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 20

Elizabeth II

In the event that Elizabeth II were to go senile with dementia and be unable to undertake her duties as sovereign, is there any backup plan in place. For example, is there anyway in which she could be forced to surrender the throne. This hasn't been a problem before but with her advancing years it could very easily become one if she ever did succumb to dementia. Just a question as to whether there are any guidelines in place to deal with such a scenario --Thanks, Hadseys 00:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Should a monarch be unable to perform their duties, a regent is appointed (usually the heir to the throne). This happened during George III's periods of insanity. --Tango (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Followup question: In the US, these things are spelled out in the 25th Amendment which supersedes Article II of the Constitution. Where is this spelled out in British(English?) law? To my non-legal minded American eyes, it all seems a bit muddled. There seem to be a few acts that deal with it. Dismas|^(talk) 04:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The British don't deal in such tawdry things as written Constitutions. It's all about precedent and tradition. There has to be an Act of Parliament to install a particular regent, but afaik there's no act that sets out the general rules for when a regent might be necessary, how they might be appointed, and what limitations if any apply to their reign. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't know that a parliamentary act would be required. How is the requirement of Royal Assent gotten around? It would seem to me that a monarch in need of a regent wouldn't be capable of giving Assent. Nyttend (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, we have an article about this.--Rallette (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The UK position is covered by the Regency Acts, specifically the 1937 Act. Our article states, under Power to make the Declaration of Incapacity, that if three or more persons from among "the wife or husband of the Sovereign, the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England, and the Master of the Rolls, declare in writing that they are satisfied by evidence which shall include the evidence of physicians that the Sovereign is by reason of infirmity of mind or body incapable for the time being of performing the royal functions or that they are satisfied by evidence that the Sovereign is for some definite cause not available for the performance of those functions, then, until it is declared in like manner that His Majesty has so far recovered His health as to warrant His resumption of the royal functions or has become available for the performance thereof, as the case may be, those functions shall be performed in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign by a Regent." Any such declaration must be made to the Privy Council. The current holders of the relevant positions are, respectively, the Duke of Edinburgh, Kenneth Clarke, John Bercow, Lord Judge, and Lord Neuberger. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Bull Worship in the Mediterranean Basin and Middle East

When did people start bull worshipping and then stop bull worshipping in the ancient Mediterranean Basin and Middle East? Why did the Mediterranean Basin people stop worshipping the bull back then? 99.245.73.51 (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I was going to suggest our bull worship article but that doesn't really help...I'm not sure those are the kinds of questions that can be answered, actually (although I'm sure there has been plenty of speculation). Adam Bishop (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The article isn't that bad. It suggests that the worship of bulls started in the Paleolithic period, as shown by cave paintings, and continued through to Mithraism, which was superseded by Christianity by about the 4th century. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that either of those two examples are solid -- cave paintings have often been thought to involve hunting magic, while Mithraism had depictions of Mithra killing a bull more than bull-worship as such... AnonMoos (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As Minoan culture featured bulls, perhaps looking into the dates around this culture would help. This website may be a good starting point. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The bull seemingly also had a prominent position in the mythology of the people inhabiting Çatalhöyük. The origins of bull worship goes down into prehistoric times, so it is not really possible to provide a starting date. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

At a guess (and this is pure original research, so bear that in mind), bull worship died with the end of the Minoan culture, as it was really an aspect of their religion (though note that religious fixations on bulls were not uncommon early civilization - see the epic of Gilgamesh). superficial aspects of it continued on in Roman myth and practice - the Romans were notorious pack-rats for religious tidbits - but there was no really cultural basis for it in Roman society (at best, it was a cult-oriented practice for small groups of Romans). --Ludwigs2 15:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

One theory I've read is that there's (supposedly) a very ancient connection between the spring equinox, the constellations of the Zodiac, and various religious rituals and holidays such as Passover and Easter, and aspects of the Mithraic Mysteries. Connections to ancient Egyptian religious emphasis on the sun are sometimes argued--the spring equinox marking the sun's triumph over darkness, etc. Several thousand years ago the sun's position in the Zodiac at the equinox was in the constellation of Taurus, the bull (see Bull (mythology)). This, according to this theory, it why the bull was a sacred symbol in very ancient religions from Egypt to India.

Due to the precession of the equinoxes the sun's position in the Zodiac at the equinox slowly moved "backwards" through the Zodiac. About 3,000 years ago it was no longer in Taurus but Aries, the ram--sheep or lamb. The lamb is still a religious savior symbol, and there are plenty of religious parables using sheep and shepherds as metaphors. And if I understand right, animal sacrifice in ancient times shifted, to some degree, from bulls/cattle to sheep (perhaps the ancient whole offering holocaust sacrifice ritual? Then there's the shofar thing). The symbolism of Osiris is rich, including not only death but rebirth (see Life-death-rebirth deity), the spring equinox, and the ram (note he carries a shepherd's crook). Some people even argue that Christ is essentially a latter-day version of Osiris. See, for example, Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth, which gets into the whole topic of the precession of the equinoxes and the Zodiac's supposed significance to ancient religions. Sometime around the time of Jesus the sun had moved into Pisces at the spring equinox, supposedly contributing to the fish symbol for Christ. And of course today the precession is moving on to Aquarius--thus the Age of Aquarius stuff.

Note I'm not saying any of this is true, and I don't mean to disrespect to any religion, nor do I believe in Astrology--although it clearly played an important role in ancient history. I just find it curious how astronomical processes correlate to history and religion (I know correlation does not imply causation). Anyway, here's a few links on the general topic--no guarantee on their quality (hard to find "rational" sources on this topic): Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth (another version of the one linked above), Pagan and Christian Creeds: Their Origin and Meaning (several long pages), Why do Jews blow the rams horn?, Precession, Christ Myth: Jesus Zodiac (warning: an anti-Christianity website), Symbols of Mithra (part of a longer book), Apocalypse Unsealed (very long, I barely glanced at it, seems out there but covers a lot of Astrological symbolism stuff). Pfly (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I need to point out that people born under the sign of Taurus the bull have made more impact upon history than other signs. The bull has always been associated with strength, will-power, and perserverance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmmmm. That claim would hardly be accepted by anyone, Jeanne, except maybe other astrologers. Producing a list of notable names would not do the trick. I can't imagine there being a generally accepted reputable source that would be of any use either. The cruncher is: what does one mean by "have made more impact upon history", and how does one define that? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Marconi shares

I am in the UK and some years back I got some free Marconi shares - I cannot remember how exactly. Soon after that Marconi got restructured and their shares became worthless, as the cost of selling them would be less than what you'd get for them. Are those Marconi shares still worthless or have they recovered somewhat? They may have changed their name too. Thanks 92.28.240.72 (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A little information on the Telent page. Alansplodge (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Lovecraft - Cool Air -strange language

Hope there are lot of Lovecraft fans here. Well, yesterday I was reading his short story Cool Air. Now look at the fifth paragraph:

"Doctair Muñoz," she cried as she rushed upstairs ahead of me, "he have speel hees chemicals. He ees too seeck for doctair heemself—seecker and seecker all the time—but he weel not have no othair for help. He ees vairy queer in hees seeckness—all day he take funnee-smelling baths, and he cannot get excite or warm. All hees own housework he do—hees leetle room are full of bottles and machines, and he do not work as doctair. But he was great once—my fathair in Barcelona have hear of heem—and only joost now he feex a arm of the plumber that get hurt of sudden. He nevair go out, only on roof, and my boy Esteban he breeng heem hees food and laundry and mediceens and chemicals. My Gawd, the sal-ammoniac that man use for keep heem cool!"

Everyone notice the strange wording. This is what I'm curious about why Lovecraft used such strange wordings. If anyone has idea about it please reply. Thanks. --Socilogisto (talk) 11:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that Lovecraft is trying to represent some sort of Hispanic accent and its characteristic rhythms using variant spellings. Nothing more unusual than any other author would do really. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

See Eye dialect. Deor (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

She's from Barcelona! -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

As others said, it's a common literary device to write out accents in an exaggerated manner. It helps get the "sound" across to the reader. For an extreme version of this, try reading the first bit of My Fair Lady. That's an exercise in pain. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

County of Falkenstein

"Joseph II: In the shadow of Maria Theresa, 1741-1780" refers to a County of Falkenstein on the French border. Can someone provide a link to the article about that state? There seem to be awfully many places named Falkenstein. Surtsicna (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the footnote at the bottom of that page you linked to, this Falkenstein was in the area formerly known as Further Austria. I can't see which, if any, of those Falkensteins was in this area, though. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 15:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If it was near France, wouldn't it be this one? There doesn't seem to have been an actual county there at the time, but it could have been an honorary title. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the source mentions that the County of Falkenstein "was administered as part of the [Habsburg] Monarchy", I doubt it was an honorary title. It would indeed make sense that this is what I am looking for, but the article doesn't say that a state by that name existed in the 18th century. Instead, the article appears to be about a noble family. Surtsicna (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Grafschaft Falkenstein [1] says Habsburg acquired it in 1736 by marriage and is now part of Bundesland Rheinland-Pfalz.
Sleigh (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

First novel

What was the first novel ever written? --75.25.103.109 (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no definitive answer. For English literature, see First novel in English. Personally I would go with Robinson Crusoe. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 16:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Tale of Genji is a candidate.77.86.115.161 (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

See also Novel#Antecedents_around_the_world for an exposition.77.86.115.161 (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There's always Chaucer in English. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Moll Flanders is often taught in university literature courses as the first English novel. Don Quixote is also often taught as the first European novel. Zoonoses (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Satyricon is a couple millennia old, and undoubtedly there were many more that haven't survived. It's a bit absurd to suggest that epic fiction in prose (rather than verse) is a post-Renaissance invention. Who knows how many novels were burned at Alexandria? or lost among the antiquities of the Egyptians? 63.17.73.196 (talk) 07:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There is still quite a few Greek and Hellenistic novels extant. The book "The Novel in Antiquity" by Thomas Hägg is somewhat of a modern scholarly classic on the subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Aethiopica is probably the most famous ancient "novel"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You think? I'd have said Daphnis and Chloe. Deor (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Bible? Eerie Lamp Stand (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The last time I checked such things over a quarter of Americans surveyed considered the Bible a literal recording of events. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 13:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

80% of British people know that Great Expectations is a true story, but that doesn't mean it doesn't count as a novel... Eerie Lamp Stand (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Especially the bit where Abel Magwitch swims across the Thames Estuary in leg irons Alansplodge (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Related trivia: Magwitch was inspired by a well-known family of habitual criminals in Portsmouth (where Dickens was born). Dickens changed their real name slightly to avoid a possible libel suit, and I will not repeat it here because they are still extant and active! 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Bible is actually a "library" or a collection of diverse documents written for different purposes during a number of chronological periods (and doesn't claim otherwise), so it's hard to say how it could be a "novel" in any very meaningful sense of the word... AnonMoos (talk)

I believe the Book of Ruth has sometimes been so described, although on length grounds it's more of a novelette. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As Abbott and Costello taught us, "who's on first" depends on the interpretation of words, significantly, "who" and" "first." "Novel" will always remain problematic in this context. What traits qualify? All forms of communication, literature or text, as you will, have some precursor. Who wrote the first epic? Where, for instance, is the sharp line of demarcation between "romance" and "novel"? Evading such fallacious assumptions as such an essentialist definition of "novel" necessarily assumes, I can do no better than follow the line of sight pointed to by the bony finger of Lionel Trilling's exemplary definition: "all prose fiction is a variation on the theme of Don Quixote ... the problem of appearance and reality" (The Liberal Imagination: Essays on Literature and Society, Viking, 1950, pp. 207 & 209). Many common readers, and a good many of the remaining humane humanities scholars as well, share his expansive, life-enhancing view of the modern novel at its best. An almost purely random sampling: Harold Bloom (whose short review and detailed Lectures on Don Quixote are not to be missed) and a host of others regard Don Quixote as, at the least, the first modern European novel, and quite possibly the greatest and most influential novel of all time. Given the chance, why not define the birth of the genre by, arguably, one of its greatest exemplars? Paulscrawl (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be the Ibsenist approach: My book is poetry, and if it is not, then it shall be. The Norwegian conception of poetry shall be made to fit my book. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that learned and witty answer, Paulscrawl. However I must assume that you are simplifying the definition of the modern novel, "the problem of appearance and reality" somewhat for the sake of brevity? Otherwise a novel such as The Golden Ass by Apuleius would fit perfectly in that category. Then again, if the mantra is "The first novel is what you want the first novel to be", then I guess it is not really a problem, as there would be as many answers as there would be opinions on the subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the endearingly sophomoric question of "what was the first novel ever written" reveals more about the nature and needs of the inquirer and the responder than those of the novel. The interchange best belongs in a quiet bar, conducive to seduction. ;> Paulscrawl (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

european cars in Egypt

In Egypt, I know that they drive Peugeot cars and Citroen cars due to the fact Peugeot and Citroen have their own assembly lines in that country. What about Renault? Do Egyptians drive Renault? Also, do they drive Italian cars Alfa Romeo, Fiat, Maserati and Lancia? Do they drive British cars Aston Martin, Bentley, Jaguar, Land Rover, Rolls-Royce, and Vauxhall? Do they drive Volvo and Saab? Do they drive Audi, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Volkswagen, Porsche, Opel and smart? Do they drive Japanese cars Mazda, Nissan, Honda, Toyota and Mitsubishi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.31 (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

So, to be brief, you're looking for a ranking of the most popular cars, by brand name, in Egypt? Dismas|^(talk) 02:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Business Today Egypt, Hyundai led the way in 2008 with 26% of passenger car sales. Another article says Mercedes-Benz and BMW were "neck-and-neck for 2005" (1634 to 1683). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The answer is yes, to all of them, I am certain that all of those brands are present on Egyptian roads in some form or another. As for having a current new vehicle sales presence I can tell you that almost all of the brands you list are available in Egypt although the sales numbers of some are likely low. The only ones without a sales presences I can think of would be Vauxhall as it is a UK only brand and I don't think Lancia or Alfa Romeos are there sold right now. Saab is up in the air and I would be surprised if one could buy a new Saab in Egypt right now. --Leivick (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Cars in Bangladesh

Which cars do Bangladeshi people drive often? Toyota? Nissan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.31 (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, I didn't pay to much attention on that. One thing though, they don't drive Indian cars at least. --Soman (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• By brand, I don't know. But I can give you the official government statistics for type of car: [2]. It's about 52% motorcycles (even more in recent years), 12% auto-rickshaws, 15% standard motorcars and taxis, 17% larger vehicles, and 4% who-knows-what. --M@rēino 18:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

June 21

why is the USA more right-wing than europe and the rest of the westrn world?

