countries will even accept grandchildren of citizens. If you are a native-born non-Jewish US citizen with native-born grandparents, you face more restrictions. Depending on your education and skills, you may have an easy shot at permanent residence in Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. See their immigration websites to see how many "points" your background gives you and if it is enough to qualify. I think that the United Kingdom also now uses a point system, but I think that they set the hurdle a bit higher than the former three countries. Other countries will admit people with exceptional qualifications or money to invest. Beyond that, I'm guessing that an envelope of crisp $100 bills handed discreetly to the right official in a poor and corrupt African or Latin American country could lead to naturalization in that country. Marco polo (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia is fairly easy to get citizenship from. According to the article linked,

“

People who became permanent residents on or after 1 July 2007 must have been lawfully resident in Australia for 4 years immediately before applying for naturalisation. In addition, they must:

- have been in Australia for 12 months as a permanent resident
- have had absences from Australia of no more than 12 months, including no more than three months in the 12 months before applying [22]
- have not been unlawfully in Australia at any time in the 4 years preceding application
- understand the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship (except for applicants aged 60 or over)
- be able to speak and understand basic English (except for applicants aged 60 or over)
- understand the nature of the application
- intend to reside in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.

”

--Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once you have attained permanent resident status in many countries it is easy to go on to citizenship. Australia is not exceptional in that regard. What is often not so easy is attaining permanent resident status. In most countries, you can become a permanent resident in four main ways: 1) marriage to a citizen; 2) other close family relationship to a citizen; 3) ability to bring skills or investment funds in demand in that country; and 4) recognition of a claim of political asylum based on a fear of persecution in one's home country. Some countries make it easier than others to gain permanent residence through methods 2), 3), or 4), but almost always, a person seeking permanent residence must first pass one of these hurdles. (The exception, as I've pointed out but do not advise, could be to gain permanent residence through a bribe to a corrupt official.) As I've explained above, it can be relatively easy for Americans to pass hurdle 3) in Australia, but certainly not all Americans will be able to pass this hurdle. Hardly any Americans would be able to pass hurdle 4) in Australia. Marco polo (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to get citizenship in Canada or Australia if you have obtained permanent residence; but obtaining permanent resident status can be more tricky. Typically, it is small countries that are not particularly attractive that have been associated with citizenship scams in recent years. Small island states and the like, where a small "economic investment" is often all that is needed to qualify for citizenship. The ultimate value of such a citizenship is questionable however: as soon as it is known or suspected that country x gives citizenship to minimally-qualified individuals, most countries you would want to travel to will impose significant entry restrictions on bearers of its passport. --Xuxl (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish citizenship is available to anyone with an Irish grandparent. DuncanHill (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, and up until fairly recently, it used to be available to those who had children born on Irish soil. The problem, however, with the Irish citizenship based on having had an Irish grandparent (s), is obtaining the proof, seeing as all the records for births, deaths, and marriages in Ireland prior to 1922 were destroyed when the Four Courts was blown up during the Irish Civil War.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100% inheritance tax, UK

How much money would a 100% inheritance tax raise compared to other kinds of taxation? Its big advantage would be that it would remove privelidges being passed down the generations (apart from public school educations and so on), and stimulate people to make their own money rather than waiting for pater and mater to snuff it. 92.26.59.240 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you had saved 1,000 pounds in your lifetime and wanted to leave it to your kids, you would be happy if the government took it all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to the OP's question, Bugs. 212.219.39.146 (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, totally relevant, IP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of money raised would be enormous, but such a tax rise would never get past the commons or the lords. Astronaut (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a hypothetical question. At the moment, such a tax is at 40%, above a threshold (£325,000 for individuals), and raises a pittance (£3.5 billion) for the government each year, a tiny proportion of takings, since the tax is particularly inefficient to administer. Of course, upping it to 100% wouldn't increase costs much. However, your plan suggests no minimum threshold either, which would vastly increase the number of people paying inheritance tax (to everyone), and the associated costs. So it's not as much as you'd think. People would be more likely to dodge it, as well, and even if not successful, this adds further to costs. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing such a crazy law might do is to encourage people to have 0 assets when they die, thus depriving the government of ALL income from such a tax. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they're all spending their money, then the government might make it back in increased VAT, that sort of thing. And the economy would benefit from all this, potentially reducing social welfare. I'm not for such a plan, but that's how you might argue it. The point remains, though: inheritance tax set at a universal 100% would not in itself bring in that much money. The deficit's at £160 billion, so it would have to raise over 45 times what it does now to offset that. A relatively small gain, I would say, for "fundamental" (you could argue not) civil liberties like that. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first part of your comment is what I'm getting at. That would be the "libertarian" approach - that taxes should be "chosen" in some sense, by whether you buy something or not. And then the government's revenue would be a direct function of prosperity or buying power, so there would be an incentive to encourage prosperity. That's the theory, anyway. The alternative would be to put everything into a Swiss bank account or the Cayman Islands or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of, think of collection. Instead of waiting till all this folks join the Monty Python Parrot, collect the tax in advance. It's called nationalization. Of everything. Nobody, not even Lenin, went this far, but it's worth a try isn't it? East of Borschov (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, very little. Hugely punitive financial oppression of the state would encourage people to find ways around it.

