Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 3

Jamaica (W.I)

What is the Jamaica(W.I) Appliances and Electronics retails market value?? I would like detail analysis if possible with different parishes in Jamaica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invinciblejz (talk • contribs) 00:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is just a reference desk.--Wetman (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to answer. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If such information is available, the best place to find it would be the Statistical Institute of Jamaica. They do not publish the data that you want on their website; however, they do present data on the total value of retail and wholesale trade, which suggests that they may have more detailed figures on specific retail sectors, perhaps broken down by parish. This page has contact information for the Statistical Institute. Marco polo (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

French Revolution

Supposing a Parisian man were arrested during the Reign of Terror on suspicion of dissent or something like that. If his wife or family tried to visit him in jail, would they be let in? And were such prisoners kept alone in cells or in big chambers, as depicted in the painting "Calling the Last Victims of the Terror at the Prison Saint-Lazare"? 75.16.139.34 (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this the painting you are referring to?

Yes. 75.15.87.168 (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

58.147.58.152 (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, with a thought for Antoine Lavoisier & André Chénier , I'd say : yes, families were allowed to see their imprisoned relatives, provided of course that they had some money to "grease the paw" of the gaolers with, & were not afraid to be emprisoned too. & yes, for lack of storage prisoners were crammed up in big halls & cellars, which allowed them at least to converse civilly & play adapted parlour games, like "the guillotine" : a chair was used as a sham decapitating device. Humor of courage & fatalism...& thanks for the painting. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You mention Lavoisier and Chenier, would it have been the same for a poor or lower-middle-class person? 75.15.87.168 (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Derrick Bird

This cab driver allegedly went around shooting people at 30 locations in Cumbria, UK. Do the police on the beat or in police cars in that area carry firearms? How did he get to that many sites of mayhem without encountering armed law enforcement?Edison (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No, police in Great Britain do not routinely carry firearms, and most are not trained and authorised to do so. Authorised Firearms Officers are a specially trained minority, and are only issued firearms for a specific purpose when responding to an incident involving armed suspects/perpetrators, occasionally during security alerts at airports and the like, or when on guard at certain MOD and other such sensitive establishments. Gun possession and crime is sufficiently rare in the UK that (I believe the reasoning to be) routinely arming police officers would likely result in more injuries and fatalities due to accidental or unnecessary discharges than the policy would discourage or counter on the part of actual armed malefactors. Note however that the policy in Northern Ireland (the part of the UK that is not GB) is different. Note also that the linked article has a See Also section of links to related topics that may well be of further interest. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cumbria generally is a pretty sparsely populated rural area - Whitehaven itself has a population of 25,000 but the other places are much smaller - and, although gun crime is a problem in some of the UK's main cities, a scenario like the one yesterday is almost unprecedented in such a quiet country area. Cumbria Constabulary is "the fifth largest force in England and Wales in terms of geographic area (2,268 square miles) but one of the smallest in terms of officer numbers." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that the incidents at Dunblane and Hungerford would have changed law enforcement in Britain.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

They certainly led to major changes in the law. There are several reasons why we have not gone down the "all police armed" route - not least because the police themselves do not want it. Our tradition of "policing by consent" does not sit easily with a paramilitary force. A routinely armed police force would lead to more criminals arming themselves in their day-to-day criminality. I suspect we also don't have any desire to see levels of gun-related violence anything like America enjoys. Incidents like this one are very rare - and to rush to arm all police just to deal with cases like this would be an idiotic over-reaction which would be very likely to lead to all sorts of negative unintended consequences. As we have seen far too often, most notably in the Menezes case, even well-trained specialist officers are perfectly capable of shooting unarmed innocent people and then lying to all and sundry about what happened. That's something most British people don't want to see any more of. DuncanHill (talk) 11:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Information on the current law in the UK is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The article on the Cumbrian killings fails to mention how Bird acquired a firearm.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

He had a license for it. Given that Cumbria is a rural area with a significant agricultural economy shotgun ownership is quite high. It's not out of the question that he was a sport shottist, hence the .22 rifle.

ALR (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The case Duncan refers to is the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.- Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]}

A number of observations were made on Newsnight last night, one of the most pertinent being that these events are in the order of a decade apart. Kneejerk reactions do not lead to good policy, as has been demonstrated by the legislative responses to both of those events. The unintended consequences of both have been significant. Yet neither has reduced the number of illegal personal weapons available.

What both of those indicated to the rational analyst was that the legislation in place at the time should have been adequate, but that it hadn't been properly applied. Neither of the protagonists should have been in possession of a firearms license and failures in the issue and monitoring systems were a contributing factor.

ALR (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

To go back to the original point, most UK police services operate Armed Response Vehicles to respond to incidents involving firearms. In a big city like London, they can be there very quickly, but in rural Cumbria it would probably be a different story. See also Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom. Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So a gunman in Cumbria who did not run short of ammo and off himself (save the last bullet for yourself), or a terrorist with a wheelman, could likely have gone to far, far more sites and shot countless more innocents, like a wolf in a sheepfold? Perhaps hundreds? A madman in Texas at the Luby's Cafeteria similarly shot dozens of helpless unarmed citizens until he ran out of ammo, leading Texas to pass a law allowing citizens to carry firearms. In England, do private citizens own hunting weapons (rifles or shotguns)? Could such citizens have improvised a defense against a traveling murderer such as this? If a policeman had encountered the shooter, would he have been limited to hitting him with a billy club or "appealing to his better nature?"Edison (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And of course, private citizens with legally held firearms never run amok killing innocents.... DuncanHill (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The death rate from guns per capita is over thirty times higher in the USA than in England. 92.15.7.168 (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes because Texas is obviously the model of societies where innocent civilians can feel safe. List of countries by firearm-related death rate.. I think the OP's question has been answered, this discussion does not need to spiral down into personal opinion of the benefits of gun ownership. Vespine (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We have Gun politics in the United Kingdom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cumbria is a rural place with lots of winding roads, and this guy was a taxi driver in his taxi who knew the area well. By the time he was found he'd driven some forty miles and there were 8 helicopters from the police force, air force and navy, as well as the traffic plod looking for him. Armed response would have almost certainly been in the area in under an hour. They were also looking for him. It's difficult to see how armed civilians would have made any difference. It's difficult to shoot someone you can't find. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back in the real world... Threat assessment and resourcing in policing is based on what crimes actually happen, rather than some speculative nonsense about terrorists taking random potshots at people. FWIW we've lived with terrorism in the UK for many years, we have a much more present awareness of it than you have in the US. Personally I've lost a couple of friends in the province, and I know people who were affected by it on the mainland. Terrorists, per se, do not wander around randomly shooting at people, they generally develop a target and attack it. More recently we've still got some trouble in the province and a number of incidents on the mainland that have a different focus.

I think the fact that Bird had licensed weapons answers the question of whether private citizens have personal weapons. Whether they've actually got the competence to take down a subject in a vehicle without taking down other parties, collateral damage, is pretty questionable. I know from experience how difficult it is to maintain a good enough level of competence with a pistol or revolver. Expecting someone without military experience to have the confidence and presence of mind to get close enough and take him down is pretty optimistic.

For a pair of beat cops in an area car, they may try to contain the target, but they're more likely to just maintain a watch until armed response arrives.

Lets bear in mind that we've only had three of this type of incident in the last 23 years, and inn only one of those has the shooter been vehicle borne. There is far more gun crime using illegal weapons, and that tends to be armed robbery, drug or people trafficking related, so essentially contained.

There are arguments for an against increased or reduced control over personal weapons, personally I'm an advocate for simplifying and relaxing our regulations, as they do nothing to reduce the availability of illegal weapons. The idea that enough people with the time and interest to maintain an adequate level of firearms competence to have a practical effect is barking, IMHO.

ALR (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. My concern was an apparent lack of ability to respond in a timely way to a heavily armed spree killer in rural Britain. How many "Armed Response Units" are there in Cumbria, or where was the nearest one if there were none? Edison (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cumbria Constabulary employs 86 authorised firearms officers out of a total of 1200 officers [1][2]. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

They also called in armed officers from 3 other counties who would have responded very quickly. --Tango (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As others have said, it's finding the spree killer than is hard. They had the armed officers available to deal with him had they found him. In the US, all police officers routinely carry firearms and a significant number of them end up getting shot with their own weapons (google finds dozens of news stories about such cases, although I can't find any statistics quickly). Since gun ownership in the US is so high, US police have little choice but to carry guns themselves, but it is very low in the UK so the risks from carrying guns routinely are generally considered to outweigh the benefits. --Tango (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the above, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary who guard the Sellafield facility (which the murderer came as close as a mile to) are routinely armed with automatic weapons (I think either H&K mp5 or mp7s, I can't find a reliable source and I'm slightly reluctant to Google too thoroughly...); I don't know what practical contingency arrangements exist that would allow them to go off-site. It's worth noting that Cumbria, and particularly West Cumbria, is probably the most rural, lest well-roaded part of England (making quick deployment of any force difficult), and I'm not aware of any evidence of this individual having been anywhere near any unarmed officers either. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't England have far more "authorised firearm officers" than they do "Armed Response Units" which actually carry onboard firearms? Do they have 86 guns back at the station for the 86 officers qualified to use them? Fortunately, per the article on firearms regs, even private citizens licensed to own rifles are restricted in how much ammo they can accumulate, making a Va Tech or Columbine massacre difficult. Did Bird have on board more ammo than the law would allow him to purchase? Having the armed guards at a nuke installation go gallivanting away from the place when there are reports of shooting somewhere sounds like a terrible idea, and just the thing radicals/terrorists would use to make it easier to gain access to the plant. Edison (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Each firearms officer has his own weapon, so essentially yes to the first. It has to be borne in mind that each officer is likely to be based at a different station, and the geographic size and difficulty in moving around Cumbria would restrict the ability to consolidate all of them together. Also the shift patterns would mean that only a small number may be available at any one time.

Any experienced shottist could easily make their own rounds, but the number of shots that Bird appears to have taken are well within the ammunition limits. I would note that Columbine had a similar fatality level, even with the second antagonist, the VA Tech incident involved the majority of fatalities being inside a secured building, although

The CNP have limited jurisdictional powers outside the power generation sites, so they wouldn't be expected to go elsewhere, particularly not with their weapons, which are optimised for close quarters operations.

ALR (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As observed above, all of this discussion is pretty moot as the challenge was tracking him down.

2 questions about J.D. Salinger

Hello, I missed Salinger in the last 4 decades, & am trying now to make up for it. Can somebody answer about those 2 items :

• 1/ In the end of the '50, aged IO or about, I read a short story (translated in french , in the then somewhat well-read upper-middle class weekly "Paris-Match" ) written, I think, by Salinger . It depicted a young boy's angst in front of his baby brother, & a sentence ran (very approximately) like this : "I then suddenly saw that his milk & him were the same thing, that he was the milk , & the milk was him, & ..., & that we all belonged to the same being ...".

I have a confusing association of that short story plot ending with the fall of a younger brother in an empty swimming-pool, but I don't unravel it clearly from some individual longings I now know I myself half-consciously had at the time. So my question is : is that short story by Salinger ? & if yes what is its name ? & if no, does somebody know its whereabouts ?

• 2/ I am reading now "A Catcher in the Rye" (&, hush, I find it has not aged along so well...). My question is : who is that Ring Lardner, which is young Holden's next favorite author after his brother D.B. & who wrote a short story (which one ? ) about a cop in love with a very cute girl that's always speeding, & which gets killed because she is always speeding...

Is it Lardner the father or the son ? And do we have to understand that this proclaimed addiction of a 1950 teen-ager (who otherwise says "I am quite illiterate, but I read a lot ") for a 1920 short stories author is a purely derisive Salinger's private joke ?

Thanks a lot for your answers . T.y. Arapaima (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

2. It was Ring Lardner (the father) who wrote the short stories. Our article notes that J.D. Salinger admired Lardner. The story in question is "There are Smiles", published in Round Up Gwinva (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Maurice Sendak's illustrated In the Night Kitchen includes the lines:

I'm in the milk / And the milk's in me. / God bless milk / And God bless me!

I don't know whether this was original with MS or quoted from an earlier source, as the OP's mention (above) would indicate. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 ::Thanks a lot folks ! Arapaima (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How old may be that Penguin book ?

Hello, & out of sheer curiosity : does somebody know when could have been issued a Penguin book (JD Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye") I found in a swap-shop, absolutely brand new, ISBN O-14-023749-6, retail price on the sticker : £5.99 (now 0,20 euro !). On french books, printing year is usually found clearly on the last page, but on the lenghty Penguin 3rd page, I don't really find a printing date. If I compare this book withe some of the seldom-handled Penguins on my shelves, I'say : 25 to 35 years old ? Thanks a lot for your answers. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

All we can say for sure is that it was after Decimal Day - 15 February 1971. Are you sure there's no date in the first few pages? --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked on AbeBooks and the only listing with that ISBN number and a date had it at 1994. This page also lists 1994 as the printing year and I see the same cited elsewhere in the web. While I haven't found a truely authoritative source to back this up I'm guessing this is the year. ThemFromSpace 09:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Amazon also lists this as 1994. ThemFromSpace 09:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)5.99 makes it sound like it is quite new, possible the 1990s. On the Penguin editions from the early 1970s that I own, the price is usually around 40-85p!. Anyway, unless someone has removed the title page, there should be a date in the colophon stating the year of printing. I have yet to see a Penguin edition without it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In almost every book I own the printing year is on the first page (or second, depending how you count them - these pages have no numbers). I'm not sure what to call this part of the book - it isn't really a colophon, it comes before the front matter and it's too plain to be a frontispiece. Anyway, have a look for the dates there - usually "first published" and then "this edition". Edit: alright then, it is a colophon. I should read articles to the end. 81.131.66.164 (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is the colophon. In most modern books it is placed on the back of the titlepage. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot folks ! Arapaima (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

how do I not talk so much?

I talk way the fuck too much, how do I condition myself not to talk so much? 82.113.119.244 (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Whenever you catch yourself saying "fuck", get out a stopwatch and say nothing at all for 5 minutes. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe focus on listening. Ask questions based on what the other person is interested in and let them talk. If you are listening well, you will be able to ask follow-up questions that will prompt them to talk some more. Then when you do talk, keep it brief and responsive to what the other person has said. Marco polo (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

another trick is to actively listen to yourself talk. most people who talk too much do it because they are unaware that they are talking too much. if you pay attention to what you say, you will quickly start to bore yourself, and that will lead you to become more selective in what you choose to say. --Ludwigs2 14:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ludwigs2. 82.113.106.111 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not usually the quantity of talk that's the problem, it's the content. Specifically, people talking, yet saying nothing, is annoying. Some people feel the need to talk whenever there's a silence, and this is bad if they have nothing to say. One cure is to have some things ready to say for just such a silence, like jokes, interesting stories, current events, or odd facts. You might want to rehearse prior to any get-together where the need might arise. On the other hand, if there's no silence that "needs to be filled with talk", then don't interrupt to speak.

Another important thing to keep in mind is "know your audience". Don't talk to grandpa about the latest music video, maybe talk to him about his opinion on General Douglas MacArthur, instead. StuRat (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Talking a lot may be an asset - many people find it difficult to find something to say. You should consider for which job or roles it would be beneficial. 92.15.7.168 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're serious, you might consider this or this or this. It might not be as painful as it sounds. Zoonoses (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Accessory before or after the fact"

An "accessory" is a person who aids in the commission of an offence of another person. But, who is an accessory "before the fact" or "after the fact"? Thank you so much.