Why is it that the US is much more right-wing than other english speaking countries and europe? In the recent UK elections the vote was split with the lib democrats and labour getting a large part of the vote (for the left) and the conservatives getting some for the right - in america it seems that so many more people are republicans or worse, members of the Tea Party. also their policies eg on healthcare, crime and punishment, drugs, equality, taxation etc are much more right wing, even with obama (who everyone thinks is a foreign communist!). I am not saying everyone from the US is like this, but why are there so many more right-wingers in the US and why are their views more extreme? Eerie Lamp Stand (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You might find the article Political ideologies in the United States interesting reading. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 10:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That is an interesting article - but it does not really explain why the US is more conservative. Also, why is there no such thing as a mainstream labour or socialist party in the US, whilst most other countries have one? Eerie Lamp Stand (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a very good question, but one that I think might need a long, well-researched book, not a few sentences on Wikipedia, to answer. One chapter might be about the Puritans, who were among the first Americans, leaving the UK to start a country in which their particular flavor of anti-everything Christianity could flourish. One chapter might be about the US as a haven for less-educated immigrants. One chapter might be about the different effects that World War II had on the US and on Europe. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think people are generalising. I happen to be from west Los Angeles, but I now live in southern Italy. Believe me, the people here are far more conservative than Californians in regards to women's rights, gay rights, religion, family, sex, animal rights, personal freedom of expression. And the Puritans never settled here! BTW, there was no UK when the Puritans arrived in New England in the early 17th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

But I would hardly see a person like Nichi Vendola (openly gay communist, president of south Italian Apulia region) getting elected governor of California. Even though there exists socially progressive trends in the US (when it comes to gay right, animal rights, etc.), the formal political domain is pretty much a reserve for white men in suits talking about family values. Even in a state like California. I know that not all Americans are tea party wingnuts, but the (oftenly repeated at WP:RDH) query is valid; how comes that radical/left-wing trends cannot develop an effective political platform on state and national level? --Soman (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That has no effect on real Italian life. In the late 1980s/early 90s Italy had a former porn star in Parliament; however, at the same time in Sicily and Calabria, girls still had to be chaperoned by a female relative when they went out with their boyfriends, and honour killings still take place here. Also there has recently been a nasty spate of homophobic attacks in Rome against gays.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You're getting me wrong. My point is that, in spite of conservative and reactionary trends in society (we can debate how deep they are, and how they differ from country to country), the Italian left is able to have a political platform and is able to get its representatives elected to office, in this case in a staunchly conservative area. The same would be almost unthinkable, that an openly homosexual card-carrying communist be elected (through a hotly contested primary and then a general election) as governor of say Arizona. Then the question is, what are the causes (partly responded in this thread) that makes the US stand out from other Western countries in this respect. --Soman (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Note also that, while the US does tend to be more 'conservative' than the UK, your description is of a country far more conservative than the real US. Is it possible that you're mostly seeing the more sensationalized aspects of US politics? The "Tea Party" is not really quite as large and powerful as they are noisy and fun to interview on television, and it wouldn't be accurate to say that everyone thinks President Obama is a foreign communist- after all, he did win the election by a considerable margin. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell — because the US sees its optimal economic growth in laissez faire capitalism. Bus stop (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

We have had this kind of question before, but I don't know how to find it efficiently in the archives, so I will make another stab at an answer. First off, FisherQueen is absolutely right that most Americans are not on the far right. The Tea Party represents a sizeable constituency but far from a majority. Also, this varies quite a bit regionally. I live in the Boston area, which would not be out of place politically in Europe. On the other hand, parts of the South and West are very far to the right, on average. Even in those areas, though, you will find a minority who support policies that would be on the left even in a place like Britain. Now, as to why this is different from Britain and Europe, I think that you have to look to history for answers. For much of its history, up until about the 1920s (my grandparents' generation), the United States was a country dominated by small but entrepreneurial family farms. While there was an urban working class by the mid-1800s, a majority of Americans were not part of that working class and did not identify with its (leftist) politics. Instead, they supported low-tax, low-benefit policies more attuned to would-be self-reliant entrepreneurs. By the mid-20th century, this had changed, but even as the United States urbanized, it remained largely dominated politically by a middle class of salaried employees and professionals. The urban working class that supported socialist politics in Europe never attained a majority for reasons having to do partly with the larger relative importance of services (vs. manufacturing) in the U.S. economy, even in the early to mid-20th century. Another important factor that sharply distinguishes the United States from Europe historically is the racial division of the U.S. working class. Until the 1960s, the black working class, whose politics were generally well to the left of the mainstream in the United States, were largely disfranchised. (See Jim Crow laws.) This kept the political balance tilted to the right of the actual preferences of the population. As voting restrictions on blacks were lifted in the 1960s, the Republican Party, in particular, began an effective strategy to appeal to poor and working class white voters on issues of cultural resentment and subtle racism. For example, Republicans campaigned for limited government and tax cuts on the grounds that taxes and government spending primarily benefited welfare queens—a coded term understood to refer to black people. Through such strategies, and through corporate control of the media (e.g. Fox News), a large part of the natural constituency for left politics—lower income or working-class white voters—have been effectively recruited as supporters of right-wing policies. Thomas Frank has explored related issues in his (IMHO) brilliant work What's the Matter with Kansas?. Marco polo (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Eerie Lamp Stand -- Werner Sombart wrote a famous essay in 1906 titled "Why is there no Socialism in the United States?" which still might repay reading... AnonMoos (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Total speculation on my part, but in addition to being settled by religious conservative groups which hoped to escape Europe's persecution and/or perceived debauchery (Puritains, Quakers, etc.), the US has a strong history of rugged individualism brought about through frontier culture. When settling the frontier, you didn't have the support of the same social systems that were available in Europe or in cities - all you could count on was you and your rifle. Or at least this is the impression one is given by dramatic romanticizations of the American Old West (think John Wayne movies, or the Lone Ranger). -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You may want to clarify your question. The US tends to favor right-wing philosophies (ie. the Democrats are center-Right by European standards), but our political parties are nowhere near as right-leaning as some active parties in Europe.[3] — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Another thing to clarify is that the United States has a plurality voting system much like Britain's in which a single legislator is elected from each electoral district (constituency). This has almost inevitably led to the development of precisely two major parties that tend to take the votes of their "base" on either the right or the left for granted and to compete for independent voters in the middle. So while the Democrats are center-right by European standards, many of their voters are significantly further to the left, because they have nowhere else to go (the Republicans being well to the right, though (mostly) not (yet) quite far right, by European standards). In the system of proportional representation common in most countries of Europe, the United States would probably have smaller parties that would be left of center even by European standards. Indeed, the existence of such parties might conceivably move the ideological center of the country to the left, because the true left now has very little voice in the U.S. media. Marco polo (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Although Canada has a similar Westminster system and isn't dominated by two parties (at least not to the same extent). TastyCakes (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The very first sentence in the OP's question makes a false assumption. And things go downhill from there. Americans are more apt to believe in individualism, and Europeans in collectivism. If that means America is more "conservative", then so be it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Where "individuals" is a euphemism for "Corporations". APL (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Fwiw that's not been my experience in the US, standfast Boston which was pretty relaxed. Most places I've been discouraged individualism, encouraged conformity and rule adherence either explicit or tacit rules. What the originator has done is not be particularly clear about what is meant by left and right wing in this context. I've generally found the US to be economically liberal and socially conservative, pretty much across the board. Whilst the economic mechanisms do encourage entrepreneurialism the is a level of support for the entrepreneurial approach that's not present in the UK and in several European countries. Failure in the UK is something to be feared, whereas in the US there is a societal support for failure as a learning experience. It's a form of conformity in its own right.

I'm afraid that the crass, ill-informed, generalisations don't work.

It'#s also already been observed that one of the significant differences in the political environment is the range of opinions are much wider. There is a bland uniformity in the US political scene, with two major parties sharing very similar outlooks both centre right. That is present in the UK with all three major parties being roughly centre left, although what we have in the UK and elsewhere in Europe is much more dynamism around the range of political views. Take a look at for example the BNP, socially conservative and economically socialist, the Green party, socially liberal and economically socialist, UKIP, socially conservative, economically liberal, Libertarian Party, socially and economically liberal lots of single issue parties that do actually retain a share of vote. Numerous independents in parliament. That certainly has an impact on policy direction as the main parties need to account for them. My own constituency was, and remains, marginal and I'm pretty sure that the UKIP and English Democrat vote is one of the main factors that makes it marginal.

ALR (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously there's a danger of generalization with any such observation... I would say, for example, that the average American is much more open to the idea of immigration that the average European. If you happen to see economic liberalism as being non-conservative I'd also say America is less conservative in that context as well. I also suspect some of Europe is more religious than America (see Religion in the European Union) and far-right politics seem to have more followers in Europe than the US. TastyCakes (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, comparisons are essentially difficult. I'd say that xenophobia is highly present in both U.S. and Europe, but it takes different shapes in political expression. For example, an organization like the Minuteman Project would be so politically incorrect in Europe that even the extreme rightwing would have difficulties digesting it. When it comes to religion, I'd say that there might be some places in Europe that are more religious an the average American citizenry, but there would be far more places in the U.S. that would be more religious than the European average. Also, the role of religion in politics is different, where U.S. candidates for office makes far more often seek to profile themselves as religiously devout, visit religious institutions during campaigns, make religious references in speeches, than the average European candidate would do. --Soman (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

My (American) view is that when one country pays for the common defense of many, and the others spend their tax revenues on social welfare, there will tend to be different trends in political ideology over several decades. And, when one has experience with fascism, but less so with communism (and, American had little direct experience with either inside its own borders), one may tend to lean to the left. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Many european countries were behind the iron curtain for decades, and were communist during that time. 92.24.189.232 (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons may be that the US has more space and less population density, particularly in the pioneer days. When you are living an isolated existence you would be more likely to differentiate between Us and them, as you seldom come into contact with "them". (Unfortunately Us and them redirects to something weird). 92.28.241.163 (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a European version of Conservapedia.  :-D  70.54.181.70 (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hochschule fūr Kunsterzeichnung, Berlin 1933-1937

A biography of artist Lili Rilik-Andrieux (1914-1996), née Abraham, has her studying art (specifically drawing) in 1933-1937 at a "Hochschule fūr Kunsterzeichnung" [sic] in Berlin. I've had no success confirming the name of this institution, which may be corrupted by a transcription error or the like. The only Google hits are verbatim from the same text I'm reading. Help in puzzling this out is appreciated by yrs. truly, -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain it should read "Hochschule für Kunsterziehung" - a quick Google seems to confirm that that was the official name of Berlin's academy of the arts until at least 1945. "Kunsterzeichnung" is not a word in German, someone probably confused "Erziehung" and "Zeichnung" -- Ferkelparade π 10:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Leo Tolstoy

I hear that Leo Tolstoy fathered more than twenty children from many women ! He was an intelligent, gifted and higly educated and literate person, why the hell he did that ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would this be a problem for an intelligent educated person and not a problem for a stupid illiterate person? Heck, aside from your moral judgment, why would this be a problem at all? Googlemeister (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

He is known to have had 14 children, 13 with his wife and one before marriage. That is not abnormal for the time. He likely had others, which again is not abnormal for the time. -- kainaw™ 14:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

King Charles II of England fathered at least 14 illegitimate chidren by a variety of mistresses. His remote ancestor Henry I of England outdid him in the paternity stakes by siring at least 20.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You see, when a man and a woman like each other very much...