ALR (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say, 92, is that you cannot be serious. You think that anyone would be ok with seeing the widely-reviled government get their paws on their entire life savings? It just ain't gonna happen, even if it turned out to be a genius idea. The public at large would be incensed. There would be a revolution. I have to wonder what sort of position you find yourself in life to suggest this sort of scheme. It smacks of... well suffice to say it is patently absurd and untenable. Vranak (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that even if the people kept their heads down and went along with this plan, they would also leave the country in droves. Mass exodus. If your idea was to raise public funds, that aim will be a little underwhelming once 80% of the nation flees to more tax-relaxed nations like New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the US, and Communist China. Vranak (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since the 20% you would have left would be those who had not funds anyways. Googlemeister (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The revenue a 100% inheritance tax would raise would be virtually zero. In fact, on the whole it would end up costing as people altered their behaviors in response to the tax. In the US, several studies indicate every $1 revenue raised via inheritance taxes is accompanied by a $3 reduction in sales, income, and property taxes plus as much as $7 spent on lawyers and accountants employed in helping people avoid the tax. Wikiant (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the criticism must be by people who are expecting to inherit something. In fact it would be the best and most painless kind of tax, since it would only be paid after you were past caring. It would help with social inequality, meaning that everyone would get the same start in life as monetary privelidge was no longer passed down the generations (except by education). I cannot beieve that people would emmigrate to avoid a tax payable only after their death. 92.26.60.63 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who are we talking about here? People with £30,000, £40,000 or more? Do we also include those with small savings who may want to leave a little to their children who are not well off themselves? Jack forbes (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social inequality? What's that? Seriously, it's the most frequently trotted out, misunderstood, and mendacious phrase of our time. It's to this century what "Christ our Saviour" was to the fifth century. You know, the Dark Ages. Vranak (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unwise to assume the motivations of those responding to your question.

If one considers behavioural economics there are a number of motivations for people to invest over their life, one of which is the opportunity to pass the benefit of that on to others. Disincentivising that one element has the potential to change behaviours in the mid and late retirement phases on the assumption that the vast majority of legacies are passed at the end of a natural lifespan rather than through premature death.

If one has adequate assets then there are already a number of ways to avoid the existing 40% tax, passing title to property or financial assets, investing in trusts.

I'm afraid that vague fluffy concepts like social inequality aren't a particularly sound basis for policy making, the point has been made above that the only people affected would be those whose assets are small enough that it's not been worth finding ways around it.

Anyway, tax is never painless. It's the act of the state penalising the individual for the value of their efforts. From a personal perspective some form of sales tax is probably the most reasonable, forcing people to make choices about consumption, and to only pay tax that they choose to pay.

ALR (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would mean windfall profits for attorneys and financial planners, who would scour the tax codes for loopholes. The U.S. has "generation skipping trusts" and other tax dodges to move money away from the tax man. Would a person ever be allowed to give any money to his family? A gift tax would be needed to prevent a gift of 100% of the estate in anticipation of death. How about if an owner of a house and a small business sells them to his son? Would that be ok? How low can he set the price, since a low price would equal a gift and deprive the tax man. How about if he donated it to a charity? Moved the business ownership offshore (many U.S. large companies have fake "headquarters" at a maildrop on some small island outside the U.S.) How many dodges could a team of advisors dream up? Take out a loan, use the business as collateral, be "unable" to make the payment and have the ownership assumed by the lender (your relative)? If the 100% estate tax really worked, and a man owned a small business and a house, his widow and orphans would be thrown out on the street to beg or to go on the dole when he died. How much would that cost? And the government would become the landlord trying to find a renter for the home, and having to fix the roof and plumbing. The government would suddenly have to hire a manager for or find a buyer for the small business who could operate it at a profit, a dubious proposition in many cases. Large governments are just not efficient operators of small businesses, and hired help who are not owners are not good business operators in general. Shops or factories would be boarded up, and farms would sit idle with weeds growing and only the sound of crickets. It would soon resemble the aftermath of the Black Plague in the 1300s. Edison (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an additional issue. In taxing accumulated wealth, inheritance taxes are unfair in that they only look at one half of the transaction. For example, suppose that a person generates $10 million in wealth by inventing a product that people like so much that they willingly part with their money to have the product. The $10 million wealth is only one-half of the transaction. The other half is the benefit the people get from having the product they purchased for the $10 million. If we agree that the guy should give the $10 million to the government, why shouldn't the people who bought the products be forced to give the products to the government also? Wikiant (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Astronaut pointed out near the top, such a law would never be passed, unless all the MP's and Lords were willing to have their money usurped as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to take this opportunity to scold everyone who huffily puffed about how bad an idea this was, when the OP merely asked how much money it would raise. As to the answer, I agree with those who opined that many people would actually leave the country, and most everyone else would change their behavior in mid to later life so as to minimize the tax collection; which makes any estimate extremely speculative. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The final answer is that it would raise ZERO money, because everyone would figure out ways to keep it from being taxed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The same is true of any 100% tax rate. See Laffer curve. --Tango (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Laffer curve applies exactly, here, Tango; the Laffer curve is about income tax; if the tax goes to 100% then there is no incentive to earn money anymore so revenue is at 0. Applying this logic to a death tax, I think you're saying a 100% death tax ensures there is no incentive to ... die? Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would mean there's no incentive to save. Since anyone can die at any time, a 100 percent tax would encourage people to spend everything they get rather than saving any of it - and then depend on welfare when they reach retirement age. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true — there is still an incentive to save if you think you're going to live until tomorrow. The incentive is to spend down to 0 exactly upon your date of death. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people may well save for their retirement, but they would sell everything upon retirement and buy an annuity (and a lifetime lease on their house). Such financial products are available now, the only reason people don't use them to such an extreme is because they want to leave something for their children to inherit. --Tango (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or find ways to keep the government's mitts out of it, by putting the money elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, tax avoidance and evasion also increase when tax rates do. --Tango (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to apply that theory to the tobacco tax and see what happens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would make selling tobacco illegal, which would put it in the same position as other illegal drugs (well, those ones for which possession is either legal or at least has a blind eye turned to it). --Tango (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking more about raising the tax so high that no one could afford to buy it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same effect. --Tango (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought of another adaptation to a 100% inheritance tax. If I found I had a predicted 180 days to live and 180 thousand dollars, I would make the estate tax drop to the income tax rate, presumably lower, by hiring my child to care for me in my final illness, and paying 1 thousand dollars per day, or to paint 180 paintings which I would buy for 1 thousand dollars each, not outside observed prices for such work or commodities in either case. Or I would play high stakes poker with my family- and lose a lot. As fast as the government set price and wage controls for invalid care and paintings, and taxed gambling winnings, more legal dodges would be thought up. The price controls would drive legitimate businesses out of business, and drive the government batty hiring more and more watchers and accountants. Edison (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