124.121.186.8 (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone who helps the perpetrator plan the offence, or at least is aware of it and does nothing to stop it happening, could be an accessory before the fact. Someone who becomes aware, only after the event, who the perpetrator was, but still helps them evade the clutches of the law or at least does nothing to alert the authorities, could be an accessory after the fact. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Samuel Mudd is an historical example of someone who was imprisoned for being an accessory after the fact.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The important distinction is that helping someone "before the fact" is actually helping to commit the crime itself, while helping afterwords is only assisting the perp in getting away with it, not in committing the crime (although getting away with it may be helping them to commit future crimes). So, "before the fact" is often punished more severely.

There might also be different defenses used in each case. For "before the fact", you might argue that they "thought it was a joke", say when a friend asked for a lift to his g/f's house so he could kill her. For "after the fact", say after hearing gunshots and having the friend jump back in the car with a blood-spattered shirt, a better argument might be that you were afraid for your own life. StuRat (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What Was the First Gun Invented For?

I was wondering, who invented the first gun, and what did they invent it for? Was it for use in hunting? Or was is made as a weapon or for self-defense? When was the first gun invented, and where? Thanks for the help! Stripey the crab (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a Google and found a site called Important Dates in Gun History. It says the first known hand gun was in England in 1375, but does not say whether it was used for warfare, self-defence or hunting.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

An interesting fact is the first known person to be assassinated by a firearm was James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray in 1570. He was the regent of King James VI of Scotland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Moray was Regent for James VI of Scotland only, Jeanne. James VI did not become James I of England till 33 years after Moray's death. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I knew that Jack. The Morays are not exactly strangers to me. I was only trying to identify King James to those who perhaps were not aware that James VI of Scotland was also James I of England. I have just linked his name which is what I should have done before. I'm afraid history was never my strong point and I've never had much interest in it. takes out tongue in cheek--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Removing James I's name makes what follows read rather oddly now. Your original version was not that bad; had you mentioned James VI before James I, rather than the other way round, I probably wouldn't have commented at all. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume that by gun you mean a personal weapon, rather than a gun?

those articles should answer the question.

ALR (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Gunpowder was invented in the 800s in China. Our article History of firearms states that fire-lances, which were predecessors of true guns, were used for warfare in China as early as the 900s. The evidence indicates that the Chinese had invented primitive guns, likewise for use in warfare, by the 1100s. The technology later spread west via the Arabs to Europe. Marco polo (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Early guns were fairly useless for personal defense or personal use. They could not easily be carried around charged (the powder carried a risk of accidental discharge after being loaded, and was not sealed so quickly became damp and useless in the barrel), took a long time to load (muzzle-loaders), and were relatively inaccurate. They were mostly useful in massed barrage attacks in military contexts, though no doubt they seeped their way into the hunting world once they advanced enough to become more practical than bows and arrows. Cannon came first, and were invented for 'large target' operations - siege devices and inter-ship combat; long-barrelled guns (muskets and eventually rifles) came next, and were combat troop weapons (originally used en-masse from regimented lines (the massed guns offset the weapon's inaccuracy, and multiple lines offset the reload time - one line would fire, then deal with reloading while the second line took aim and fired). Handguns, I believe, were originally officer's weapons, used to keep troops in line - handguns are fairly useless for anything except close-combat situations with other humans. --Ludwigs2 14:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that the first handguns (hand cannons, really) weren't suitable for close-range use, since you needed to manually load the powder and ball, then hold something flaming to the opening in the back. Getting the enemy to stay still while you did this wouldn't be easy. The accuracy was also so low that they weren't very useful as long-range weapons, either. Until they improved the accuracy and firing mechanism, about the only places they would be useful is for executions or as a rich man's toy. StuRat (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See this article: James II of Scotland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We have a History of firearms article, but it is not very detailed on the "why" part of the subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As I say above, I think that the article clearly indicates that they were used for warfare. Marco polo (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The first handguns used in Europe were used in battles. The handgun was a short barrel with a touch hole on top of the barrel at its base attached to a short wooden pole which was used as a handle. The short barrel of at least an inch calibre was almost filled with blackpowder and used to fire a stone ball by touching a slow match to the touch hole while the handgun was held under the arm and pointed towards the target. The handgun was inaccurate and could not be aimed. The barrel was designed to hold the blackpowder not to guide the stone ball accurately. The smell of burnt blackpowder and report of their firing scared horses and other troops. The handgun was first used in Europe before 1380 (a Mongol handgun from before 1368 looks very similar). One handgun stone ball could kill a knight wearing coat-of-plates however plate armour started to be introduced from 1400 onwards to defend against longbow arrows and crossbow bolts. Handguns were very cheap to make but the blackpowder was prohibitively expensive. This was the type of handgun used by the Bohemians from their warwagons during the Hussite Wars 1419-1434.

Weren't they called "hand gonnes" when they were first used?--92.251.146.25 (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The arquebus was introduced in 1410, a smoothbore muzzle-loaded long barrel of around 0.6 inch calibre attached to a wooden stock. The touch hole was moved from the top to the side of the barrel and a flash pan was added to hold blackpowder primer. A manual matchlock (later replaced with a triggered matchlock with a spring added to move the lock back when the trigger was released) meant that both hands remained on the stock and the arquebus was fired from the shoulder. At first, the barrel was supported on a rest and a lighter arquebus called a caliver was introduced in early 1500s that could be fired without a rest. Arquebuses were inaccurate and had an effective range of 100 yards. A lead ball was used as ammunition. One arquebus lead ball could not kill a knight through plate armor breastplate (except at point blank range).

Rifles were first used for hunting. The military preferred smoothbores because blackpowder quickly fouled rifle barrels and muzzle-loaded rifles take longer to load than smoothbores.
Sleigh (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

How many Bs make five?

I heard a British speaker say, with regard to his time in public school, "I learned how many Bs make five." What does this mean? A search on this, and variations such as "how many bees make five," returned answers such as "A bee, a bee and a half, two bees, and half a bee" but no explanation of the phrase. Is this a grammar or diction exercise, and was it a basis for the Eric the Half-a-Bee song? 58.147.58.152 (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, it looks like the British speaker failed to learn the saying correctly. Google has much more on how many beans make five. It seems to indicate that the person is good at maths / puzzles. The puzzle itself is, allegedly, a couple of hundred years old [3]. The Urban Dictionary alleges it's a shibboleth to determine what social class a person is from [4]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've always understood it as a reference to understanding that interactions and transactions between people and within organisations in the real world often require a degree of unofficial give-and-take or mild bribery: e.g. "How many . . . ?" "Four for the company and one for my trouble." or ""How many would you like to make it?" 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

'Tis far more likely that this non-British listener failed to hear the saying correctly. Thanks. 58.147.58.152 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Fiddle de dum, Fiddle de dean; Eric the half a bean.

On a related matter, how strong is a piece of ling? DuncanHill (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Might he be varying the saying for ironic effect, to imply that he never got A marks? 81.131.66.164 (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Someone who knows how many beans make five will probably also know their onions, how the cookie crumbles and which side their bread is buttered. They won't have come down with the last shower or have been born yesterday, and, if a grandmother, won't need instruction on sucking eggs. DuncanHill (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And will know where massively useful things are as well. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

where did Fox argue the right to lie?

where did Fox News go to court to defend it's right to literally lie in it's news casts - specifically what is the brief / written document or oral argument in which this explicit right is argued. Best would be to link to the actual source material. Specifically, which sentence argues literally the right to (in Fox's words) lie/prevaricate/etc in news casts? Thank you. 82.113.106.111 (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a PDF of the legal appeal from the Fox affiliate. You might also want to take a look at our article on Jane Akre. Marco polo (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In case you do not want to read the whole article, here is a very brief synopsis: Two reporters for a local station owned by Fox wanted to do a huge whistle-blower story to get Monsanto into tons of trouble. The local station asked for documentation to back the story. The reporters and the station fought for a long time. The reporters were fired. The reporters sued the station for being fired and claimed that by now not airing their story the station was airing a lie (by omission of truth). The reporters used an FCC policy as the basis of claiming that the station was committing a lie. The station (actually the owners, Fox) stated that FCC policy is not Federal law. Therefore, it is not a Federal crime to break an FCC policy. Therefore, there was no point in wasting tons of money and court time arguing about omission of the story. The reporters claimed it a victory that Fox argued that it is legal to lie in the news. -- kainaw™ 18:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, OP here - thank you for the synopsis but I had some trouble following it, maybe because when you wrote "by now airing their story" did you mean to write "by not airing their story"?? If so, is the only "lie" refusing to air a report some of your reporters made? Also, your synopsis seemed to say that reporters fought with their own company to the point of getting fired. Why would any employee do that? I don't understand this part, I don't see Microsoft programmers fighting Microsoft to the point of getting fired, etc. Is it one of those "journalism" things? Thanks. 84.153.183.38 (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The employees alleged that each of the 80+ times that the Fox station "asked for documentation", as Kainaw put it, the station was editing their report to make Monsanto look good, avoiding the truth of their findings. It's an "integrity" thing, the reporters allege, not just a "journalism" thing — to make up a cartoonish example, suppose you worked at the Washington Post and did a lot of work for a year on a story that showed that President Richard M. Nixon had illegally obstructed justice, but your editor rewrote your story so it said that Nixon was a really legal guy who was enthusiastic about tiny radios and locksmithing. The reporters would try to raise hell internally to try to get the real story published, to the point of getting fired, yes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose to be fair we could also paint it the other way, and compare the reporters to UFO cranks trying to get the paper to publish a story about aliens they have convinced themselves are concealed in Area 51. Which would still be a matter of integrity, if they are sincere. 81.131.66.164 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to be neutral and not claim that their story was real truth or Michael Moore-style truth. I've never seen the story that they wanted to run and I don't know if it was ever published. However, the claim that Fox News argued that they have the right to tell complete lies on air is not entirely true. They claimed that an FCC policy is not a law and cannot be applied as a law. -- kainaw™ 21:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is not Fox News, the network, but a news program on a local Fox-affiliated television station. So hopefully the OP isn't trying to link this to the blustery infotainment of Fox News. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the OP is trying to link this to Fox News. It is much more likely that the OP read in a blog somewhere that Fox News is so evil that they went to court to get the right to lie about the news. Luckily, the OP came here validate that claim. -- kainaw™ 22:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

is there any way to "own more than 100%" of a company?

Would there be any way to "own more than 100%" of a company, for example such that if all of the outstanding shares are valued at $1 million dollars, then you have $1.1 million dollars, because you "own" 110% of the company (it is okay if it is not really "owning" but rather some kind of complex derivative), and if the outstanding shares double in value, putting the market cap of the company at $2 million, then you can monetize $2.2 million instead, with the same 110% ownership... ? I realize it is a long shot, but I know options can be quite leveraged, so I thought maybe there is some kind of financial leverage with this effect... naturally I am only talking metaphorically when I say "own". THank you. 82.113.106.111 (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. See short selling. It involves selling borrowed shares, but the person you borrow them from still effectively owns them (and profits if the share price goes up). So, if you own 100% of the shares and then I borrow 10% of those shares from you and sell them to you, you will effectively own 110% of the shares. Your extra profit comes from my loss (since I effectively own -10% of the shares, so lose money if the share price goes up). --Tango (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

For securities lending, I thought that you needed to borrow the shares from a third party though. Googlemeister (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so the OP owns 100% of the company, you borrow 10% of them from him, sell them them to me and I then sell than back to the OP. It makes no difference. --Tango (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It still strikes me as preposterous that you can own 110% of a company, any more then you can own 110% of an apple pie. Hypothetically, if you own an apple pie (100%) and you agree to let your brother short sell 10% of the pie so that you can buy it, you still do not have more then 100% of the pie. That would be like him borrowing $20 from you so that he can pay you the $20 he owes. It might make sense if he borrows the $20 from a third party, but from you? Googlemeister (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "owner". The person that the shares have been borrowed from still gains or loses money (either from share price changes or dividends) as if they owned the shares (since the borrower has to pay any dividends and they can make the borrower give back the shares if they want to sell them), so they do effectively still own that portion of the company. Here's a reference if you want one: [5]. The only difference is that the person the shares are borrowed from no longer has the voting rights of the shares. [6] --Tango (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Tango's scenario only applies if you fail to cover and if the shorts sold exceed the company's value. In reality, this almost never exceeds even the company's float. There are somethings where you can "own" more than 100%, like when a bank lends money and expands the money supply, but that's not exactly the same thing. Insofar as you can "own" more than 100% of a company's stock, it's more akin to currency supply than it is to actual ownership. Shadowjams (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

One other thing. I think in some circumstances the short owner can actually vote, although those regulations are beyond complicated and I could be wrong. The other is that the first link Tango provides only says that your downside risk is beyond 100%. That's not the same as owning 100%. There are lots of ventures where your downside risk can be beyond 100%.... like running a business as a partnership. Shadowjams (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing your percentages - whenever you quote a percentage you need to specify what it is a percentage of (unless it is obvious from context). The article I linked to says the downside risk is greater than 100% of the amount of money you started with - not 100% of the market capitalisation of the company. It doesn't mention the scenario I describe because it is an artificial scenario and is very unlikely to actually happen. --Tango (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(TWO e.c.'s.) Sorry, but Tango's description of short selling is wrong. "...the OP owns 100% of the company, you borrow 10% of them from him, sell them them to me and I then sell th[em] back to the OP." When someone borrows something, what has been borrowed is (usually) returned. When shares are borrowed, the shares themselves are returned (not their monetary value or any other substitute). Repeat: the SHARES are borrowed; the SHARES are returned. Tango's description nowhere mentions the return of the shares by the borrower to the owner who lent the shares (or alternatively to the brokerage holding them in street name); he refers to a "sale", which is not logical (I borrowed my neighbor's hammer, then sold it "back" to him?). As for owning more than 100%, the fact is that you can own 100% of a company's STOCK and still NOT own the company ... specifically, if the company is unable to fulfill its obligations to lenders; in that case, the value of the stock falls to nothing, the company still exists, the lenders own the company (to be broken up and sold or continued after restructuring), and you own nothing. 63.17.72.199 (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Three little things. Shares and stocks are the same thing. If I remember right, Delaware uses the term "shares" but other states use "stock". I know of no difference between the two. Second, the confusion comes from the notion that the person who loaned the hammer/shares is an owner while the person who borrowed the hammer/shares is also an owner. Only one gets "ownership", for whatever that means. Dividends, voting rights, etc., they don't get duplicated.

Finally, if you own 100% of the shares you own 100% of the company's equity; creditors are not "owners" in any traditional meaning of that term. Yes creditors can force dissolution (in the real world almost always receivership or bankruptcy first), but they're not owners. For discussion of that you might want to google for look at deepening insolvency and/or zone of insolvency. There can be different classes of stock, and so you could own a majority of shares and not have voting rights, or better dividends, but at the point you own 100%, you own it all. Shadowjams (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Leo Bloom: Max, you can only sell 100% of anything.

Max Bialystock: And how much of Springtime for Hitler have we sold?

Leo Bloom: 25,000%.