(*ahem*) Sorry. The point being, even smart people enjoy sex, and may feel it appropriate to have more than one partner. Even if multiple children are involved. Remember, some societies don't place the stigma on children born out of wedlock that American Puritanism does. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a citation that says that children born to unmarried parents are more stigmatised in "puritan America" than in other so-called liberal societies? The Scarlet Letter took place over 350 years ago! I don't think you'll find people following unmarried mothers around California, Florida or New York beating drums.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Tolstoy pre-dated The Pill, but he didn't pre-date the sex drive. That tended to result in large numbers of pregnancies (although higher miscarriage and infant mortality rates did compensate a bit). --Tango (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sort of on this topic, you may find the South Park episode "Sexual Healing (South Park)" pretty funny.

Communism notwithstanding, why is Trolstoy + Frida a bad genetic match? Shadowjams (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolstoys. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you visit Wikiquote and have a look at Leo Tolstoy's most infamous remarks, I'd wager that a good half of them contain the word 'love'. Being so in love with love, it is not so hard to imagine that he was quite... pro-social, shall we say, when it came to his relationships with women. Vranak (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What it boils down to is that Tolstoy, like most people, liked to get it on.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Judge Laughlin or McLaughlin

I was doing revisions to a "this day in baseball history" list on another site, and found this item: "June 20, 1905 - A young woman sues the New York Giants for injury suffered when a foul ball hits her. Judge M. Laughlin rules that patrons attend baseball games at their own risk." I'm trying to figure out who the judge was. A look through google points towards Judge Chester B. McLaughlin, but I have no confirmation. Could someone with access to legal data bases or newspaper archives from that time confirm this ? Any additional info, such as was this the date of the incident, or that of the judgment, would also be appreciated. --Xuxl (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I found a Chicago Tribune article from June 21, 1905. The unnamed woman was hit on the nose by a foul ball at a game against Boston at the Polo Grounds on Sept. 3, 1904. She sued the Giants for $500. On June 20, 1905 "Civil Justice McLaughlin" ruled that "those who entered the grounds did so at their own risk." Hope this helps a little. --Cam (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cam. That is indeed useful. --Xuxl (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The queen of Frederick the Great

I know Frederick was married to Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Bevern. But she did not live at the court of Frederick so she could not have functioned as queen in a ceremoniel sence. Who filled the place as queen in the court etiquette of the Berlin royal court during the reign of Frederick? His mother or his sisters, perhaps? --85.226.45.47 (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What ceremonies do you have in mind? His mother most likely functioned as hostess and de facto first lady of the court. Surtsicna (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Having read our article about Elisabeth Christine and our article about Frederick II of Prussia, I get the impression that Frederick did not maintain the same kind of court culture at Sanssouci that may be familiar to us from Versailles. Apparently, Frederick kept Sanssouci virtually void of women (except probably servants), and conversation was "peppered with homoerotic banter". During the winter, there may have been more of a semblance of a court in Berlin, but his mother was alive only for the first 17 years of his long reign. If she played a queenly role before her death, it is not clear that anyone replaced her afterwards. What exactly was the ceremonial role of a queen, anyway, and why would he have needed someone to perform that role? Marco polo (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

At the Serbian royal court when King Milan I of Serbia separated from his consort, a cousin Katarina Konstanovic served as the de facto "first lady"; this would mean she took precedence at court functions, sat at the head of the table opposite the king during banquets, was present at his side greeting guests and statesmen, opened each ball by dancing with the king, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

...and those are ceremonial duties of a queen consort. Jeanne, I am surprised that you haven't created an article about Katarina Konstanović (or did you mean Katarina Konstantinović?). Surtsicna (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Surtsicna, you inspired me to do just that! Another instance where a question at Ref desk/Humanities has brought about the conception of an article!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was more or less what I was refferring to: the first lady of the court. The ceremonies differ between courts, but they are always there - at least when they were female guests received at court, he would have to have a hostess there. I suppose that the spouse of the crown prince held that role from 1765 forward. Perhaps his sister Wilhelmine, who often visited him, played this part in 1757-1765? I know it is likely that his mother performed the part in 1740-1757, but is it confirmed?--85.226.45.47 (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You would probably have to obtain his biography to find out who acted as his official hostess.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Catholicism in the Old South

The O'Hara family in Gone With the Wind were Catholic (Gerald was Irish, after all). How likely would they have had access to a Catholic church in rural Georgia in the antebellum period? Or would there have been itenerant priests? Martha Mitchell obviously knew more about the period and the region than I do.  :) I have ancestors who were Irish who immigrated to Virginia and then Tennessee, but there's no discoverable record of their retaining their Catholicism after they immigrated. One of my ancestors was the James Burke of Burke's Garden, Virginia. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Catholicism was more prevalent in the south than the north in the early US. The North was settled almost exclusively by protestant sects, but large Catholic populations settled around the Chesapeake and down into Virginia. it was only after the war that the demographics changed: Persecution by reactionaries in the south drove many Catholics out (Priests were sometimes targeted and lynched by the KKK, to the extent that the pope order them to stop wearing the highly identifiable, traditional frocks in public). at the same time, massive immigration of Irish and Italians into the northern industrial states increased the Catholic populations in those regions. --Ludwigs2 20:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Georgia, but in Mississippi — thus closer to traditionally Catholic Louisiana — there were very few Catholics pre-war. When William Henry Elder became the bishop of Natchez in 1857, the diocese (which encompassed virtually all of Mississippi) had nine priests for its eleven parishes. At the same time, there were heavily Catholic areas in the North; see the Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches in Ohio, which was settled almost exclusively by Catholics (mostly Germans, with only one Irish parish and a few French ones) and which remains almost entirely Catholic to this day. Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Martha Mitchell may well have known a thing or two (she certainly had a hell of a lot to say), but the author of GWTW was Margaret Mitchell. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Does the novel or the movie explicitly state they were Catholic? I have a number of Irish ancestors who came to American in the early 19th century, and they were all Protestants. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

See Confiteor#In_popular_culture In addition, the lines they say while praying are at http://monaenglish.blogspot.com/2009/04/gone-with-wind-script-01.html. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ya, so many Ulster Scots (aka Scotch Irish) immigrated to the US it's not really a given that they were Catholic just because they were from Ireland. TastyCakes (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but my ancestors were from the South, not from Ulster. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There were Protestants in Southern Ireland (at least before the Irish Civil War there were). DuncanHill (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Snort. Yeah, Margaret. Duh.  :) Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In the Gone With the Wind novel, there is a scene in which Gerald O'Hara refers to a neighbouring family as Scotch-Irish, meaning obviously that they were Protestant; also in the opening chapter of the novel it explains Scarlett's ancestry: Irish father (Catholic), French Catholic mother who had Presbyterian relatives.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Colony of Maryland had begun as Catholic one although it later was changed. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

American military bases

The United States has military bases in dozens of countries around the world. What other nations have military bases in other sovereign countries, and where? 87.113.148.113 (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is only a start, but the country links at Lists of military installations are interesting. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

France was recently in the news with the closure of their base in a former colony in Africa. Russia still maintains some bases in some of the now-independent former Soviet republics. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Britain and Australia have external bases, and a number of countries, including Chile and Argentina, have bases in Antarctica, though they claim bits of that continent as their own. Marco polo (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Except for the United States and Russia, the countries with extensive foreign military bases tend to be the former colonial powers of Europe. That might also be said to be the case for Russia, depending on how you characterize the Soviet Union. Colonial relationships also affect U.S. bases (the U.S. was never an economically significant colonial power, but its few colonies were strategically far-flung), but World War II and the cold war were more important considerations for U.S. bases. John M Baker (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

British overseas bases are here[4], although some are on British Overseas Territories, formerly known as Crown Colonies. Some US bases on British territories (e.g. Ascension Island) were as a result of the Destroyers for Bases Agreement in 1940. Alansplodge (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Ealy Johnson, Jr.

I'm trying to improve the article on Samuel Ealy Johnson, Jr., but I've run into a bit of confusion regarding the years he was elected and when he served. Now the Texas State Legislature meets every other year. The book I'm using and the succession box that an earlier user created both confirm him serving in 1918. But, the book also says "And when, in November of that year (earlier stated as 1917), a special election was announced to fill a vacancy in the dictrict's legislative seat, the seat Sam had been forced to give up ten years before, and Sam, now able to afford it, announced for it, no one even bothered to run against him." The source possibly used to create the succession box says that he served in the "Twenty-ninth, Thirtieth, Thirty-fifth, Thirty-sixth, Thirty-seventh, and Thirty-eighth legislatures". So my question is what did that special election in November 1917 mean? Because if they serve every other year then 1917 would be a legislative year, not 1918. It's just really ambiguous, could someone help clear it up?

Ok I figured it out, so it looks like somebody was elected in 1916 to serve 1917 to 1918. However the seat became open and sam johnson served the remainder of the term and the election in 1918 was acually for the legislative session from 1919 to 1920. http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/sessionYears.html --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

June 22

Law question (Not advice)

If a father vehemently rejects his son for being homosexual. Is that a crime (being the son a 17-year-old)? --SouthAmerican (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In what jurisdiction? A lot of jurisdictions have laws against child neglect. The fact that it's due to homosexuality is irrelevant, what matters is whether the parent is performing their duties to that child (to feed, clothe, house, educate, maintain the health of, etc. the child). --Tango (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

i.e. the father says 'you're a shame on us', Isn't that psychological harassment? --SouthAmerican (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In what state of country? Laws are different in different places. Certainly this would not be prosecuted as child abuse in Iran, for example. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It may well be construed as such by the person concerned, but whether it satisfies any jurisdiction's legal prohibition on what they define as "psychological harassment" is another question entirely, and that's where we'd be getting into legal advice if we offered any commentary on it. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Whether it's "psychological harassment" is an entirely different question from whether it's criminal, or whether it has precedent within civil law. As above, it depends on the jurisdiction, and probably on the court that the case would come before. — Lomn 01:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a legal question, depending on the jurisdiction. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, I don't think that there is any real legal prohibition against mild parental verbal abuse of their children. Parents are allowed to say virtually whatever they want to their children, up to the point of tormenting them or causing them to become ill. I'm am not a lawyer, so none of this is legal advice, but I think the law draws the line at abuse with material effects, such as assault or neglect (e.g., failing to provide food, clothing, and shelter). What you have described, in my opinion, constitutes verbal abuse that by itself is probably permissible in the United States. I don't think that this is considered a crime in the United States. You are apparently in Argentina, and I doubt that it is a crime there. You might try asking on the Spanish Reference Desk, which might be more likely to have people familiar with Argentina's legal framework (but obviously also not qualified to offer advice). Marco polo (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Emotional abuse of children is illegal in some jurisdictions, but it has to be pretty severe to constitute abuse. It's not enough for it to just upset the child, it has to cause them significant psychological harm (eg. depression). --Tango (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Important points: 1. The age of the child. (17 is border-line). 2. When did the rejection/neglect take place? When, by the age of the child, was this manafest? 3. The jurisdiction area where this took place. Without knowing these we can only point out the importance of them. There are a number of questions: 1. How did the father find this out? 2. Is there further factors involved? These factors all become part of the legal position and are an essential part of legality. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In many jurisdictions, there is an agency devoted to the protection of minors; it may have a name such as Child Protective Services or, more generally, the Department of Social Services. Typically that agency has the right to intervene against abusive parents. That agency would have views as to whether a father's "vehement rejection" of a gay son would justify its intervention. John M Baker (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(I've added some pointers to my entry just above as I am studying the legality for you, OP.) MacOfJesus (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Search warrant for 1000 pieces of stolen luggage (not advice)

I recently saw a news article where a women was caught stealing a piece of luggage from an airport and then a search of her home revealed it was stuffed to the ceiling with other stolen luggage.
Stolen luggage
Now, I'm wondering how the police justified a search warrant in this case (assuming it wasn't just another dumb criminal who says yes to a police search).
I'm in no way looking for legal advice - somehow this story has just completely intrigued me.
I'm also looking to see if anyone could help me find the police report? Thanks! --mboverload@ 01:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, probable cause applies in this case. The woman is caught stealing something, based on her behavior or speech officers suspect this has not been a one-time event, so they have probable cause to examine her property (in this case, home) for additional evidence. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Probable cause is ultimately the domain of judges. Although there are some exceptions for the police, if the court signs off on a search warrant, it's rare that warrant is upset, in most cases. Plenty of exceptions, but they aren't the majority. Shadowjams (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This raises the question of why it is so easy to walk off with someone else's baggage. Despite the universal use of barcoded bag tags, no one has ever actually checked my baggage against my ticket before I've walked out of an airport.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:57, 22 June

