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 27

Devising property in a will

Devise says that one possible meaning for the word is "A disposition of real property in a will". I vaguely remember reading the idea of someone saying "I devise..." with the meaning of "I leave...to my heir". Why wouldn't the person making the will simply say "I bequeath..."? Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

WAG here, but I had heard the usage before too, and I always thought it was divise, as in "to divide up my shit among my relatives". The process of dividing of something could be described, under usual English rules, as divising, perhaps under the same sort of construction as words like "divisor". --Jayron32 03:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

According to this and that, "devise" used to apply to the disposal of real estate, while "bequest" applied to a chattel or personal property, but over time, the distinction has fallen by the wayside. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

German Monarchies

It seems there is not a single German monarchy that survived World War I besides the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and only because they didn't fight on the Kaiser side during the war. But were there any German states after the war that wanted to stick with their dukes, princes, or kings and continue as a monarchy?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There were many conservatives after WWI who sought a constitutional monarchy and wanted to restore the Wittelsbachs to Bavaria and the Hohenzollerns to Prussia. There was also Prince Max of Baden on the scene. Shirer explains all of this in his Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. According to Shirer, it was President Wilson who forced the Kaiser to abdicate.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Judaic question

Is it possible for someone of the Jewish persuasion to accept Allah as God, and Mohammed as His prophet, and began to follow the teachings of the Qu'ran, while remaining Jewish, and not stopping following the Torah and Talmud? 92.230.67.85 (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be avoda zara AFAIU. Besides, being Jewish is not a persuasion; actually, it is traditionally forbidden to persuade anyone to convert to Judaism. I may be wrong, though; I am not a rabbi. --Dr Dima (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There have been a few historical periods where Jews practiced conversion of others, but generally speaking Jews treat their faith as as much a matter of culture and heritage as religion, so conversion is not common. the term 'Jewish persuasion' is merely a somewhat archaic euphemism used by people who are worried that calling someone a Jew will be interpreted as an insult.

To answer the question, however, many mystical beliefs hold that there is an overarching spirituality that goes beyond religion, and thus someone who is Jewish and holds some mystical beliefs may come to accept Allah as another manifestation of the One God and the qu'ran as another holy book to be appreciated with all other holy books. In non-mysical traditions, however, I don't believe it is possible - non-mystical monotheistic faiths require dedication to a single god, and if Yahweh and Allah are conceived of as distinct then one can worship one or the other, but not both. trying to worship both would be considered a fairly major failure by both faiths. --Ludwigs2 07:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The OP could just as easily ask about Jews also trying to be Christians. It doesn't really work, if you're devout. You either believe in the core principles of your religion, or you don't. A core belief of Christianity is that Jesus was the Messiah. Jewish teaching is that the Messiah has not come yet. Obviously, you can't have it both ways. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "really work". There are Messianic Jews, people who considered themselves as devout Jews and claim Jesus is Messiah. The 'not working out' part would rather refer to how they are received by other Jewish groups. --Soman (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

But regarding the OP query: No. The Qur'an states that messages sent through earlier prophets were corrupted (i.e. Torah and Bible). So while Muslims recognize that Torah and Bible are genuine prophesies, they say the are not fully authentic. So it would not be possible to follow the Qur'an and the Torah to the letter at the same time. --Soman (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You are also misinterpreting the use of the word Allah. Under mainline, core beliefs of Judaism and Islam (and Christianity, FWIW), Allah is God. It is merely an Arabic word for God. The differnce is linguistic not religious. You might as well ask if Spanish christians, in worshiping Dios, are worshiping a different God than English Christians. Arabic-speaking Jews also use the word "Allah" for God, as do Arabic-speaking Christians. The difference between the three faiths is not the God they worship, it is the manner in which they worship God. --Jayron32 13:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not — Al-Ikhlas ayah 3 says "He does not beget, nor is He begotten", but John 3:16 speaks of Jesus as the "only begotten". The same being can't be both a begetter and someone who does not beget. Nyttend (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, these are statements on the nature of God not on his existance. The Islamic perception of who God is is different from the Judaic one, and both are different from the Christian one. However, that difference has nothing to do with the word Allah. The word Allah does not identify the Islamic "God"; non-Islamic Arabs use the word Allah to describe God, and non-Arabic Muslims will use words in other languages for the Divine. That there are core differences between what Islam has to say about God and what other religions do does not either a) mean they are speaking about different Gods, or b) much more important to this discussion, That the word Allah is exclusive to only one of these Gods. --Jayron32 15:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

And that is, after all, no bigger a deal than the disagreements between Christians as to whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or just from the Father, which led to the still existing Great Schism. Or consider Jehovah's Witnesses, who reject the Nicene Creed: they usually call God Jehovah, but they are still referring to the same God as other Christians, despite their different views on the nature of that God, and there are plenty of non-Jehovah's Witness Christians who use the word Jehovah as a name for the same God. It's no more accurate to consider Allah separate from God, than it it to consider Jehovah separate from God, even though different religions differ over the nature of God and the way in which it is to be worshipped. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well-stated. "Allah" is often used in English as if it were God's name in Arabic, but it's actually used the same way as "God" is used in English. "Allah" = "God", the one-and-only God of monotheistic religions. The characteristics of God are not equivalent, but those supposed characteristics are human interpretation. Within the Bible itself, God's apparent nature seems to vary quite a bit, and contradictingly at that. The word "Allah" appears to be etymologically related to "Elohim", one of the words for "God" in the Old Testament. The persistent use of "Allah" in the press is a subtle and misleading way of implying something about Islam. But "God" and "Allah" and "Elohim" and "YHWH" are all talking about the same entity. And I say again that if you fully embrace one religion, you can't embrace another fully, because you'll run into contradictions. You can't believe in both "A" and "not A". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you run into such apparent contradictions even if you fully embrace only a single religion. Read Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Now, after reading that, explain the chronology of creation. Simply: Did God create Man before the non-human animals or after the non-Human animals? Part of faith comes from dealing with such contradictions, which are inherant in any system. Some people come up with additional explainations (God created man twice, or God created the Animals twices). Some people will call it the "Mystery of" their religion, either meaning that God's perspective doesn't match ours or that there is something yet unrevealed by God which would fix the contradictions, but which He has not revealed. As a religious person myself, I accept that my understanding of God is going to be incomplete, as I am incapable of understanding even a small part of the mind of the creator. I also accept that all humans are in error, even if God is not, so what appears to be a contradiction is my problem, and not Gods. Being faithful means being OK with that. --Jayron32 21:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes. There are two different and contradictory creation stories right there in Genesis 1 and 2. The dead giveaway is that one uses "Elohim" for "God" and one uses "YHWH" for "God" (or actually "LORD God", i.e. YHWH + Adonai). A broader view of it all is that if there is such a thing as a supernatural entity which we call "God", then every religion is simply trying to get a handle on it. In short, there is no one "right" or "wrong" religion, as religions are man-made. One minister we had said, "God has never changed; it's only our interpretation or understanding of God that has changed." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there are right and wrong religions. I also fully believe that. I just don't find it practical or useful to spend my time telling others when their religion is right or wrong. It doesn't really help to convert people to your point of view if the first interaction is to tell them they are going to hell. There is a key difference between my personal beliefs, and the way I interact with others. My belief that my own religion is the only path to heaven does not mean that I act in a way that discriminates against or insults others who do not follow my religion. --Jayron32 23:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the real lesson here is the buddhist lesson: get too attached to the details and you miss the big picture, and that will make you confused and unhappy. Before you can truly find God, first you must find peace; but once you've found peace, finding God isn't all that important.

Notwithstanding that in Buddhism there is no concept of the omniscient, omnipresent god; in removing attachment one gains understanding and insight into the nature of existence.

ALR (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

true, I let a bit of advaita hinduism creep in there. my bad... --Ludwigs2 15:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this has been said yet - as I understand it, when you get right down to it, once you're Jewish, you're Jewish regardless of what you say, do or believe. Including converting to any other religion. --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Donmeh, the followers of Sabbetai Zvi and Jacob Frank did that. They were Jews that converted to Islam (in the case of Frank also to Catholicism) and kept some Jewish rules and endogamy. They believed in an arrived Messiah (Frank, Zvi,...) who could reinterpret the Talmud and the Kabalah works and personal revelation to profess that there are sparks of Divinity in the different religions, the task of the converts being to reunite them in themselves. I find Frank and his ability for (self-?)delusion fascinating. --Error (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but Halachically, they were still Jews. Albeit bad ones. --Dweller (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What are these men doing?

This photo on Wiki has a caption saying these scientists are displaying some sort of technical "toy". What it exactly is and what are they upto ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell of the image and the pages using it, it's a Tippe top. From the article: "When a tippe top is spun at a high angular velocity, its handle slowly tilts downwards more and more until it lifts the body of the top off the ground with the stem pointing downward. As the top's spinning rate slows, it loses stability and eventually topples over. Explaining this phenomenon requires use of very sophisticated physics." Hope that helps. ^Avicenna_sis @ 08:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it even mentions the tippe top toy on the commons description. It is simply a question of linking to the correct page. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

South Africa

Is it true that South Africa is following the Zimbabwe experience by legislating to (a) empower black people regardless of their skills and (b) planning to wrest farms from white farmers? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

no. --Soman (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Relieved to hear it. My source was the Philadelphia Trumpet. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, the source would be [1]. The substantially less biased view can be glened from South_Africa#Agriculture, which explains both sides of the issue. Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just curious: what skills are needed for one to be empowered? (empower black people regardless of their skills) Medical? Musical? DOR (HK) (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship education can be delivered with a skills-based approach. Literacy is obviously useful for any kind of democratic participation. There are also self-confidence, willingness to be involved and all sorts of other things that you might think are attributes rather than skills. And the attributes and skills can be acquired as a result of empowerment, rather than having to be in place as a preliminary. I think the newspaper article was intending a) and b) to be linked, raising the prospect of land reform, breaking up farms and allotting them to people with no experience of running a farm. The skills you need to run a farm are multifarious, so a government contemplating a land reform programme would have to think seriously about how to offer a high level of business support, through chambers of commerce perhaps, or agricultural co-operatives, or business advice centres. This sounds like a scare story. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Buddhist Study Guide

I don't really know if this is the right place to ask this, but several years ago at Epcot center at Disney World, I purchased a buddhist study guide (Focusing on the Theravada perspective) that I have since lost, and would like to determine where I could buy a new one short of flying all the way down to florida. I hope the company that produces it has an online shop. These are the charactaristics of it. It was a single laminated sheet, printed on both sides. It had a yellow border on the edges with an orange background. On one side it detailed things such as the seven factors of awakening and on the other side it detailed things such as the eight Jhanas, and I also believe that the guide had a website listed on it. If anyone owns a copy of this study guide or knows someone who does, could you please post a link to the company's website? Rabuve (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are looking for that particular study guide, the best approach would be to call the Epcot center and ask questions. Do they still stock it? If so, can they ship it to you? If not, can they find the publisher's details in their records? There are half a gadjillion such guides in the world, so trying to find that particular one by indirect means is a lost cause.