--- OtherDave (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You only return the shares when you close the position. I'm describing the situation between the short position being taken and it being closed. When you take a short position you borrow shares and then sell them. That's the way it works. There is nothing stopping the person you borrowed them from (who wouldn't even know you had borrowed them - their broker worries about that) buying them. --Tango (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Stock lending is a misnomer - in fact, title to the borrowed shares is transferred to the borrower, just as if the borrower had bought the shares. The borrower then (usually) transfers title on to a third party in settlement of a sale already made to that party - that is the "short sale" part. At some future date (either fixed in advance or at the option of the lender) the borrower has to return the same quantity of the same shares to the lender. But title to the shares always passes with the shares - during the duration of the "loan", the third party will appear on the company's register as the beneficial owner of those shares, not the lender. So if the lender originally owned 100% of the company's shares, and then lent out 10%, then during the duration of the loan they only own 90%. If they bought back those 10%, then they own 100% again - but now the borrower has no shares with which to close out the loan. So the short answer is - no, you cannot own more than 100% of a company. You can, of course, use derivatives to create a financial exposure that is more than 100% of the value of the company - but that is not ownership. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The OP is clearly talking about ownership in a purely financial sense - owning shares such that you could sell them for more than the market cap (assuming the share price stays the same during the sale, which it obviously wouldn't). Under the scenario I describe, the person in question could sell 110% of the shares in the company (he sells 10%, demands that 10% back under the loan agreement, and then sells 100% - he wouldn't know that was going on, though, since the broker would handle it all, all he'd know is that he had told is broker to sell all the shares he owns in the company which, as far as he is aware, is 110% of them). Similarly, if the company paid out a total dividend of a billion dollars then he would receive 1.1 billion dollars. Apart from votes, he owns 110% of the company for all intents and purposes. --Tango (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no, he doesn't own 110% in any sense whatsoever. Onership means legal title. He can't vote 110% of the shares of the company. He doesn't appear on the company's register as owning 110% of the company. The company doesn't pay dividends on 110% of its shares - it pays dividends on 100% of its shares, and any additional dividends are paid by the borrower and called "manufacturd dividends" (stock lending would be made illegal if it implied unscrupulous investors could make a company pay dividends on more shares than it had issued !). He can't sell 110% of the company's shares in one block - how could that trade be settled ? He can only sell more than 100% of the shares if he sells in two or more trades, in effect selling shares to himself and then selling them on again. This BBA guide to stock lending may make things clearer. Gandalf61 (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The dollars he gets from the loan agreement that replaced 10% of his shares when the company pays a dividend are exactly the same colour as the dollars he would have got from the shares themselves had he kept them. What difference does it make if they are "manufactured"? A dollar is a dollar. The only way in which he doesn't have 110% is when voting. The value of his brokerage account is 110% of the market cap of the company. He gets 110% of any dividends. The OP made very clear what sense of ownership he was talking about: money. Not votes. --Tango (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ownership means legal title, not economic exposure. I could bet on the company's shares so that I gain or lose $110 for every $100 change in the company's market cap (much simpler and cheaper than your implausible scheme of lending shares and buying them back again), but I wouldn't own any part of the company. I could bet on the company's dividend so that I receive $1.10 for every $1 of dividend, but I still wouldn't own any part of the company. There is no generally accepted sense of ownership in which it is possible to own more than 100% of a company. You are making up your own language here. Gandalf61 (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the OP is making up the language, as they are perfectly entitled to do in their own question. The OP had a good sense to put the word "own" in quotes to stop ridiculous pedants. I wish I had done the same. I have answered the OP's question. I really don't care what the generally accepted senses of ownership are; I care about what the OP wants to know. I have used the word "own" in the way the OP very clearly defined it. --Tango (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Then we should inform and educate the OP by correcting their misunderstanding, as several other editors have tried to do above - not reinforce their error by making up answers to fit. "We expect responses that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct" - Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines. Gandalf61 (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The OP has no misunderstanding. They know they are using the word in a non-standard way, hence the quotes. I was careful to say "effectively own" not "own" and I am sure the OP understood the distinction, given the similar care with which the question was asked. --Tango (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Tango is wrong about this. If A owns 100% of the stock, lends 10% to B, and then B sells the borrowed stock back to A, A now has 100% of the stock plus an IOU for 10% of the stock. The only way for B to redeem the IOU is to buy 10% of the stock from A, and then return the loan. At that point, A has 100% of the stock again. If B does not buy stock from A, and so does not redeem the loan, A has 100% of the stock plus a worthless IOU. In neither case does A have "110%" of the stock, nor can he sell his position for "110%" of the market capitalization (which is specifically what the OP asked about). As for Shadowjams comments: 1) I was using STOCK and SHARES to mean the same thing, so what is your point?, and 2) my response specifically decscribed a conditional situation (corporation unable to satisfy debtors; equity owners now "own" nothing at all, or i.e. "own" something with zero value), and given that condition, it was accurate. Your entire post seems completely irrelevant. 63.17.83.221 (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not wrong. I have never said A would own 110% of the stock, I have said A would effectively own 110% of the stock (for all intents and purposes except voting). Holding an IOU for shares with very low credit risk (which such IOUs have) is effectively the same as holding the shares themselves (except with regards to voting). It's the same idea as money creation - when a bank lends money to someone, it increases the money supply, nobody quibbles about the difference between a £10 note and a bank balance of £10 - they can both be used to buy £10 worth of goods and services, so they are effectively the same thing. In your first scenario, A doesn't just have 100% of the stock; A has 100% of the stock plus money equal to 10% of the market cap, since he's just sold 10% of the stock. He can then sell the other 100%, and will (assuming the share price stays constant, which we all know it wouldn't really) then have money equal to 110% of the market cap (exactly what the OP wanted). Your second scenario can't happen - B has a contractual obligation to return the shares when demanded, so if A makes that demand and then puts some shares up for sale, B has to buy them (or be in breach of contract, but B's broker wouldn't allow B to do that). --Tango (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Leaving the diversion into the mechanics of stock lending, and returning to the OP's original question, the correct answer is as follows. Yes, it is possible to gain leveraged exposure to a company's share price that is more than 100% of a company's market capitalisation. You don't need complex derivatives to achieve this - an enormous bet on the company's share price will suffice, if you can find someone else to take the other side of that bet. No, this in no sense means that you "own" more than 100% of the company. Economic exposure and ownership are completely separate and distinct concepts - you can have either one without the other (an uncovered bet has exposure without ownership; a fully hedged seller of single stock futures has ownership without exposure) - so you should try not to mix them up. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Tango, seriously, it's time to admit that you were wrong and move on. LOOK at what you have descended into!: "Your second scenario can't happen - B has a contractual obligation to return the shares when demanded, so if A makes that demand and then puts some shares up for sale, B has to buy them (or be in breach of contract, but B's broker wouldn't allow B to do that)." WOW! Why not just describe whatever dream you had last night and use it as a definition of "reality." DUDE -- deal with it: YOU WERE WRONG. It HAPPENS. 63.17.74.45 (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not wrong. Everything I have said has been factually accurate. Yes, it's using a slightly non-standard definition of ownership, because that's what the OP wanted. That doesn't make it wrong. This is a reference desk, we are here to help people find information they want. We are not here to provide them with the information that you think they should want. --Tango (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Walter v. Lane [1900]

I'm looking for the actual detail of the case - original records of some sort as a reference for a project on which I am working. I can't find any transcripts or rulings online. Are there any online? If not, are there any direct references to printed copies I could simply copy (it's not that important, I don't need to have seen it myself). It's a landmark case in IP law in the UK, but I've had no luck. Thanks. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the ref at Walter v Lane any good to you? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I had an edit conflict to show I'd read that article. It's a start, but more would be better. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Some context might help. In my (limited) experience, references to case law is normally given in a fashion such as Walter v Lane 1900, A.C. 539 H.L., and lawyers &c will be able to use the AC539 index number to find the case in the Official Law Reports, published by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting (or in republications thereof). The AC539 reference is based on the Oxford Standard for Citation Of Legal Authorities; It is not normal to give an academic reference pointing to this page in that book if one wants to cite the case or its results. Do you need a better reference than the ones the professionals use? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reply, but untended) OK, I see. What I've got is two issues. Firstly, the reference, for which your suggestion would be perfect, and some notion of the text of the ruling itself, to tie to it/quote from it. Since we've got the reference part, the question now becomes: is the text of the ruling online somewhere? Failing that, it is in a more mainstream book that I could request my county library? I could possibly lay my hands on the All-England or official Law Reports, but I'm trying to avoid that. Thanks again. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have access to LexusNexus Butterworths? Does your library? That'd surely be the easiest way to get it. All-England or official Law Reports paper volumes second choice. Finding it anything other than summarised in a few short sentences of the sort we have in our article in another publication is, I fear, most unlikely. Is the context of your use such that providing that sort of summary and referencing it with the AC539 reference will not work? A Walter v. Lane 1900 google search will give you a range of short descriptions of the case from which you can synthesise your own. Apologies if I'm going off beam. And it sucks that the case report is not online, since it's surely in the public domain by now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

All good suggestions. Some LexisNexis stuff is available online using the computers in the library now I check (vaguely called "statutes, legal cases, law reports and more") which I think is a fair bet. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, if you can navigate through its interface, you'll likely get there. I had a look through Free Case Law Resources on the web and went into British and Irish Legal Information Institute but couldn't find it. Good luck. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't have any luck with the above methods you can try the resource request. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 19:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

handguns in the b.w.c.a.

• This question has been removed as it may be a request for legal advice. Wikipedia does not give legal advice or opinions because there is no guarantee that our advice would be accurate or relate to your situation and location. We simply cannot be an alternative to visiting your legal professional, so we implore you to try them instead. If this is not a request for legal advice, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or at the talk page discussion (if a link was provided).

It wasn't a request for legal advice, it was a request for information, which we are allowed to give. DuncanHill (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

See the talk page for a discussion about this post. Also, you can see the previous question and responses by looking in the history, or at this old revision. Buddy431 (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't participate on the RefDesk talkpage. I was one of the previous responders, and I object to the removal of my good-faith post without either warning or notification by the remover, to whom I have commenter directly on his talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

authoritarian and libertarian nations

which nations are authoritarian and which are libertarian? -- 19:50, 3 June 2010 74.14.118.149

Are you referring to widespread national attitudes or government structures? Any dictatorship is "authoritarian" in the second respect. New Hampshire is often considered to be rather libertarian within the United States... AnonMoos (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

China, North Korea and Iran would be considered authoritarian by many people. Perhaps Holland, Sweden, New Zealand might be considered somewhat more libertarian than others; if you want a few quick examples. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Really (re Sweden)? Some people remember news articles of past years about how Swedish parents are very restricted in the names they can give to their children, and sometimes are only allowed to paint their houses in one of a few pre-approved colors. The popular perception of Sweden in the U.S. is much more as being a socialist country than libertarian... AnonMoos (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree there. Considering the examples, I'd say there is a bit of a mix-up between libertarian and liberal in the sense of far away from moral values based conservatism. That's possibly what those countries do have in common, but it is does not fit the common interpretation of libertarian./Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Moral values based conservatism"? Bit of an oxymoron surely? DuncanHill (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a variety of Indices of economic freedom, usually published by libertarian leaning organisations, but they only rate one aspect of libertarianism obviously. Edit: See a similar thing was mentioned below. In terms of the above points, you clear need someway to weight each measure and ultimately it's going to be fairly arbitary. The US obviously generally has severe restrictions on recreational drugs, no recognition of same sex marriages nor any universal recognition of same sex relationships (but with recognition of opposite sex relationships), prostitution is largely illegal etc. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's all relative. What do you want to use as a central point? --Tango (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Political compass (the chart at right)...basically, there is no real "center", just the four quadrants. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is how I remember all this being described in my history classes. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a central region in those definitions, but there is still a point at the centre and it is pretty arbitrary where you put it. --Tango (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I recommend checking out the article "List of indices of freedom". Gabbe (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's of note that if you interpret "libertarian" to be "minimal government restriction", one could make an argument that the line between libertarianism and general anarchy is pretty slim. (I'm not sure a thoughtful libertarian would dispute that point, but I could be wrong.) Under such a definition, Somalia from 1991 to 2006 was fairly "libertarian" in the sense that liberty was not denied by a state body. (Of course, liberty was not affirmed by it either, but therein lies the rub.) Some Libertarian economists have even argued that Somalia was better off under anarchy that it was under government, but I tend to be a bit skeptical that anyone would choose to live there if they had much of a chance to live elsewhere under such conditions. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Mongol tax

before Genghis Kahn, was there any? (I assume he needed tax to pay for his postal system and possibly the army, if they weren't forced into it; also I read that one of his laws exempted priests from tax.) 81.131.66.164 (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I know Tibet had lots of taxes, and most monks were exempt. I also heard somewhere that Tibet and Mongolia used a similar social and political system at one time or another, but I don't know if Mongolia before Genghis Khan was much Buddhist. Rimush (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Where you think about taxes between mongols.? I know that in China mongol rule adopted previous taxation systems that were already in place. (can be confirmed in most chinese history books about that period). ie Tax in pre-mongol china existed.87.102.32.39 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

One vote makes a difference?!

Last Sunday, Austrian Burgenland elected a new Landtag. This is not very interesting for the rest of the world, however one single vote made a subtantial difference there: Of 188,960 votes, all parties needed to win at least 4% or 7558.4 votes, and one managed exactly 7559, causing the strongest party to lose the absolute majority. Have there been other cases like this in history? --KnightMove (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Just speculating, but in small rural towns I wouldn't be surprised if elections (relatively) frequently come down to 3 votes or less (imagine, for example, elections in Frederick, Kansas or Gross, Nebraska), but on a larger scale, I would assume this is much rarer. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I recall a short newspaper blurb about a sheriff's election in California from 15 years ago in which he won by one vote. "Fortunately, I voted for myself," he was quoted as having said. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems that every November, there is a story in the U.S. about some local election somewhere that resulted in a tie and had to be settled by a coin flip or some other game of chance. Since the U.S. has elections for districts as small as a precinct, let alone towns with fewer than 100 people, tie or one-vote-margin elections likely happen all the time. When I was growing up, the local school levy (in a community of nearly 100,000 people) passed by a margin of one vote. One problem is that, as we learned from the Bush-Gore election, elections in the U.S. often have a "margin of error" that might be greater than the actual margin. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the US is unique in that regard. In the UK, all votes are counted by hand, which pretty much eliminates the kind of systemic problems you see with electronic voting in the US, but it means there is a very real chance of the human being(s) checking a ballot paper simply misreading it. It is standard practice to have a recount if the final count is very close, but even with that there is a significant amount of luck in how extremely marginal seats go. --Tango (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This happens fairly regularly in the UK's local elections, for example this year. Once you had recounts, the margin of error is close to, if not exactly, 0 (although some papers may have been spoiled). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 07:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, when I was active in UK local politics back in the 90s, I was at one election count where two candidates were exactly tied, after a recount, so they drew lots to determine the winner. Then they examined the spoilt ballot papers and argued over one where the voter had drawn a big "X" over the whole paper, and argued over which side of the dividing line between the two candidates the centre of the X was - that argument went to the High Court for a decision, which was that the paper really was spoilt and couldn't be counted for either side. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