This link makes it sound like theft is a large problem between the times of checkin and the baggage claim area. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the answer is obvious: The risk isn't deemed to be worth the cost of preventing it. Checking that everyone has the right bag would involve significant monetary cost (you need to hire people to do it) and would slow everything down (which would annoy passengers and make them less likely to fly through your airport). --Tango (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ask where Airport security managers perceive the risks to their jobs. Everything is an economy. Shadowjams (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I remember a cartoon from Mad Magazine in the 1970s. "See the well-dressed man leaving the baggage carousel with two large suitcases. How come he was carrying no luggage when he checked in?" I've only had my baggage tag verified once in hundreds of flights all over the world; I was in my early 20s. It's surprising there's not more of this type of pilfering going on. --Xuxl (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We had a discussion of the ease of stealing from airport carousels a couple of months ago. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The only time (in my experience) that airports check luggage is when you have transported a firearm. I've heard of people packing a flare gun in their luggage. Under FAA rules, it's considered a firearm. There is an extra card to fill out to declare the firearm, but you can rest assured that they keep an eye on that bag at all times. :) ^Avicenna_sis @ 05:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

But of course most people fly all the time and never have their luggage stolen or even accidentally taken. Unless you are carrying something obscenely valuable (which you shouldn't check on a plane!), the worry seems misplaced. The odds of your luggage being stolen seems ridiculously low, even with a dedicated luggage-thief (who probably gets 1 or 2 bags per plane at most—a 1/150 chance or so, assuming they chose your particular flight). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Negro slaves

From which areas and tribes did the Negro slaves come to the USA? -- 89.247.118.151 (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

See if the page on Atlantic slave trade has the information you need. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Aleksander Sochaczewski

Looking at the several interwiki pages for Aleksander Sochaczewski (1843-1923), I see his birth name variously given as Sonder Lejb (or Lajb), but it's unclear which (if either) is the surname. "Sonder" (or "Sender") being a Yiddish form of "Alexander", and his birthplace being Iłów (not Sochaczew, though perhaps there's a family connection?), I'm not getting anywhere with searching for further information on him. Any ideas for verifying his name? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can read Polish, try this Zoonoses (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I can only speculate that Lejb was his second given name, equivalent of the English Leo and Hebrew Arieh. He may have been given two names in honor of, for instance, two grandfathers or other respected ancestors. As for the surname, Iłów lies only 19 km away from Sochaczew, a county seat, so there's certainly at least a geographic link here. — Kpalion^(talk) 08:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

House MD and the law

I was watching the House episode Act Your Age and there is a scene where an eight-year-old boy grabs Cameron's (Jennifer Morrison) ass. Actors who play young children are almost invariably older than their character, but the person who played the boy was 11 at the oldest. Assuming the scene was real and not CGI or some kind of stunt/illusion: is there a law against making minors do stuff like this? Obviously Morrison consented because actors and actresses do stuff like that all the time so it technically wouldnt be considered assault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.7.141 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"Making"? I don't think network TV shows use conscription to fill roles. -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you think would be illegal here, exactly? 70.79.246.134 (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Won't somebody please think of the children? --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I mean that someone his age is not able to give consent (law), and this could be construed as a sexual situation. So something like that. It would be like an older man to ask a young girl to touch his genitalia- even if the girl agreed, it would no tbe legal. 76.230.7.141 (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. I don't know how the law applies in California, but if I were the director and I were concerned about this, I'd frame the shot so the kid was off screen and the camera only captured his arm and hand during this shot, and I'd have an adult hand double take the place of the kid for that shot. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the important question is whether the act is of a sexual nature. It is certainly supposed to portray an act of a sexual nature, but is it sexual it itself? I guess, based on the fact that it happened, that the law in California says it isn't. --Tango (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, do post here if you happen to confirm or disprove your guess. I'm curious about that too. 189.94.152.240 (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So far nobody has mentioned the parents. No, the child can't give consent but a parent or legal guardian can and would likely be present for the filming. As things of a sexual nature go, this is barely on the radar. Take for instance Thora Birch's topless scene in American Beauty. She was 16 at the time which is below the age of consent (18) in California. So her parents had to sign off on it. Somewhere around here there's a list (or there used to be) of appearances of nude minors in films. Dismas|^(talk) 23:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, the parent's consent is required for them to take part in any TV show. A child can't sign the contract, after all. However, some things are illegal even with the parent's consent. As our article on Thora Birch says, there were child labour representatives on set during the filming of her nude scene. They were there to ensure her rights as a child weren't violated. That scene was legal, I presume, because it wasn't sexual. The same issue arose in reference to Wikipedia with the Virgin Killer album cover - it's legal because it isn't sexual, even though the model is a minor, but it's a difficult legal issue and the Internet Watch Foundation felt it was illegal and advised ISPs to block the page for a time resulting in a media storm. --Tango (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I was going to post that too, but if this case is considered 'sexual' then not even the parents can give consent (law), the question is: what the law understand this is. 200.144.37.3 (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Winged victory of Samothrace in 3D online

Is there a way to watch that sculpture in 3D online? --Belchman (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not that I've found, but for several short movies from all angles try the Winged Victory of Samothrace's article's external link: Interactive multimedia feature on the Louvre website. Click "View the feature" and in the top-left menu appearing after the Intro, click "The Pose" -- note the thumbnails on the right -- Paulscrawl (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Princess Victoria

Why is Victoria (Sweden) tan? Her parents (especially her father the king) look fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.149.234 (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

She doesn't strike me as so tanned that it needs a special explanation, maybe she just spends more time outside than her parents, but looking at her background I see her grandmother on her mother's side was Brazilian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not all children are like their parents or siblings. For instance, I tan better than my sisters, who have extremely fair skin that peels in the sun. Victoria obviously inherited more melanin from her Brazilian grandmother.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

On Bertrand Russel

Is Bernard Russel most profilic writer in philosophy in 20th century? Can this be verified? Or is it better to say that he is one of the most prolific writers?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say this sort of thing is not far off the mark. Mind you, most of the serious issues had already been dealt with long before the time Russell starting putting pen to paper, so I wouldn't want to overstate how important he is in Western philosophy -- he's more of a pedant than a truly original thinker.

I would also add that more and more philsophy came in the accessible, entertaining forms of fiction, film, music, video games, and sporting performances, as media expanded from just print, to all that we have today. Vranak (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow. WOW. I've seen a lot of ignorant statements on these desks but this has to be the winner: "he's more of a pedant than a truly original thinker." Vranek, PLEASE learn something about a subject before commenting on it. And, in second place: "most of the serious issues had already been dealt with long before." Do you know ANYTHING about 20th Century linguistics or logic or analytical philosophy? 63.17.50.124 (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Or mathematics. Or pacifism. Or agnosticism/atheism. Just because he didn't make the Philosopher's Song doesn't mean he wasn't a key thinker in at least a half dozen fields. And if you prefer the sound-bite style, Einstein thought he was brilliant - almost the very last thing old Albert ever did was sign the Russell–Einstein Manifesto. Matt Deres (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Russell has never done anything for me, and I don't mind telling you. Nietzsche has the ubermensch, Kierkegaard has the Knight of Faith, Kant has the categorical imperative, Tsunetomo has 'accept death and be blameless' -- what does Russell have? Vranak (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right: a philosopher's merit is to be judged by whatever one-phrase cliche he/she has come to be identified with by people who only know enough about philosophy to answer a crossword puzzle clue. Shakespeare had "To be or not to be," Jack Nicholson had "Heeeere's Johnny!', FDR had "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," Rodney King had "Can't we all get along" -- what did Confucius have? Confucius ... what a lame-ass! 63.17.62.100 (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested in a sober discussion, might I suggest you lay off the sarcasm. It is impossible to respect such an approach, or a person who takes it. Vranak (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, to call these mere catchphrases is to miss the point incredibly. These are core concepts that inform and permeate the entirety of their work. As far as I know, the most radical concept that Russell ever came up with was no more sophisticated than Borat -- "I like sex! It's nice!" Vranak (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Two great things Russell had:

1. Russell's teapot
2. The attack on inductivism. You know, with the chickens and the benevolent farmer.

213.122.11.217 (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, "prolific" has something to do with quantity rather than quality. As I understand it the OP asks if Russel was the writer who published the greatest amount of philosophy books in the 20th century, and not whether his philosophy was relevant. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

To address the OP's question: It is highly unlikely that Russell is the most prolific, in terms of pages published specifically as "philosophy" (he wrote quite a lot of informal prose, as well). For example: Sartre's Being and Nothingness, Critique of Dialectical Reason, Saint Genet, The Family Idiot, plus a host of smaller books and a constant stream of journal articles, certainly match the total number of pages Russell published specifically as "philosophy"; and if "writing" is broadened to all of Russell's work, Sartre's novels, plays, and memoir (and transcribed interviews, while we're at it) would also be comparable. Sartre is a random example; others could think of many more, I'm sure. 63.17.50.124 (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the question might hinge on whether to consider his correspondence as part of his philosophical writing. As our article notes, he maintained a huge personal correspondence, of which only some has been formally published. I don't know the topics covered (a lot of his stuff is more political than strictly philosophical), but I doubt people were writing to him to get his opinion on the weather, so to speak. McMaster University has more than 30,000 letters and I don't believe their collection is near complete. Even for a guy who lived a century, that's a lot of letter writing. Matt Deres (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Surname of the Dukes of Norfolk

Why did the children of Henry Howard, 13th Duke of Norfolk and all subsequent descendants take the surname Fitzalan-Howard? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Fitzalan (or FitzAlan) family originally held the Earldom of Arundel. The 19th Earl died without male issue, so the title went the son of his daughter and her husband, Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk: Philip Howard, 20th Earl of Arundel. There was then lots of fun stuff involving treason and titles being taken away (attained) and then given back by future monarchs. It seems that after all that, Henry Howard, 13th Duke of Norfolk and 31st Earl of Arundel, decided the honour his forebears and give his children the old name of Fitzalan that had died out along with the 19th Earl. As far as I can tell, there was no particular reason for him to do that, so I can only assume that he just felt it was a good idea. Interesting, he wife took the double-barrelled name when she married him (Charlotte Fitzalan-Howard, Duchess of Norfolk), but it seems he never changed his name. --Tango (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tango. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that the maternal grandmother of John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk (who was killed at Bosworth, fighting for his friend and king Richard III, and known as Jockey of Norfolk), was Lady Elizabeth FitzAlan.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not at all unusual for two old aristocratic families to have multiple marriages between them. I expect the marriage I mentioned is the relevant one, since it was in that generation that the name died out and the Earldom transferred to the Howard family. --Tango (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Lady Elizabeth FitzAlan had actually married Thomas Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk and their daughter, Margaret had married John Howard's father, Robert. The marriage between the 4th Duke of Norfolk and Mary Fitzalan which you cited was the first marriage between a Fitzalan and a Howard. I only brought up the earlier connection to show that the Howards already possessed Fitzalan ancestry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Now another questions follows: who is eligible to succeed to the Earldom of Arundel? When the last FitAlan earl died, the earldom devolved upon the son of his late daughter, meaning that it does not pass only to heirs male. However, the earldom passed to heirs male instead of heirs general in several occasions before and after the death of the last FizAlan earl. Is it some kind of semi-Salic rule, where female heirs can succeed only when all male heirs die out? Surtsicna (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Dwight David Eisenhower biography

There is very litle (none) information on Eisenhower's mother. There is a great deal of speculation that she was a women of color or more specifically of African descent. I have seen pictures and being from New Orleans I very rarely fail to see African ancestry in people of color. And if the picture I saw of Mrs. Eisenhower is truly his mother she obviously did have african ancestry. She certainly was not white. I have read she was from Ohio and in that area it was well known among African americans that she was black. You should at least recognize the controversy even though it is probably not verifiable. The absence of any information stands as silent testimony to the very high probabilty that she was black. Other presidents also are said to be black. Warren g. Harding attended a no longer existent Historically Black College/University. Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson likewise are believed to have questionable 100% white ancestry. Painful as these concepts may be to white Americans, we must look at our history realistically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.213.161 (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"The absence of any information stands as silent testimony to the very high probabilty that" we should include any damn thing that pops into someone's head? No, sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. Sorry to be blunt, but that's what your argument boils down to. — Lomn 22:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I should note, though, that Eisenhower's family tree is pretty well documented. You're welcome to dig up reliable sources on his ancestors. As for Warren G. Harding, he attended Ohio Central College. OCC was not segregated, but was not an HBCU either. — Lomn 22:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why the OP is so pained by this so-called "controversy." DOR (HK) (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Black supremacy. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If "the controversy" was well known, then there are doubtless newspaper refs documenting that Axis propagandists publicized it or made assertions during WW2, or that his opponents in the 1952 presidential election used it in a whispering campaign, as they did against Abe Lincoln in 1860. There is nothing like that in the Google News results for 1941-1953, although it is impossible thus to prove a negative. On the blogosphere, sites of dubious reliability state that Ida Stover Eisenhower's mother s Elizabeth Link, was an African American from Mt. Sidney, VA, and make inferences from the appearance of Ida's hair and facial features in her 1885 wedding photo on the Eisenhower website cited above for the family tree. Edison (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Randolph jefferson, brother of thomas jefferson

"From wikipedia, the free encyclopedia jump to: Navigation, search randolph jefferson (october 1, 1755 – august 7, 1815) was the younger brother of thomas jefferson. He was thomas' only brother to survive infancy, and was a twin to anna scott, thomas' youngest sister. Randolph was 12 years younger than thomas and lived at monticello for many years. He married his first cousin anne jefferson lewis in 1781 and was widowed some time between 1792 and 1807."