If you are just looking for any study guide, you can get one from a local temple, purchase them online, or find numerous electronic resources. it's all just a google search away. --Ludwigs2 16:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Treating this inquiry as a specific book-ish item search, and not as a general Buddhism query. To be sold in a Disney gift shop, it would surely need an ISBN and also be carried by a major distributor that gift shops routinely use, e.g., Ingram or Baker and Taylor. Thus, it was almost surely made by BarCharts, Inc., an "18-year old publishing company located in Boca Raton, Florida" which, as a former new bookseller, I can assure you is by far the leading vendor of such laminated study guides. Every US college bookstore carries them, and a good many of the chain bookstores, as well. Several religion titles under Social Science, but Buddhism title no longer in print -- and no trace on Amazon or used book sites. But see their 2003 ed. of Comparative Religions, a six-page laminated study guide, covering Buddhism, et al. I now sell used books and honestly don't think you'll find the original study guide: you might best settle for this one. Paulscrawl (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The product you describe sounds similar to Access to Insight, and if you explore that site, you will find study guides and the ability to download the site for offline use.  They also make a free iPhone app which I think you might enjoy. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all very much! Actually, I have quite familiar with that website for several years, and now that I think of it, I only found the website after getting the study guide, so it probably was the listed website, Viriditas, so thank you for sparking my memmory. I will also look into the other studyguide at Barcharts.com. When I originally posted this question, I thought it would be a wild goose chase, but it turned out to be worthwile to ask anyways. Thanks! Rabuve (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

---shire

In Pride and Prejudice Austen gives the name of a place as ---shire. Similary in Les Miserables Hugo gives a placename as V---. Why do they do this? Would not it be easy to just look on a map or make up a placename? 76.230.224.203 (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

In books of the same time period, they would also often do this with dates... "April ---, 18----" or something like that. It was simply a convention to avoid naming a real place or time or person's name. Yes, the could have just made up a name, but they didn't. What they did was leave blanks in the place name, so as to leave the place "indeterminate". Austen obviously wants you to think of an English county. She's just being coy, and doesn't want to confine your imagination with any one English county. Other authors of the same time period did make stuff up, see Thomas Hardy's Wessex and Casterbridge, which were fictionalized versions of Devonshire and Dorchester respectively. But Austen and Hugo just chose to leave their place names blank. --Jayron32 21:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hardy's Wessex was mainly Dorset, with most of the rest of South-West England thrown in for good measure. DuncanHill (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hardy was at the opposite end of the 19th century to Austen. I wonder exactly when the convention of leaving dashes gave way to inventing placenames. In the 1870s George Eliot situated Middlemarch in "Loamshire". Itsmejudith (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Inventing a place name makes it clearly fictional. Putting dashes in there suggests it's real but they are not at liberty to say what it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that excessive fans of Jane Austen would try to go to those places and annoy the locals, if she gave the full name, sort of a nineteenth-century Forks, Washington? (Were Austen fans as fanatic at the time as they are now?) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading that one of her books — not sure which one, although perhaps Northanger Abbey — was found by her brother in a second-hand book shop after her death, sitting there because nobody wanted to buy it. Look at the "Reception" section of her article: you'll see that her books were published anonymously, so nobody knew during her life that they were reading something written by Jane, George Austen's daughter. Nyttend (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Dostoyevsky does this in Crime and Punishment. --Joe^Talk_Work 19:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Tamilnadu or Tamil Nadu

There are many references to Tamilnadu on Wikipedia. However, the correct spelling seems to be Tamil Nadu. Anyone know why people are calling it that? --mboverload@ 23:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There are often different variations on how to transliterate a word from a non-Latin script into English. In many cases, there is not a "correct" spelling. As long as an article is internally consistant, and the usage is one of the common spellings (it need not be the most common, especially where determining the "most" common would be an arduous and pointless task), then we don't worry about using the same spelling accross wikipedia. See WP:ENGVAR for a closely related issue. --Jayron32 00:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm, WP:RegExTypoFix (which I'm involved in) has Tamilnadu set to autocorrect to Tamil Nadu when using AutoWikiBrowser.--mboverload@ 00:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The name Hong Kong is sometimes spelled Hongkong, as (it is spelled) in Hongkong Post.—Wavelength (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

'Tamil Nadu' seems to be the most common way to write the name in English, but in Tamil its தமிழ்நாடு, 'tamizhnadu'. --Soman (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone would like the influence the decision on if this should be autocorrected see Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos#Tamil_Nadu. Looking for pro and con. Just want to make sure this is 100% right. --mboverload@ 00:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu certainly is the more common spelling, but I wouldn't like to speak of "correct" or "incorrect". Even in Tamil there are no clear rules if compound words should be written in one or two words, so you can find both தமிழ்நாடு and தமிழ் நாடு. Note that there is also the romanization Tamilnad, though this spelling seems to be quite outdated nowadays. --BishkekRocks (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Tamil is also strange because (if I remember correctly) it uses Sanskrit letters that are not always pronounced the way they are transliterated, as Soman noted. I remember this being an issue when Velupillai Prabhakaran was killed; his name is not pronounced in Tamil the way it is transliterated based on the Sanskrit letters. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary Tamil is written in Tamil script, which is derived from Brahmi scripts (which were used to write Sanskrit). Sanskrit today is written with Devanagari script. --Soman (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

June 28

Sigmund Freud

Not sure if this question belongs to science or humanities ref desk, but as psychology is considered to be a social science, I'm asking it here. I've hard a lot of people say Freud's works are pseudoscience or pseudopsychology. I've read the book Pseudoscience and the paranormal by Terence Hines. In this book Hines claims "psychoanalysis is based in large part on pseudoscintific formulations that are inherently unfalsifiable" (Chapter 5, Pseudopsuchology, p. 151). Is Freudian psychology really pseudoscience? --Confused wannabe psychologist (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It was not based on empirical research, and it has not subsequently been confirmed by empirical research either. When it was developed, the term "psuedoscience" did not exist, and despite the lack of empiricism it was ground-breaking in introducing ideas like the subconcious, but now it is outdated. 92.15.1.65 (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It really depends on who you ask. There are some who argue quite strongly that it is unfalsifiable under any conditions—that there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove the existence of, say, the ego, superego, or id, that these are concepts that are without any possible empirical basis. In fact, a large impetus for the creation of Behaviorism—with all of its own flaws—was to try and "ground" psychology in hard empiricism, throwing out everything that did not have an obvious testable basis.

The defenders of psychoanalysis—often the practicing analysts—argue something a little more subtle. They argue that the truth of psychoanalysis is evident in its ability to serve as a useful therapy. The proof is in the pudding, in other words. They point to lots of people who have been helped by it, and argue that even if psychoanalysis is not a literal empirical description of how the brain works, as a therapeutic set of concepts it has been borne out again and again as useful and thus must hold some degree of truth.

This is, as you can quite quickly see, not a very satisfying explanation for those who feel that empiricism is really the primary goal, or those who think that psychoanalysis is just quackery in another form. Many of such critics would argue in response to the above that there is a definite lack of metrics for determining what even "successful therapy" is in this case, and that other therapeutic models (say, pharmacology) provide far less ambiguous results.

All of the above is muddled of course by the fact that nobody can really agree even what "psychoanalysis" is even supposed to be. Is it what Freud laid out in the 19th century, or is it an evolving set of practices and theories since then? Are we Freudian or Jungian or all of the above? Is it the method or the underlying theory? Some of this ambiguity, I think, underscores the critics' charges that "there is no there there."

Personally, I think both of these arguments are not actually contradictory. I think the practices could be entirely non-scientific in their nature, but at the same time could be therapeutically useful. The main point of psychoanalytic therapy seems to me to be based in discussing one's self and trying to be introspective about it, and to use these strange theoretical concepts as means of interrogating one's issues from a wide variety of points of view. The Oedipal complex doesn't have to be an actual physical structure of the brain to be a useful way of thinking about one's problematic relationship with one's parents. All the same, to pretend that these concepts have some sort of universal or literal truth to them seems entirely unjustified to me. And obviously one cannot argue very seriously about the chemical/physical nature of mental activity at this point, though one can argue whether in many cases this is the most effective treatment paradigm at this stage in our understanding.

Anyway, the above is all just my take on it, having done bit of reading on both sides of it over the years, and as someone without much of a stake in the outcome. I can't for the life of me remember which relevant texts would be most useful in going about looking into this for yourself, though—it's the kind of thing that pops up again and again, even in places like the science pages (and its subsequent letters to the editors) in the New York Times and places like that. Psychoanalysis#Scientific_criticism is not a bad overview of the critics' side of things, but does not give much of a sense of how the analysts' reply. My general feel on the latter is that most analysts' don't feel the need to make a strong case for it except ever so rarely, as a response to particularly trenchant criticism in a mainstream periodical (again, the New York Times), and in such a case, they usually just fall back on the "hey, it works for me" answer, which is obviously not terribly satisfying if you aren't already sold on the idea (or have doubts as to what "works" means in this instance). Sorry for writing an essay...! --Mr.98 (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"The defenders of psychoanalysis—often the practicing analysts—argue something a little more subtle. They argue that the truth of psychoanalysis is evident in its ability to serve as a useful therapy...." As far as I recall emprical studies have shown that you get the same amount of help from spending the time with non-therapists, and perhaps even with just letting time pass. 92.24.183.139 (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, feel free to actually reference said studies if you'd like to enter them into the conversation... no doubt there are many such studies that find many such things. Without actually having them in front of us it's a little hard to say if they are worth anything. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto for Freudian therapy. 92.28.244.45 (talk) 09:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that you have to be careful with the word 'pseudoscience', which many people misunderstand and abuse for entirely non-scientific reasons. the term should really only be used to point to theories that fly in the face of science. For instance, you'll occasionally find people trying to advocate for odd ideas (UFOs, psychic powers, etc) using 'science-like' explanations that are completely senseless from a scientific point of view (i.e., they would violate known scientific principles and have no credible evidentiary basis). when people do that, it's pseudoscience ('fake science'). however, a discipline is not fully developed or completely explanatory is not pseudoscience ('fake science'), but just a field in development. Freudian psychology has a lot of inherent problems, but Freudian psychology is just the first generation of psychology, and it still has both clinical and theoretical value.

I should also note that this whole issue arises because Karl Popper was trying to defend and extrapolate a particular perspective in the philosophy of science (the falsification paradigm), which is no longer all that highly regarded in the philosophy of science. I mean, people use it still as a model, but everyone recognizes that it has little connection to the way science actually functions in research settings. --Ludwigs2 15:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a second point on falsifiability: people use it exclusively when they are interested in something they don't like. They don't often spend much time seeing if applies well to things they do like, or even asking how it would actually work in practice when you aren't using it against Creationism. It's a philosophically problematic approach to the demarcation problem and has been recognized as such since it was basically proposed. It's probably as close as the "lay man" gets to real philosophy of science, and is useful in teaching people the tiniest bit of information about how one might construct a reliable system of knowledge, but it's not on the whole much more successful than that. Distinguishing between "what is science" and "what is not science" is incredibly hard in part because what we call "science" really means a lot of different types of investigations. Some of which are decidedly useless, to be sure, but in most cases that's hard to say with much really justifiable certainty. (I personally consider "Scientific Creationism" to be a "shooting fish in a barrel" sort of situation, the sort of controversy that would not exist at all if not for the peculiar structure of American educational politics.) All that said, Popper himself recognized that it's hard to say whether an entire theoretical superstructure is falsifiable or not. He himself concluded at one point that natural selection was itself not falsifiable, but that it was a framework which could produce falsifiable theories and hypotheses. (He later recanted some of this after the scientists got mad.) One could probably say the same thing about psychoanalysis if one is generous. Personally I find it hard to separate the theories of psychoanalysis from the historical figures that created it—it has "19th century Austrian bourgeosie" written all over it—which makes it a little hard to see as something that really gets at "truth", though again, it might be useful therapy (as might be acupuncture, even if it doesn't work at all for the reasons the acupuncturist thinks it does). --Mr.98 (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You could say the same thing about going to see a lawyer. That does not mean that lawyers should be abolished. 92.29.125.172 (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, riiight. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I Am Not A Lawyer (yet) but my law books tell me to a high degree of accuracy what the law is. A lawyer can (hopefully) tell one to a high degree of accuracy what the law is. The same cannot necessarily be said about Freudian psychology and the human mind. --Joe^Talk_Work 20:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

How Sigmund Freud gained acceptance, as in Philosophical Circles, is that others of his Peer-group accept that he has taken the study/ Science that bit further. Hence, to understand him and Jung, you need to know what happened in his world before and after. We usually refer to this as the extra sense of Epistomology. The human subject cannot easily be subjected to test-tube situations. You will find in most Universities there is a time when inter-diciplinary talks take place, which is meant to correct this situation. MacOfJesus (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

BCG study on millionaire households across the world

[2] The metric is just about any asset except for the home residence. Is it me or do the numbers seem quite off especially for the US? There are about 100 million households in the US so that would mean the top 5% of American households are millionaire households. I find this hard to believe. Are there statistics that would support or refute the BCG study?