literature:critical essays about Ernest Hemingway's short stories

Can i access the critical essays about Hemingway Ernest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.0.5.158 (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Try this search, or read our Ernest Hemingway article and click on the links in the References section. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Morality

Is it unchristian to go to a travel agency, hear their offers and then go online and book the same trip for less money? I did this recently with my wife and now I feel guilty I was dishonest with the saleswoman... TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me it would just be a part of shopping for the best deal...comparing this to another situation, if you went to appliance store A to see their offer on a microwave, but you know that appliance store B's offer matches/beats appliance store A's offer, I really don't see how that's being dishonest to not tell store A that store B's offer is better and you intend to purchase from store B. Am I missing a point in your question? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While ethics can be a personal decision, part of the agency's job is to sell you the trip, and good sales techniques involve much more than simply the best price. Perhaps something was missing in their presentation and they failed to obtain your business, and you have the right to make the best purchase.10draftsdeep (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were only "dishonest" if you told them you would come back in order to book with them. If you told them you would go away to think about it, it's not dishonest - that's what you did, and acted on your thoughts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if they're actually sitting there getting concerned that this particular OP hasn't come back yet, they're likely not doing enough business to be around much longer anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think what you say at the end of the conversation is really relevant - they've already expended their resources by then. It's what you say at the beginning that matters. As long as you didn't tell them you were definitely going to buy from them, which I doubt you ever would, then you are fine. The agency knows that people that come in and talk to them may well not actually buy from them, it's part of the business. --Tango (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)It would only maybe be "un-Christian" if you promised to buy from them and reneged. They're in a business. If they can't match the online price, that's their problem, not yours. However, if the online-bought cruise turns out to not be fun, you could think of it as divine retribution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually another albeit unlikely situation would be if upon entering the store, you had no intention of ever buying a trip from them, and they asked you whether you were interested in buying from them and you said yes. However no travel agent is ever likely to ask such a question Nil Einne (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The approach I usually take is that salesmen are inherently liars, so there's no morality issue to it at all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You earned your money, it's your business how and where you spend it. Don't feel guilty; the agency's goal is to make money, it's the customer's goal to save as much as possible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the other posters that there is nothing dishonest in what you did, and no reason for feeling guilty. However, if the contact with the travel agency gave you information that you would not easily have obtained otherwise, you may not be acting in your best interest by choosing not to pay for the assistance. If everyone choses to go to specialist shops to get as much information as possible about a product, and then proceeds with buying the product elsewhere, the next time around, the specialist shop may not be there to help you. Every time you spend money, you vote for the shop where you spend it, at the expence of its competitors. --NorwegianBlue^talk 19:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, it's unethical to take someone's time if you're not sure you will be compensating them for it. You should be making every effort to make every exchange in your life fair and honest. As this comparative shopping was not. You can look at the advertised rates on their window outside, that's fine, but anything more than that is a little questionable. And it has nothing to do with Christianity -- it's simply about honesty and integrity. Vranak (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually about your money and how you spend it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's unethical to take someone's time if you're not sure you will be compensating them for it - that seems a rather extreme viewpoint, Vranak. You have to make all your decisions based on ads, signs and posters? The moment you take up 5 seconds of a salesperson's time with an enquiry about a product you're not sure you'll buy from them, you're somehow acting unethically? If those are your ethics, you're welcome to them. It's part of salespeople's job to field such questions all day long; consumers are perfectly entitled to informed consent about the products and services they ultimately buy, and that usually means acquiring more information than what's available in advertisements, and that always means asking questions. Do you buy houses straight from ads, without asking any questions, without inspecting the property, and just paying the price in the ad without any form of counter-offer? Or cars this way? I hardly think so. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm Cancer Goat. The two most sensitive signs. So I don't like to cause anyone the slightest bit of bother -- at least in person. For the other 143 combinations of Zodiac and Western sign, well you guys probably have different priorities. Vranak (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No but seriously, if you were interested in a house, you'd not just go on the look of it from the street and from the photos in the ads, right? You would inspect the inside, right? And if, after that inspection, you formed the view that you were not interested in buying the house, you wouldn't be troubled by even the slightest iota of remorse about wasting the owner's/agent's time. Would you? Seriously? (JackofOz=) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, we went into the agency and talked with the woman for over a half hour about different vacation options, the best places to visit etc. My wife and I were originally planning the trip on our own and she thought "consulting" a travel agent would make things easier. We knew we weren't ever going to buy anything but to get all this information we did have to pretend we were really motivated. In retrospect I feel bad about the whole thing. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you to decide whether your actions were unethical or not, but you should know that many, if not most, travel agents work strictly by commission - and they don't get a dime until and unless you actually go on the vacation. Many sales personnel also work on commission, of course; the difference (this is @Jack particularly) is that besides taking up their time (which they expect and is part of the job - like all sales) you're taking their knowledge and profiting by it directly. They're not selling you something concrete; the sale is not simply of the vacation, but of their knowledge about using the various systems to make the whole thing work. I can't think of a particularly apt analogy or metaphor to describe it succinctly... it's a bit like talking to a tutor and then simply not signing his cheque at the end of the lesson, though obviously that's not quite the same thing. Matt Deres (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand where this guilt trip is coming from. You went to an agency, listened to their offers; however, you found a better deal online, which enabled you to save money, which can instead be used on your trip rather than to enrich the agency. You are perfectly entitled to spend your money where you choose. Stop feeling guilty, nobody at the agency is going to starve because you took your business elsewhere.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is there anyone who spends $100,000,000 a year on their lifestyle?