See List of narrow elections. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --KnightMove (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Harold St. Maur was elected MP for Exeter in December of 1910 by 4 votes, with his party going on to become the largest party, by 1 seat, which they needed to significantly rewrite the country's government, but months later the votes there were recounted, and his opponant won by a single vote on a technicality. However, by then the election victory had gained the Liberal reforms the support of king George V, and the intended changes went ahead anyway. 80.47.210.130 (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The above is not quite accurate. In fact the Liberals and the Unionists had the same number of seats in the December 1910 election, but in practice the Liberal government had a substantial majority because it was supported on all important votes by both the Labour Party and the Irish Nationalists. It would not have mattered if Exeter had gone the other way. In British elections, a single seat either way is not likely to have a big effect on who forms the Government, although potentially the fact that the Labour government lost a motion of no confidence on 28 March 1979 was caused by the Labour Party's loss of Plymouth Drake by 34 votes in the previous general election (this being the most marginal seat which might have gone Labour but didn't). Some years ago the Guinness Book of Records used to record the case of the Zanzibarian election of 18 January 1961, when the Afro-Shirazi Party won by one seat, after the seat of Chake-Chake on Pemba Island was won by a single vote. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom general election, 1964, Labour gained a tiny majority of 4 seats in Parliament. The first Labour MP in Sussex, Dennis Hobden, was elected by 22,308 votes to 22,301 for the Conservative. The result was declared only after the ballots had been recounted something like 7 times. Arguably if 4 voters had voted the other way, Harold Wilson would not have been able to govern for over a year with that majority in the House. Sussexonian (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

History of the Identification Card

Hello I was just wondering when humans started using identification cards or photo IDs. I figure photo IDs came about after the camera was invented, obviously, so probably around the 1800's. What country started using them first? What sorts of information was on them? Who used them? Why are they the size they are? LorenLorenvf (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Our very long article Identity document doesn't have any information about its history, though the first link in "External Links" is to some sort of collective blog about the history of ID cards. I'll raise the point on the article's discussion page. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It begins with black and white photos pasted into passports and blind-stamped by the issuing office. Right after WWI Britain began issuing formal passports that were required to be accompanied by a passport photo.--Wetman (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This article on the history of the passport may be of interest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

June 4

More on unusual time signatures

Inspired by the earlier question about unusual time signatures, I'd like to find at least the name of a piece that I read about once some years ago on the internet, but have never been able to find again. It's distinctive, but I've never had the right keywords to find it. It was a short French piece for three voices, quite old, maybe 14th-17th century. The distinctive thing was that each of the three voices was singing in a different time signature. One was in 6/8, one in 3/4 and another in 2/4, I think. Any of you into early music recognise these features? Steewi (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As you mentioned French and old, Guillaume de Machaut comes to mind. He often used polyrhythm in his music, but I wasn't able to locate the exact piece you asked for. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This kind of thing was common in the 15th century and thereabouts. While I don't know which piece specifically you are looking for -- there may be more than one, and it is also rather dependent on how you render them in modern music notation, since the concept of meter is more recent than that -- I can give you a great example of a huge piece from that time in four meters, Ockeghem's Missa prolationum. Not only are the voices singing in different "meters" but they sing the same music -- at different speeds (therefore most parts of the piece are mensuration canons). Like the Goldberg Variations of three hundred years later, the successive canons are also at different intervals. Ockeghem would have been somewhere in modern France when he wrote the Missa prolationum; Tours, Moulins, Paris, or somewhere else. Anyhow lots of stuff from that time would qualify. Antandrus (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Qiu Jin book

Does anyone know of a book that has the most detailed informationon on the life of Qiu Jin? The specific article doesn't have very many sources. I'm not looking to expand the page, I would just like to know more about her. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Prejudice and discrimination against Aspies

1. What is the official term for prejudice and discrimination against Aspies?

• I'd suggest aspergophobia, but it gets 0 ghits. (Me, I just have ergophobia.) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

2. What have studies found about prejudice and discrimination against Aspies?

Doing research to do volunteer work. --Friends of Aspies (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This site has a list of online resources covering discrimination against autistic persons (to use the site's own terminology). The article on Sociological and cultural aspects of autism may also be of interest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you think there is significant prejudice against Aspies? I don't expect most people know enough about the condition to recognise it, so they couldn't be prejudiced against it. (They can still discriminate against them, but it wouldn't be knowingly - they would just think this offensive, unsympathetic person deserves it, not knowing that they can't help it.) If it doesn't happen much, then there won't be an official term for it. As Ghmyrtle's links show, there is quite a bit of discussion about discrimination against autistics in general, but I would assume they are more severe autistics. --Tango (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not always - here, for example. (I don't think describing people as "offensive" or "unsympathetic", even just to make a point, is very helpful, by the way.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Aspies do come across as offensive and unsympathetic to those that don't know better - that's simple fact. --Tango (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes perhaps, but not always. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My immediate reaction was "what is an aspie?" but my second thought was that they can shout and appear alarmingly aggressive. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So can other people. Before this degenerates into a discussion about "prejudice and discrimination against Aspies" by WP editors, I suggest that we get back to the OP's two points. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not as 'up' on the clinical literature as on the research lit, but I am not aware of any significant specific prejudice against people with Asperger's. The condition is difficult to recognize from a lay perspective, and is likely not sufficiently common or dramatic to warrant a specific class of its own. most likely people who encounter asperger's categorize the person somewhere between 'odd duck' and 'jerk' without ever recognizing there is a clinical diagnosis involved. there may be an informal (conditional) sort of prejudice - neither odd duck nor jerk is particularly complimentary - but its very difficult to assess the effects of a conditional prejudice as opposed to a categorical prejudice. --Ludwigs2 19:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that prejudice - prejudice mean "pre-judging". You judge someone before you get to know them based on some irrelevant characteristic. If you considering someone a jerk because they are behaving like a jerk, that isn't prejudice. --Tango (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Tango - true, but it could be experienced as prejudice. If someone with asperger's is (say) fired from 5 jobs in a row it might not matter to him that the 5 people who fired him just didn't like him; he might come to see it as an ingrained prejudice. --Ludwigs2 22:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all that proves is that people can get things wrong. People with Asperger's can certainly be disadvantaged by their condition. That doesn't mean there is prejudice against them. --Tango (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

wow, careful there Tango. There's a significant debate in the sociological and psychological literatures on implicit prejudice: e.g., people who use the 'N' word or think women make bad bosses, not because they have anything particular against blacks or women but just because those are prevalent usages in the society around them. prejudice does not always need to be overt and intentional to be considered prejudice. --Ludwigs2 01:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thinking someone is a jerk because they act like one is not pre-judging them, it is just regularly judging them. For it to be prejudice, it has to be a pre-formed opinion based on a generalisation from a certain characteristic. If people don't know how to spot Asperger's syndrome (and most don't), then they can't be prejudiced against them (unless the person with Asperger's is wearing a badge, I suppose...). --Tango (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

On a slightly different tack, the word "official" doesn't make much sense in this context. Who is it that might be granting words "official" status? I think you mean "in wide use", or "widely accepted". --ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Officially" is a very widely misused word, Colin. "The filmstars Marcella Turbayne and Norman Carstairs have now officially announced their separation, something that has been the subject of much tabloid speculation of recent weeks" - rubbish! They've confirmed the rumours, perhaps, but they have no official positions so they can't act or speak in any official capacity. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In that sense, I guess they mean "formally". --Tango (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe "official" is not the right word. I mean that "Aspie" is the term universally used and accepted by the community, as well as parents, researchers, etc. which may be different from the term "Asperger syndrome" which may be made official by the scientists and researchers. What would be the correct word? And people can be prejudiced and discriminate against Aspies even if they know nothing about the condition. Just like if someone of another race is doing something that is part of their culture and you make a nasty remark to them about it, without knowing about their culture, that is racist. --Friends of Aspies (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Race is defined along visual lines, so people know when someone is of a particular race. There is no easy way to tell that someone has Asperger's syndrome. --Tango (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Race" is most definitely not always defined "along visual lines". Racism can be apparent on the basis of something as "non-visual" as an accent, or even a surname, in exactly the same way as discrimination on the basis of a person's neurology. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not all bigotry is race-related. Bias for or against accents and surnames can have to do with other perceived or real factors such as education level and economic status. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And following up on Tango's comment, race is very often visually-based. I wouldn't know how to recognize an "Aspie" or a gay person or someone's education level or economic status unless they clued me in somehow. Race, you can usually tell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

June 5

Economics question

What is the key differentiating factors between the neo-classical conception of competition and that of the classical approach? I'm trying to research the question but I can't find any good sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habitual8 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Read neoclassical economics which has a half-decent explanation. In a nutshell, classical economics focused on the intrinsic value of produced goods, while neoclassical economics focused on the perceived value (utility) of goods. It's not a huge shift philosophically (utility is implicit in the concept of demand even back to Adam Smith), but the neoclassical movement is also associated with marginalism, which turned economics from a discursive discipline to a mathematical one. --Ludwigs2 14:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Happiest communist country ever

Whenever you talk to anyone who lived in ex-Yugoslavia, no matter if they are from Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Montenegro or FYRM, most of them will tell you that those were the "happy days", as they could travel anywhere without visas, everyone got a free flat, salary was good so you could buy a car and travel when you wanted and so on....

But if you talk to someone from any other former communist country, they will tell you that those times were terrible, that you couldnt travel anywhere, most of them were poor, people got arrested for saying the wrong thing and so on... It is similar with current communist countries like North Korea, Cuba or Vietnam, we all know that they are very poor.

Could it be said that, as far as standard and (general) happines of citizens is concerned, former Yugoslavia was the happiest communist country of all times? And are the former Yugoslav republics only former communist countries that lived better under communism than they live now? --92.244.146.120 (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There are good arguments for Yugoslavia being the happiest of the eastern bloc. Tito did his own thing to a much greater extent than many others,and some of what he did - particularly in areas of devolvement of control - seems quite good. And clearly he kept a lid on what turned, after his death, into a horrible set of wars. Elsewhere, it's possible that Cuba would compete. I'm sure there are some in the states you list who prefer life as it was. Croatians I spoke to recently are adament that they're happier now, and I get the impression that there's a lot of support within these newly independent states, for their independent state. So I don't think you draw your second conclusion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A 1985 film called When Father Was Away on Business suggests that things were not as jolly in Tito's Yugoslavia as the OP says. This page[7] asserts "His (Tito's) 'genius' rested in his willingness to use raw military and police power, not in his penchant for conciliatory politics." Alansplodge (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Happiest of the eastern bloc", no, Yugoslavia was never part of the "eastern bloc". It was never a member of the Warsaw Pact, not part of CMEA, and was not considered on "the other side" by the US in the Cold War. As per above, citizens could travel freely outside the country, which those from most other communist states could not, and tourists from Western countries could travel there without the bureaucracy involved in going to Poland, USSR etc. I seem to remember the dinar was a fully convertible currency unlike the rouble and others. And I believe it was difficult for Czechs, Romanians etc to travel to their neighbouring socialist country Yugoslavia, which was hard for them to understand. Sussexonian (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You might find Ostalgie helpful, which links to Yugo-nostalgia. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sussexonian, there's discussion of whether / the extent to which Yugoslavia was part of the Eastern Bloc in that article. Suffice to say your "never" is misleading or just plain wrong. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which people from that region you've spoken with, but suffice to say it is not a unanimous opinion that life was better under communism. Slavenka Drakulić has written, if I remember correctly, about how there were no quality feminine products and you always had to keep a batch of newspapers around because you'd never know when there would be a sudden shortage of toilet paper. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hrmph. I was only a wee'un at the time it all fell apart, and I don't profess to have any undeniable knowledge about the times myself, but I still do come from ex-Yugoslavia. First off, (this might, of course, be a matter of historical accuracy) Sussexonian is right - Yugoslavs could fairly freely travel to anywhere in the world - my parents went on shopping trips to the Chech Republic, and they would bring back (to me, used to Yugoslavia's semi-free market at the time) the most unusual thing - shoes with the price tag burned into the sole rubber, and my uncle went to both the US and North Korea in the space of two years, all that of course without having to bother too much about visas. Tagishsimon, the thing is in perception - ever since the Tito–Stalin split in 1948, Yugoslavs didn't really see themselves as part of the Eastern Bloc - in fact, those who still did, got deported to Yugoslavia's very own gulag on Goli otok. Cynicism aside, Yugoslavs were from a fairly early point in Yugoslav history educated that they were not in any one of the blocs - how this proclamation in the West (and what an amateur's simplistic black-and-white notion of history perceives today) is of course a different story. And to the OP: Yugo-nostalgia that someone linked to above is indeed strong here. So is the feeling that in Yugoslavia the peoples of the former Yugoslav lands had something big, something important that is now gone. Tito's cult of personality was not entirely forced here - people embraced it, so unlike when Ceausescu died, people actually in all sincerity cried and the country ground to a stand-still for the day. Is that a good thing or not? You be the judge, but people here seem to not have thunk so. Of course, on the other hand, in the Eighties there were years when gasoline was only available with a special coupon which gave you the right to buy a certain amount of gas on odd or even days, or there were times when the only toilet paper available was the coarsest approximation, or when the only available chocolate was the disgusting Eurocrem ersatz-chocolate. It's really difficult to measure by today's standard, but most people don't care about today's standard, they care about how it was when they were young, shoved by the Western world into the "East Hemisphere", and unbeknownst to the "Imeprialistic bastards" enjoying a lot of the freedoms other Eastern bloc countries didn't - seriously, don't underestimate this factor of non-Eastern-bloc pride. But most of all, how great it was when they were young. Everybody's Free (To Wear Sunscreen) TomorrowTime (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

when to take meds discreetly?

Resolved

first of all, if you don't understand the point of managing others' impressions of you, pleaes skip this question.

as for the rest of you... so I was quite sick for a long time, which caused hell for my family, however I'm quite well - the only remnant is some medicine I'll take daily for the rest of my life. Thankfully the condition itself is perfectly cured and in every other way I'm healthy. I would not like my family constantly to be reminded of my ill status, since given that there is no other effect on my life, why should they. Does anyone have any tips for the best way to take medicine daily in a discreet way? I suppose this is not so specific to medicine, but really anythign anyone does daily that they don't particularly identify with or want to be particularly public about, even within their own family - however I haven't been able to google discussion on specifically this. Thanks so much for any thoughts. p.s. if you don't understand why anyone would care, it's okay, I understand, as a few years ago I myself wouldn't have. If you are ever in the situation I'm in, however, you would quickly understand - therefore my question is directed to those who for some reason already do understand. 92.229.12.33 (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand your position, just not your confusion. How do you do it discreetly? Erm—discreetly! In the bathroom early morning, say? Surely you are physically alone at least once a day? (Like when you use the toilet.) ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 13:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to keep it in the medicine cabinet, because I don't want the sight of it whenever others open the medicine cabinet, for cleaning or their own purposes or whatever. And what object would I have occasion to bring with me to the bathroom every day? If it stays in the bathroom, they will open it when cleaning/rearranging/whatever and if it comes with me... well, what should it be? Should I just have pants on when I visit the bathroom, and put it in my pocket? And I am physically alone once per day, sure. But I don't know where to put this stuff. The best would be if there were some object I would have good plausable reason to keep with me, whether on business or casual situations, wherever I am, and in that object I have my medicine. I suppose others who use a personal hygiene bag could keep it in there - should I start using one then? Other alternatives are to have it with other, specific things like mosquito repellant or whatever. The point is, psychologically, for me and for others, it should be pretty much like mosquito repellant. If you see it in that context you don't think twice abuot it. 92.229.12.33 (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

also I should add that this is by no means a secret - I just don't want it front and center, the way I would, say, a cologne from a nice brand, which for better or for worse would leave others with a good association of me. 92.229.12.33 (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

How about keeping it in your sock drawer and taking it when you get dressed in the morning? --Tango (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