Midmath (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd think one in seven people was a millionaire in the U.S., not including their house. That's 14.2%. My reasoning is that since the [income in the United States] article includes the line "The 2006 economic survey also found that households in the top two income quintiles, those with an annual household income exceeding $60,000", we can reason as follows. Top two quintiles are 40% (a quintile is one fifth, ie 20%). So, we start off with 40% of households having a household income of $60,000. Now that means in twenty years, they have earned $1.2 million. Now, I know if you were given 1.2 million dollars over twenty years, you'd have nothing to show for it. No offense, but that's why you're not in the top quintile. People in the top quintile get there by being shrewd investors, in their education, career, and so on. Usually they are richer than their parents were. So when you give 20% of American households 1.2 million over the course of just half of their career (assuming they retire after 40 years - usually people actually work more years before retiring), why are you surprised if 14% of them are able to make $1 million out of it? In fact, since your study is about 5% being millionaires, you can just imagine: one percentage of the 20% has ALREADY been working almost a full career? Maybe, due to the greying of America, you are already talking about 5% right their. Maybe that 5% is exactly the ones from among the 20% who make $60,000 or more who just so happened to have 35 years of career savings behind them. These are investors you're talking about - the basic difference between being rich and poor. While a rich person buys something expensive and uses it for ten years, you buy something not exactly cheap, but replace it five times in the same period of time as them, altogether spending twice as much as the rich people do. Same goes for renting an apartment versus buying, living in while renovating, then flipping. Same goes for career investments, like education. You probably entered the workplace earlier, because you needed the money, while they took a more long-term view. Seriously no offense, but these are the reasons that these people are rich and you are poor: for me, it is not surprising if 5-7, or as much as 14% of Americans are millionaires. If you need more advice on how to be a millionaire yourself in twenty years, just extrapolate from what I've already told you: I don't sell anything, in fact I've already given you more than you need to know to get rich yourself. 84.153.206.127 (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Households and people are different: a household is likely to be two or perhaps four or more with grown-up children and other relatives. This halves or quarters the per-person wealth required to be a millionaire household. 92.15.1.65 (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

However, the study the questioner asks about refers to households. Look at Table B-1 of this study, dated 2005. It shows a net worth (excluding home equity) at the 95th percentile of $903,000. Your study is dated 4 years later, in 2009. It seems reasonable that households at the 95th percentile or above (the top 5% of households) could have earned an average 2.584% annual return (assuming no net savings) over 4 years to reach a net worth of $1 million. Anecdotally, living in a relatively wealthy part of the United States (eastern Massachusetts), I find it entirely plausible that more than 5% of households in my region are worth more than $1 million. Marco polo (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See Household income in the United States and Income inequality in the United States and The L-Curve: A Graph of the US Income Distribution.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you added the value of the main residence for the US, then you'd probably get similar figures for the UK, since real-estate is much more expensive on average here. 92.29.119.46 (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Of a politician's death

Has anyone ever looked into the problems associated with politicians dying in office and the kerfuffles that come with having to find a replacement? I'm speaking of US politicians here. Pretty much because that's all I'm familiar with but feel free to expand on it.

The reason I bring this up is that it seems like politicians seem averse to retiring and having someone else replace them. It seems that many would rather die in office. Whether they're a Supreme Court justice, Senator, or Congressman, they seem to eschew the idea of working until some age and then retiring like most of the rest of American society. And then this causes a lot of trouble for those left behind to "clean up the mess" so to speak by voting in a replacement or whatever the process is. If they had just announced their retirement and bowed out of the next race, it seems like things would be less disrupted. Is this all just my observation bias? Or has someone else looked into this before?

PS I just looked through the list of Supreme Court justices and 49 of the 111 justices (including those still sitting) died in office. Does nearly 50 percent of the rest of the population die while still working their full time jobs? Dismas|^(talk) 08:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court Justices are a bad example because they have life tenure, that is they normally cannot be removed from office. If I gave you a job where you got to make important decisions when you felt like it (remember judges can just turn up and then agree with a collegue)get paid heaps and wear funky clothes, wouldn't you just sit there until you die?Jabberwalkee (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well there is and has long been a discussion about term limits, but I'm not sure anyone has proposed mandatory retirement for politicians (of whom I would also not include justices, who are different in many respects from elected politicians). The main argument against term limits and mandatory retiring ages is that you are arbitrarily removing experienced people from an important job, and one really doesn't know exactly when someone is going to keel over dead with any reliability whatsoever when you are talking about individuals. There are obviously those on the far end of the bell curve—Robert Byrd, to just specify the one who has probably prompted this question—but for the vast majority it's less clear. The question of whether a given candidate is fit to serve (or likely to die in office) is certainly one discussed around primary time or election time. It was well-known that Roosevelt, for example, was unlikely to serve out his final term, and that whomever was picked for Vice President was surely to succeed if he was reelected (which is why Truman was put in, rather than Wallace, who had been serving longer and was better liked by FDR). In other words, the argument against things like mandatory retirement is that these kinds of calculations are surely made on a case by case basis, whether by the party delegates or by the voters themselves (remember that age was a big factor in the 2008 Presidential election as well). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Quibble: The ostensible main argument against term limits in the US is that you're removing someone with experience. This is always cited by opponents, and another argument is that it increases the percentage of time across Congress that lame ducks hold office, and lame ducks don't have much reason to obey the wishes of the electorate. But I think the real main argument is that more senior Senators and Representatives hold more powerful committee positions and are more able to direct pork barrel spending to their home district; and term limits upset all of this. This "Term limits and pork barrel politics" paper discusses the interaction between term limits and "voter welfare" that results from pork; "Voters want to throw the bums out — except for their bum, whose provision of pork serves them well." Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Eh, one man's "pork" is another man's "community support". I think labeling it "pork" from the beginning is begging the question. People like their own "lions" because they generally know how to get things done, are recognizable names, and have the experience and seniority necessary to actually make things "work" for their home state most of the time. That's just the same thing as saying "experience," in a way, though without the negative associations. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet

In the famous balcony scene of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Juliet says to Romeo:

Three words, dear Romeo, and good night indeed.
If that thy bent of love be honourable,
Thy purpose marriage, send me word tomorrow,
By one that I'll procure to come to thee,
Where and what time thou wilt perform the rite;
And all my fortunes at thy foot I'll lay
And follow thee my lord throughout the world.

— Act 2, Scene 2, Lines 142–148

I do not understand what the initial phrase "three words" means. To what "three words" is Juliet referring? Or is this simply a (generic) phrase that means something else? Can anyone offer any insight? Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

I love you? Oda Mari (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps "Fare thee well"? Kingsfold (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

She goes on to say to him, "But if thou mean'st not well/I do beseech thee/To cease thy suit, and leave me to my grief: To-morrow will I send," between interruptions from her nurse. She's trying to speak to him as quickly as possible before she really really really has to call it a night. Seems as though she didn't get a chance to say her third thing (the first being "if you're serious, and we're talking marriage, tell the person I'll send when and where, and we're on," the second being, " but if you're just jerking me around, knock it off, and leave me alone"). When she sneaks back to the window, she says "I have forgot why I did call thee back." Whatever her "third word" was, it's slipped her mind by the end of the scene. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's what I thought. By "three words" ... she really meant "three statements I want to make" or "three thoughts I want to share" as opposed to "three specific individual words". Is that what you are saying, Some jerk on the Internet? That was my theory, also ... as the "three specific individual words" did not seem to make any sense in the context of the entire speech. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

Yes, that was the idea I was driving at. Three thoughts rather than three individual words, two of the thoughts being expressed, and third not. Whether Juliet really had one thing more to say, or they're just playing "you hang up, no you hang up" I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Some jerk on the Internet (talk • contribs) 18:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We will never know what Shakespeare meant. Either Juliet just wanted Romeo to stick around for a few moments longer, so she procrastinated his leaving with her third comment. Or she was so overwhelmed and flabbergasted by her first intense love that she really did forget something important that she wanted to say. I'd vote for the latter. Remember, the context of her conversation was "I am 13 years old, and I want to elope with you immediately, even though my family would rather have you dead". She would indeed be overwhelmed and flabbergasted at how quickly things were spinning out of control. This all mixed in with her strong emotions of first love. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

If someone takes you aside, saying "a word in your ear..." it's not literally one word...--Wetman (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. But people don't usually use a specific number like three or seven or whatever. They are not that specific (as was Juliet). People today might say, "I'd like a word with you". But they would not say, "I'd like three words with you", if they were seeking to make three distinct points. Hence, the confusion that prompted my original question ... Julia's specific reference to "three words". Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC))

Or "now a word from our sponsor." Perhaps "three words" was a fairly common idiom in Shake-speare's day? Meaning more than just "a word", but not very much more. Maybe vaguely similar to current expressions like, "Give me a second..." as opposed to "Give me two seconds..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That may be the answer. In Much Ado about Nothing, when Benedick doesn't want to talk to Beatrice, he says he'd rather go anywhere than "hold three words' conference" with her. —Kevin Myers 02:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the helpful input. I appreciate the replies. Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

Sorry for coming in so late. However, in reading the play and Juliet's words, I do think that Juliet is saying three things that are discernable from Juliet's speech. Juliet here is giving a terse, clear, message that will determine the path of her future life; hence, she itemizes her message. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

1/ "Thy purpose Marriage, send me word tomorrow".

2/ "..where and what time thou wilt perform the rite.."

3/ "..all my fortunes at thy foot -- and follow thee my lord--..."

The three words are clear. MacOfJesus (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Number of executors for an English will

I am sorry, but Wikipedia cannot provide legal advice per Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer. I would recommend seeking this advice from a lawyer. Falconus^{p t c} 16:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I also removed the question. If you would like to discuss it, you may do so in the talk section. Falconus^{p t c} 16:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate why you removed the question but it was not a request for legal advice - it was a plain request for a fact of English law; no advice was sought in any part of my question. I think you may have been a little hasty in removing the question based on an invalid assumption. However, it is not worth making a fight over.  :) Gurumaister (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's probably worth checking out the discussion on the talk page. Astronaut (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How did Robert Byrd keep getting re-elected

he having held a leadership role in the ku klux klan, when many other senators lose elections for much less serious blemishes on their records?20.137.18.50 (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

1. He changed with the times, a change which was perceived as genuine and not merely recanting earlier conduct.
2. He was a student of the Senate, of the government, of its traditions and basis in the Constitution and was respected for his leadership from both sides of the aisle.
3. First and foremost he looked after his constituency. Some call it pork, others call it getting your piece of the federal pie. There are a number of jobs-providing federal facilities in West Virginia, including the Coast Guard—notable in that W. Va. is a land-locked state.

Hope this helps. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Americans, more than any group of people I've known, believe in redemption. The seem very willing to forgive someone who they believe has changed their ways, and what Byrd said, and latterly did, supported that. Whether his conversion was opportunism or heartfelt isn't for me to say. Politicians really can't win: if they stick to the same line we say they're stubborn and closed-minded; if they change their minds we say they're fickle and unprincipled. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

a priori, your final assertion sounds plausible enough; but a postiori, you might consider the possibility that it is our informed judgment drawn from experience, that politicians are either stubborn, closed-minded, bigots or fickle and unprincipled flip-floppers.