Is there anyone who spends $100,000,000 a year on their lifestyle - I don't mean in an exceptional year, when they buy a big yacht or their house, I mean year in, year out that their lifestyle budget is at least that much? Thanks. 82.113.119.240 (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really that close to $100m a year but the Queen (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6602049.ece) cost around £40m a year in the Uk. Of course huuuuge amounts of that go towards up-keep and on staff, but when you've got properties on a scale (and of the age) the queen has it costs a fair bit. (I hope this doesn't descending into a pro/anti royalty debate now!) . Anyhoo I suspect it'll be difficult to say for certain on most but i'd expect it to be royal-families that spend the most in general - though I appreciate they're not a single-person so much as a family. Oh and i'd just add..if you've not seen Brewster's Millions then it's a great comedy with a big truth...losing huge amounts of wealth takes real hard work. ny156uk (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Roman Abramovich has been spending in that range on his hobby. He has been the owner of the club for about seven years and has put some 700 million pound in it since [23]. Of course this is thought of as an investment rather than a "lifestyle budget", but I don't think anybody seriously believes he will ever see that money back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to make a small fortune out of a football club is to put a large fortune into it! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that money is spent more on the Crown than the Queen - it's largely expenses necessary for her to carry out her royal duties. You wouldn't consider an accountant's business expenses as funding their lifestyle, so you shouldn't do the same for the Queen. --Tango (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful. While there are people that make or have enough money for that kind of spending, I don't think there is anything to spend it on. You could pay thousands of staff with that kind of money - even the Edwardian great houses only employed dozens of staff. I can't think of any way other than paying staff that you could routinely spend anywhere near that much money. --Tango (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation article mentions how Warren Buffett, if I understand correctly, effectively gives more than this amount to the foundation every year. It's a stretch, but one might claim that's a lifestyle budget. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would interpret that more as evidence that you can't spend that kind of money on your own lifestyle. Almost everyone with that kind of money ends up giving large amounts of it to charity. Yes, there are altruistic (and PR) reasons, but the fact that they can't spend the money themselves is a big factor. --Tango (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brewster's Millions comes to mind as an example of this kind of problem. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very close analogy to this problem, yes. We're ruling out charity and capital spending in the same way the rich uncle does and requiring a large amount of money to be spent on consumables in a short space of time. --Tango (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Escobar and his drug cartel cronies may have done so. According to this CNN money article, each made "about $6.4 million a day in income" and spent lavishly. 5% of that would do the trick. When he was on the run, Escobar supposedly once burned $1 million to cook and keep his daughter warm. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions waiting to be answered.

Barack Obama as his wife Michelle Obama declared during a speech she was giving, that they had visited Barack's hometown of Kenya, Africa. So what I want to know is why nothing has been done about it. I know that this is a hard question to answer but I would greatly appreciate it if I could possibly get an answer. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.7.99 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well for me it's a hard question to answer because I don't know what the question is. 'why nothing has been done about' - about what exactly? BTW, Barack Obama was not born in and didn't grow up in Kenya ~~and this visit you describe above may very well be have been the first time he ever went to Kenya~~ so it isn't his hometown in normal use of the word even if his father was from there, and it's questionable if a large country can be called a hometown anyway. Edit: [24] says he's visited Kenya 3 times but doesn't mention when the first (or second) was. I presume your above question is about the last visit in 2006 although I still don't know what the question is. Nil Einne (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's hometown is South Carolina. Or maybe I should say CSA? :) It would be interesting if the IP (whose only edit was this one) could find us a source for that alleged statement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question doesn't make any sense to me, either; but I wonder if the original poster typed "had" instead of "had not", so the intended question is: Why hasn't Barack Obama visited his father's hometown in the time since he became President? I remember a news story a while ago in which some Kenyans expressed disappointment that Obama hadn't done so. (He did visit in 2006 before becoming President.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate interpretation was that the OP is a "birther" who's questioning why nothing has been done about this presumed "confession" that Obama was born in Kenya. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, that's a totally valid interpretation. The Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article is what you want, original poster. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that too but couldn't find any evidence for it from a quick search and was also surprised he (or his wife) would say they're going to visit Kenya, it seems a bad thing for the President of the US to say because he should know there's a fair chance he won't be able to do it, even more so since having visited it in 2006 there's less urgency or justification. However it's possible they said they would like to visit Kenya or would try to visit Kenya or something less definitive. However BB's intepretation may be correct, see [25]. Or it could be related to [26]. We're not going to know if the OP doesn't come back and if BB is correct hopefully they don't. Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an element of ostensible paranoia underlying the initial question. That someone from Kenya is inherently untrustworthy, or at least unsuited to the Presidency of the United States. Is this inference correct, 67? Vranak (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banter between Bugs and Vranak