So stick it in the medicine cabinet, but put it behind the aspirin and/or other routine meds. At some point, your statement that "this is by no means a secret" conflicts with your apparent desire to keep it entirely secret. Just stick it somewhere non-obtrusive, and if others poke around and rediscover something (that's not a secret), so be it. If that is still problematic, either for you or for them, then it might be time to talk with your doctor about why it feels so -- to my very amateur mind (but one who's well acquainted with daily meds for formerly serious health conditions), the concern over this is quite out of proportion. — Lomn 14:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Buy a small, opaque plastic container (or if you think it's necessary, a small box with some type of key arrangement), and put your pills in that, throwing out the original pill bottle. you can leave that in the medicine chest. There is no way to hide anything from other family members, not for a protracted period of time; the trick is to present an innocuous facade that does not look like medicine and so doesn't remind them. --Ludwigs2 14:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly advise against ever storing pills in anything other than the container they came in. It makes it more difficult to identify them, so people may take them thinking they are something else (of course, one should never take pills that they aren't 100% sure are what they think they are, but plenty of people do). It also means they aren't stored with the dosage and safety information that is on the label. Finally, the container will have been chosen based on the storage requirements of the pills. A different container may not do the job as well, shortening the lifetime of the pills. (The only exception is those containers with the days of the week written on that people taking multiple drugs sort their pills into each week - since they are only used for short-term storage, it is less of an issue and the added convenience is worth the risk.) --Tango (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, all. Tango's advice is the one I'll be following, as it really addresses my question perfectly - he proposes something really really boring for anyone except the person who's socks they are, who however uses them daily. Socks also come when you travel, and in every other situation, unlike a medicien cabinet. Thank you, all other respondents but this question is now closed. 92.229.12.33 (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help! --Tango (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I know this is resolved, but something else for you to consider. My first husband was an insulin-dependent diabetic, and he used to keep his insulin and needles in an old spectacles case. Perfectly mundane: many people keep them about their person or in a drawer: big enough to hold a hypodermic syringe without any questions being asked. _{However, he blew his cover somewhat by injecting in the middle of a crowded pub in Edinburgh - not the best idea!} --TammyMoet (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Gah, I wish I'd checked this page over the weekend. I STRONGLY recommend against hiding this from your family. If you're ever in a medical emergency, it's important to know what medications the patient is taking. And if you can't verbalize it, your family may be asked to let the ER nurses know what you're taking, to make sure they're giving the appropriate medication. You can't rely on the ER getting your medication list from your primary doctor on time. If nothing else, at least keep a list of your full medications in your wallet and make sure the family knows to get it from there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Drugs in athletics

I recently watched a programme discussing drug enhancement in athletics. If an athlete who won a medal in a major games is caught using drugs a number of years later in an athletics meeting, can their medal be taking away from them? I believe Ben Johnson had his world record rescinded after he was caught cheating, but would an athlete have all their previous medals taken from them? Jack forbes (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe only medals and records that there is strong reason to believe were gained while the athlete was benefiting from the drugs are taken away. If they won medals before they started using performance enhancing drugs, they would keep them. --Tango (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I know that they are always playing catch up in identifying the new drugs that can be masked. Therefore, cheating athletes may have been using them long before they were caught. Jack forbes (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

They might, but I don't think they take away medals without some significant evidence. --Tango (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

However they may hold samples and test them again years later with new methods. According to [8] it's up to 8 years for the IOC. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Marion Jones surrendered the 3 gold medals and 2 bronzes she won at the 2000 Summer Olympics when she confessed in 2007 to using THG in the relevant period, and her relay team-mates were formally stripped of their medals. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll point out for Tango that a confession probably counts as significant evidence Nil Einne (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Consumer rights in the EU

Supposing the developer of some software released an "update" that broke some of the features of the product (although fixed some previous bugs and added some features). Would they be required to fix them? What laws are relevant to such a scenario? And no this isn't a request for legal advice, it's a request for legal knowledge. Various websites on the subject only mention actualy physical goods such as chairs TVs etc.--92.251.158.49 (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

One piece of advice that can be given is that the license agreement for the software should be your first port of call when considering an issue like this. Specifically many license agreements do say that features of the software may change without notice. (and that you agree to it to proceed).87.102.43.94 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Those license agreements may be considered unconscionable and not enforced in court, though. You can't really know if a particular contract is valid until it has been tested in court. --Tango (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I was just getting to that - in the EU the "Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts" is the relevant legislation [9]. We don't seem to have an article on it. If you are in the UK then Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 is relevant, if not then you need to find how your goverment has implemented this directive. 87.102.43.94 (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know examples of specific cases which may set a precedent in this matter - it would depend on what EU country you are in to an extent.87.102.43.94 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Beyond that I think more specificity would be required for a fuller answer - ie what country, what sort of agreement if any was entered into etc etc...87.102.43.94 (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

comment we definately can't tell you if they would be required to fix a broken feature - possibly someone could give you examples of legal cases that have occured that cover this issue (if they exist) - but the hypothetical answer cannot be given without speculation.87.102.43.94 (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A general issue is Microsoft's practice of formally ending support of the Windows software it sells. At what point in buying a Windows Operating system did the buyer acquiesce in the software becoming obselete?

This is a more specific case. HP sold a printer/scanner/fax machine with own software to install under Windows OS. The software included the option to rotate the scan of a document in small increments of a degree or two, which is useful when one scans a book that is difficult to position exactly on the scanner. On the arrival of Vista the scanner software is no longer useable nor supported. There is instead a new driver in Paint for importing an image from the scanner. However Paint cannot rotate an image in small increments, only in 90 degree steps. Thus a function has been substantially reduced. HP support admit this and say in effect Go get some 3rd party software if you want that function back. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Bourbon Dauphiné

The Dauphiné was only ruled by the Dauphin, who was either the heir apparent of France or the King of France, if there were no heir apparent at the time. It was technically part of the Holy Roman Empire and could never be united to France. These seems the case throughout the House of Valois. But after Louis XIII of France becomes king, the succession boxes doesn't mention the King of France being Dauphin of Viennois afterwareds. Louis XIII should have remain Dauphin of Viennois until his son's birth in 1638, and after Louis XIII there is no more mention of the title; it only mentions Dauphins of France. Did something' happen between those time that made the Dauphiné of Viennois lose it's seperate status?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Dauphiné is quite explicit. The autonomy of the Dauphiné was ended in 1457, because of Louis' opposition to his father, Charles VII of France forced him from the Dauphiné. The King took back the control of the province and forced the Estates to pledge allegiance in 1457, putting an end to the autonomy of Dauphiné.--Wetman (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What about the Dauphine being removed from the Holy Roman Empire ? --192.147.55.3 (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Dauphin was originally simply a garden-variety count; specifically the Count of Veinne. The title became that of the heir-apparent much in the manner that the "Prince of Wales" did for England; after all Wales isn't part of England. The title became that of the heir apparent when the last independent Dauphin sold the title, and the lands with it, back to the crown of France. The Viennois has a close relationship as well with Auvergne, which had its own "Dauphin" title as well. Remember that, prior to the late 15th century, France itself was organized more like the HRE than a unified kingdom, most of the counts and dukes operated essentially independently from their nominal Seignur. Also, the HRE and France were not completely mutually exclusive; they did "bleed together" at the edges, consider the two Burgundies (Duchy of Burgundy and County of Burgundy), the Charolais, which was a personal fief of the Habsburg family within France, the County of Provence was nominally part of the HRE for a long time, as was the city of Lyon, when it was a part of Savoy. --Jayron32 03:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Liberty leading the people help

In this painting, why are the woman's (liberty's) breasts showing? Does that represent something? And why is the dead man at the bottom left not wearing any pants?--92.251.146.25 (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

At the time of the French Revolution, Lady Liberty was usually displayed with her breasts exposed. I'm not sure why that convention arose, though it might be a reference to Joan of Arc, and it was certainly in line with French sensibilities of the time (the French Revolution had an early and strong women's liberation element). In fact, I believe the Statue of Liberty that France gifted to the US was originally designed with the robes draped differently to expose one breast, but that might just be a myth. As to why the guy on the left has no pants (and only one sock...), this site suggests it represents a man dragged from his bed and murdered by royalist soldiers, then dragged through the street (possibly by the dead soldier at the right). This is a very famous painting, though, and I'm sure you can google up a full analysis if you try. --Ludwigs2 21:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I tried googling I found something about democratic states being represented as suckling at the breasts of liberty, couldn't find anything about the man.--92.251.146.25 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This site suggests that "the corpse without trousers on the left, with arms outstretched and tunic turned up, is another mythical reference, derived from a classical nude model known as Hector — a personification of the Homeric hero." Of course, we have an article on the painting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah also read the article before comign here it doesn't say anything about that stuff.--92.251.146.25 (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I wondered if it might be a misinterpretation of the term Sans-culottes. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The French are not so prudish as some others are. Prior to the Euro taking over everything, a version of this painting appeared on the French 100 franc bill, of all things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It was the last-but-one 100 franc note, issued around 1980. Very nice banknote, though French paper money always struck me as being printed on considerably thinner paper than the British, Belgian, German, and Swiss notes I also used at that time! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read the article on the painter, Eugène Delacroix.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My amateur hypothesis is that Delacroix is hinting at the maternal nature of Liberty. The infant French Republic is suckling at Liberty's metaphoric teat. I can't believe no one's yet linked to the painting's article: Liberty Leading the People. It doesn't answer your question, but some of the refs might. —D. Monack ^talk 02:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No, likely not. Its just probably more likely a lack of prudishness regarding breasts. Breasts are not universally viewed as sexual appendages, and many cultures do not hold them as taboo, I find it much more likely that the exposed breasted woman is an homage to Greek and Roman style art, where exposed breasts were common (c.f. Venus de Milo). The late-18th and early-19th century were part of a neo-classical revival in the artistic traditions, (see Neoclassical architecture and Greek Revival architecture and Federal style). Consider this famous statue of George Washington from around the same time as the painting cited above. So, given that the painting was part of the neo-classical tradition, and the ancient greeks apparently had little problems putting exposed female breasts in art, it seems to be more the case than any intentional symbolism on the breast as nutritive... --Jayron32 03:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Popular fashions for wealthy Frenchwomen in the early 19th century were white, transparent Grecian-style gowns that practically bared the breasts. Some of the ladies even went around without underwear. See Thérésa Tallien.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

magnets

help meh, fuckin' magnets, how do dey work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.41.12 (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably the same way as anything that fucks - see sexual intercourse. You might also want to check out magnet. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

hmmm... I'm trying to choose between an old-timey AC/DC innuendo and a futuristic field theory one. what do you guys think? --Ludwigs2 21:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Or a childish internet meme: [10]. Buddy431 (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We also just had this question: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2010_May_5#Fucking_Magnets.21. It's incredible how much heated scientific discussion was generated. Suffice to say, magnetism is not an intuitive concept. Buddy431 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see that the first response to both copies of the question was someone making the same intentional misinterpretation! At least we're consistent at some things! --Tango (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Presuming the question is for real:

1./ When ferrus metal is exposed to an electral field and the ferrus molucles are aligned, (this effect can also be produced by hammerig / beating the metal, particularly while still hot), then a magnet is produced; i.e. a ferrus metal attracting / repelling another.

2./ The only proof of magnitism is repulsion, as often static electricity will cause objects to attract.

'Hope this helps.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We seem to lack an article on sexual magnetism. DuncanHill (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Here it is ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Amory, I think you may have discovered a sexual magnetic monopole, there. I don't know whether to feel impressed, or sad. --Ludwigs2 04:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"The only proof of magnetism is repulsion, as often static electricity will cause objects to attract" That's ridiculous. Aside from the obvious fact that objects with similar net charges can also repel, there are many things that can differentiate Magnetic fields from Electric fields (though they are of course closely related). If you seriously want to know about magnets, you can read Magnet, Magnetism, Electromagnetism, and Magnetic field. There are a myriad of sub-articles on the topic as well. Additionally, to really understand magnets, it's probably good to understand Electricity, Electric charge and Electric Fields. Maybe throw in some of Maxwell's equations just for fun. I know that this question was asked in jest, but the sentiment expressed is valid; magnets are complicated and non-intuitive. It took people a long time (~2000 years) to go from seeing that certain rocks were attracted to each other to forming a good understanding of why they do. See History of electromagnetism for more on that. Buddy431 (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, this question was not asked in jest. My study of Hermeneutics tells me so. I was answering the question to someone who wanted a basic knowledge of the subject not an indepth, post-graduate, understanding of the subjects. As a hand rule for checking for magnetism, repulsion is the first "port-of-call". MacOfJesus (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"Woman is the most powerful magnet in the universe, and all [straight] men are cheap metal." -- Larry Miller. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Mac, you got trolled. Whatever the hell Hermeneutics is, it failed you. The "fucking magnets" is meme, taken from an Insane Clown Posse song. I can't link to YouTubewhile at work, but you can easily find it there. Also, someone linked Know Your Meme above already. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

June 6

People who look like their distant ancestors

File:EmanueleFilibertodiSavoia.jpg

A true Habsburg descendant here

I came across the article on Archduke Johann Salvator of Austria and it says he resembled his ancestor Ferdinand II of Aragon and Charles the Bold. This is really interesting and I was wondering if anybody know any other individuals who resemble their distant ancestor.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How distant do you want? I'm looking at a photo taken in 1880 of my 2x great grandmother, and it's like looking in a mirror! There is a theory (suspect it's a bit of a folk tale) that physical likeness recurs every 3 generations. Of course, us lesser mortals won't be able to go back past the invention and popularisation of photography to check likenesses. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I look like my great grandpa and that as far as I can go. It is weird how genes work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.113.157 (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen Prince Emanuele Filiberto, Prince of Venice and Piedmont and his distinctive Habsburg jaw? Then there's his dad with the thick Bourbon lower lip! No changeling stories in the House of Savoy that's for sure!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There should be an article page on Genetics in Wikipedia. Borus Johnson, Mayor of London, may look like his ancestory in Europe, traced to a Royal Family. I think the same family. MacOfJesus (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We do have an article on genetics... --Tango (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It is, of course, completely a folk tale. There is no way genes can recur every 3 generations, they just don't work like that. --Tango (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

_{Did I say "genes"? No I said "physical likeness". Yes I know it's related to genes, but don't misquote me.} --TammyMoet (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any quotation marks in my comment... --Tango (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a really interesting observation I once saw, that adopted children often found they looked more like their same-sex genetic parents (women more like their mothers, men more like their fathers) than children raised by their genetic parents. There was some discussion of children trying to avoid 'being' their parents (I know I try not to dress like my mother): without that effect, they chose clothes, styles and makeup that suited them and reflected what they liked, without avoiding the whole area of styles and colours their mother chose. This meant that adopted children were more likely to dress and style themselves in a similar fashion to their genetic parents, leading to this weird effect where a daughter adopted at birth looks more like her genetic mother than a daughter not adopted. I can see how a similar effect would lead to the observation that grand-daughters looked more like their grandmothers (when young) than their mothers. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of inbreeding in royal families, which increases the likelihood of such similarities. I think it is probably related to how we recognise faces - there have been studies on this and they find that they are a few particular characteristics that we use. If those characteristics are the same between two people, we'll think they look the same. If those characteristics have a simple genetic origin (particularly if the version the two people in question have is recessive - if it is dominant then your parent will also look the same, by necessity, and people wouldn't find that as interesting), then there is always a chance that descendants will end up with the same combination of genes. --Tango (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I suspect time travel, or in Johann Salvator's case, a Highlander situation. Lost at sea indeed... TastyCakes (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but there is a difference between resembling in one trait and having a complete striking resemblance like Johann Salvator's case. People not of the House of Habsburg can have Prognathism or the Habsburg jaw.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Prince Emanuel-Philibert clearly resembles his Habsburg ancestors, in more than one aspect; however, what you're asking is whether someone can be almost a double to his or her ancestor. I'd say it's possible, seeing as total strangers can look alike.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