A priori, politicians could be decent people whose personality impels them to hold steady to beliefs, or be moved to change them. In fact, experience shows politicians have no such personality. The most interesting study would be to do a man-in-the-middle attack on politicians and advisers, and randomly have some of them advised that some core policy they had on a neutral subject was "ethically wrong". My prediction is that the politicians will seem to have a "change of heart", even though the subjects will be chosen to be neutral so that a change of heart is preposterous. Nevertheless, if advised that is "unethical", my prediction is that they would react with all the signs of an ethical epiphany. (even when the whole idea is ridiculous, for example when it comes to paleontology funding or something. I want to see the look in their faces when they have been advised that 12% as an arbitrary line item somewhere is "very unethical" but 16% is "morally enlightened". I bet you will see that very morality plain as day.) However, all of this final bit is speculation. I really would love to see it tested empirically. 84.153.206.127 (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Byrd was originally elected just prior to the civil rights movement, in a place where being a former KKK member would not have been seen as much of a blemish. Once in office, he was a consummate politician, and the general rule about the senate is that (excluding term limits, and barring severe mistakes or problems that generate a public outcry in the home state) incumbents never lose office. For the most part, senators retire when and if they feel like it, or they die in office. --Ludwigs2 15:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a bit oversimplified. For example, there is Byrd's acclaimed four-volume history of the history of the Senate as well as his history of the Roman Senate—which postulates that Rome fell in part because of the loss of balance of power, something Byrd was passionate about with regard to the current state of executive directives (let alone complete rewritings of legislation passed by both houses via executive interpretations). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant no offense to Byrd - as senators go he was a good sort (even if I disagree with some of his views). I'm just saying that one doesn't need to be a good senator to keep getting reelected; one just needs, you know... to not get caught tapping some guy's foot in a public bathroom. --Ludwigs2 22:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Expanding on Ludwigs2's comment, Byrd was elected from West Virginia, which has an overwhelmingly white, socially conservative population, who would not generally see Klan membership in the 1950s or earlier as a serious blemish. No opponent would have gained much advantage by running against him on the basis of his distant past. Marco polo (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As noted earlier, Byrd changed with the times, which is something that colleagues like Thurmond and Helms did not do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly an argument for why Byrd kept getting reelected, since Thurmond and Helms did as well. —Kevin Myers 01:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, he is a fine example of (apparently genuine, as far as I can tell) redemption in a forgiving climate, and it bears repeating that he brought home the goods: the two WV counties closest to Washington, Jefferson and Berkeley, have facilities supporting the Coast Guard (the Coast Guard Operations Systems Center and the Coast Guard National Maritime Center,), Homeland Security, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, National Park Service (the Harpers Ferry Interpretive Center), Fish and Wildlife and the Internal Revenue Service, all lavishly funded, as well as a well-equipped Air National Guard base and a Veteran's Administration hospital, employing a major proportion of the Eastern Panhandle's population. There's also a large federal prison across the Potomac in Cumberland, Maryland which employs a lot of West Virginians. In the West Virginia interior, road projects (Interstate 68, for instance), dams, navigation on the Ohio and Kanawha Rivers, training centers, airports, parks, bridges (New River Gorge Bridge) all had his support. Acroterion _(talk) 22:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel

Not a proper ref desk question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How well would this work to keep Israel honest? Usually Israel makes a big military strike in the gaza strip, and usually there is "intenational outcry" (the wall street journal just ran an article on this outcry: the picture showed all the countries of the world pointing a finger at Israel). Now Israel usually mentions a few rockets fromthe other side for their much strong response. Now we come to my question. My question is, would Israel think twice about mentioning a few rockets from the other side in explanation of their strong reaction if every time they did so, someone published a study about a few bad things Jews might have done (e.g. 10 of them off handedly mentioning their prices, when they are all in the same business: something that can almost fit a definition of collusion) just before Hitler's holocaust, I'd actual real reasons (however minor) that Hitler could possibly hav genuine real annoyance at. I'm talking about very minor things, not major. I am not asking for debate, Just actual physical consequences. What would happen? Would they continue? 85.181.51.78 (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC) At best your idea seems stupid and counter-productive. I can't even begin to see why you think it would be at all helpful. You're seriously advocating that reminding Israel that there are naughty jews somewhere or other, will forestall their rationale for a Gaza incursion, and so curtail such incursions. Hatstand. Like you, I'm not soliciting a debate; please take any of my questions as being rhetorical and not calling for an answer. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Nono, the important part is that Israel knows it's predictable like clockwork. They do their military program anyway (and have the right to invade any nation or non-nation, just as all sovereign countries do). But when it comes time to justify it, there is one more step: now it doesn't have 0 cost to mention a few rocket attacks as the reason because if they succeed in the justification (due to the above proposed threat of a counter study) they will lose their total victim status over the holocaust. So, seeing that analysis, they don't do it. Now do u see what I propose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.51.78 (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Is there a question, like one succinct question? Bus stop (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC) yes : "what would happen? Would they continue". ie would Israels actions hange in any way under the outlined like-clockwork environment? 85.181.51.78 (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC) To the extent that the reference desk consults crystal balls, your scheme would not make a jot of difference to the conflict. None whatsoever. Israel does not have anything like total victim status. The country has had very many years of very contentious foreign policy, and been criticised for it. Israel gives a very real impression of not giving a damn what other countries think of it, at least, not to the extent of not doing stuff which other countries would not do. So, no, I still don't see how a promise of bad press when they try to justify their next incursion will affect their thinking at all. Can we leave it at that? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Uncollapsed. "It's a stupid question" isn't really a valid reason for collapsing. (and if it weren't collapsed I could have easily skipped over it rather than feeling the need to click and read) --Psud (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC) See User talk:Psud#Your intervention; reasons for collapse are discussed on the Project Talk Page. Collapse restored.

Facing Qiblah in hotels

It's a bit hard to be sure but is this sticker in a drawer? Is this akin to, and as ubiquitous as, finding a Gideon Bible in American hotels? Instead you find a sticker pointing the way to Qiblah in Muslim hotels? Dismas|^(talk) 21:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it suggested as a means of Dawah. So, yes on most counts, though perhaps without having an equivalent of Gideons International. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It is very common in Muslim countries to mark qiblah in hotel rooms. The strange thing in this case is that it is put inside a piece of furntire (which could be moved, and then the direction would be incorrect). It is more common to have a sticker posted at walls, or in some cases I've seen it in the ceiling. I think its a bit different than the Gideonish approach. This is not evangelism, no-one expects non-Muslims to pray. Rather it's a service the hotel does to pious Muslim guests. It also relieves the hotel staff from having to answer the question "where is Qiblah?" 5-10 times a day. Moreover, it can be a way to transmit a message to guests and prospective guests that the hotel is off-bounds for 'immoral behaviour'. --Soman (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If they moved the furniture (which is unlikely once it's been set up), they would hopefully think to re-orient the sticker also... especially once they start getting questioned about it from astute guests who might observe that it's obviously pointing in the wrong direction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This photograph might be of a desk drawer set within a piece of wall mounted furniture. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

June 29

Hispanics in California don't support pot legalization

I found a surprising poll result here California Proposition 19 (2010)#Race.2FEthnicity
Supported the legalization of marijuana

• Hispanics - 45%
• Whites - 59%

What's the cause Hispanics being so negative on pot? --mboverload@ 05:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you want to focus on the Hispanic response. I'd be more interested in why the "Whites" are so into pot. In any case, Hispanics in California tend to have strong Christian beliefs, which categorically frowns upon illicit drug use. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A thoroughly unsatisfying (and unreferenced) answer. Notice that Blacks overwhelmingly support it, even though they too have "strong Christian beliefs" generally speaking. The answer is probably not something you can just waive around and grab a common stereotype to adequately understand. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You cannot categorically generalize "strong Christian beliefs". A lot of people throw us in one box, and believe that we all are out on a Crusade to convert you, and therefore should be written off as crazy zealots that should be avoided. Believe me, Christianity is extremely diverse, and the people that make themselves known best are not always representative of majority Christian values. There are over 2 million people in my church, for example, and never once have they said in my presence that drugs and alcohol are against Christian values. Hispanics are often Roman Catholic, if I believe, so if you want to cite Roman Catholic theology, then that would be slightly more plausible (even though not all Catholics have identical beliefs), but citing Christianity as a whole really doesn't work for much of anything.

If you want to know the official Roman Catholic view, it is summed up in the Catechism, here:

2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

Where Scandal is defined as "an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil". I honestly don't know how relevant this actually is to the original question. For one thing, official Catholic teaching doesn't always match the behaviour of Catholic populations. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to note that just because a church disapproves of something doesn't necessarily mean that people think it should be illegal. I mean, the Roman Catholics don't support trying to make gluttony illegal, or tobacco, or alcohol, in particular. They sometimes want to throw up roadblocks in the way of at least alcohol, but prohibition's not very popular, even if they think it's a sin. As for what motivates Hispanics (assuming the poll is accurate), I still think we need more information than just speculation based on their religion. (We could also speculate about the cultural experience of drugs in Mexico, or on their specific political alliances, or on their particular opinions on crime in general, and so on. We could speculate all day, and it wouldn't be worth much without actually checking the facts of it.)--Mr.98 (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Help finding a photograph?

Hello, I was wondering if anyone knew where I could find a photograph of the White House guards in Richard Nixon's specially designed costumes? If I'm not mistaken, they were only worn once in 1970 there have to be photos of this, right? There's plenty of news and magazine articles on the internet covering it, but I can't find any photos whatsoever. Could anyone possibly help with this? Swarm^Talk 08:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this what you're looking for? (See the entry entitled "Living like a Republican") Dismas|^(talk) 08:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool Eskimos

Is it right that when Eskimos provide shelter to strangers in their land, along with food etc. they also, sometimes, let them have sex with their womenfolk ? Jon Ascton  (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I find this reference in the following publication:

Author: De Coccola, Raymond, 1912- King, Paul, 1912- Houston, James

Title: The incredible Eskimo: life among the barren land Eskimo

Publisher: Surrey, B.C. ; Blaine, Wash.: Hancock House, 1986.

(quote begins on page 65, and continues to page 66)

While more tea was being poured, Otokreak told his friend Paoktok, “I've been traveling for a long time, but nobody has offered me his wife.” Paoktok's reaction was immediate: “You Page: 66 are my friend and Nuitek likes you. She will be glad to share your krepik with you tonight,” he said levelly. This casual arrangement, made openly in front of others, is a matter of everyday convenience, a part of necessary sharing, and did not in any way disrupt the conversation in the igloo. Amatory jealousies exist, of course, among the Eskimos, but in the main they know that sharing their food, abode, and other creature comforts is an integral part of their daily struggle for survival.

...and this one, in:

Author: Damas, David

Title: The Copper Eskimo

Published in: Hunters and gatherers today: a socioeconomic study of eleven such cultures in the twentieth century, edited by M. G. Bicchieri

Publisher: New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1972:

(quote begins on page 31)

Another means of extending the network of kinship was through spouse exchange, a practice found throughout most of the Eskimo area. This traditional practice appears to have served several purposes in the social life of the Copper Eskimo. During travel it was advantageous for men to exchange wives when visiting foreign camps, especially those in which the traveler had no kin. At other times a man might leave his wife behind on a journey while being accompanied by another's wife. In these cases the traveler would be visiting the band of the latter woman's kin. It is also probable that an unattached male who served as a kivgaq or servant for another might also share the favors of the latter's wife. The sociological result of the formalized spouse exchange relationship was extension of kinship both terminologically

...and finally, in:

Author: Pryde, Duncan, 1937-

Title: Nunaga: my land, my country

Publisher: Edmonton, Alta.: M.G. Hurtig Ltd., 1972.

(quote begins page 95):

At Perry Island, two men who share one wife are called angutauqatigiik, and they will become as close as brothers. They will share every confidence with each other, all of each other's problems and troubles. When Nasarlulik was worried by anything, he usually came and told me. Once he confided that he was glad he had agreed to share Niksaaktuq with me; before she fooled around with too many men, but now she had settled down. She knew that other girls around the settlement, like Kuptana, would like to have me and that if she flirted elsewhere, I might look for another girl.

Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

SJOTI has done an excellent job with references; I would only caution that the situation is now changing somewhat as "Western" material culture becomes more assimilated into the Inuit lifestyle.
The door also swings both ways, however - one of my profs at WLU related this story to us regarding some of the Inuit he got to know during his studies on and around Baffin Island: he, his wife, and their two kids had gone up north and were spending time with various friends and also doing normal research (my prof studied the various Inuit groups there). There was an older lady there, maybe in her forties or fifties, who hadn't married and had no children. After complimenting my prof on how good looking his kids were, she asked in all seriousness whether it would be okay if she could have one since they had two and could have more if they wanted (implying, I guess, that she had been unable to conceive). Being an anthropologist, my prof knew about this kind of thing already, so he wasn't as taken aback as most folks would be, but he obviously had no intention of just leaving a kid behind. So, he kind of laughed it off and said they were going to keep both, hoping that she would take the hint. Unfortunately, she didn't and got quite upset when he said she couldn't have one of his kids and that was final. From what he related to us, the others in the group saw nothing strange about her request, only about her insistence and they just chalked that up to her being unable to have her own kids. No big deal. Matt Deres (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Inuit take a fairly cooperative approach to raising children I think - they go to whoever is best able to nurture them as the family size grows, within or outside of clans. That's how I ended up with a little adopted Inuit nephew here in Vancouver, who visits with his extended family when my sister does medical stints in his home town (he has more air miles in 3 years than I have lifetime). The "have my wife for the night" thing, I'm fairly sure is now at the "standard" level of normal human whatever-ness. The descriptions cited above are from the early days of Western contact when the Inuit lived entirely off the land in a completely different way than they do now. Survival depended totally on cooperation then and opportunities for genetic mixing between clans would be very limited. Everything in the North is a long way apart, if a woman got pregnant it wouldn't particularly matter who the father was: either it's a healthy baby who can eventually start hunting (for a boy) and contribute to the gene pool, or it's a sickly baby who dies and you move on. In any case, Inuit life is completely and absolutely different from those days, they access the Internet at the same speed I do now. Note the complete lack of sourcing I've helpfully provided. Franamax (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's my understanding as well and I've heard that the plural of anecdote is evidence.:-) My prof would have been talking about sometime in the late 70s, early 80s. Matt Deres (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The timing I believe puts your anecdote into a particularly dark age for the Inuit. the first "Western-oriented" dark age being of course when white people showed up and spread measles, polio and diptheria without even knowing it. In the 40's/50's the federal government settled all the nomadic peoples of the north in arbitrary villages and I'd imagine that over the next 20-30 years the old knowledge and traditions would have died progressively with the old people - who lived much longer lives due to medical care even as their traditional ways were lost and welfare payments set in firmly. Then there was the abuse in the residential schools the kids were sent to. It's not a pretty picture. Franamax (talk)

"Bombs bursting in air"

Thinking about the US national anthem recently I realised that as far as I know bombs which were used around the time of US independence all exploded on impact other than small grenades and so on. How did this line still appear, or am I simply mistaken about the weaponry of the time?

Thanks, Prokhorovka (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

See the last entry in Naval artillery in the Age of Sail#Shot. Deor (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Or, more likely given the text, Congreve rocket#War of 1812. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

For the historical inspiration, you want the Battle of Baltimore, where 5 British bomb vessels were present. Those vessels carried naval mortars, which fired incendiary and explosive shot. The explosive shot, particularly, was often on a timed fuse. If the fuse is set short (or, being a burning fuse, if the explosive charge is prematurely ignited by the fuse), the bomb explodes before it reaches the target -- that is, "in air". I imagine that incendiary shot could also explode prematurely. And for reference, the "rockets' red glare" was provided by Congreve rockets. — Lomn 13:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And just to state it explicitly, the Battle of Baltimore was part of the War of 1812, several decades after US independence. --LarryMac | Talk 16:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, as I suspected/feared I am simply mistaken. Thanks all. Prokhorovka (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

To get a better perspective on the attitude of the U.S. toward both the British and themselves at that time, read all four verses of "The Star-Spangled Banner". I especially like the part about the blood of the British having washed out their foul footsteps' pollution. I'd like to hear Celine Dione singing that someday. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Re Lomn's comments about the premature ignition of shells; it is more likely that it was intentional. Major Henry Shrapnel developed shells filled with musket balls which would air-burst, showering the area beyond. His invention was first used in 1804 against the Dutch at Fort Amsterdam in Surinam. One can imagine that it would have a devestating effect on gunners or infantry sheltering behind the parapet of a fort. This is supported by the link given by Deor above. Also, shot is made of solid iron, while shell is hollow and filled (generally) with explosive. A bomb is a shell fired from a mortar, however our Bomb page doesn't even mention this. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Fuses which exploded the shell on impact were apparently a later development. Edison (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an early fuse was a piece of impregnated cord which was ignited by the flash of the gun (or mortar) being fired - just like the classic cartoon bomb. They hit the ground and sizzled for a while before going off. There were standard lengths of fuse for different flight times. Early impact fuses used fulminate of mercury percussion caps, the first entering Royal Navy service in 1861. Artillery fuze#Early history has the full details. Alansplodge (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

More information about War of 1812 artillery here[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

interest groups

is there a website where a Canadian interest group have any contributions to Bill C-62 "An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.78 (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Harmonized Sales Tax in BC and Ontario? Oh yes, there are websites. :) You could try http://fighthst.com/ for one, or search for "vander zalm and the hst". It always amazes me when a government changes a hidden tax that people are already paying into a visible tax with a line-item you can see, the incredible uproar that results. Like it's a surprise that we pay tax, and it's a surprise that roads get built and ambulances come when you need them. Relax, it will happen in two days, it's revenue-neutral, it will all go away and you'll pay two dollars more for the guy who mows your lawn (but nothing more if you buy a lawnmower). Franamax (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

FDR in a wheelchair

For years, I've been seeing this picture described as "One of only two pictures of Franklin Roosevelt in a wheelchair". That's how we describe it, also. So where's the other one? I've never seen it.—Chowbok ☠ 15:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This article describes it rather differently.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that says "one of a few", so, again, where are the rest?—Chowbok ☠ 16:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

According to a Time magazine article from 1995, "only two pictures of him in a wheelchair are among the 125,000 in the Roosevelt library", which isn't quite the same as two total in the world, but is a fairly good indicator of how rare photographs of him in the wheelchair are. According to this book, Life ran a photo of Roosevelt in his chair in 1937, but it was taken from such a distance that you couldn't make out who was in it without captions. It appears to be this photo. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. That's probably the "other" photo generally being referred to.—Chowbok ☠ 17:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I was also able to find this picture, where he is photographed from behind. As in the Life photo, it's also difficult to tell it's him. Here is the page it was on (about halfway down). Brian the Editor (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, my 88-year-old grandfather says it's a myth that people didn't know he was disabled. Everyone knew back then, he says. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My parents, of similar vintage, said the same thing. I also recall seeing a clip in which FDR casually mentioned something about "several pounds of iron around my legs", referring to the leg braces that polio victims would wear. I suspect he was more comfortable with his condition than his handlers were. I've also seen occasional film footage of him "walking", which consisted of keeping a firm grip on his assistant and kind of forcing his body to move in a walking motion by moving mostly his upper half (as also described in the History Channel's program on FDR). One famous clip, of course, is his request for a declaration of war on Japan, in which (as with other filmed press speeches) he maintains a firm grip on the podium and gesticulates with his head and shoulders. Most everyone knew, it just wasn't discussed much in the media, for any number of imaginable reasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC)He addressed Congress March 1, 1945, right after the Yalta Big Three conference, and apologized for sitting down to speak, and mentioned the "several pounds of iron." He was dying and quite weak(he died April ,1945), and some reports said he had not been on top of things at the conference. Here (at 4:40 in the film) is a Youtube video of the newsreel showing that address, but they edited out the prefatory comments about the braces. The complete audio is available at [4]. At campaign appearances, the wheelchair would be kept out of sight behind the stage, and his son and another aid would support him on each side as he swung his paralyzed legs forward one at a time in a semblance of walking, with the braces preventing him from collapsing. Then he would hold onto the podium. He was a sponsor of the March of Dimes, and people knew he had had polio. Maybe some just thought his leg muscles were weak, but in general the people at the time knew he had to use a wheel chair/crutches/braces.Edison (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The book I linked to discusses this in some detail. It wasn't that it wasn't known, but the goal was to keep it from being a common "image" that people had in their minds when they thought of FDR. FDR himself joked about it, but the joking itself did work to undermine its seriousness. As for why it wasn't discussed in the media, again, see the book I linked to—it discusses the very explicit strategy the FDR administration took towards minimizing media coverage of his disability in ways that would actually draw a lot of conscious attention to it. In a way it is perhaps comparable to Obama's smoking—yes, most of us "know" he smokes, but it's not the common image of him, and it doesn't fit very well with that image. If he smoked a lot in photographs or in public it would probably have a noticeable effect on his overall public image. (What exactly that would be would probably vary between people.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The public knew he had had polio or "infantile paralysis" and that he frequently went to Warm Springs Georgia for rehab. I searched Google News Archive for mention of Roosevelt and wheelchair from 1932 through the day he died. An article from 1932 said that voters were impressed that he looked vigorous, since "Many Western voters, I believe, had the impression he was a wheelchair candidate who could not move." There were not many mentions during his presidency that his legs were paralyzed and he had to be carried or use a wheelchair. Edison (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Many public figures, especially politicians, try to avoid being depicted in ways that indicate vulnerability. I think most Americans either knew about it or inferred it, for reasons discussed above, but probably most didn't know how serious his condition was, until some years after he had died. I've heard it suggested that had the public known how poor his health was overall, he wouldn't have stood a chance in 1944, and the insulation of his condition from the public probably accounts for a lot of the shock and grief that came in 1945. A somewhat parallel example concerning vulnerability is that when Reagan was shot in 1981, it was played down, with jokes about, "I forgot to duck", and such. However, years later it was revealed that he nearly died from his wound. And you can go back to TR, after being attacked, said publicly, "I'm as strong as a bull moose!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of WW II

i,

on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Expeditionary_Force_%28World_War_II%29 you see in the centre some maps with the text underneath: 11. - 16. May 1939 ......

Those presented events happened in 1940, not in 1939. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.128.85.116 (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. --Tango (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Giants in Greece.

I recently received an e-mail describing (with pictures) of the uncovering of the skeletons of giants in Greece. They are spoken of in the Bible, and now they, according to the article, are finding the skeletons of the giants (Goliath). I'd like to send you the pictures, and the bible references, but I don't see the means to do so. Is this possible? I'd of course, like to verify the existance of the skeletons, or verification of it being a hoax. Thank you. 68.89.250.12 (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be an urban legend. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sounds familiar. Upload them to a website like Imageshack or Photobucket, and give us the link and we can have a look. Be aware that Wikipedia won't make any articles on such things unless we have reliable sources that we can quote. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Bible says nothing about giants in Greece. According to the Bible, Goliath was a native of Gath in modern Israel (map links) and died in modern Israel. Nyttend (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll lay money now that they are photoshopped images from the Worth1000 website. There's a really nicely well done one that one of the contestants did a few years ago, featuring an archaeologist digging away near a skull larger than he was. It's been making the rounds for years. Matt Deres (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

An archaeologist digging away near a skull? I always assumed this was the offending picture: http://www.ufodigest.com/news/1107/images/giant-grave.jpg. At least that's the one I kept seeing. Sometimes even with the worth1000 watermark, which didn't seem to bother the people who saw it as proof of Nephilim... TomorrowTime (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The one I'm thinking of is different. The skeleton appears more or less fetal, though you really only see from the waist up, and it's turned to face the right. IIRC, the archaeologist is somewhere to the left of the skull. It's much more cleanly done; I'll have a look later when I'm not at work - I'm sure Snopes has it. Matt Deres (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I conflated a couple of different pictures together. Here is Snope's article on it, including a few different pictures. Matt Deres (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The inventor of the Cardiff Giant would be proud. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My completely unscientific rule-of-thumb in cases like these are that if they were real and not a hoax, it would have been the top headlines in all the major news corporations. The idea of a giant being discovered and no media interest is a pretty good indication that somebody was playing around with photoshop. Falconus^{p t c} 19:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting, though, how pictures from worth1000 just seem to find their way into debates on religion? Kirk Cameron's (in)famous crocoduck is also from that site. TomorrowTime (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Greek in Gaudy Night