Maybe, but the real "issue" is the conspiracy theory that Obama is not a "natural born U.S. citizen", and hence is in office illegally. If that were true, the Republicans would have been all over it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're big on ruleslawyering, sure. But Bugs, surely you of all people know about the difference between the letter, and the spirit of the law? The idea of that commandment may have been quite evident whenever it was enacted, but in 2010, is some usurper going to rise to power and mess everybody's lives up, because he's from Japan or Kenya or Austria? I think not. Vranak (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lot more than ruleslawyering. There were even questions raised, by people in government as opposed to these conspiracy theorists, about McCain's eligibility, because he wasn't born physically within the U.S. although both his parents were citizens. And most of us don't want the Presidency "outsourced". Someone who's a citizen has theoretically a larger stake in the country's future than someone who isn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's all a bunch of hooey. The bottom line is, can we trust the President? Heck, even when very few people trusted George W. towards the end of his time in office, well that didn't mean a thing did it? He was still the President, and the muckrakers and malingerers were just spouting hot air which amounted to two things: jack and *cough* excuse me. Vranak (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural born citizenship is a constitutional requirement, not "a bunch of hooey". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can explain to me, an ignorant foreigner, why it's so crucial to the perception of integrity among America citizenry, that a potential President be born on domestic soil. Because it strikes me as positively superstitious. But what do I know -- perception is reality. And if it's simply because it's a Constitutional requirement, well why such reverence for a mere document. It didn't keep you out of Vietnam, it didn't stop the Enola Gay, and it didn't do much for the whole Iraq fiasco. Vranak (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is superstitious, but it's the law of the land, and I don't think there's ever been any serious attempt to amend the constitution to allow, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President. The founding fathers had their reasons. Basically, they wanted Americans running America. Maybe it was an overreaction to matters like being run by a king who was across an ocean and/or the occasional king who didn't even speak English, but there has been little traction for changing that law. Regarding the other items you mention: Vietnam was approved by Congress; the A-bomb was a military strategy aimed at ending the war (and it worked); and likewise Iraq was approved by Congress. We do enough outsourcing as it is. The idea of a foreigner leading our military is scarier than any of the items you've mentioned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent answer -- thanks! Vranak (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC) |}[reply]

Our article Natural born citizen of the United States discusses the weird term "natural born citizen" in some detail; and unfortunately there's a tag saying the section needs expansion on the relevant portion of Article Two of the United States Constitution — the article ought to discuss why the provision exists. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can be both "a constitutional requirement" and "a bunch of hooey" at the same time. Notice how the very same constitution also had the three-fifths compromise in it. Madison was brilliant, but not perfect, and, of course, both a man of his time and constrained by his environment. The "naturally born" citizenship requirement is a relict from the founding time, when the new nation was somewhat unstable and still had a somewhat uncertain relationship with European powers. It's unlikely to be repealed now because it has little influence nowadays anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are exactly my conclusions as well. Although the gist of my point is, let's not have too much reverence for the Constitution. To quote Homer Simpson -- "If he's so smart, then how come he's dead?" Vranak (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how much would it cost to buy all the music on iTunes?

How much would it cost to buy all the music on iTunes? How about all the movies and tv shows? How much would it cost to buy 1 of everything that amazon.com sells? THanks. 84.153.236.197 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How must would it cost to buy one example of everything currently being manufactured? --Wetman (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first question would be, about how many different items are there for sale? From that, you could estimate the average price and then estimate the total cost. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How much would it cost to HAVE BOUGHT, at the time that it WAS being manufactured (but use 2010 dollars to denominate that cost) everything that HAS EVER been mass-produced? (I don't mean like one bespoke yacht). Everything that at least hundreds were made of. 84.153.236.197 (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're asking about "one of each", as with George Carlin's joke bit about a late night TV ad offering a collection of "Every record ever made!", you have to know how many unique things were made before you can even begin to estimate. Say the year is 1920. You could buy a Model T Ford. You could also buy one of each car model that was produced that year. But how many different car models were produced that year? Who would know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice to say, Steve Jobs would prefer that you not ask these sorts of questions. He wants to leech every dollar he can from you, but slowly, surely, so you hardly notice him getting obscenely rich off your taste for music. Thank god for torrents. Vranak (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Digression