George W.Bush is related to Franklin Pierce, and there seems to be a family resemblance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

When I said there should be a an article page in Wikipedia on Genetics, I meant that the OP may look to see it and observe the formulae for working out the likelihood of likeness in generations. I was not doubting that there was such an article. I see myself as pointing towards the sources so the OP can do the research. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Rather than using such ambiguous phrasing, it would have been clearer to everyone if you had (i) checked to see if there was a Genetics article and (ii) made your mention of it a link the way I just did :-) . 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I would rather get the OP to do that, as if they get that far they are more likely to follow-it-through. The formulae for working out the likelihood of likeness in generations, hopefully, the OP has discovered them by now. MacOfJesus (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"X is just a tool; it's value/morality depends on how it is used"

I have seen this argument proffered many times (where x = weapons, the internet, intelligence etc.). I would like to read an examination/debate of the meta-argument, if such a thing exists. 86.45.130.146 (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There's the famous NRA slogan "Guns don't kill people, people do", but we don't seem to have much about it on Wikipedia that I can find... AnonMoos (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article on the philosophy of technology, which includes a section on such issues; subsection 3.3.1 addresses the moral neutrality of technology in particular. There are links to interesting sites at the bottom of that page.--Rallette (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about references, but when it comes to people the truth is is that objects have karma that changes in relation to the use people make of them. (This is not a physical truth - if you are a robot and have no past or future contact with humans you can't use it). People who use the argument that a tool has no morality usually do so because they are defending one with coal-black karma, that "will surely burn in hell". 85.181.145.156 (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)q

To cut the argument short, let me get right to what will convince you of my viewpoint: consider the Nazi armband. Obviously you instantly realize that it is not "just a tool whose value/morality depends on how it is used" - instead it has coal black karma. You can put it - the object with coal-black karma - into an art installation, but it doesn't change it. That ojbect has terrible karma regardless of whether you use it in any way whatsoever. (again, this truth is not a physcail one - a robot having no connection with people, ever, can't use it in any way). 85.181.145.156 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You're going to run into headaches if you over-generalize here. Ontologically, objects never have intrinsic moral value. An object may be designed for an immoral use, but the immorality adheres to the potential use of it, not to the object itself. However, there's a difficult distinction between objects that have physical effects and objects that have semantic effects. morally questionable objects with physical effects (torture devices, weapons of mass destruction, etc.) are generally variations of perfectly innocuous or even beneficial objects - a thumbscrew is just a variation of a carpenter's vice, a nuclear bomb just a variation on a power plant - and these things exist in the world without causing offense. even people who've seen thumbscrews in action do not generally get wigged out if you ask them to pass you a c-clamp. morally questionable semantics objects, however, are much more universalized - one cannot wear a swastika, or a pointed white hood, or even a burqa or an orange tie on saint patties day, without making an overt reference to a moral position. This does not mean, mind you, that the moral value is inherent to the object, but actually the reverse: that the object has become subsumed in the moral debate. Sometimes, in fact, semantic objects become totally divorced from their physical origins (e.g., even in this day and age, where most men do not where hats, it still makes sense to call someone a white-hat or a black-hat). --Ludwigs2 22:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And separate from this is the question of whether technologies have intrinsic politics. There is a lot written on this—the most widely-read is Langdon Winner's essay, Do Artifacts Have Politics? The general consensus is, "sometimes." (On the question of WMDs, Winner says: "Taking the most obvious example, the atom bomb is an inherently political artifact. As long as it exists at all, its lethal properties demand that it be controlled by a centralized, rigidly hierarchical chain of command closed to all influences that might make its workings unpredictable. The internal social system of the bomb must be authoritarian; there is no other way. The state of affairs stands as a practical necessity independent of any larger political system in which the bomb is embedded, independent of the type of regime or character of its rulers.") This approach would argue that a gun is not "just" a tool, for example—you could use it as a means to hammer in nails, but this is not what it is built for, and this is not what it is good at. A gun is a tool that shoots bullets, primarily—of course, whether shooting bullets is a desirable or undesirable thing depends very much on the context, but to say its use is completely independent of its manufacture is not terribly convincing. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

French Revolutionary Wars - Did upper class people still travel between North Wales and Transylvania in 1795?

For my Gothic novel, I do need the characters - who have a castle in Transylvania, to go on a trip there in 1795 (one of them has escaped from Revolutionary France). Did people still do this during the French Revolutionary Wars? I believe some of the German states were allies. Could they avoid going via the Netherlands? Asked this on YahooAnswers, and couldn't believe the abuse I got for not knowing the answer, but haven't been able to find much information about it. LucindaE LucindaE (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if they did - Transylvania was pretty much off the map. But sure, they could. In 1795, Transylvania was under Austro-Hungarian control, and the Dual Monarchy was more-or-less friendly to Britain. As far as I can tell, nobody in their right minds would try to go overland, though - it's much faster (if longer) to go by sea to the Black Sea cost and then travel up the Danube. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary didn't exist in 1795. It was created by the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

For alliances in 1795 see War of the First Coalition and French Revolutionary Wars: Campaigns of 1795. Wealthy Britons in the late 18th Century would often go on the Grand tour, but would have been very unlikely to go that far east. Alansplodge (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to imagine upper-class Britons in the 18th century having any connection to Transylvania. The European nobility at that time was still sharply divided by religion. British nobles would have been likely to have relations mainly with the nobility in Germany (enhanced by the connections of the royal family), the Netherlands, or Scandinavia, though the French Revolution aroused sympathy for the Catholic French nobility, too. Some of the Transylvanian nobility were Protestant, but Transylvania was really a backwater of the Protestant world, with few external connections. Anyway, Stephan Schulz is absolutely right that travel between Britain and Transylvania would almost certainly be by sea, especially given British control of the Mediterranean and French control of most of the continent of Western Europe. Travelers would have had to pass through the Ottoman Empire. Fortunately, by 1795, the Ottoman Empire was at peace with the Austrian Empire as a result of the Treaty of Sistova, so it should have been possible to cross the border between Ottoman Wallachia or Moldavia and Austrian Transylvania. Marco polo (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Back in the 1970s, Virginia Coffman wrote a series of Gothic novels set in early 19th-century Transylvania. They featured an upper-class Irish girl who had been raised in an exclusive English boarding school. They are the Vampires of Moura series. I read most of them. You might want to obtain copies to see how the author handled the logistics of travel, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Europe was at war. The earliest next moment for English traveling was during the Peace of Amiens, 1802.

Ambulance passenger(s)

How many people can an ordinary, everyday ambulance carry to hospital after attending (for example) an RTA. My 8 year old grandaughter asked me! (driver, medic, stretcher, one or two sitting wounded?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.115.19 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your question. You might like to try our reference desk. People there can answer all sorts of general questions. This page is just for asking/answering questions about how to use Wikipedia, so you're not likely to have much luck here. --BelovedFreak 09:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved question here from WP:help desk. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

RTA = Road Traffic Accident. (presumably) 58.147.58.152 (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

See ambulance. They come in all shapes and sizes, and vary from one country to another. The last time I went in an ambulance, there was room in the back for three people if they are all sitting. If the patient was lying down, it would be difficult to get more than one medic in the back. Ideally, victims of an RTA would get one ambulance each, but no doubt they could take two if necessary.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Usually it is one casualty to an ambulance (sometimes plus a friend/relative). I'm not sure how they usually transport walking wounded to hospital - they could take several in an ambulance, I suppose, but I'm not sure they do. Following a major incident they'll often set up a kind of field hospital and walking wounded will be treated there rather than taking them to hospital. --Tango (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

For walking wounded, paramedics in some jurisdictions (British Columbia for sure) can commandeer public transit buses. They kick off the original passengers. Aaronite (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

At the 7 July 2005 London bombings, Double-decker buses were used to ferry walking-wounded to hospital[11]. They have more than 60 seats Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In the U.S., a typical ground ambulance will have a gurney secured centerline in the patient compartment, a squad bench on the curbside (passenger's side), a rearward facing EMT seat near the head of the gurney, and for Type I and III ambulances, a CPR seat on the streetside (driver's side). To be eligible for Star of Life certification, Types I and III are required to be able to carry two patients (one on the gurney and one on a backboard or folding stretcher secured to the squad bench) or four (one on the gurney and three in sitting position on the squad bench). Some, but not all, ambulances also have hooks which drop down from the ceiling of the patient compartment, above the squad bench, where a third patient secured on a backboard.—eric 19:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Bangladeshi sovereign territory within India, and vice versa

Could anyone direct me to evidence of the below, or a list of these 106 enclaves? Found on the BBC commentary on Bangladesh vs England - sounds highly dubious, actually:

"If it carries on like this Bangladesh could end up with less runs than they have enclaves of sovereign territory within India. There are 106, as a result of a messy treaty between the Kingdom of Koch Bihar and the Mughal Empire. Some are smaller than a cricket pitch. India has 92 within Bangladesh."

AlmostCrimes (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

See Indo-Bangladesh enclaves. Marco polo (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears that either we or the BBC have the Indian-exclaves-in-Bangladesh and Bangladeshi-exclaves-in-India numbers reversed. Deor (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

See also this blog post. Jørgen (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

...which links to this paper, that seems to be a rather comprehensive view of the subject. Jørgen (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

And after looking at that PDF, it's clear that we have the numbers right and the BBC mixed them up. Deor (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hitler - Not a Typical German Surmame?

I am from Finland and I know many German surnames. I have been wondered for a long time that Hitler doesn't look like "typical" German surname. Some relatives of Adolf Hitler have used at least in the 19th century that name in forms Hiedler and Huetler. I feel that they look much more Germans. Also I think that for example Hittler with two t:s would be more "real" German style than Hitler.

As a Finnish speaking guy I feel that the form Hitler look likes more English than a German surname. Does those people who have English as their mother tongue also feel that Hitler with h, i, t, l, e and r could be in priciple an English surname like Miller and Parker?

84.231.101.87 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

John Toland says in his biography of Adolf Hitler that the surname Hitler is likely of Czech or Moravian origin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As an English speaking gal, an English surname ending in "-er" denotes descendancy from someone who held that job. In the case of "Miller", that refers to someone who milled (i.e. operated a mill). So "Hitler" would only be an English surname if it referred to someone who "hittled" - and that's not an English word or occupation! --TammyMoet (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] As a native English speaker, "Hitler" does not feel like a native English name. (If anything, to me it conveys a Yiddish impression.) Native English names ending in -er are almost always the names of (historic) occupations such as Miller, Cooper, Parker, and Cutler. I guess Hitler does have the same kind of shape as a word such as Cutler, but I know what a cutler is (or was). The word hitler is alien to English. Marco polo (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that cutlers don't cuttle, and butlers don't buttle. (Instead, they handle cutlery and bottles.) Cutler is from French coutelier, and Butler is from boteillier. On the basis that two data points make a trend, Hitler could have come from hôtelier. It didn't, but it could have. ("Hutler" seems more likely.) 213.122.43.84 (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a hitler would be a person who likes to hit... or would it be a hitter... I don't know. My mother tongue is Finnish.84.231.101.87 (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Bearing in mind Hitler's Austrian birth, I'd say a Czech or Moravian origin for his surname is far more likely than English.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"Hitler" does not sound typically English. It sounds Germanic or Jewish, as do numerous other "Consonant +itler" names to be found on Google, such as "Gitler," which was the pronunciation of Hitler in some of the invaded Soviet territory. A double "t" seems more common than a single one, like "Joseph Sittler." "Whittler" would ((wood)) sound English. Edison (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe "Hitler" was a surname found among Jews from Galicia, Poland. There are several Hitlers in a memorial book of Holocaust victims from Strzyżów. Needless to say, it's doubtful many Jewish families today have kept the name. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

From German Names by Hans Bahlow:

• Hitler (Aust.) see Hiedler (questionable). Cf. (Hüttler like Hüttner: Hittner).
• Hi(e)dl (freq. in Munich): Bavarian word for "a stream that dries up temporarily", hence Hi(e)dler.

--151.51.51.194 (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Adolf's father, Alois Hitler, was illigitimate, but took the surname of Johann Georg Hiedler who married his mother when Alois was 5 years old. The name Hitler seems to have been the product of a bureaucratic spelling mistake? Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There was also a Hiedler in his mother's family.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

See Hitler family. Alansplodge (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Dunno if you can do the same in other countries, but for France you can look for the current distribution of a surname at http://www.pagesjaunes.fr/trouverunnom/RecherchePagesBlanchesExpress.do?portail=PJ (surname is "nom" in French). Interestingly enough, the mapping of the results (top right of the page) for "Hitler" show greater concentrations of this surname to be located in Alsace, the (partly) germanophone region of France. So this could vouch for the "germanity" of the surnam "Hitler". However, the spelling seems to be always Hittler with two Ts and not Hitler. --Alþykkr (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-court-miranda-20100601,0,6330569.story

This article talks about the case, but it never gives its name. --75.25.103.109 (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Berghuis v. Thompkins. See also [12]. Good times for U.S. police. Buddy431 (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Berghuis v. Thompkins

The Supreme Court ruled that you must specifically state that you invoke your Miranda rights, but doesn't talking at all automatically waive those rights? --75.25.103.109 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Presumably not according to SCOTUS. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't you invoke your rights at any time? I always thought that you could start spilling your guts, and then just suddenly invoke your right to remain silent and end an interview at that point. Incidentally, our Miranda warning article seems to have been edited in response, and not very well. It now asserts that cops don't have to read the Miranda warning; I thought that they still did, and that it just now requires someone to unambiguously invoke the right for the right to go into effect. I'm no expert on US law, though. Buddy431 (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In the U.S. you only need to be read your rights when giving self-incriminating testimony. Police can arrest you without reading you your rights, if they have no interest in using your statements against you, AND they can question you without reading you your rights, for example if you are being asked for statements regarding a third party. The only time Miranda rights become relevent is when you are being questioned regarding the legality of your own actions, in regards for future prosecution against you. The "TV-show" image we have of officers "reading the rights" to people who are arrested doesn't really happen in real life; most of the time Miranda rights are read at the precinct prior to formal recorded questioning of a suspect, and is not read to people at the time of their arrest. Furthermore, "invoking" ones right against self-incrimination merely means that you don't have to answer questions about yourself regarding whether or not you commited a crime, or details regarding the alleged crime. The issue in the one case cited above was whether or not a suspect, having been read his rights, had to specifically request that police stop their interrogation. The suspect in this case made no specific request, so the police are free to continue to ask questions until they do so. Its a small point on the larger issue of one's Fifth Ammendment rights, and probably will not have a dramatic impact on police interrogations. --Jayron32 03:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

People have the right to remain silent under questioning that might incriminate them (with occasional exceptions). They don't have to remain silent, but they can if they wish. So "Miranda" is much more about the duty of the police to make sure up front that the suspect is aware they have that right, in case they want to be silent. This case refines past Miranda cases by addressing when and at what point a suspect who knows they have the right to silence, is said to have begun to rely on that right, vs. when they were aware of the right but did not choose to rely on it. The right to silence is more profoundly, the right to not be forced to self-incriminate, although expecting them to speak to confirm they wish to rely on a right of silence does seem counter-intuitive. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Effects of child sexual abuse