If anyone here has a (preferably older) copy of Gaudy Night, please see my question over at the Language refdesk at WP:RD/L#Greek in Gaudy Night. Thanks! +Angr 19:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

religion

Is there a religion in which cats are holy like cows are in Hinduism. 71.100.2.16 (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You might check out Cats in ancient Egypt and Bastet. I don't know of any such contemporary belief. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that was the exact article I was going to link to! I refuse to admit that you beat me to it! The ancient Egyptians had a cat-goddess named Bastet, and Wikipedia has an article on Cats in ancient Egypt. I've met a few neopagans who referenced Bastet and the worship of cats, but they always seemed a bit tongue-in-cheek; I don't know that anyone is still really practicing cat-reverence. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What qualifies as reverence? Most cat lovers/owners I know lavish affection and love on their cat and on the cats of friends through food and comfort responses and other forms of appeasement. Such offerings seem to quality as reverence with some animals being allowed even to sleep in the same bed and have complete freedom inside the dwelling, whereas artifacts like crosses are not escorted from room to room. 71.100.2.98 (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

US House Committee on Claims

United States House Committee on Claims is a redirect to United States House Committee on the Judiciary, which doesn't include the words "claim" or "claims" in its text. What did it do? Googling "House Claims Committee" only tells me that Florida's legislature has such a committee, but I'm not sure what it does, let alone whether the federal committee was similar to it. Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well there appears to be 1481 linear feet of something at record group 233 [5], does that look like the same thing? 49 feet are about Revolutionary War pensions. This may be a misdirect, the page only says "additional claims" are in the Judiciary Committe archives. You may want to ask Eastmain directly why it redirects, it seems to have been a separate committee until 1946 then presumably was disbanded. Franamax (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Question for Liszt fans

The German article on the de:Guggisberglied, one of the oldest and most famous Swiss folk song though we have no article or mentioning at en:wikipedia, quotes an newspaper column asserting (or at least implying) that the song somehow found its way into something composed by Liszt. I wasn't able to find any referenced confirmation online, but perhaps someone else can, or perhaps listening to the "Guggisberglied" might ring a bell for some of the Lisztophiles here. Though performed by amateurs, this is the least adultered and least pretentious version I found on youtube (moreover, no copyright worries), but punching "Guggisberglied" into youtube's search box will yield a few more. (Note: this is really for Lisztophiles: my strong suspicion is that the author of the article, Tinu Heiniger an accomplished folk rock poet but probably no expert on Liszt, was being careless. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, the sections "Chapelle de Guillaume Tell" and "Le mal du pays" from "1ère année: Suisse" of Liszt’s Années de pèlerinage use Swiss folk material, and even a Swiss hymn [6], but an inspection of the scores in my library reveals nothing remotely like the Guggisbergerlied as sung on that youtube clip (but I am not a trained or qualified musical analyst, I just recognise melodies if they're there to be recognised).

Another thought is the so-called Mountain symphony, which my hunch – and that’s all it is – tells me might use alpine melodies. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers, Jack. Those sound like reasonable candidates. I will listen to them (and report back to you if I'm proven wrong!). ---Sluzzelin talk 04:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

June 30

Investing in Chinese currency

The newspapers are afloat with hints being dropped by the Chinese government that they are going to allow their currency to float more. In very succinct terms: I highly doubt the currency will do anything other than skyrocket in price. Um, what's the best way to exchange my current accounts into Chinese currency, and do it ASAP? I have ~$10-15K I can play with (not a lot, I know, but don't forget the Lesson of the widow's mite, less means more to some people!) Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• The simplest way to do it would be to go to the downtown main branch of whatever bank your money's in and tell them you want to get some Chinese currency. Most large banks in large cities have currency exchange windows in their main branch. Ideally, they'll let you keep it in your savings account rather than having to give you paper currency. If they give you paper currency, you may want to invest in a safe deposit box and keep it at the main branch so that a strong breeze doesn't ruin your investment. If your bank doesn't do currency exchange, my guess is that eTrade will let you invest in the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, but I've never done it, so I don't know. (Incidentally, I doubt it will skyrocket. The Economist has consistently and, to my mind, persuasively argued that the Chinese will let the renminbi rise gradually. But hey, it's hardly a bad investment, and I shouldn't be dispensing amateur investment advice anyway.) --M@rēino 02:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This probably shouldn't be in a 'small'... The Chinese are still very much in control of their currency and are absolutely, positively NOT going to let it 'skyrocket' under any circumstances. They still make all of their money from exports, and would stand to gain nothing from increasing the price, and in fact as the price goes up they face more competition from other developing nations. Don't take our word for it, but *please please please* do more research before dumping all you have into the RMB. It surely won't tank, but it could very well take you a *long* time to see a decent appreciation in value vs. other investment choices (considering the cost of buying in and out of the investment). --144.191.148.3 (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

OR warning! In my admittedly limited experience (US$ <-> CDN$), I've found that major banks are terrible as far as exchange rates are concerned. Specialized foreign exchange retail outlets give you far better rates. They handle pretty much all the major currencies AFAIK, though I'm not sure about the yuan. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Everbank offers low conversion fees and Renminbi accounts in the United States. Marco polo (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: 144.x.x.x, The Chinese have this (and only this) to gain: the US is pretty pissed off about it. A lot of legislatorws are raising populist sentiment about jobs going overseas, and there's been heavy talk of adding China to the list of currency manipulators (meaning sanctions from US, which would hurt big time), and possibly bringing the same accusation before the WTO.

Re: Clarity, I work for a bank, and our rates are definitely not as good in one direction as the other. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Aren't the rates equally bad in both directions? The commission is presumably the same, whichever direction the exchange is done in. (And it is commission, whether it is hidden in the exchange rate or set as an explicit fee.) --Tango (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

An alternative explanation I watched on CBC, a relatively reliable TV network, had an outside commenter opining that China's currency move was actually in response to the serious decline in the euro against the USD. The EU as a whole rivals the USA for trade volume with China, and the euro-area soveriegn debt problem was pushing the currency down far enough that it was seriously disrupting markets for Chinese exporters in a major customer base. A floating basket of currency values has started to make more sense. For a source, you would need to search cbc.ca for Amanda Lang's various programs and news segments over the last 10 days or so, she did a good interview with someone about this. Franamax (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ

Not a debating society
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Did Jesus Christ have cancer and committed suicide by doing everything that he know would bring his life to and end on the cross, presumably not a pleasant death but far more pleasant than dying of cancer? 71.100.2.98 (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Huh? Should I be looking under bridges for the answer? Bielle (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC) It is merely a logical question. People do not usually end their lives prior to natural death without some type of emotional or physical motivation. 71.100.2.98 (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC) If you believe Christian teachings, then Jesus sacrificed himself for humanity. If you don't believe Christian teachings, then the question doesn't really arise, since the evidence that the crucifixion took place at all is far from conclusive. --Tango (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 71.100.2.98 -- Unfortunately, your question was produced by pure abstract hypothetical speculation, apparently without taking into account any of the details of history, or the New Testament, or traditional Christian thought, and so has little relevance to any of them... AnonMoos (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Christianity teaches that, extremely simplified, Jesus willingly and knowingly forfeited his life for everybody else. My denomination teaches that Jesus loves us. While certainly there are many people who would not sacrifice themselves for people they love, there are many that would, and some who do. Assuming that Jesus did in fact love everybody, his motivation for sacrificing himself makes perfect logical sense to me. Now, if you disregard theology, then you are assuming that Jesus was just another man. It is fine that you are questioning his motivations, but there is absolutely no evidence, in scripture or not, to my knowledge that Jesus was terminally ill when he died. We cannot possibly provide any insight to your question without a time machine and a medical examination. Falconusp t c 04:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC) In that regard I live near a large cancer research center where people essentially come in hope of a cure but if their cancer is too far along or they do not fit one of the programs or the program they do fit is full or complete then they use to be put back out the door and told they did not need to come back, leaving the impression that they might be cured or in remission. In other cases (where lots of money stood to be gained by the center) euthanasia was in general turned over to the nurse in charge of anesthesia after signing the proper forms of course. It would seem then that a motive like securing allegiance to a body of religion was ripe for such a client. 71.100.2.98 (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC) ...and intentionally so in order to "start from scratch" and avoid following a line of thought which could amount to brainwashed. Why do you take "...all of the details of..." so called "...history..." as fact by basing it on something written over two thousand years ago that defies all of history's verifiable facts? 71.100.2.98 (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC) You presume then that he even existed. You can't claim the Bible to be fiction and claim that Jesus was a real figure in the same breath, since you are brining up "verifiable facts". Unanswerable, simple as that. Also, are all cancer deaths as bad as asphyxiation by crucifiction and torture? Are any? Even trolls need to eat sometimes. Aaronite (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC) This is a classic pattern! Bielle (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC) It would be if I was selling a particular point of view but I'm not selling but rather wondering why all the other religions seem to be doing very well without subscribing to the idea of dying on the cross as a method of saving people, except perhaps from making the same mistake. 71.100.2.98 (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC) If Jesus wanted to kill himself, he could have thrown himself off of a cliff, or drank poison, or used a sword, etc. Those would have saved him pain. From what I've read, crucifixion is incredibly painful. When you're nailed to a cross, you start losing blood, which induces an intense thirst. Those who were crucified also often had their eyes pecked out by crows. After a while, you have trouble breathing because of your own weight pressing on your chest. Thus, you also slowly suffocate. It's pure torture.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Never watched someone die of cancer, have you. All of that and more occurs from within. Even by any other method the sacrifice of one's own life for a religious purpose might need a little unspoken motivation. which 71.100.2.98 (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Just answer the question. 71.100.2.98 (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC) OK. No. OK?--Best Dog Ever (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Just answer the question. 71.100.2.98 (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC) There is no evidence in the Bible or anywhere else that this was the case. Enough already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

buying a copy

I'm interested in buying a copy of an image. It's of an unknown woman's hand holding memorial ribbons. The ribbons were given to mourners at the memorial service for the eleven crewmembers who perished when the Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank. The image is courtesy of the Associated Press. When I tried their website and Pictopia, I didn't have any luck. Where can I order a copy of the image for personal use?24.90.202.208 (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If the Associated Press own the image, then you need to contact the Associated Press. --Tango (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The photographer appears to be Rogelio V.Solis, according to this report. (Scroll down to third photograph.) If you have a Twitter account, it would appear you can reach him at: @rsolis. Bielle (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I clicked on the report you referred me to. But I'd like to find a website where I can order a copy of the aforementioned image. Where is there one?24.90.202.208 (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What Bielle is saying is that your best bet is to contact the photographer directly via his Twitter account. He may still hold the copyright and thus be able to sell you a copy direct. If he's assigned the copyright to AP, he might still be able to help you. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 07:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Competition from the Chinese and other international markets

I've been trying to find references that deal with the above but have been unlucky. I'm trying to find references that discuss the importance of decreasing labor costs, enlarging a customer base, and using more advanced technology in order to compete more effectively with the Chinese and other international manufacturers. I'm looking at this from an American perspective. Like I said, I've been trying but have been running into problems with the signal to noise ratio in the searches that I run with Google. Can anyone help? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 04:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you’ve started with a conclusion – that decreasing labor costs, enlarging a customer base and using more advanced technology will somehow convince American workers to accept wages proportionate to their productivity – but can’t find any evidence to support your preconceived notion, perhaps you should rethink the premises. Just a thought. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your best bet IMO is to subscribe to The Economist and get access to their search archives. I'll take a swing through when I get a chance. Harvard Business Review would have lots too, but I haven't subscribed to that in quite a while (I lost interest in what the latest wrong idea was).

As to your premises, they are indeed a little off. The endpoint is actually total factor productivity. Simply pushing down labour costs is a bandaid solution, not least because you simply cannot hire someone in the US and hand them $10 a day. And if you source sub-components from China, you get variable quality and the odd bit of lead paint and poisonous milk. However, chasing cheaper labour has been done for a long time, viz the maquiladoras along the Mexican-US border. You would also want to look at business process outsourcing where routine activities are pushed off to areas with matching skills. The latest Economist discusses legal-process outsourcing. Driving down labour costs within America itself does happen though - witness the automobile companies establishing greenfield plants in the southern states with right-to-work (open shop) laws and the concentration of meat-packing industries into vast plants which pay dirt for wages, often earned by recent immigrants.