Thanks for answering my question tartly and succinctly. However, I didn't catch your answer. How much would all that music etc cost? 84.153.236.197 (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter? I mean, really. I'm more interested in the social-psycho-egotistical aspect. It's almost dangerous to have Jobs doing his business. I don't trust that dude -- do you? His MO seems to be absorb people's money and turn it into pancreatic cancer. Vranak (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

protip: if you had said "his MO seems to be absorb people's money and turn it into a wardrobe consisting of thousands of thousands of black turtlenecks" you wouldn't come off as a socioopath. (the difference, in case you really are a sociopath and cant see it even when someone points it out, is that your version is something someone didn't choose and can't change.) 84.153.236.197 (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm keeping it real here. Does the man not having a chronic cancer problem? What does that suggest to you about his essential decency? I have my doubts. He just seems like a very clever little narcissist. Vranak (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, aren't you a blast from the past. It's true, many hundreds of years ago, in the middle ages, people thought that if you were diseased, or handicapped in some way, you must be a bad person or a witch, etc. So I can see exactly where you're coming from. Personally, I'm not superstitious like that, and I don't know anyone who is. When I see a mole on a woman, I don't think she's a witch and can put a curse on me. But if you like living that way, hey go ahead. p.s. you're really grasping at straws here. just buy an iPad already - I know it's what's really on your mind :). I promise you won't regret it. 84.153.236.197 (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly ignore Vranak. Trying to have a rational discussion with him is generally a waste of one's time, and he prides himself on giving nonsensical/useless answers. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vranak, your answers so far in this thread have been a complete waste of space and time. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm terribly sorry to have offended you both so much. I'm just trying not to sugarcoat anything though. I don't like Steve Jobs or Apple at all and have little hesitancy to go into some detail on why. Have you guys read about how he cheated Woz out of thousands of bucks when they were first starting out? It's in his article. Vranak (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well to give you a ballpark figure... Lets assume all songs cost 99 cents (this of course isn't true any more, some are more and some are less and the price changes for albums and by location etc, but lets say 99 cents on average). According to this article there are "over 11 million songs" on iTunes worldwide, so by my not very complicated calculations I get $11 million for music. It says there are "over 3000 TV shows", which isn't clear if it's episodes or series, but at $1.99 an episode, it's either about $6000 or about $60000 (assuming 10 episodes per show on average, just a ballpark number). There are "2500+" movies, which at, say , $25 a movie calculates to $62500. So as you can see, it appears at first glance that buying the song catalog would greatly overshadow movie and TV content. Now the app store is more difficult, it says there are 100,000 apps, but who knows how many are free or what the average cost is. Still though, I don't think it would make much of an impact compared to the music cost. Amazon MP3 apparently has about 9 million songs, so I would guess around $9 million. If you mean 1 of everything Amazon sells (ie not just MP3s) I wouldn't even want to hazard a guess - you'd need the total number of items (which is sure to be controversial, do different colours count etc) and average price, and you'd need to know if you count things from third party sellers or not, and if you use Amazon's price or third party price for items offered by both and so on. TastyCakes (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea and Iran

Are North Korea and Iran allied? They're both communist and they both hate America. --75.6.4.191 (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on Iran – North Korea relations, probably a good place to start. ny156uk (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iran isn't communist under any definition. It's an Islamic republic. The states do not share similar economic methods, legal systems, or belief systems (I'm not sure if Islam is even legal in North Korea). They are allied in the sense that they are both considered pariah states. On weapons-related issues they have some connections. But they are not extensively allied, to my knowledge, and it's unclear that either would be willing or able to go out of their way to help the other if it came under significant pressure (i.e., I don't think that North Korea would declare war on the USA if the USA declared war on Iran). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iran is communist. They censor all forms of speech and imprison or execute anyone who speaks out against the government. --75.6.4.191 (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have confused communism with totalitarianism. (Your statements aren't totally accurate, either; see Censorship in Iran.) A very small part of Iran was a short-lived USSR republic in 1920-21, and there are at least three political parties who would like Iran to be communist, but, at present, Iran is indeed not a communist country. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Iran is not communist. If you don't understand why that is, then you don't understand what communism actually means (in which case, looking at the article might help clear that up, if you're actually interested in learning about it). (It is even debatable whether North Korea is really communist at all, but that's an entirely different question.) Under really no definition is Iran communist. They are not even totally totalitarian, though they are considerably less-free than many places in the world, to be sure. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How isn't North Korea communist? Unlike Iran, they outright admit it! --75.6.4.191 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I "admit" that I am President of the United States, does that make it so? North Korea is not Communist by Marx's or even Lenin's conception of Communism. By the former definition there has never been a Communist state, which is an oxymoron as in full Marxian communism there is no "state". There is only an unstratified society in which all people are comrades and work without pay for the advancement of their society. Obviously, that will never happen because people are greedy. A communist state in the colloquial sense is one in which such a society is the goal. North Korea has stopped pursuing communism except in name, and has become more of an absolute monarchy passed down by blood. In fact, Marx's works are not even allowed to read by the common people. PS: Iran is not communist, period. 76.229.206.77 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse 76 above, and Juche is the name North Korea is now calling their political ideology. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Juche is "part of the series on Communism". --75.6.4.191 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This IP user sounds familiar. It may be the same troll who was asking silly questions about socialism a few weeks ago. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there has been a shift in North Korea from the juche ideology to a "military first" or songun ideology. As others have said, North Korea has evolved into a hereditary monarchy with what amounts to a military aristocracy. This is really quite remote from the ideas of Marx or even Lenin and is hard to link to communism as it is usually defined. Marco polo (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for an alliance between North Korea and Iran, the two countries' governments have helped each other out when it has been mutually convenient, but there is no true alliance. Marco polo (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public school class size reduction advocacy organizations