What is the source of the information concerning, "Randolph...Lived at monticello for many years"?

William G. Hyland jr. (e-mail redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.202.22.1 (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

1. I've removed your e-mail address to save you from spambots. All Reference Desk questions are answered here at the desk. 2. I have taken the liberty, in this edit, to add a "citation needed" tag next to the sentence you're asking about. This doesn't answer your question, but alerts other editors that a citation is needed — really, every fact cited in a Wikipedia is supposed to have a reference. If the tag stays on that sentence for a long time then you or some other editor may remove the entire sentence. ("Long time" often means months around here. It could mean days, or, of course, if you can cite a source that states otherwise, you should just remove the inaccurate sentence yourself, replace it with a referenced statement, and include a mention of the reference. See WP:REFERENCES if you're interested.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

According to [5], Randolph lived on his own plantation at least since 1781. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal jargon

I'm looking to compile a list of commonly-used legal terms that look like ordinary words but have specialized meanings in law. Can someone help? --96.227.54.93 (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair comment, color, taint, sugar bowl, passing off, yellow dog, elephant test, I know it when I see it. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Discovery (law), Sentence, Equity, Blue pencil, Capacity, Consideration, Mistake, Negligence, Necessity, Offer and acceptance, Presumption, Reasonable doubt, Ripeness, Standing, Stopping the clock, Unclean hands, Unconscionability, Undue hardship, Undue influence. See also Category:Legal doctrines and principles and especially Category:Legal terms and children. There must be many. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Infant. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Continue (to stop for now), plea (not only its ordinary legal meaning but also its informal use to mean a plea of guilty), evidence (if it's not presented in court it's not evidence), witness (anyone who testifies, not necessarily someone who saw the crime happening). At least in some legal systems the duration of a prison sentence is often less than the indicated number of years; analogously for life sentences and death sentences. I don't think "reasonable doubt" belongs on the list, though. --Anonymous, 05:09 UTC, June 23, 2010.

My favorite example of this kind is to take. Another good example is interested. John M Baker (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Interest" isn't so much a different legal usage, just a slightly archaic everyday usage. In old books you read about someone being a "disinterested friend", for example, which means they think about what's best for you, not for themselves. --Tango (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Disinterested," yes, is still widely used to refer to neutrality, but I think "interested" in the sense of being directly affected is less common in ordinary usage. But you're quite correct that, regardless of how common or uncommon the term may be, there is a nonlegal use with a similar meaning, so in that sense it may not be what the OP is looking for. John M Baker (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

"Fee:" in law, a heritable estate in land. In feudal law, fee was another term for same as "fief:" land granted to a vassal by a lord. "Devise:" in law, "to transmit or give real property in a will." Also will, fee tail, binder, bar, bench, briefs, count, discharge, information, issue, motion, sanction, sentence, and settlement. Edison (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

One I just learned today is information. See also wikt:Category:Law.—msh210℠ 20:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Knowledge," as in "carnal knowledge." Edison (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Also "knowledge" as in Scienter, or a willful criminal act. Plus there's nuisance, Table (parliamentary), Standing (law) (and yes, Wikipedia has an article on the "human position in which the body is held upright", too), arbitrary, putting toothpaste back in the tube, Delegation (law), notice, rule, Relevance (law), Code (law), Accessory (legal term), "justice" to refer to a human being, and my favorite, material. --M@rēino 19:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

June 23

Princess Maria Christina of Saxony (1770–1851)

Was Princess Maria Christina of Saxony (1770–1851), the daughter of Charles of Saxony, Duke of Courland a real princess? She was born from her father's morganatic union with Countess Franziska von Corvin-Krasinska which would mean should couldn't have been a Princess of Saxony.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The use of the title princess has varied widely over history and in different countries (see that article for a summary). I have no idea how the title was used in Saxony in that period. However, she did marry a prince, which would almost certainly have made her a princess. I don't know if she was referred to as a princess at the time before her marriage. --Tango (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

By her marriage to a prince, she would have been a Princess consort.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a description, rather than a title, though. She would still be called "Princess X". --Tango (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the German language has two quite distinct words corresponding to English "princess" -- Fürstin and Prinzessin. AnonMoos (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Princess consort is the wife of the sovereign of a principality. For example, Charlene Wittstock will soon become a princess consort; the Duchess of Cornwall is not a princess consort. Maria Christina's mother was created a princess by the Holy Roman Emperor five years after Maria Christina's birth, so I suppose Maria Christina was entitled to style herself as a princess even before her marriage. Surtsicna (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Arguing about women's pay vs. men's pay in US

It's pretty common to hear that women are paid less than their male counterparts, even if they are in the same field. This fact is then used by feminists to argue that there is gender inequality in the work world. But if this were true, that women will work the same for around 20% less pay, why would companies even bother hiring men? Couldn't they just hire women and pay them less, thus making a larger profit? How do feminists argue against this claim?  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 04:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, one possibility would be that the bosses simply favour men and are willing to pay them more for the same work, nevermind the profit margins. It's a classic mistake to think that everyone in the professional world cares only about their bottom line. It's certainly a concern, yes, but it is not always (nor should be) a single-minded obsession. Alternative explanations are that the bosses respect them more, or want to keep them around to a higher degree, and so on and so forth. Vranak (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Or that bosses hate paying women while they are out on maternity leave. Googlemeister (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A recent BBC Radio 4 programme about statistics discussed this topic (with respect to the UK, but the mathematics are universal): it's not as straightforward as it might appear. For example, a greater proportion of women than men (either through choice, or restricted opportunities, or both) work only part-time: if all salaries/wages of both sexes (whether in all fields or in a specified one) are being compared, this discrepancy accounts for a good deal, though by no means all, of the gross apparent inequality. Then again, women are more likely than men to have their careers interrupted by pregnancy (due to unavoidable biological factors) and child care (due to the avoidable but common gender task divisions in most cultures), lessening the compound effect of across-the-board annual pay rises: this accounts for a further portion of the inequality. Clandestine "glass ceiling" barriers to female promotion undoubtably sometimes operate, and restrict the total female "share" of higher salaries.

Bear in mind that paying a woman less than a man for the same work is illegal in the US following the Equal Pay Act of 1963, so US employers cannot legally employ the strategy suggested. It may be that as a result some jobs are exported to other countries where such discrimination has not yet been outlawed (or the measures are not enforced). If you haven't seen it, our article Male–female income disparity in the United States may be of interest. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

On average in the USA, at any given time only 5% of men are "out of work and not looking for work," while 20% of women are "out of work and not looking for work." (Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States). That's a pretty big deal, macroeconomic-wise. 63.17.32.100 (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

what is the oldest bottle of wine anyone has been verified to drink?

what is the then-oldest bottle of wine anyone, at any point in history, is recorded to have drunk? 80 years? 180? 280? more? how old? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.68.203 (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently small measures from this barrel of wine from 1472 are regularly drunk, although it is frequently topped up with more recent vintages. This wine from around 7000BC was opened, although it seems nobody risked drinking any. Madeira wine appears to be the longest-lived, and several restaurants advertise late-eighteenth century bottles available to drink, at very high prices. Warofdreams talk 10:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Although this is probably not quite what you were looking for, at the royal court of Denmark it is a tradition that they serve a wine called the "Rosenborg wine" at their New Years celebration. It is Rhine white wine originating from 1580s which has been stored in caskets in the cellars of Rosenborg Castle. Though to be fair the wine has been constanly diluted with newer wine each time some of the wine has been used, so it is now only partially 1580s wine. The taste is reported to be quite awful, until quite recently where they filtered and bottled it, which apparently helped somewhat on the taste. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

For an interesting story about old wines, see Hardy Rodenstock and the story of the Jefferson bottles. Lots of people have drunk wines that are centuries old. The problem is there are also lots of people who think they've drunk wines that are centuries old, but didn't. And it's hard to tell who's in which group. Determining the provenance of very old wines is challenging. (FWIW, this week I received an offer in my email for 1868 Caves Bourdy Marc de Jura, from a reputable merchant, said to be direct from the winery's cellar. At $6,340/bottle, I didn't bite.) -- Coneslayer (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Jacques Cousteau cracked open an amphora that had been submerged since 230 BC and drank — here is a source about it that copies and pastes from the Guinness Book of World Records. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Brandt Report and American/British foreign aid policy

I am currently writing an essay on how the Brandt Report(1980) relates to the changing foreign aid policies of America and Britain at its time of publication. However, there seems to be little written on American or British aid policies in the 1970's and 1980's, and was wondering if somebody could suggest a good opening book/website which would familiarise me with aid policies at the time?131.251.143.244 (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Kovchitsy Vtoryye, Belarus

This is the spelling that appears in the gazetteer, Where Once We Walked, situated 133 km WNW of Gomel at coordinates 52•50'N,29•11'E. Granted that this romanization may be archaic or faulty, I'd appreciate some help finding out whether it has an interwiki page in another WP or other identifying information. I'm also curious about the word Vtoryye that I see here only with place names in Azerbaijan. (Also can't find the degree sign among the symbols in the editing ruler below.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's Ковчицы Вторые. Вторые means "second" in Russian and the name of the village is also written Ковчицы-2. Naturally, there's a corresponding Ковчицы Первые (Ковчицы-1) nearby. Both villages are in the Svetlahorsk (Svetlogorsk) County, Homel (Gomel) District. Ковчицы-2 appears three times in Russian Wikipedia's list of Belarusian righteous among nations.

The degree sign (°) is the fifth sign in the "Math and logic" section (use the drop-down button to get there). — Kpalion^(talk) 14:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

ACT

About how many people get a composite score of 36 every year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.251.114 (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

According to our article, "Nationwide, 638 students who reported that they would graduate in 2009 received the highest ACT composite score of 36." -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Final Exams

Hello. If my high school changes the final exam annually, why do they retain my marked exams? If my school auctions my exam after I become famous, I should receive a fair portion:) Seriously, why? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In case you appeal the result. It's also possible future colleges, employers etc. will want to see the actual exam. I know the Institute of Actuaries sometimes looks at the exam scripts when working out whether or not someone qualifies for an exemption from one of a professional exams (although that's university exams rather than high school). --Tango (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As Tango stated, I keep all final exams I give in case a student attempts to argue that his or her grade is incorrect. For a couple years, I kept a copy of the final exam. As I expected to happen, a student altered his answers for a few questions and then argued that I graded incorrectly. Because I kept a photocopy of the exam, I was able to point out that he altered the answers. Further, some students wait many years to argue a grade. It isn't until they are about to graduate that they go back and look at classes they had years before and decide to try to argue that a B should be an A. Having the finals on hand makes it possible to refute their arguments. -- kainaw™ 17:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If I were in charge, I would impose a deadline on appeals... (I think there was one at my uni, but they wouldn't let you see the marked paper when deciding whether to appeal, so any appeals were just shots in the dark so I never bothered.) --Tango (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's university level, not school, but I'm instructed to keep all exams for at least three years, as three years is the typical length of a degree, and that way they should be available in case of an appeal or the discovery of some other issue. At the end of that period we're allow to get rid of them using a secure process, but you'll find that most of us have filing cabinets full of old exams we haven't sorted out yet. As an aside, we would never be allowed to sell an exam, no matter how famous you would get, and disposal has to be done very carefully. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

major historical events of the era 1988-2000

such things as the fall of communism in many areas, the gulf war, the end of yugoslavia, civil wars in such places as afghanistan, somalia, sudan and sri lanka. can anyone think of any others? 80.47.24.27 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Does the end of Apartheid qualify? Also, the end of Yugoslavia was arguably overshadowed by the various fierce conflicts that accompanied or followed the breakup. There was also the genocide in Rwanda, ongoing warfare in Zaire/the Congo and Angola, and a shift toward democracy in Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia. The economic rise of China was surely important, as were the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and the dot-com bubble. Marco polo (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The fall of the Berlin Wall and subsequent reunification of Germany (part of the fall of communism, of course, but worth a special mention given the size and influence of Germany in the modern world). The dot-com bubble. --Tango (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