Enlarging a customer base, that's a bit of a dead end. American companies have always been very good at becoming multinationals. I once worked for an American company that in 1990 started a "Vision 2000" program on how to move from being a multinational to being a global enterprise. They still pretty much own the product space.

Using advanced technology is also an American strength and always has been. Let's say, oh, nuclear weapons and Predator drones? Or industrial laser-cutters and the immense productivity surge in the 90's (that's the 1990's for you young folk) that resulted from investment in information technology. The interesting theme there is the very capable way in which China has limited foreign firms to local partnerships which have to transfer the technology rather than just importing key components.

Individual firms do keep trying to compete in their markets of choice. Kodak kept trying to make camera film for quite a long time. If the labour cost component is large, they fail or move overseas. You need to look for examples where firms have concentrated on their skills and outsourced the things that anyone can do to where it gets done the cheapest. Xerox might be a good example, they are still a big name in copiers but outsource their components. Or Apple of course, which specialises in ideas and cool designs. Or Google, which buys whoever's computers and sticks ideas on top of them to make a fortune. Genome sequencing and medical devices too.

And that is the major theme, the US economy has for decades been moving to higher-value industries and services, like aerospace, (erghh) banking, and motion pictures. User:SteveBaker is a Brit who works in Texas, making video games. Rather than actually make the product, they design and market the product and struggle with the balance between cheap components and high-quality components. Again, HBR would have good case studies on this trend.

I'm not sure whether that long ramble will be helpful or not. Basically, if you want to use advanced technology you need well-educated and capable people to do it, but if you drive down your labour costs those people go work somewhere else. I think you need to focus on business magazines for your research. Franamax (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

JFK in Dallas 22.11.1963

Please do not cross-post questions to multiple desks. I have removed this question; if anyone wishes to help, it can be found at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#JFK in Dallas 22.11.1963. Warofdreams talk 09:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

UK planning objections and appeals

Where can I find information about what actual criteria are used to assess a planning objection or planning appeal in the UK? All I've had from my LA is a pathetic flimsy leaflet with only half a dozen words vaguely hinting at what the criteria might be. Where can I find more information about what features or content are relevant to succesful objections or appeals please? Thanks 92.29.114.87 (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Local authorities vary wildly in the information they provide. This is one of the better ones, and you should be able to find the information you need somewhere there, but note that the criteria vary depending on a number of local factors, e.g. conservation areas, green belt, local development schemes, etc.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a UK govt website here - http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/public/ which may have the information you require.

That said, Planning matters in the UK can be quite complex as Shnatavira notes , I would add 'historc building' to the list of factors though, so your best bet bet might be to seek professional advice. Please note, the reference desk can't give legal advice. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As well as endorsing the advice by Shantaviraj and Sfan, I can offer some general advice as a former local authority planning officer myself - but it's complicated, and depends on where you live as well as what you intend to do. Are you doing something as simple as building a porch, or seeking to change the use of an entire building, or putting up a new building? Is it in a town, in open countryside, on green belt land, in an area covered by an environmental designation... etc. etc. There are also some differences between the systems in England, Scotland, and Wales. All will be guided by general principles of "sustainable development", but how that is interpreted will vary greatly between local authorities. The basic principle everywhere, though, is that development (which includes "change of use") should be in accordance with policies and criteria in the "local development plan" (which may be called that, or a "local plan", or something else) - and in making any decisions, weight will be given both to an old but approved plan, and to a newer but not-yet-approved plan. Your local council website will almost certainly contain the text of its local plan, and maps, or if that fails there will be copies for inspection in your local council offices or library. But the best advice, almost certainly, is to talk to one of the planning staff in your local council office - by phone, or by a meeting if necessary. They will be able to spell out to you exactly the criteria that they will take into account in making any recommendations on your proposals - and speaking to them at an early stage, and taking note of their advice, will definitely save you money and time later on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

PS - You may get some useful guidance from this page, which (for England) links to official government statements of what is and is not acceptable in policy terms. Each statement will be taken into account in any local decisions or appeal decisions, depending on what the proposal actually is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not intending to do anything - I'm trying to stop my crazy neighbour from putting up a shanty-town extension an inch away and right in front of my house. Its disgraceful there isnt a simple list of criteria anywhere. It is all kept so very secret. 92.29.114.87 (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is "secret", but it can be complicated. Here is guidance on what people should do to consult neighbours on planning proposals. There is general guidance on house extensions here and a walk-through here. If your neighbour's proposal fits within those criteria it is likely to be "permitted development", which does not require an application for planning permission (unless it is in a conservation area, or similar). However, if it falls outside those criteria, it will require planning permission from the local council. If he/she is undertaking work without having first obtained that permission, you should speak to the local planning department - specifically, the planning enforcement officer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The walk through, although needlessly spectacular, appears to be about "designated land" only. 92.15.3.46 (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Only the first two pages are about "designated land" - the remaining sections are about other land. (Don't know why they do it that way, but anyway... the summary makes it clearer that that is the case.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as they don't keep the necessary information on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door sayinmg "Beware of the Leopard"! -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

They don't do that. Seriously. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And, as always with this stuff in the UK, if you can get an appointment at your local Citizens Advice Bureau, it's usually worth it. One of the things the CAB is there for is helping people get access to free legal advice and guidance following convoluted regulations. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

CAB is a good idea, but you should also be able to get help from the council itself. Phone or email the planning department and ask to speak to the planning officer considering the case. Keep trying. Early morning is often a good time, before they go out to site visits. Check out who has been notified of the application and get your neighbours together to write a joint letter. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Good advice - and, if that fails, you should also contact your local ward councillor, who is there to act on your behalf with council officers when necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that planning is a very emotive subject in England. In some cases even major infrastructure plans can get held up for years in planning inquiries because a few NIMBY concerns, and many perfectly acceptable plans (from a planning point of view) for house extensions are objected to, simply "on principle". In my opinion, the OP's use of words like "shanty-town extension", "an inch away" and "right in front of my house" is just the type of language which suggest a NIMBY objection rather than a reasoned objection based on the planning policies applicable to their case. I really do hope the OP does not use that type of language in their planning objection and instead consult a solicitor. Astronaut (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Clever of you to pass judgement on the basis of zero facts and evidence. 92.24.187.92 (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Having seen both side of this kind of argument (where your objections are seemingly ignored, and where your plans seem to raise spurious objections from neighbours) I'm not passing judgement at all. I'm simply reminding you to choose the words you use rather carefully. Astronaut (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. In my experience, a letter from a solicitor on a planning matter like this - unless it raises any valid legal points, which is unlikely - will be seen as unnecessarily provocative by planning officers (and councillors, and your neighbours), unhelpful, and is likely to be money wasted. Better to go down the route suggested by others above - contact the planning officers (including the enforcement officer if appropriate), go through the CAB if necessary, and contact the ward councillor. Much more likely to get results, and much cheaper. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you mean they make their decisions on sentiment, then that's disgraceful. 92.24.187.92 (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

How did you read that into what I said? They make their decisions - or should do - based on the policies set out in local planning documents, which themselves are based on national government policy, as I've already set out. However, obviously, different local politicians may have differing interpretations of what should be done in different circumstances - that's why we have systems to elect them and ensure they are accountable. If they have taken decisions in any other way, you should indeed think about engaging a solicitor and making an approach to the Local Government Ombudsman. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would observe that there is a balance between the planning advice given by the council employees, and the decisions made by elected councillors. The advice has to be based on the clauses in the regulations, although there is inevitably a qualitative element of that given the competing demands of various stakeholders.

I would also note that there is a clear range of processes in terms of application, withdrawal of application, rejection, re-application etc that can become challenging, and it does at times appear that the advice given by planners to developers makes best use of the opportunities within that process to deliver a favourable outcome. I would counter your suggestion of impropriety by opening up the point that it's just effective use of the rules. As an example it's permissible to withdraw an application very close to the due date, having flushed out objections, and that resets the clock on future applications. The developer has had the opportunity to identify objections and counter them in the next application, so it strengthens their position.

All rules have loopholes. As already observed the best way to challenge the development is to address the points in the guidance in a dispassionate and unemotional way.

ALR (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

New Martinsvile Glass, Dates and Designers ?

Hi, I was wondering if there were any experts on New Martinsville Glass pieces from the mid 1930's,

I'm trying to add some information to the image in the article here Hostmaster_(New_Martinsville_Glass) and for the relevant contributor's Nomoreforme uploads.

The assistance of the reference desk in getting more specific datings ( and designer names) would be appreciated.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Matters such as those you want to know about are usually treated in specialized books written for the collectors' market—in this case, the one cited in the first note in the article looks like the fullest treatment of the company's output. It's possible that someone reading this page may have the work, but you may need to visit a library. Deor (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What are "household effect" in context of family law?

As asked above. Such as in section 1361a of the German Civil Code "...Allocation of household effects when spouses are living apart..." Thank you so much.

124.121.108.99 (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I hazard a guess it refers to the goods within the house - the furniture, white goods, cutlery & crockery etc - and is speaking about their division between a couple who are splitting up. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's how I've heard the phrase used in US English (compare with personal effects). However, I doubt the German Civil Code is written in English, so to get the actual meaning as intended it would probably be better to examine the words used in the official German version. (slight inaccuracies may have been introduced by the translator.) -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The original says "Haushaltsgegenstände", literally "household articles". "Household effects" is a good translation which does not introduce misleading connotations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical comparison of Portugal and Spain

Can we say that Portugal had less cruel history (in terms of internal and external policies) and less bloody build-up of empire than Spain? 109.237.121.80 (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not without references. Googlemeister (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a subjective question, as it is somewhat difficult to quantify cruelty or bloodiness. I think that we can say that Portugal simply had less empire than Spain, at least until around 1900, and therefore perhaps less cruelty and blood, but maybe not less per square mile or kilometer. The Portuguese bandeirantes were probably directly or indirectly responsible for the death of millions of indigenous people in the interior of Brazil (through enslavement, disease, and slaughter), much like the Spanish conquistadores. Furthermore, the Portuguese carried on a particularly brutal trans-Atlantic slave trade to supply their Brazilian plantations with labor. Brazilian slaves had a higher death rate from overwork and disease than slaves in some other regions. In Africa and Asia before the mid-19th century, the Portuguese were more interested in setting up trading posts than conquering territory, though its trading posts in Africa were deeply implicated in the slave trade. However, from the late 19th century, as Spain lost nearly all of its remaining possessions, Portugal carried out a particularly brutal form of colonial rule in Angola in particular, followed by the even more brutal Portuguese Colonial War. So the history of the Portuguese empire arguably had its share of cruelty and blood. As for Portugal's internal history, it is very generally similar to that of Spain, except that Portugal experienced fewer civil wars in the 19th and early 20th centuries. However, like Spain, Portugal was ruled by a fascist government (in Portugal, the Estado Novo) for much of the 20th century. Marco polo (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Portuguese were EXTRAORDINARILY cruel as colonial masters of Mozambique, for starters. While the numbers of victims and extent of territory was greater for Spain, qualitatatively Portugal has as horrible a colonial legacy as any -- and that's saying a lot. 63.17.72.210 (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

---

The Portuguese empire was under Spain from 1580-1640, by the way. In the first hundred years, the main Spanish effort was devoted to conquering and administering huge areas of land spread over significant parts of two continents, while the main Portuguese effort was devoted to establishing strategic coastal forts and island bases in the Indian Ocean area, and imposing effective Portuguese control over all long-distance sea trade there, so the two empires were quite different at that period... AnonMoos (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Economic index

What would be the correct economic index or measurement to determine the change in (commercial real estate) rental prices from one year to another? For example, if Tenant A paid $X monthly rent in the year 2010 ... that rent would be expected to rise to $Y in the year 2011. That sort of thing. I started looking up some different terms -- such as inflation, consumer price index, etc. -- but then I realized that I had no idea where to even begin (as I am very unfamiliar with these economic terms). So, what's the best term that covers what I am looking for? Also, where would I find the exact numbers for this economic index? Is there a website or some federal agency that publishes such numbers? I am referring to the USA, by the way. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

If its looking to the future, then it would be a forecast. 92.24.187.92 (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks ... but using which economic index? (64.252.65.146 (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

I think the consumer price index, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the U.S. Department of Labor, is the best-known inflation index in the U.S. The CPI includes rent, so if you just want to know how rental costs have changed, you can find that in the tables for the CPI at the BLS website. The BLS also publishes several other inflation indexes used for various purposes. Many economists make forecasts for where they think the CPI will be at points in the future. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The US Urban Consumer Price Index for housing is here [[7]]. Depending on where the property is, your performance may vary by a huge amount. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thanks to all! I appreciate the input. Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

The OP asked for a "commercial real estate" price index, not consumer. Try Moodys/REAL Commercial Property Price Index (CPPI) Paulscrawl (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Who said "Bullshit, love is the only weapon with which I've got to fight."