Which organizations have been the most effective advocates for public school class size reduction over the past 20 years? I was able to find http://www.classsizematters.org/ for New York, but not much else. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that the teacher's unions play heavily in this issue ... possibly the National Education Association. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Shakespeare scripts

I am a little confused about some issues with William Shakespeare. I basically understand that his plays were published, after his death, by other editors -- in the Folios and the Quartos. But, whatever became of the actual (hard-copy) written scripts that the actors used during Shakespeare's lifetime? Did none of these scripts survive? Or did they (the actors) not use scripts the way that we would use them today? In other words, was the performance of a live play back in Shakespeare's day somehow executed differently than it would be today (i.e., without each actor receiving his own copy of a written script)? Thanks! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

No, the actors did not receive a complete copy of the script, since there was no cheap, quick, or easy way to reproduce the script. The actors got just their lines (and their cues) on cheap paper, copied from the prompt book owned by the acting company. Besides, the company did not want complete copies of their play laying around, since it might be stolen by a rival company. No copies of the actor's lines apparently survive, unsurprisingly. Shakespeare's plays were printed using the prompt copy or his foul papers. —Kevin Myers 02:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I am sorry, but I don't quite understand. Are you saying that an actor got his lines only? If that is the case, how on earth would he know the context of what he himself is saying (without seeing the lines of the other actors, to which he must react)? After reading your post, this is the mental picture that I have. As an actor, I would get a copy of a regular normal-looking script (albeit on cheap paper) with everyone's lines excised except my own. Do I have that correct? Or am I mis-reading your post above? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, the actor would get his lines only, plus the line right before his (the cue). Often, the story would be a familiar one, so he'd know the gist of the plot without the whole script. He'd memorize his lines, and then learn the complete context in rehearsal, where he'd work out how he will deliver the lines. (This may seem odd, but even today there are films made where actors do not get the whole script, and rehearsals in film are a rare luxury.) For more info, see the "acting" entries in The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. —Kevin Myers 04:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct way to ask permission from Author for making use of instrument

Hello good people. Can you tell me what is the right way to ask permission from an author of a scholarly work if I want to make use of a psychometric instrument devised by them and communicate the results to the people on whom it was used. This may seem like a silly question but I do not want to waste the author's time either by including too much information or by necessitating too many back and forth emails. Any other guidelines (style, convention) would also be much appreciated. (The instrument has been widely used previously, and I am using it in a commercial setting. ) --ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask direct and to the point. Include information about how the author will be attributed, whether any money will be changing hands, and to whom the results will be available. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Israel losing a war question

I had a cultural anthropology professor who told us that there was a war between Israel and Egypt, and that at one point Egypt was winning until America intervened and sailed an aircraft carrier into the region. Then an Egyptian leader (can't remember who he said it was) said something along the lines of "I can fight a war against Israel, but I can't fight it against America". I believe Nixon was the president during this time. I'm not entirely sure what war this was, but since Nixon was president I'm thinking it's the Yom Kippur War. But no where in the article does it describe Israel losing until America intervened. Is my professor accurate in what he said? ScienceApe (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and he also said that Egypt captured Israeli territory. ScienceApe (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our Yom Kippur War says that there were early Egyptian (and Syrian) successes, such as taking back some of the occupied territory lost in the Six Days War. US support for Israel, in both recon and resupply, was critical in their eventual victory, so your prof wasn't that far off. See Yom_Kippur_War#Aid_to_Israel and Operation Nickel Grass. StuRat (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably misheard what the professor said. Either that, or he was just wrong. On October 6, 1973, President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt and President Hafez al-Assad of Syria both attacked Israel. It was Yom Kippur, and Prime Minister Golda Meir of Israel did not discover the impending offensive until the morning of October 6. (It takes Israel several days to mobilize its army.) Both Egypt and Syria captured a narrow sliver of territory at Israel's border. The Egyptians stopped right there to stay under their anti-aircraft defenses. Whenever Syrian and Egyptian forces tried to advance beyond their air-defense umbrella, they were annihilated.

Right after the war began, the Soviet Union began airlifting supplies to Egypt and Syria. The U.S. waited six days after the war began to airlift supplies to Israel. Golda Meir pleaded with Nixon for supplies because the Israelis were running short of ammunition.

Israel eventually advanced into Egyptian and Syrian territory. They actually cut off an army of Egyptians (the Third Army), stranding them on the Israeli side of the Suez Canal. Without water, they would have died. The U.S.S.R. then threatened to deploy its own ground troops in Egypt to enforce a cease fire on October 24th. Nixon then responded by putting U.S. forces on DEFCON alert. In the end, Israel lost 2,522 men; Egypt lost 12,000 men; Syria lost 3,500; and Egypt would have lost many more if the U.S.S.R. hadn't forced a cease fire. Sadat may have tried to explain his acceptance of a cease fire by blaming the Americans, but the fact remains that Egypt would have suffered dearly if he has not done so.