There's recent-ish (last few years) research on this that sounds interesting. But it's a heated area with very strong views. I'm hoping that posting a question here will avoid most POV disputes and vested views. This is a quick summary of the research finding as I understand them:

1. Actual handling, perceptions, impact and consequences of child sexual abuse do not correlate well with existing models.
   • Most research has asked about how people felt, without distinguishing how they felt at the time, and how their perception changed subsequently over time.
   • The underlying incident(s) are often reprocessed in light of later cognitive and developmental understanding.
   • When asked, many child sexual abuse victims report not having felt so bad at the time; the trauma developed as they processed it.
2. In cases where force and harm were apparent at the time:
   • The child knew wrong was being done.
   • The matter was unambiguous and the child could later know for sure they had said no, fought, and been unambiguously forced or overwhelmed by physical force against vocal and physical protest.
   • However traumatic, the child could self-reassure they had done what they could, had it forced upon them, and tried to prevent it.
3. But for cases where the adult was persuasive or the child coaxed to see it as attention/gifts/"feeling special"/"playing a game" etc, where the adult obtained abuse by guile, coaxing, and deception, rather than brute force, the consequences were different:
   • The child re-assessed the incident, often years later, in light of increased awareness, and only then truly realized they had been advantage taken, betrayed by a trusted (often close) adult, or a "sexual incident" had taken place.
   • This betrayal was often then shattering. It called into question in their mind, assumptions about themself, about their own complicity, about their ability to take care of themself, about the trust that can be placed in the world, how they know what to believe, deep-rooted suspicion of others and their motives (including difficulty establishing intimacy), and other similar deep psychological schisms.
   • It was then made much more shattering because in trying to make sense of it, they may compare themself to the cultural narrative - which states child abuse victims are usually scared, upset and traumatized and tried to fight at the time - creating an unwarranted burden of immense guilt that other children resist but (in their own memory) they did not, therefore it must be their fault or something wrong with them.
   • There is a powerful emotion of shame in having been duped and made to do things one later massively regrets or which one feels were obtained by transparent (in hindsight) deceit - playing upon previous trust, innocence and naivety. It often leads to internalizing blame ("If I hadn't..."), invalidity as a person, or worthlessness.
4. The study's conclusion seems to be:
   • Differentiation of feelings as a child at the time, and feelings evolving after
   • Emphasis needs to be made on reassuring child sexual abuse victims along the lines of "children don't know enough to say no" to adults who present in a guileful manipulative manner.
   • The belief that child sexual abuse is by definition traumatizing at the time (called "the trauma myth" by the author) is mistaken and harmful because it does not correlate to studies of victims, it does not allow for reprocessing in the light of more mature knowledge and societal understandings, and because it can cause victims to later compare themselves to a myth that is far from universal, and encourages severe self-blame and internalization, where much of the traumatization can (or may) take place.

The book is The Trauma Myth: The Truth About the Sexual Abuse of Children and Its Aftermath (Clancy, S.).

My question is, to what extent is this model mainstream, "fringe", gained mainstream notice as a viable model, what is its due WP:WEIGHT, etc? For this sensitive a topic I would be interested in hearing views from users who are informed, but a bit away from the "coal face" of such articles and POV wars if any. Not planning to edit the topic, but for example - is the book or model notable? Is the above summary an accurate representation of the views in it? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if it will answer your question but the book you quote makes me think of another (which I have only just begun to read): The Harmony of Illusions: Inventing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The author's main idea (as far as I have read) is that PTSD is also somewhat a "myth" (or "illusion") created not out of the trauma itself but out of an interaction between patients/victims, psychiatrists, and society. He however takes great care to assert that while PTSD is a "construction", it makes it no less real and harmful for those who are affected by it. Perhaps you'd be interested in reading this book, as post-rape trauma can be seen (AFAIK) as a form of PTSD (at least in some cases). At least in the case of The Harmony of Illusion, it seems to have been approved by a number of serious institutions (even though the question of the origin of PTSD is still debated). --Alþykkr (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

June 7

Orange County where?

Until this edit, our article on Johnson County, Kansas read:

It is known as "the [[Orange County]] of the [[Midwest]]" for its extreme low-density sprawl and massive development of new, upper-middle class and upper-class homes, especially in its southern portion.

Is Woohookitty correct here, or is Orange County, New York more likely? Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

An unqualified "Orange County" is definitely the one in California. (But that sounds like a kind of in-joke for residents of Johnson County, like adding "-vegas" to the name of a dinky little town to make it sound more glamorous.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, okay; thanks. I saw the bit about the southern portion as indicative of Orange County, New York, since obviously that portion is closest to New York City; on the other hand, I don't know much about Orange County, California. New York is generally my first thought — I know several people who grew up there — and it's close enough to New York City that I expected most people to think of it when they hear an unqualified "Orange County". Johnson County isn't a backwater, however; it has nearly 20% of the entire Kansas population. Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

When I hear "Orange County" I think The O.C., Orange County (movie), and The Real Housewives of Orange County, which all refer to the one in California. I think stuff like that has saturated pop culture so that "Orange County" does not make people think of the one in New York...except, apparently, if you know people from that one :) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and how could I forget Laguna Beach and Arrested Development? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, you have the Orange County Choppers. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about 'extreme low-density sprawl and massive development of new, upper-middle class and upper-class homes', you are definitely talking about Orange County, California. That is OC, CA's raison d'etre. Though I'm curious why no one thought about Orange County Florida (which is what consistently pops up second for me when I'm googling OC). Is it so impossible to think that there's a little bit of Tampa hiding out in the Kansas corn fields? --Ludwigs2 05:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an unqualified "Orange County" always refers to the one in California, except when a person is within the same media market as one of the other Orange Counties. Even within the New York media market, an unqualified "Orange County" would refer to the one in California anywhere except in counties bordering on Orange County, New York, plus maybe Bergen County, New Jersey (where many people have family connections in OC, NY, and to which many people commute from OC, NY). On Long Island, for example, most people are unaware of OC, NY, but very aware of Orange County, California. The reason is that Los Angeles is the media capital of the United States (arguably of much of the Western world), and content emanating from Los Angeles often refers to nearby Orange County. Also, Orange County, California, is by far the largest of the eponymous counties by population. Marco polo (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Plus, OC, CA is notorious not only for its decadent bourgeois lifestyle, but also as the country's (political) conservative hotbed. Back in the nineties we even used to talk about the Orange Curtain (an invisible line behind which American liberals had a certain risk of being sent to transit camps... ). --Ludwigs2 18:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that Orange County, without further qualifiers, almost certainly would refer to California. However, the post says that the nickname refers to "extreme low-density sprawl." That's definitely 'not' OC California. OC California has 3 million people in under 789 mi2 of land, for an official density of over 3,800 people per square mile, and the reality is more like 6,000/mi2, because about 1/3 of the land in the county is national forest or national wildnerness. By comparison, Rhode Island, the second-densest state in the USA, has slightly more land than OC but only one-third the population. --M@rēino 18:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that "low density" is not an accurate description of Orange County, California. So, if Johnson County, Kansas, is known as the "Orange County of the Midwest" while featuring low-density sprawl, it is not a very accurate label. Marco polo (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

humanities

why do we study humanities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.200.54.130 (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Because it encompasses the fields of human endeavor not covered by the physical, natural life, and social sciences. And it's interesting and relevant to study because we ourselves are humans. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

For the medieval precursor, see trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric) vs. quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Our article on Humanities has a subsection (with further sub-subsections) titled "Legitimation of the humanities" offering different views which might interest you. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Because some of us are terrible at math and science... Adam Bishop (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

With some cross-mingling, science is the study of the "how" and humanities is the study of the "why". I find that a balance of the two is critically important. Falconus^{p t c} 16:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what you mean. Failing to ask "why" is I think usually regarded as borderline inductivism, and as poor science (falsification being all the rage) - it could also be seen as reductionism, another hazard. Behaviourism is an example of a much-derided branch of science (if we're not classing psychology as a humanity) which avoids asking "why". Perhaps science has sometimes been inclined towards this way of thinking, particularly in the early 20th century, but I don't think it's fair to say that avoiding asking "why" is part of the definition of science, quite the reverse. Maybe you mean something completely different, though - 'the study of the "why"' could mean the study of morality and the meaning of life, in which case fair enough, that's definitely philosophy, not science. 213.122.5.192 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hardback fiction kept in print

In the UK, and I imagine in most other western countries as well, normal practice in the book industry is for new fiction to be published first in hardback and then in paperback a year or so later. But when the paperback is published, does the hardback remain in print or do the publishers take it out of print? I realize there is probably no hard-and-fast rule on this, I would like to know what happens most often. Many thanks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a satisfactory answer on the internet. However, one of my close friends works as a librarian and is a real book enthusiast. I'll give her a ring tonight (in about 8 to 10 hours), and I'll write the answer on your talk page. SmokingNewton _{(MESSAGE ME)} 09:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That's great, but please post anything you find on here. Best to keep discussions in one place I think. Thanks very much, --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please, post it here as well. The Ref Desk questions don't serve only as an education for the asker but also for those who just browse. Dismas|^(talk) 09:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, sure thing. I shall do. SmokingNewton _{(MESSAGE ME)} 11:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I worked in publishing for 25 years, and you're right: there is no hard-and-fast rule. It depends entirely on what the publisher thinks they can sell, so the books by top writers are more likely to sustain sales of hardback titles, the others are not. Of course, economies of scale often means that there will still be plenty of hardback copies available once the paperback comes out. Incidentally, with the increasing use of print on demand, the terms "in print" and "out of print" are starting to fall out of use.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding to Shantavira's answer (as a former UK bookseller and publisher myself). Up until recently it has not been unusual for a book to appear in four successive trade-designated formats: Hardback; Softback (aka 'C' format - same size as the hardback but with card covers, and often issued simultaneously); 'A' format paperback (often for works perceived to be 'literary'), typically around 7¾"x5"; and finally 'B' format mass-market paperback, typically around 7"x4¾". Each appears at a successively lower cover price in order to fully exploit the balance of the buyers' desire against willingness to pay.

Demand for the larger/dearer formats, particularly the Hardback, may diminish but does not disappear after the cheaper formats appear: some people prefer Hardbacks for themselves or to give as presents, and libraries often require them, so once a particular Hardback printing has sold out the decision whether or not to reprint depends mostly on how well it's been selling lately (and also on anything likely to boost future sales, such as a new book by the same author, a TV or film adaptation, etc). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

LGBT prejudice/discrimination against Aspies

Hello. It's me again. During my research, two Aspies from the same school told me that they were repeatedly bullied and harassed by a group of schoolmates who openly identified as LGBT. They believe the LGBT schoolmates targeted them not just because they were Aspies but also because of their race. They were also often called gay by other schoolmates. They say they cannot do much because there is a lot of support for LGBTs but almost none for Aspies.

I wish to know more about LGBT prejudice/discrimination against Aspies (causes/effects compared to non-LGBT prejudice/discrimination against Aspies, prevalence). Also, which countries have very strong LGBT rights records but also strong societal and institutional prejudice/discrimination against Aspies, and which countries are the opposite? This may sound controversial but I need this for my research and I hope people will answer with an open mind. Thanks.

--Friends of Aspies (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be looking for a corrolation of aspie abuse by LGBTs, but you're making an assumption that there is such a corrolation. The strongest correlation you seem to have found is between dumb schoolkids and people who abuse aspies. There's no evidence, and little likelihood, that LGBT have more or less issues with Aspies than anyone else. As for looking for correlations between very strong LGBT rights and societal and institutional prejudice/discrimination against Aspies ... you'll find countries with any number of combinations of these, but I question whether there's any corrolation whatsoever. In sum, I tend to think / gain the impression that you're a) wasting your time and b) don't know enough about social science research to be able to mount the sort of investiation you purport to be mounting. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your experiences seem to be anecdotal. As noted farther up the page, race is usually identifiable by sight. What race are your friends, and how was their being "Aspies" made known to others? Were they in a special class, or was it apparent from behavior, or what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am a person who is both gay and almost certainly Aspie. (I haven't been diagnosed. I grew up before Aspergers was well known. But I get very high scores on the various diagnostic tests.) I was bullied when I was a kid, probably largely because of my Aspie behaviors (though they weren't recognized as such at the time). To this day, I face disadvantages at work because of my struggles with social cues. However, most of the discrimination I have faced has been from white heterosexual people. (As race is constructed in North America, where I live, I am also "white".) While I have certainly faced occasional rejection within the gay community because of my nontypical behavior, I find that gay and lesbian people are generally far more accepting of Aspie behavior, which can pass within the gay community as just another type of harmless eccentricity. So as someone who is both Aspie and gay, I would say that, if anything, in my lifelong experience there is a negative correlation between LGBT identity and prejudice toward Aspies. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

They are both Indian. Their teacher told their classmates and one of the LGBT classmates told his friends from other classes. Thankfully some classmates (and the teachers) are understanding. Some classmates do make fun of them but the worse bullying comes from the group of LGBT students. Of course I cannot confirm that LGBTs are more prejudiced against Aspies, that is why I am asking here. Will find and ask more Aspies to have a larger sample. Plus there is more than enough support for LGBTs but almost none for Aspies. --Friends of Aspies (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, schoolkids in general will pick on anyone who is different. It is probably a coincidence that the kids doing the harassing in this case happen to be LGBT. Marco polo (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Do any adults know this stuff is going on? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

there is plenty of racism in the lgbt community http://www.youth-suicide.com/gay-bisexual/racism-gay-lesbian/index.htm http://www.colorq.org/articles/article.aspx?d=2000&x=gayracism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_LGBT_community —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.219.30 (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, just as there is plenty of homophobia in communities of color. What's the point? Marco polo (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If the point you are trying to make is "See, there are examples of racism in the LGBT community; therefore, LGBT people are especially racist," that is an example of a logical fallacy. There are also examples of racism among heterosexuals. I don't think that there is evidence that LGBT people (who are of every race, incidentally) are any more racist than any other multiracial group. Marco polo (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a correllation in this particular case because these bullies form a group, which is cemented by a shared (alleged) LGBT identity, and bullying is usually easier and more often done in groups. Thus, the sole role of the LGBT identity in this would be its ability to give cohesion to a group - this could be achieved with many other cultural identities. --Alþykkr (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There are people who overlap both (one self-identified above) LGBT and Aspergers communities. One high profile example is Daniel Tammet. I wouldn't say that there is widespread anti-Aspergers prejudice in the LGBT community. Aspergers people aren't likely to fit in very well in the clubbing-drug-taking-anonymous sex part of the LGBT community, but that is only one aspect of the community, and they fit in just as well as they do in mainstream heterosexual communities. I don't think incidences of anti-Aspergers prejudice are any higher in the LGBT community than in heterosexual communities. Steewi (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

People often use their intuition out of others; actions to say, 'see, since W (insert any 'respected' person here) says X (such as LGBTs' sexual behavior) is not allowed so why support Y (in this case, LGBTs) which will harm Z (our id). You know this is also the same logical problem (though flawed). We know poverty is a big problem in Africa, as testified by UN's failures to work on this structural problem, which may not be good for our long-term development. Yet some people just finds time to quarrel on certain things that are meant to be good but still less important, such as LGBT rights and autism, although one might argue "autism should be accepted and LGBT behavior can be controlled!" Should we just set the quarrel aside and debate on other bigger issues that affect our lives as a whole? Like poverty? Sjsharksrs (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Glorious! Victorious! One pint of beer between the four of us...