See our articles 1980s and 1990s. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No one has specifically mentioned the breakup of the Soviet Union. Marco polo (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The signing of the Good Friday Agreement which led to the cessation of The Troubles in Northern Ireland. The war in Kosovo was another major event.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Lewinsky scandal :). Also there was the O.J. Simpson trial. --Soman (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The 1998 Omagh Bombing, and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In case you include events in the history of technology, 1990s in science and technology might interest you as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Watergate, I think should quatify. MacOfJesus (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That was 1972. --Tango (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

But a day is like unto a year in the eyes of the lord, so, as always, anything Mac posts is completely relevant, and if you don't think so, you're ranting. 63.17.32.100 (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The death of Princess Diana in 1997.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If the questioner is asking for events of world importance, then I'm not sure events of importance to only one country, even a major country such as the United States or the United Kingdom, really qualify. If they do, then one could come up with a very long list of events from the national politics of India, China, Brazil, Indonesia, Germany, Japan, etc., etc. Marco polo (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The OP just says "major historical events", so I think something like the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, qualifies. It was a major news story around the world, not just in the UK. (It's still a major news story in the UK if you read the Daily Mail! ;)) --Tango (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's still discussed here in Italy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely you mean the Daily Express? - Jarry1250&nbsp ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's possible... I don't read either and only know them by reputation. I could easily have got them confused. --Tango (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A little research suggests you are right. Thanks for the correction! --Tango (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we are confusing media events in the rich world with events of world historical importance. What historian in a country other than the United States or Britain looking back on this period from, say, the year 2200, will bother with Monica Lewinsky, O.J. Simpson, or Princess Di? Marco polo (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The wildfire spread of the internet in the 90s comes to mind, but that was not really a single event. Googlemeister (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In case someone is reading this in an archive many decades (or even hundreds of years) from now: I, who lived through the years 1988-2000, can tell you, the historian from the future: Nothing major happened during these years. The last time something major happened was in 1945, with the detonation of two atom bombs. There are also no major things on the horizon either. If you are the kind of historian who cares about fashions and how people live day to day, electronics came into very common use during this time, especially for communications: before this time, hardly anyone had a portable telephone, now everyone does, they're very small and in very common usage, and the Internet is similar: before this period, hardly anyone used it, now everyone does. However, other than this small change in fashion, nothing has really changed or happened. Again, I've lived through every one of these years, and can't think of a single significant event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.69.146 (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The rise of the internet and mobile phones were very important. --Tango (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The hand over of Hong Kong was in 1997. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Much of South America beginning to make moves toward freeing itself from American/capitalist imperialism (see, e.g., Venezuela) -- that's as big a story as what happened in the former Soviet bloc, though of course our "free" press would never say so. 63.17.32.100 (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the biggest event by far during those specified 12 years would be the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the dissulution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union. The end of the Troubles in Northern Ireland would have to come second, followed by the Yugoslav Wars and the first Gulf War. Princess Diana's death was also a historical event as she was easily the most famous woman from 1981 until well after her death in 1997. I don't think Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was a historical event as it didn't result in a war or coup d'etat. Most people honestly didn't care about her one way or the other.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If we're talking about famous women who died in 1997, then what about Mother Teresa? — Kpalion^(talk) 13:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Tiananmen Massacre, the US running a budget surplus, Y2K bug, dot.com bubble, democracy in Taiwan and Korea, coups d'etat in Thailand come to mind. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The 1994 Rwandan Genocide.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I would offer that the Oklahoma City Bombing (1995), the Waco siege (1993), and the Columbine Massacre (1999), are three that stand out in my mind. I live in Canada though. It wouldn't mean as much to a rural Malaysian, or a penguin in Antarctica, clearly. These are all events where one man had enough of these rules and took it upon themselves to, well, go a little crazy. Also, the growth of the internet over that time has fundamentally changed society. Vranak (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Also during that period, Jurassic Park revolutionized movie industry with computer-generated imagery in 1993; Dolly, the first cloned mammal, was born in 1996; Google was incorporated as a company in 1998; and Pfizer started selling Viagra in the same year. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

SMPs

What does Small and Meium Practices menas in the case of IFAC SNP? Thank you for your helpfullness. --Ksanyi (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that a small practice is one with only a few people working there, and a medium practice is one with only a few more than that working there. The IFAC stands for "International Federation of Accountants". It's a professional organization for accountants. Llamabr (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

EC: It's actually quite amazing how many pages of text I browsed through where they managed to not mention any type of context at all. I guess some documents are only meant to be read by those who already knows what they will say. Anyhow, the context of the IFAC, it means small and medium sized companies/organisations of Chartered Accountants. I'm not sure if that was your question, or if you knew that and wanted their definition of small and medium. In that case, I can not help./Coffeeshivers (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What did Aristotle tell us about Plato's life?

I know he mentions his teacher in various places, but I'm not sure about biographical details that Aristotle reveals about Plato. Thanks. Llamabr (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Gen. McChrystal

Is he out of active duty altogether or just transferred to some other job? 71.168.5.253 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

He resigned, he was not transferred, so he is no longer with the AD US military. Googlemeister (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

He's either resigned or been relieved of his command, but according to this article, "A senior military official said there is no immediate decision about whether he would retire from the Army..." Clarityfiend (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the lowest rank at which you can just say "I don't want to do this anymore" and they don't force you to stay?71.168.5.253 (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

sorry, you missed the backstory: he made really bad comments and was fired. Being "allowed to resign" is just a nice way of getting fired, and I would assume EVERY single officer rank that can happen in: from first lieutenant to ... general McChrystal. 92.230.69.146 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

President of the United States. Anybody lower than that is in trouble - see Dismissal of (five star) General Douglas MacArthur. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The above two responses didn't carefully read 71's second question, in which he is asking: At what rank in the US military can you retire without the military being able to force you to stay in the military because your country needs you? Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

71 needs to clarify what "stay" means. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Stay as in not go. Just about everybody in the US military signs up or re-ups for a set number of years, before which you can't just decide you want to quit and go. I was asking if the ability to quit at any time appears past a certain rank. 71.161.62.100 (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't know the answer, but Army lieutenant colonels are liable to callup. I know a man who retired with that rank as a chaplain, began to pastor a church, and had to leave a few years later because he got reactivated and is currently in Germany. He was definitely called up because of being a former officer; he hadn't been in the Army Reserves or the National Guard after retirement. Nyttend (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

When you first sign up (as an officer or enlisted) you sign on for a set number of years (2 to 6, depending on service, rank, and position, I think). you are pretty much stuck in the job for the whole span, barring discharge for a small number of personal reasons (family hardship, dishonor to the service, etc.). If you decide to go career after that and re-up then it is pretty much like any other job - you do it for as long as you care to, and get a pension depending on how long you do it. there are a few exceptions - if war breaks out, you can't generally decide to just quit (though few career military people would even consider that as an option); if you're in a specialty service (nuclear submarines, fighter pilot, etc.) you may be subject to mandatory recall at need even if you do your full term. --Ludwigs2 04:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

USAF pilots set # of years is currently 10, so it can be even longer. Googlemeister (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe you generally have to serve longer if you have received expensive training in order to pay the army back for that training. It wouldn't be value for money for the army to spend a year or two training a combat pilot and for them then to quit after only a year or two of action. An infantryman that receives 6 weeks of basic training and is then ready to go into combat can quit much sooner. --Tango (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church "scripture"

All information I've encountered on this group that includes firsthand testimony from its members includes references to "Scripture" and assertions that their leader knows more about the Bible than any other living person, but at no point was there any qualification of their canon; which books are included or omitted, whether there are alternative interpretations of specific passages other than their widely-publicised, "hateful" comments, which may or may not be interspersed with direct references. Any help would be appreciated. 130.209.6.40 (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

What specifically is your question? Falconus^{p t c} 00:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd guess the question is "what do they consider to be canon? Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

They're Baptists, so they regard the Bible as canonic. Presumably they use a Protestant Bible, and they find any of the translations usually used by American Protestants as acceptable. That would be the default position anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

However, there's a strong King James Only movement among many American Baptists, so they may well reject all English translations except for the 1769 revision of the KJV. Nyttend (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Michelangelo Quote

I have heard that Michelangelo said "Art is the gift of God and must be used for his glory. That in art is the highest which aims at this." Did he really say this, and if so, where? dlempa (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a line from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's unfinished drama Michael Angelo, actually said by Vittoria Colonna's character. Don't know if it is a paraphrase of anything Michelangelo wrote. meltBanana 22:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

June 24

A young lady from ____?

I have in my head a little bit of a poem, but all I can remember are the following facts:

1. It seems "rather old" in my mind, so it's probably early twentieth century.
2. It sounds like something from Ogden Nash
3. It talks about a young woman from somewhere in England — I'm not sure where she's from (possibly Brighton), but the poem mentions by name the city of her origin
4. Its style is somewhat similar to Reginald Buller's famous poem on relativity, about the woman who travels in a relative way and returns on the previous night (his article quotes the poem)

Any idea what this could be? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a young lady named Bright

Who moved at the speed of light.

She went out one day

In a relative way

And came back the previous night. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the Buller poem to which I already referred; it's definitely not that. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to some sort of limerick (poetry)? If so, be advised that the most common form are limericks which start with "There was a {person} from {place}", or more generally, "There was a {person} {description}" - the distinguishing characteristics being more what happens in lines 2-5, rather than line one. -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of this one, told by Peter Sellers in some long-ago movie:

There was a young lay from Exeter

And all the young men threw their sex at 'er

Just to be rude

She lay in the nude

While her parrot, a pervert, took pecks at 'er.

There will be a slight delay to let the applause die down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a young lady from Ulva

Who kept a pet bee in her handbag

Her lover called Jock

Was stung on the arm

So to soothe it she bought him a box of the best Turkish Delight.

Aye thang yew! DuncanHill (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A very creative interpretation of the form! ;) --Tango (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Before this completely devolves into a bunch of random limericks... Nyttend, can you recall anything else about the piece. In your original question, you mentioned it was like the Buller limerick, but everything else you mentioned kind of pointed at it being... the Buller limerick. Do you recall what the "point" of the piece was or what kind of rhyming it might have had? Even random words? I'd like to help, but I think we're going to need more to go on, to be honest. Matt Deres (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, I can't give more...it might have been a limerick, but might not have been. I guess I'll have to keep wondering until I encounter it. I should say — I was unaware that most limericks are "There was a {person} from {place}", so I didn't know that my memory wouldn't be specific enough. Nyttend (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No idea what the answer is, but I'll just say that there is a bunch of these risque limericks in one of John Irving's books. (Can't remember which one.) Because those are very popular, there is a chance you read it there. 83.81.60.11 (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You might have some luck getting a book of Edward Lear's nonsense verse (ideally, a complete set) and browsing for it: there've been loads of printings, so I'd imagine you could pick up a second-hand copy quite cheaply, or find a copy in your local library system. If it sounded fairly old, and fit the standard format, there's a good chance it was his. He wrote loads of them, and only you will know your verse when you see it. Plus, time spent with Lear is never wasted :) 86.164.66.4 (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Adams? "[Technology_in_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Matter_transference_beams I teleported home last night with Ron and Sid and Meg. Ron stole Meggie's heart away while I got Sidney's leg.]" 70.24.114.119 (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Meaning of this joke ?

Can anyone tell me what the hell does this joke mean :

---

A businessman was in a great deal of trouble. His business was failing, he had put everything he had into the business, he owed everybody-- it was so bad he was even contemplating suicide. As a last resort he went to a priest and poured out his story of tears and woe.

When he had finished, the priest said, "Here's what I want you to do: Put a beach chair and your Bible in your car and drive down to the beach. Take the beach chair and the Bible to the water's edge, sit down in the beach chair, and put the Bible in your lap. Open the Bible; the wind will rifle the pages, but finally the open Bible will come to rest on a page. Look down at the page and read the first thing you see. That will be your answer, that will tell you what to do."

A year later the businessman went back to the priest and brought his wife and children with him. The man was in a new custom-tailored suit, his wife in a mink coat, the children shining. The businessman pulled an envelope stuffed with money out of his pocket, gave it to the priest as a donation in thanks for his advice.

The priest recognized the benefactor, and was curious. "You did as I suggested?" he asked.

"Absolutely," replied the businessman.

"You went to the beach?"

"Absolutely."

"You sat in a beach chair with the Bible in your lap?"

"Absolutely."

"You let the pages rifle until they stopped?"

"Absolutely."