If you would like to learn more, I would recommend reading The Yom Kippur War published by Osprey. It's actually two books -- one on the Sinai campaign and another about the war with Syria. I read both books cover-to-cover. Very entertaining story, in my opinion.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC) --Best Dog Ever (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way that the U.S. would have gotten itself involved militarily in that war, and I think everybody knew it. The country was still embroiled in Vietnam. I don't recall reading anything about an aircraft carrier ever being sent. What good would it have done? After getting over its initial shock, the Israeli Air Force wasn't in dire trouble. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's really talking about the Soviets. They did sail some vessels toward Egypt with some Soviet marines on board. Nixon did little more than put U.S. forces on DEFCON alert.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the bare minimum to give a 2010 Census worker?

A census worker just left a message on my door 15 minutes ago and drove off. He left his phone number and name. I don't live here, I have an apartment elsewhere, but since I missed the census, I figured I may as well open the door to him tomorrow. However, I've heard tell that there are all sorts of questions they will ask me, and to be honest, I'm an extremely, extremely private person. I would like to tell him how many are in the household, and the address of my permanent residence, and refuse to answer anything else. Is this possible? Has anyone done this? Are these people rude?Reflectionsinglass (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[27] addresses preparing for the visit, [28] shows the questions you will be asked, and [29] discusses privacy concerns. Since government representation is apportioned by the census, answering it is in your self interest to a similar extent as voting. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I worked for the Census in 2000. You are required by law to answer all questions they give you. If you do not co-operate, their supervisor will come back. Things will only get worse if you don't co-operate. Answer all of their questions. They will not share the information with anyone else. No other agency, besides the Census Bureau, will have access to your personal information. The questions are mostly harmless, like whether you're a veteran, etc. They aren't too personal.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's the procedure this year? I think they switch to telephone calls if in-person visits aren't answered; up to three of each if I remember correctly. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently a census worker. Ref. 26 above contains all the questions you'll be asked. It's true that you're required by law to respond to the census questions, but the consequences cited above for failure to do so are wildly exaggerated. --Halcatalyst (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I worked for the 2010 census. I did the enumeration of group quarters (nursing homes, homeless shelters, etc) but am not working on the private residence followups. However, the form that we used for the group quarters had ten questions. Only three needed answers to consider the form "complete". The most basic of these were your name, birth date/age, and sex. Other questions included national origin, race, and address. Dismas|^(talk) 04:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's not so bad. Since some of you work/have worked for the census, is it ok if I give a different address? I mean, I am in a completely different zip code at the moment. Reflectionsinglass (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They would like your actual physical address. This is because the information is used in part to sort out congressional districts. Those districts are based on population figures, so by deceiving them about where you live, you're skewing the numbers. Granted, not by that much, but still the information has a purpose. Dismas|^(talk) 05:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespearean actors

In Shakespeare's time period, all actors in his plays would have been male -- so that even female roles were performed by male actors -- is that correct? In Romeo and Juliet, for example, a male actor (as Romeo) would be acting opposite a male actor (as Juliet). This would also occur for other strong lead female roles (e.g., Portia in The Merchant of Venice). Wasn't this extremely implausible for the audience to swallow? I can't imagine watching a love story like Romeo and Juliet, where Juliet is played by a male. It would seem to "ruin" the whole point of the play, I would imagine. Did it not strain credulity and destroy any "realistic" features of the story line? How did this work? How did they get this to be effective? The casting of male actors in female roles would seem to turn any serious play into a farce. How did they prevent that from happening? I just don't get it ... so I may be missing something. Any insights? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

There is nothing particularly plausible about any of Shakespeare's plays in general, so I don't think that would have been the dealbreaker. If all the female roles were played by men, the audience would have expected it, so it wouldn't have been a problem. (And those roles were played by adolescents, if I remember correctly - not fat old men.) Adam Bishop (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I figured we would have an article - boy player (and Elizabethan theatre for more background). Adam Bishop (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the first time women appeared on the stage in England was in the reign of Charles II, hence the wild popularity of actresses like Nell Gwynne, Moll Davis, Margaret Hughes and Beck Marshall.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOT LEGAL ADVICE JUST CURIOSITY

If a man serves a woman food containing his semen, without disclosing this to her, and then she eats it and later finds out, has the man committed a crime? What crime would it be? It can't be assault or rape or anything because nobody forced her to eat it, right? Would it be fraud? Is there a special category of crime for this kind of thing? Answers should ideally pertain to the state of California, but answers for any jurisdiction would be appreciated. 98.207.62.60 (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

California Health and Safety code section 110560 states, "Any food is adulterated if it consists in whole or in part of any diseased, contaminated, filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is otherwise unfit for food." (emphasis added.) Section 110625 makes adulteration illegal. I have no idea what the penalty would be, but this might be a sex offense too. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is still legal advice, regardless if you are asking just out of curiosity. I would not assume it isn't assault, "eating the sandwich willingly" is not a mitigating factor to the crime. Vespine (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient music

What is the oldest music tune that we know toady, whether written in ancient musical notation or reliably passed down through the generations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.50.170 (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried googling [oldest song] and some things came up that might be worth checking. The Psalms are many hundreds of years old, and I think were originally sung, or at least chanted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lonely hearts club

What is lonely hearts club?174.3.123.220 (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]