This came up on the talk page of Guns at Batasi. In the film, the sergeants sing "Glorious! Victorious!" to distract a gun crew's attention. We have an article The Goddamned Dutch, but it's not very good. Anyone know any more about the song and the tune? Strikes me it might be an old music hall number or an old hymn tune. DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

From memory as an old UK Scout camp-fire song (some of our Leaders were WWII veterens). I can hum the tune but I'm not clever enough to put it into notation for you - it's not a hymn tune and I haven't heard it used for anything else - maybe just an old soldiers' song ...

"Glorious! Victorious!

One bottle o' beer between the four of us!

Glory be to God that there aint no more of us,

'Cause one of us could drink the bloomin' lot!

Cork an' all, label an' all, bottle an' all, start again..."

Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Found it![13] The second part of the tune is the one I know. Alansplodge (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Another useful reference, especially for traditional song lyrics, is Mudcat.org; their Digital Tradition database has Drunk Last Night, and their Forum contains an extended discussion. --- OtherDave (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm most familar with the WWI version used in Oh! What a Lovely War: "They're over us, they're over us/ one little foxhole for the four of us/Glory be to God that there's no more of us/'Cause one of us could fill it all alone." (If I remember it right). "Drunk last night" is replaced with "Bombed last night". 86.164.69.239 (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

journalising payroll deductions

What entries do you pass for a loan deducted from the payroll? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.15.243.98 (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

need quick statistics on environmental degradation and conservation!

such as how many tonnes of waste is generated globally per day/year (that can fill how many football fields?) and level of energy consumption, etc. and how little acts can reduce it.

Sorry, I find this to be a very broad request, and would not want to start answering it because I'm not sure what exactly you want here. If I were you, I would start by browsing the articles in Category:Conservation. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You can search from these links.

• GeoHive: Global Statistics
• United Nations Statistics Division
• Google - public data
• Many Eyes
• Many Eyes
• Home - ChartsBin.com

Please reply here whether they have been helpful. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Who was Chingi Chkhana?

In the article The Ark (fortress), there is the statement "When the soldiers of Chingi Chkhana took Bukhara...", yet Chingi Chkhana gets zero Google hits, which it's hard to imagine anything getting zero hits in this day when people's cats' twitters have millions of followers. How can one destroy Bukhara and remain completely unknown to the web? Who was he? Or is the name "Chingi Chkhana" malformed? Herostratus (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't tell from the context, but Cengiz or Chinghiz is another of the (seemingly innumerable) spellings of Genghis Khan. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Genghis Khan definitely did do that, and, if you check the page history, Herostratus (talk · contribs) translated the page from the Russian Wikipedia. I guess he saw "Чингисхан" and didn't recognize it. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Like most of the content of the page, that name was added in this edit, which says it was "using material translated from Russian Wikipedia". Today's version of the Russian article ru:Арк_(Бухара) contains the name ru:Чингисхан, which transliterates as "Chingiskhan" and is indeed the Russian article on Genghis Khan. It looks as if the translator did not recognise the name and made an error in the transliteration.

I have corrected the name and linked it. --ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you! It was my translation error, sorry. Thank you for fixing it and the article! Herostratus (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Multinational companies treating differently people from different countries

Any multinational company with a branch somewhere where work is cheap, will pay employees of this country less than in the central (in the US, UK or whatever), and only fulfill the local laws. Is this difference in the treatment of different people a case of discrimination? Has anyone tried to go to court against such companies?--Quest09 (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but I think that U.S. anti-discrimination laws apply only within the U.S. Also, anti-discrimination laws outlaw discrimination against protected categories, such as race or national origin. Geographic location is not one of these protected categories. So, as long as a U.S. firm pays people of Indian origin working in the United States the same as pays people of other national origins working in the United States, it doesn't matter that it pays people in India at a different rate. Even if the company did not have a single person of Indian origin working for them in the United States, I don't think that they would be liable for an anti-discrimination suit for paying people in India less. For example, I think that it is permissible to pay workers at a location in Mississippi less than comparable workers in California because prevailing wages and the cost of living are lower in Mississippi. A company could justify lower wages in India on similar grounds. Marco polo (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Marco polo is correct; "discrimination" is only illegal in the US if it is against people in a protected class. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, treating people differently in a way that is proportionate to their differences is not discrimination - treating them all the same without regard to their differences might be.

So if a company employs worker A who lives and works in a country with a much lower cost of living than worker B who lives and works in a country with a much higher cost of living, then it is entirely appropriate for the company to pay them different wages (a higher wage for worker B than worker A). However, if the company were to pay both people the same wages, then that would arguably be discrimination against worker B. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That happens within the USA itself. Each state has different labour laws and minimum wages so that kind of "discrimination" certainly already happens.Jabberwalkee (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Book written by Henry VIII

What was the book written by Henry VIII of England please? I cannot find any information about it. Apart from allegedly Greensleaves, what other cultural items did he do? 92.15.24.29 (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as I was in the neighborhood, perhaps you are thinking of the lyrical works of Henry VIII, here's some useful info.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not "Greenfleaves" but "Pastime with Good Company" and some others; he compiled a book of music. The famous tract Defence of the Seven Sacraments won him the title Defender of the Faith from Pope LeoX.--Wetman (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit more on that...

• Ad Leonem pontificem ejus nominis X.: Assertio Sacramentorum,
  • lib. 1: Ad Epistolam Lutheri,
  • lib. 1: De Christiani Hominis Institutione,
  • lib. 1: De Instituenda Pube,
  • lib. 1: Sententia de Mantuano Concilio,
  • lib. 1: De justo in Scotos bello,
  • lib. 1: Ad duces Saxoniae, Erasmum Roterodamum, et alios magni nominis viros, epistolae disertissimae

per The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe: A New and Complete Edition, George Townsend, Ed., Volume V, 1838  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What's this guy's name?

What is the name of a man, fairly young, an intellectual, author of some books (that enjoyed quite a bit of popularity), is probably a college professor, I think American, slight of build, somewhat longish hair, kind of frizzy hair (piled up on top of his head like an Afro, but he is a white guy)? I've seen him talking in interviews in online videos. He presents ideas that seem to have a lot about learning, education, and accomplishment. For some reason "Blagojevich" comes to mind. Maybe the name has a similar sound. Oh yes, he has kind of a twinkle in his eyes when he speaks. He is kind of impish, if I understand the meaning of that word. Other terms that seem naturally applicable to him might be geek or egghead. He seems "high-strung," definitely in a good way. Very alert. His frizzy hair makes him seem alert (like electrified), and he is alert, quick to speak, I think. Very much the intellectual, with very much groundbreaking, shocking ideas. He seems to be someone of whom it might be said that he is presenting a "new paradigm." Bus stop (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Malcolm Gladwell? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Definitely. Thank you! Bus stop (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

June 8

comprehensive list of ways a child can help a family

here are three things a child can do to help his fsmily: take down the trash, load the dishes, cook, for example breakfast for everyone but just as easily lunch or dinner. Now, can someone give me a comprehensive list of ALL usual things a child can do forthe family? Thank you. 92.230.69.243 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC) (ps in case anyone gets the wrong idea, I am the child in question!)

Here are a few ideas from the Family Life merit badge.[14] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No. It is impossible to have a comprehensive list like that - it would have millions of items on it, at least. We can give a few more examples of household chores that a child could do and we can probably find all kinds of "experts" giving advice on what kind of chores to give children if that would help. It would help to know how old you are, though. --Tango (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I said the word "usual",So its only indescribable millions the way the job requirementd for cleaning a hotel room are. Yes, it's millions, but no, not really. I'm twenty-something and have moved in with parents due to economic hardship. 92.230.69.243 (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the first and most useful thing to do is probably to ask what you can do to help. If that doesn't work you might try asking yourself two questions: 1) what are your family's main needs? 2)what things can you do yourself, that no-one else in the family can do as easily as you can? All the best, --Alþykkr (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(All WP:OR) From experiences with friends whose adult children have moved home again:

• Do more than "your share" of household cleaning and maintenance; in particular, make sure any private space you have is kept to the general household standard of "clean and tidy".

•Don't add to the household's expenses in ways you cannot immediately cover and don't buy yourself treats that you don't share.

• Where facilities are shared (from bathrooms and kitchens to TV, stereos and computers) don't abuse the amount of time you are using them.

• If you act like a guest in most matters, rather than an owner, there are less likely to be conflicts. Saying "thank you" for things you used to accept as your due (like meals and clean laundry) would be a very good plan.

• Have a plan and an end date, or a way of knowing when you reach that date, and share this information with the permanent residents.

• If there are "house rules" like, for example, "No strangers at breakfast" or "Add anything you use the last of to the shopping list", be scrupulous about following them. (The time for rebellion was before you left the first time.)

• Observe and accept the household's routines. At the very least, do not disrupt them.

As you can tell by the list, my friends had some very poorly behaved adult children, for which they took some responsibility. (If you are already doing all these things, then your household will be a pleasure to share.) Bielle (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of Israel's recent international/diplomatic strategy

Okay, I know this will look like trollbait given the current context, but it's not, so don't waste any trollfood here, take it to your local trollpound! ;)

Israel's recent strategy puzzles me (from a logical viewpoint) and I haven't seen much, beyond discussion of whether it is right or wrong (which doesn't interest me) to alleviate my puzzlement. This puzzlement derives from the fact that, at least as viewed from an external, layman viewpoint (whose only source are online news outlet, mainly the BBC) Israel doesn't seem to be at all concerned, of late, with potentially angering its allies. This is somewhat hard to understand, as a general rule of course (can't have too many allies), but especially in Israel's case (historically dependant on foreign aid and support, because it's surrounded by potentially hostile, and often hostile in effect, countries).

I derive this observation from a series of recent incidents:

• the "height of humiliation" incident with the Turkish ambassador (which however resulted in an apology);
• the well-known recent incident in which new settlements were announced during a visit by Joe Biden (which however was declared a bureaucratic mistake by the Israeli PM);
• the allegedly Mossad-conducted Mahmoud al-Mabhouh assassination, which included the use of forged passports (prompting Australia to expel an Israeli diplomat in retaliation);
• and of course, the recent "Gaza flotilla" incident, about which I have read many saying that if Israel had only waited until the flotilla was in its territorial waters to intervene, it would've caused much less outrage.

Now I myself can see a number of explanations, including of course that which there is probably no real "strategy" behind this (it is for instance not very probable that the Joe Biden incident was deliberate and calculated). However, I would very much like to read an analysis of Israel's recent actions from an expert in diplomatic relations, international strategy, or military strategy. Do you know where I could find such analysis? If you wish to contribute with your own thoughts, feel free to do so... just as long as it's sourced and doesn't turn in a "right or wrong" discussion. Thanks in advance ! --Alþykkr (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not an expert on international relations, but I think you might be giving certain people more credit than is due by assuming there is a master plan at work here. I think much of what you mention above was simply bungled. Certainly the Mossad didn't expect to get caught using forged passports (assuming that's what happened). Similarly, regardless of who is at fault for the deaths of the people on the boat, someone clearly screwed up on the Israeli side -- either the commandos panicked or the navy failed to recognize what they were dealing with on the Turkish ship. I can't imagine the Israelis would have gone in there with guns blazing on purpose to wipe out as many of the people on the boats as the could -- even if they had the minds to do so, there would be no advantage politically to doing so. One thing I've learned from working in and around politicians for much of my life is never to trust that the people in charge know what they're doing. They're human, and they make mistakes just like us. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I had thought about that, of course: part of it certainly derives from the fact that human errors get amplified by the attention everyone focuses on the Middle East and Israel in particular (and also, of course, by the tense situation there, which means that human error can translate in deaths easier than elsewhere). Perhaps comparing with Israeli diplomatic behaviour during the 1970s would provide a good perspective. However, even if it's all unintentional "screwups" (which is perhaps a good but somewhat limited explanation), it leaves the question of: why isn't more care taken to avoid screwups as much as possible? This doesn't seem to be done much. I could also ask: why isn't damage control applied more vigourously after a screwup? Going back to the flotilla case, nothing has been said on the Israeli side to the effect that there might have been a mistake, or that loss of life was regretted, or any such partly mitigating statement (not talking about apologies, real apologies being somewhat rare in politics, everywhere). --Alþykkr (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't discount the possibility of internal politics, some of which may be quite murky to a native, let alone an outsider. No state is monolithic and Israel is no exception. Something which may harm the Israeli state may be advantageous to a faction or interest within that state. I'm not saying this is so or accusing anyone of anything, just noting this as a possible line of inquiry. Herostratus (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. Israel's political system is complex partly because the many parties in Knesset (parliament) form these coalition governments with many disparate factions. E.g., in the Biden visit, it has been hypothesized that the Minister of Housing Ariel Atias of the religious conservative party Shas was intentionally trying to embarrass the Obama administration, PM Netanyahu of the larger center-right Likud party, or both with the timing of the settlement building announcement. Because of how the Knesset is organized, small minority parties can wield a lot of power in Israel's government. —D. Monack ^talk 08:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Details of the Saxbe fix

Saxbe fix includes the following clause in the second paragraph of the "Legality" section:

Historically, the class of person has not been an issue.

What is meant by "class"? The relevant section of the US Constitution doesn't address social classes or any other sort of classes, and this is the only point in the entire article at which the word "class" appears. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've also checked the talk page, by the way; "class" appears thirteen times, but it's either in the context of article ratings, class periods in law school, class action lawsuits, or classified information. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have tried checking out http://www.steptoe.com/assets/attachments/3658.PDF, which is apparently the source for the allegation (p.94). Trouble is, I can't see anything related to class on p.94... --Alþykkr (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The sentence was in the article as of 28 February 2009, when it was passed as an FA; I'm going to try to ask one of the editors who worked on the FA nomination. Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother, I found it, it's on p.95...

“ The contours of the class "Senator[s] or Representative[s]" has not been an issue in any appointment to federal office... ”

So no relation with a social class. --Alþykkr (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If I recall this section correctly, it was an attempt to break down the clause. It is an exclusion of eligibility for a certain class or classification of individuals. In this case it is Senators and Representatives. It does not affect any other qualified individuals. If you think the word class is hard to understand in context let me know. A lot of eyes have been on this article at WP:FAC and WP:DYK so I think it is probably O.K. since no one has had an issue with it before, but I am open to change for a better word.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded this sentence to "Historically, the positions affected by the clause has not been an issue: all have agreed that it refers to members of Congress." I see this as a fair representation of the sentence in the source and clearer as well; please revert if you disagree, since law isn't at all my specialty. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be good, anyway, to replace "p.94" with "p.95". I'm gonna go ahead and do it. --Alþykkr (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would definitely be good. It might also be good for me to fix my grammar: "the positions...has not been". Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet

In the text of Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet, does the author explicitly identify the actual age of either Romeo or Juliet? If so, does anyone know the act/scene/line numbers for these references? If not, what are the ages of these characters generally accepted to be (by scholars, etc.)? Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC))

Juliet "hath not seen the change of fourteen years" according to Act 1, Scene 2, line 9 (also mentioned in our Juliet Capulet article). I don't think it says Romeo's age, but he is probably around the same age or a little older (our article suggests 16). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Which means, of course, that were Romeo and Juliet to consummate their love in modern America and anyone found out about it, Romeo would be locked away for statutory rape and forced to register as a sex offender. Make of that what you will! 218.25.32.210 (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

However, see Statutory rape#Romeo and Juliet laws. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)