"And what were the first words you saw?"

"Chapter 11."

---

 Jon Ascton  (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

See Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition to Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it also refers to the practice of Sortes Sanctorum and Bibliomancy. -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it refers to those things but that's not why it's funny. Dismas|^(talk) 04:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the joke relies on the perception that companies can use Chapter 11 bankruptcy to avoid creditors taking everything, and therefore allowing the unscrupulous business man the time to hide remaining assets by transferring them to relatives. Astronaut (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation is that the priest was hoping (expecting?) the businessman to discover some divine message through a random phrase in the Bible, leading him to some sort of personal revelation. That the Bible instead "instructed" him to declare bankruptcy is the irony. — Michael J 15:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the way I read it; I didn't get anything of the Bible telling him to be unscrupulous, just that we obviously don't think of the Bible telling people to declare bankruptcy. The OP's userpage says that he's from India, BTW, so I assumed that he wasn't previously familiar with the idea of Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in a way it is. One of the points behind Sortes Sanctorum is that the text being interpreted is a holy text, and God will be speaking to the practitioner through the holy word. From most interpretations of Sortes Sanctorum, one would ignore the table of contents, page headings, etc. in the book, because they are provided by man and are not the word of God. In the joke, it's not the holy word itself that is being interpreted, but the vulgar "window dressing". The joke is funny because it violates our expectation that the success of the Sortes Sanctorum would hinge on interpreting the holy word itself. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Painting transfer

Goya painted his Black Paintings directly on the wall of his house. Our article states that they were subsequently transferred to canvas. How was this done? LANTZY^TALK 03:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I posted a pointer to an article mentioning its being mounted on canvas at Talk:Black Paintings#"transferred". Tempshill (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A Short Story that Franz Kafka May Have Written

I am trying to remember a short story I read in my creative writing class back in college. As far as I can remember, Franz Kafka may have written it, but I am not sure. Anyway, the story starts with a description of a man sitting on a chair and his head is seen from behind. I think he's reading a book. Finally, at the end of the story, the characters that he's reading about end up behind him, seeing his head behind the chair. So the story is kind of on loop and it's kind of enigmatic and creepy. Has anyone else read this and does anyone know the title of this story? It may have been Kafka but, again, I'm not sure. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.149.4 (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain you're talking about Continuity of Parks by Julio Cortázar -- Ferkelparade π 13:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Forms of trade other than barter or monetary

For a short story, I'm searching for economic systems where trade is not based on barter or regular money. These could be theoretical systems or systems that have been in use, but should be possible to use on a national scale. I'm especially interested in systems that are not based on supply and demand, or that otherwise seem novel or "odd" to someone who is used to money. 83.250.53.18 (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Classic semi-clichéd example is probably Yap#Stone_money, Rai stones. -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps something in Category:Community currencies or Category:Private currencies. Time-based currency? In related categories we find Promissory note, which was in olden times played a major role in large scale international trade. Also, isn't plain old credit not "regular money" nor barter? Following the stone money idea, how about tea bricks? Perhaps something under Category:Economic systems? Another idea, gift economy was something that worked in the indigenous Pacific Northwest over a large region for a long time, and neither a barter or a market economy. Depending on how broadly you define "barter" and "regular money", there may be plenty of other options. Pfly (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There have of course been market-based trade systems that operated without "regular money". Historically, the most common media of exchange have been precious metals, especially silver and gold, but other media have been used, including shell money such as wampum. Sometimes little or no actual silver or gold changed hands in a transaction. Items were valued in terms of gold as a unit of account. At the end of an exchange, or sometimes at the end of a period such as a month or a year, accounts would be settled with a payment in precious metal from the person whose account was in debit. Marco polo (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Many of these examples are forms of commodity money, which may seem odd, but they're not that odd, since it's not a huge leap from gold to shells or stones or tea bricks. My favorite commodity money along those lines might be whiskey. —Kevin Myers 12:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You might like to check out (forgive me if you already know it) the short story "...And Then There Were None" by Eric Frank Russell, if only to avoid any inadvertent possible resemblance. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It only works well in circumstances of abundance, but the gift economy is one possibility. --Carnildo (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Film industry lucrative?

Why does the film industry looks lucrative? How did the movie Avatar made so much on gross revenue? How can movies make over $100 million in gross revenue? WJetChao (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Gross revenue is just the amount of money the film takes in, without subtracting expenses. A film like Avatar has a high gross revenue because tens of millions of people bought tickets to see it, paying about $10 or more per ticket. Pretty simple, really. Net revenue (gross revenue minus expenses) is notoriously more difficult to determine in the film industry. Most films lose money, but the big hits make up for the losses, if all goes well. The film industry has seen better days, by the way. —Kevin Myers 12:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Most films lose money" is partly due to creative studio accounting. In Buchwald v. Paramount, Paramount apparently handed over a tidy sum to shield studio accounting practices from full legal scrutiny... AnonMoos (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In other words... The film industry is highly lucrative for a few people who have plenty of cash to hide how much they make. Most people do not make a lot of money. -- kainaw™ 12:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, the opposite is also true: Hollywood accounting allows some Hollywood folks to appear to make more money than they actually do, for publicity purposes. Actors and directors don't always get the huge paychecks that get reported in the newspapers; they'll often work for less money, but their contracts allow them to claim that they're making a bundle. Planet Money recently did a story on this, for the curious. —Kevin Myers 13:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, creative accounting aside, I believe that it is literally true that "most films lose money", at least in the theaters. Most films do not make a profit during their theatrical run, because it is hugely expensive to make, promote, and exhibit a film. I don't know for sure if the statement "most films lose money" is true when video profits are factored into the final equation. —Kevin Myers 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This blog entry states that box office receipts represent only 15 percent of Hollywood's total revenue. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I watched a very interesting documentary once that claimed the major studios in Hollywood on average make a return on investment of about 5% a year. In other words, they'd be better off sticking their money in a term deposit and collecting the interest. The main thing that keeps the industry going is the fact that is a a seemingly endless line of people who are passionate and dedicated and willing to risk everything on a chance to make it in the movies. Vespine (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Bankrupt in Venus, wealthy in Mars

I read a SF story where someone was bankrupt on one planet but wealthy on another planet. Could someone legally be bankrupt in one country but well-off in another? For example be bankrupt in the UK, but be wealthy in any other country, without breaking the law? Thanks 92.24.186.235 (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking about personal bankruptcy, then I don't think that would be legal. A bankrupt's assets are managed by a trustee, and it is not legal to conceal resources. If there is enough money to cover the debts abroad, then the person will probably not even become bankrupt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.53.18 (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It is conceivable that a person could be wealthy in a country that does not allow capital exports and insolvent or effectively bankrupt in another country. In an extreme case, a government could forbid transfers of money by individuals out of the country and even limit the amount of money individuals can carry out of the country. A person's wealth in that country could not meet their obligations in another country. I can't comment on how the law would deal with such a situation in the UK or anywhere else. Marco polo (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Charges against company accounts

Some years ago I worked for a seemingly profitable company. Every year, we would receive notification that the company made some profit and a link to the company's final accounts for that year. Every time I looked at those accounts there was some huge charge against them. One year it was something like $240 million for "reorganisation"; another year it was another vast sum for the costs associated with the closure/disposal of a business unit (an action it was claimed would make the company more profitable!); and another year some charge was made as a provision against future costs should the company lose a court case (it won!). Each time, these charges served to reduce the year's profit to a much smaller amount, and a couple of times pushed the company into a massive loss for the year. Are such charges genuine or are they just an acceptable way to reduce the year's tax bill? Astronaut (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It could be either. In fact, it's probably both. They will have genuinely done some expensive reorganisation, but they may have done it specifically with the intention of reducing (or maybe just deferring) their tax bill. --Tango (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Plot of the novel "Bunny Lake Is Missing"?

I understand the Otto Preminger's movie adaptation of "Bunny Lake Is Missing" differs significantly from the novel it is based on. What I can't seem to find is an outline of the plot that gives me an accurate idea of what happens in the novel. Can someone who has read the book give me a complete synopsis? Thanks! Helene O'Troy - Et In Arcadia Ego Sum (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking someone in the eye

Why is it that in children's books and media they say someone can't look you in the eye and lie? I'm not really a good liar but I can look people in the eye and lie, and I'm surprised if they believe me. 76.230.214.130 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not that you can't lie while looking someone in the eye, it's that it's easier to spot a lie if you can see someone's eyes. (Or, at least, it is perceived to be - I believe that studies have shown that people are very bad at estimating their own ability to spot lies.) --Tango (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There is some folk wisdom that when people lie, they tend to not look the target in the eye. I'd post an example of this "wisdom" from ehow, but it's blacklisted; google lie "not look you in the eye" for a bunch of examples. This isn't precisely the claim that a liar is physically unable to meet your gaze, but it's close. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

now you know how people in China and other places where they can't talk freely feel. 85.181.144.197 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would depend more on whether or not you're in the right. Telling a white lie because people are getting all uppity and in your face is one thing. But telling them you didn't eat their lunch when you really did, that's another matter. Vranak (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. That's a big problem with various studies on lying. If someone is lying because a man in a white coat with clipboard told them to, they aren't going to feel guilty about it so most of the usual signs that someone is lying won't be present. --Tango (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I always thought it had to do with the shame. If I do something we know is bad and feel ashamed about it, I have a terrible time meeting someone else's eyes. So if a person isn't very sincere about their lying or has a very strong conscience, I can see why they wouldn't meet someone's eyes when they lie. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The origin of the hajduk

I am not satisfied with the article on hajduk as it really doesn't say where and when they originated. The article implies it was 17th century Hungary, but how did they appear in so many Slavic Balkan nations as well as Albania and Romania? The name sounds more Romanian than Magyar.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The article says it could be a borrowing from Hungarian via the Turkish language, which is IMO fairly likely the case. Languages on the Balkans have scores of borrowings from Turkish, courtesy of the long Ottoman presence. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Lyndon Johnson

Did Lyndon B. Johnson have a son? I heard rumors about that? --91.89.179.60 (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Madeleine Duncan Brown claimed that LBJ fathered her son. No reliable sources are included in that article, which I have tagged as a possible hoax. Edison (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

predecessor of WAAC

Does anyone know the name of the predecessor of the WAAC? (Note, a better description of the WAAC is at [[WAVES]].) This predecessor was for women to volunteer their time doing non-military-type jobs for the military on weekends and evenings, and existed for a short time early in the second world war.—msh210℠ 19:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

old testament

Bold textafter the great flood the only humans on earth are noah and his family. then there are 4 generations followed upto joseph who is left for dead by his brothers and ends up in Egypt etc. HOW COULD EGYPT BE SO POPULATED WHEN ALLWHO COULD LIVE AND EXIST THERE MUST BE OTHER RELATIONS OF NOAH THAT THE BIBLE DID NOT FOLLOW. I GATHER THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE GRAT FLOOD WAS FOR GOD TO START OVER AGAIN AT REPOPULATING THE EARTH , ALLOWING ONLY NOAH TO LIVE AND HIS DIRECT FAMILY. WELL THIS TELLS ME THAT ALL WHO WAKK THE EARTH FROM THE FLOOD TILL NOW ARE RELATED TO NOAH AND THAT BACK IN THE DAYS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT WHEN JOSEPH WAS IN EGYPT, ALL WHO WALKED THE EARTH THEN WERE FROM DESCENDANTS OF NOAH SO HOW COULD EGYPT HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE A PHAROAH AND PYRAMIDS SO SOON AFTER THE FLOOD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.173.54.11 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If you go through dates listed in Genesis, you'll find that the flood predated Joseph's arrival in Egypt by about 600 years or so. (I don't have any references front of me: that's a guesstimate.) Presumably countries can arise out of the descendants of a couple in 600 years. Note that the Bible says nothing about pyramids.—msh210℠ 20:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from the genealogies in Genesis, there are 13 generations between Noah and Joseph. If every generation has three children, each of whom has three further children, and so on, then the total number of people in world in the thirteenth generation is 3¹³=1,594,323... AnonMoos (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

3 children might be on the low end too because have you seen fertility rates of 3rd world countries? Googlemeister (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Remember, you need to look at the number of children that survive to reproduce. It is common in the 3rd world to have a dozen children, but for only 3 or 4 to actually survive to adulthood. --Tango (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Although, if you look at the genealogies in the Bible, it seems that each family had more than 3 or 4 children that survived to adulthood--Jacob, for example, is listed as having 12 sons and an unspecified number of daughters, although I doubt that was typical (he had 4 wives, after all). Also, at least toward the beginning of the 600 or so years, people were living longer and evidently having children later. Not sure how big of a difference that could make, but over the 600 or so years, it would probably add up to a bit more.Fletch the Mighty (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Fertility rates are usually measured in terms of children per woman. 12 sons by 4 wives is 3 sons per woman, which is what we were guessing (assuming he had not daughters, which probably isn't true). --Tango (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good point. I was thinking in terms of whole families, but in light of how it's been discussed otherwise here, that would be a much more appropriate way to look at it. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Each couple might have 3 children that survive to adulthood, not each individual. That means if you start with 6 people (Noah, Noah's wife, Noah's two sons and their wives - that's from memory, so I might have the number wrong, but it's close) after 13 generations you would have 6*1.5¹³=1168 people. Any attempts to take the Bible literally end up with numerous problems like this. --Tango (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

8 people, Noah had three sons. And if each couple had more than 3 children who survived to adulthood (which seems probable, considering the large numbers of children some people were recorded as having), the number increases quite quickly. If each couple had just one more child on average, it shoots up to 62,000; if they had two more, it goes to 1.2 million; and so on. It all really depends on the average birth rate, which we have no way of knowing. Fletch the Mighty (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't type in all caps; it is considered shouting on the Web. One answer to your question is, of course, that many people think that the Great Flood of the Old Testament didn't happen, and that it's just another Deluge myth like many cultures seem to have. Since there's no evidence that Noah's Great Flood ever occurred, we have to assume it didn't occur, if we're at all scientific. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

is human murder part of natural selection

are humans a part of nature? if so, is human murder, a part of nature, a part of natural selection? if so, have genocided people been "selected against"? if so, were they in Darwin's sense less fit than survivors / genociders? what, in evolutionary terms, can be said about the six million Jewish victims of the holocaust, by the fact that they died, as compared with the perpetrators of the crimes? In general, does evolution "stop" when we get past trying to dip our tongues into ant colonies and so on, leading to longer tongues (ie primary traits that can be directly selected for by literal physical nourishment versus starving to death), or is intraspecies "sociology" a part of modern evolutionary biologists' understanding. If it is a part of modern evolutionary biologists' understanding, please explain why succesful genocide does not vindicate its premise that the genocided people are "inferior" -- doesn't evolutionary biology say that if they did not survive, they are inferior (less fit), if only because of you? 89.204.137.205 (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

In the context of natural selection, yes, humans are part of nature. Fitness only effects survival on average. There are always going to be more fit or equally fit individuals that don't survive. If there is some genetic trait that makes someone less susceptible to murder then you would expect that trait to be selected for over several generations. When you're talking about a single generation, then evolution doesn't really come into it. --Tango (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

didn't dinosaurs die directly of a disaster? that's one generation, so if you say "when you're talking about a single generation, then evolution doesn't really come into it", then it means evolutionarily, the dinosaurs aren't less fit than mammals? And, in some sense (due to their death in a single generation) might even be superior or better adapted? 89.204.137.233 (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't know that the dinos died out in a single generation. Googlemeister (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, fitness is always relative to a particular environment. If the "all the dinosaurs died as a result of an asteroid impact" theory is correct, then what it tells us is that dinosaurs were less fit to survive in the environment that existed shortly after that impact. That says nothing about their fitness to survive in the current environment, or in the environment that existed immediately prior to the impact. However, that theory isn't true - dinosaurs didn't all die out. They are still around today; we call them birds. The large dinosaurs died out, but we don't really know why. Nevertheless, there is a big difference between a general disaster and a targeted attack. Evolution only effects inheritable qualities. Being the scapegoat for the current national leadership isn't determined by genetics. --Tango (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A similar question was asked on the Finnish Wikipedia at fi:Wikipedia:Kahvihuone (kysy vapaasti)#Luonnonvalinta. It was about high school massacre perpetrators claiming to support natural selection, and the answers were that they are mistaken, a single person deciding to kill people doesn't contribute to natural selection. I just can't help but feel that supporters of creationism will use this as a means to point out that "See? Evolution is evil because it leads to high school massacres!", which of course is a straw man argument, because evolution doesn't necessarily lead to massacres, it's just the killers that claim so. But the creationists don't know the difference. JIP | Talk 21:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that a strawman of your own, assuming that because some ignorant creationists believe it that all creationists do? It's the same thing as ignorant atheists arguing that because the Catholic Church supported the Crusades, Christianity is evil. :) Fletch the Mighty (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hitler talks about Darwin in Mein Kampf, as I recall. Wrad (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Female vs. male body painting models

There was an article about the World Bodypainting Festival in the latest Kamera magazine (a Finnish photography magazine), about photographing body painting models. One bit that especially caught my interest was a mention that the majority of models are female, whereas the majority of photographers are male. The only explanation for the former provided was that skin hair tends to hinder painting. I don't especially believe that's anywhere near the major reason. As far as I can remember, women have skin hair too. Maybe some women shave their skin hair regularly but I don't think all women do. Is this right, or is there really such a difference with skin hair between men and women?

On the other hand, I believe the reason is more an aesthetic one than a biological one. Men are attracted to the female figure more than the male one by a greater margin than women are attracted to the male figure more than the female one. This presents a logical reason to favour female models, although by my experience, although female models are a significant majority, they're not an overwhelming one. But this doesn't explain why the majority of photographers would be men. I can only think of two explanations: Men are better at photography, or women don't like to photograph other women. But I very strongly doubt either is the case. So what could be the reason? JIP | Talk 20:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, "Maybe some women shave their skin hair regularly but I don't think all women do." I would say most women in the USA, UK and Australia probably shave under their arms and (at least when they intend to go swimming, wear clothes that show their lower legs, or hope to get lucky with some guy) their lower legs. I gather trimming and shaping of pubic hair is also pretty common, although that's harder to get a feel for without carrying out a proper survey. How far this applies to other countries, such as Finland, I don't know.

Secondly, women's skin hair tends to be qualitatively different to men's skin hair. Consider the arms and the chest, for example. I particularly recommend looking at the first picture in my last link (NSFW). 86.164.66.4 (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I can accept the fact that men even biologically tend to have more skin hair than women. (Although pubic hair doesn't enter into it, as both women and men are required to cover up their genitals when painted.) But I still think skin hair is not the main reason why female models are so much more popular, I think the aesthetic reason is much more probable. JIP | Talk 22:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, pubic hair does enter into it. Look at the moderately coloured areas in the diagram: coarser hair extends further out than would generally be required to be covered. It's why women tend to shave around there if they intend to wear a swim suit. Is there a reason why you disbelieve the given, and plausible, explanation? I know I'd find it easier to paint the arms of most grown women I've known than the arms of most grown men I've known. And that's not even counting the chest and face, which tend to be important, high profile areas when painted. 86.164.66.4 (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and please note I said qualitatively not quantitatively. I don't know that I'd say men have more skin hair, but they have more of the coarser skin hair, which is the sort that could really muck up a paint job. 86.164.66.4 (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I never said skin hair wasn't a reason, I just said it wasn't the main reason. I don't have personal experience in painting either women or other men, so I can't really know about the technical issues. However, it has been mentioned here below that visual appearance is a much more important factor for men than women when it comes to appreciating the human body. I think it supports my initial theory that men make a greater difference between female and male models than women do. JIP | Talk 22:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just a thought. If you want to get a feel for the technical issues, assuming you are a reasonably hairy man, maybe try painting a design on both the inside and outside of your forearm? Hopefully, you'll notice a difference in how easy it is, and in how it looks. I've only really done face painting before, but have found women and children much easier than men: can you imagine pulling a sponge over stubble? 86.164.66.4 (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

People say what Tango and you are saying a lot, but I'd be really interested in some studies that showed it. I've been in enough groups of women passing comment on the attractiveness of males to find this a little dubious. I mean, appreciating the human body is a different matter to entering into a relationship with someone: women certainly find visual appearance a pretty major factor in the former, and I've known plenty of women who didn't go out with someone they liked, who was interested in them, because they did not find this person physically attractive. So, like I say, I'd be interested in studies showing this. 86.164.66.4 (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The article on physical attractiveness cites The Evolution of Desire in its lede. I cannot access the book, but there are some studies out there. See also this archived question. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's interesting, although it specifically looked at mating behaviour. I'd still be interested if anyone knows of a study that looks at whether "visual appearance is a much more important factor for men than women when it comes to appreciating the human body", since that seems more relevant to body painting and photography. Unless, of course, most of the male photographers are expecting to be able to sleep with the models? 86.164.66.4 (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is generally agreed that, on average, physical appearance is a significantly greater factor in determining how attractive men find women than in determining how attractive women find men. I guess this can be explained evolutionarily by men wanting fertile mates and women wanting mates that will be able to support their children effectively. This difference is a result of the different effort required to produce children by men and women (men require a couple of minutes of work, women require 9 months, plus however long they breastfeed for). Women care much more about making sure the children they have survive, whereas men can just have lots of children and rely on luck to make sure a few survive. --Tango (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

To illustrate with parallels at Wikipedia: We have an article on female body shape, but not male body shape (though we do have one on human body shape). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As for the photographers, I think it is correct to say that photography in general and fashion photography in particular are still male-dominated industries. Of course things have been changing, but quick google glances seem to confirm what I have observed and read about myself. I have no statistics to back it up though. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(Oh, or were these amateur photographers? In that case my answer might still hold some truth, but the other reasons of attraction might factor in as well). You left out "men are more into photography (for whatever reason)" in your list of possible explanations, which is not the same thing as being better at it, not by a long shot. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Human Metropolis Found in Africa!?

Is this information credible?

http://viewzone2.com/adamscalendarx.html http://www.viewzone2.com/adamscalendar22.html http://www.viewzone2.com/adamscalendar33.html http://www.viewzone2.com/adamscalendar44.html

--Aodvapodn (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The big thing that jumps out at me is that he says it appears to be 200,000 years ago but doesn't give any indication of where that number comes from. Also, the guy that apparently did the research seems to be this guy: Michael Tellinger. He's a musician and seems to have absolutely no training or experience in archaeology. --Tango (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the 2nd link explains the dating. It's guesswork based on some assumptions about some standing stones having astronomical significance. --Tango (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)This appears to do with Michael Tellinger; take a gander at his website here. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ooh ooh, and this too. It's super. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Demyanka River

Where is Demyanka River and how long it is? 95.86.226.195 (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Curiously there is an article about this river in several Wikipedias, but not (that I can find; we may have it under a different transliteration of the name, which is Демьянка in Russian) in English (in German, in Spanish). Looking at those it's in Western Siberia and it's 1160km long. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The German article above says it's a tributary of the Irtysh River. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

June 25

Birthdate of Ellen Watson

Watson Family Bible says July 2, 1860

Wikipedia claims July 2, 1861

Wikipedia's sidebar claims 1841, no date

Anyone have Ancestory.ca, to check out the 1861 Ontario census? -- Zanimum (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

When something is "nationalized" like Chavez has been doing, what exactly happens?

News today says that Chavez's Venezuela will nationalize 11 oil rigs belonging to a U.S. company. I understand that this means they become state-controlled, but I've yet to see mention of how this sort of "acquisition" (theft) plays out on the ground. Are all the employees replaced with hand-picked personnel? Do they just install a "captain" and "persuade" people to remain at their posts? I'm very curious about the logistics of such an action... 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The degree to which Chavez is responsible for Venezuela's decline during his tenure?

On a related note, it is objectively-evident that Venezuela's economy (among other things) has been in sharp decline during the years Chavez has been in power. However, at least outside of the editorial pages, I have not yet observed news articles (from AP, for example) linking this situation directly to his policies. I know how he feels about it ("parasitic bourgeoisie") but am curious if any academic sources have produced evaluations of Venezuela's current situation and the degree of responsibility of the current administration? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Chavez an absolute dictator, or does he answer to someone? The answer to that question is the answer to your question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Selective Service in the United States

I've got a few questions about the Selective Service System, and would appreciate it if anyone could answer:

(a) If you register while between 18-25, is it that you can be only drafted into the military while still within this age range, or can you still be drafted into the military after you turn 26 if you registered earlier in your life?

(b) If you're a male who changed sex, do you have to register? I know that if you're a female who changed sex you don't.

(c) If you're a professor or respected academic between the ages of 18-25, do you have to register?

(d) If you're a foreign citizen who goes to the United States for the sole purpose of attending university there (completing undergraduate degree or PhD), do you have to register?

(For (c) and (d), if the answer is yes, change the question to: can you be inducted into the military if the draft is implemented? It seems to me unfair if someone wants to puruse an education in US that he can be forced to go to war even if he's foreign.)

(e) What's the likelihood of a draft occuring in the near future? Or, how many males are currently in the volunteer military service? What are the chances of the draft being abolished (including selective service agency) in the near future?

(f) Is it that the president can just decide on the spot that he should enforce a draft, sign a document, and then recruit all males between 18-26? Or is the process more complex than that, such as, is there a vote within parliament deciding whether the draft will be enforced?

(g) How likely is a prosecution for failure to register currently? I know no one has been prosecuted since 1986, but how likely is it now?

Thanks everyone.