Who said this quote? "Bullshit, love is the only weapon with which I've got to fight. I've got a whole lot of weapons to fight! I've got my claws, I've got cutlasses, I've got guns, I've got dynamite, I've got a whole lot to fight! I'll fight! I'll fight! I will fight! I will fight! I will fight! I will fight!"

Its also used at the start of the Alabama 3 song "Mao Tse Tung Said" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.94.70 (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Various people online say it is from a speech by Jim Jones. If the meaning isn't clear, immediately before the bit you've quoted he says, "Love is the only weapon? Shit. Bullshit. Martin Luther King died with love. Kennedy died talking about something he couldn’t understand, some kind of generalized love and he never even backed it up. He fucked up! Bullshit, love is the only weapon with which I’ve got to fight."

I cannot verify that this is the case, but it seems to be the consensus of the internet. Since people seem to be quoting from a spoken recording, and not from something written down, there seems to be some disagreement as to whether it is "cutlasses" or "compasses", although "cutlasses" makes more sense. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The anon's above comment is . Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Which bit? The bit where I say I can't verify it? The bit where I say this is what various people online are saying? Can you find a decent source? Because I tried and failed, which is why I posted what I had found so far with lots of disclaimers. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

this site from San Diego State U. has transcripts of many tapes of Jim Jones giving speeches, sermons, speaking on the radio, &c. I didn't find the quote in any of transcripts I checked (more or less at random), but for someone with a yen to really dig, there might be pay dirt. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Two musical groups from the 1990s used a clip from the speech as prologue to songs Concrete Blonde on the song Jonestown on album Mexican Moon. And Machines of Loving Grace on Gilt (album), I think on the song Serpico, both albums credit the sample to Jim Jones. 76.22.140.195 (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Something blue

I'm not sure if this belongs here or at the Languages desk; if it is the latter, I apologize.

I was rewatching The Big Bang recently, and realized that while I had heard the phrase "something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue" before, I did not know either the origin of the phrase or what the four somethings originally were. Does anyone else know? NW (Talk) 21:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course we have an article (though not an especially useful one). There's also information here, here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone really "stopped the presses", why

Has anyone really stopped the presses to insert a front page headline that is 10000x more inportant than the whole rest of the paper, when the presses were already rolling (ie literally a "stop the presses!") what were the cases? 92.230.68.216 (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be 10000x more important, just important enough to warrant the cost and delay of throwing away all the papers that have already been printed and starting again. "Stopping the presses" can also refer to delaying the start of printing in order to get an important article finished. There is sometimes space left when the paper is typeset to fit in late stories, which I guess they'd fill with an advert or something if there weren't any late stories. --Tango (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean delays, but literally stopping running presses already churning out the next day's papers (then throwing away the ones already printed, delaying distribution until new copy is typeset, etc). can you think of actual, specific examples of that, and what news warranted it? 92.230.66.27 (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

On the night of the 2000 U.S. presidential election, many newspapers "stopped the presses" as the TV networks declared George Bush the winner after 2 a.m. EST, then retracted their call around 4 a.m. One paper I know printed a new cover for the single-sale edition, then sent people to every retailer and vending machine they could find to wrap the new front page around the old one! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

News sources on the internet do that all the time, of course. They don't have to stop the presses, though, they just rewrite the story in-place. In the days when newspapers were the only major media and were highly competitive within a given city, they might stop a press run, or issue an "extra", in order to try and beat their rivals with their "scoop". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Two recent U.S. examples: Several papers literally stopped the presses while already in circulation and ordered back the distribution trucks etc when the news broke, around 3 a.m. (Eastern time), that all but one of the entrapped victims had died in the Sago Mine Disaster (2006). Some of the media had been printing that the miners had been found alive. [8] Apparently, the Boston Globe literally stopped its presses when Ted Kennedy's death was reported around 1.30 am (Eastern time). [9]. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that even if they do "stop the presses", it doesn't mean that they have to discard the copies already printed. In effect they're just creating a new edition. So maybe that day 50,000 people get the 2nd edition and 75,000 are lucky get the 2½th edition with the change, both distributed to whoever the 2nd edition normally goes to. Of course they could choose to dump the already-printed papers, but it's a separate decision.

The Toronto Sun usually has a front cover rather than a front page, by which I mean that it typically just contains a headline and photo, other stuff pointing to the inside of the paper, and no body text. I remember that one day the front cover showed a photo of Leonid Brezhnev and the headline BREZHNEV DIES. And while I don't usually read the Sun, I looked at that issue -- and there was nothing else inside. The headline was the entire story. I don't know, but I suspect that this may well have been a case of stopping the presses.

--Anonymous, 04:08 UTC, July 1, 2010.

See [10]. Various sources at Google Books say that is is exceedingly rare [11] for anyone to yell "Stop the presses" (except when they are broken, there is a grievous or libellous error, which is likely to result in the responsible person getting fired, important sports results or someone caught in the mechanism.) Papers used to put out several editions a day as well as "Extras," like in the movies when the newsboy on the streetcorner yells "Extra! Extra! Read all about it!" Edison (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Years ago, the London Daily Telegraph (and others too?) had a small box on the front page headed "Latest News". Often it would be blank, but sometimes a the key points of a breaking news story would be crudely printed into the box. In that way they could "stop press" without changing the front page layout. Alansplodge (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

July 1

Thesis formatting question

Hi - I'm Australian, and helping edit a thesis for a friend; I see that when numbering figures and tables, if it's the first figure in chapter 1, say, it's Figure 1.1 - but what if it's the first figure in the Introduction? What's the convention?

Another question - the subheadings in each chapter: do they have sentence formatting or title formatting?

Thanks,

Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The convention depends entirely on which style guide you subscribe to. If it is a lengthy thesis, the university probably has specified somewhere what they want. If not, you just have to pick one and be consistent about implementing it. There are different style guides for different fields. Common ones for academic papers include The Chicago Manual of Style (and its simpler subset Turabian style), The MLA Style Manual, etc. Once you have the guide, you can look up each of these concerns quite straightforwardly (they have sections on figure numbering, subheadings, etc.) The most important thing, though, in the end, is consistency—most graders are not style sticklers, but it looks extremely unprofessional if these things are inconsistent. Note that of all style conventions, proper citation of sources is the most important (and will land you in the hottest water if done incorrectly)... --Mr.98 (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If you use LaTeX, pick any of the styles that have been used before (plain "report" is the most common), and just let it do its thing. You can tweak it, but it's rarely worth it. If you don't use LaTeX, do ;-). But even Word should be able to generate numbers for figures and tables automatically and consistently. Another hint: The university library will usually hold at least one copy of every PhD thesis (and sometimes others) submitted. Check out a few recent ones from your friend's field to use as examples. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

At least at my university, the really crucial formatting standards were those for the title page, the signature page, the margins on each page, type size, line spacing, page numbering, and paper quality. University bureaucrats carefully checked all of these, and if anything was off, the thesis would be rejected automatically, even if everyone on the committee had approved the content. Committees are typically more concerned with the argument and, as Mr. 98 says, proper citation and acknowledgment of sources, than with the finer points of editorial style. (A hint to the wise: Be sure to cite members of your committee!) Marco polo (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff, thanks all. Adambrowne666 (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I work as ATC if I'm 18

I have an Air Traffic Controller degree in Argentina, and would like to know if I'm allowed to work at high-importance airports at my age. i.e. in the Ministro Pistarini International Airport. Thank you. --190.178.128.218 (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Since you are the one with the degree and the location, you would probably be better off asking someone who is in the know- I'm not sure how many people here would know about it. Good luck, anyway. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 01:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sonia. You have the degree; you are the expect on the subject, not us. --Tango (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Air Traffic Safety Authority for the jurisdiction (country, etc.) where you're interested in finding employment may state particular qualifications required for applicants (other than minimum age and degree-holding), such as: hours of experience, residency, board certification, even military service. (I have no personal knowledge of the above, just stating what seems plausible.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Book illustration pricing

Question moved from Talk:Book illustration. Astronaut (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

IF YOU ARE DOING ILLUSTIONS FOR A CHILDRENS BOOK ,HOW DO YOU COME UP WITH THE PRICE OF YOUR WORK? THIS IS MY FIRST TIME ILLUSTING A BOOK, HOW DO I CHARGE THE PUBLISHER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.178.185 (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't type in all caps on the Internet. It's considered to be shouting. As for the answer to your question, of course it depends on a lot of things you haven't told us yet. Did they ask you to illustrate a book, or are you writing a proposal to them to illustrate? Have you had a conversation with their art director yet? What country do you live in? What country is the publisher in? How long is the book? Do you have an agent? (The answer to that one is obviously no.) Have you considered getting an agent so you can be more sure you're being compensated fairly? There's a book called Children's Writer's & Illustrator's Market that it sounds like you might want to get — it is mostly aimed at writers, unfortunately, but it also in turn points to other resources like local children's book author/illustrator gatherings. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You might find some guidance at Jacketflap, a networking site which "connects you to the work of more than 200,000 authors, illustrators, publishers and other creators of books for Children and Young Adults". BrainyBabe (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why should we fear a NWO?

Dear refdeskers. I realize this question might be a borderline discussion and/or troll fest initiator, but it's something that's been bugging me for some time. If the answers slide too deep into the territory of either of the above, I don't mind a collapse of the question.

Ok, here goes. Out of some bizarre sociological fascination with conspiracy theorists I have for some time made it a habit to occasionally pop over to some random CT page and read through it. In these browsings, I have very often found a strong aversion to a one world government, the so-called new world order development in our future. Problem is, for all the fear of the NWO, I have yet to find an actual reason to fear it. Every CT page seems to stop at the point where we should fear the NWO, and seem to take it for granted we already know why exactly it is we're fearing it. Well, I don't. Why should we fear a NWO? What exactly are the freely assumed bad sides of a world government that would outweigh the possible good sides? I can certainly see many things that could work much better under a world government than they do now. However, please note, I'm not endorsing one or other world view, I'm just curious and looking for information I hadn't been able to find so far. Our article on the NWO doesn't really answer my question, either. TomorrowTime (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you read George Orwell's books such as Animal Farm and 1984.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I read those several times along with (I believe) every other non-fiction book Orwell ever wrote, and even for a time considered writing my degree on Orwell. However, Orwell's novels are on totalitarianism. I fail to see the reason why a one world government should automatically equal totalitarianism. In fact, it's ecaxtly this sort of automatic correlation that people seem to draw between the two that I find baffling. How is a world government different from, say, a continental government like Australia? Or an island government like the UK or Japan? Or from any other government? Why is it automatically assumed it would be a totalitarian government? TomorrowTime (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ask yourself how benevolent an unregulated monopoly would be in the business world. Or for that matter, how well dictatorships work in the governmental world. That could give you a clue to the answer about New World Order. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all. Why would a world government be any more unregulated or dictatorial than, say, the US government? Checks and balances are overwhelmingly internal, which explains why we currently have both fairly free and fairly dictatorial regimes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly. Why is it assumed that a world government would automatically be totalitarian? TomorrowTime (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I just want to say that I don't think either of these answers addresses the OP's question. The assumption that some sort of NWO would automatically be unregulated and totalitarian is what the OP seems to be questioning and so far the responses have been "it'd be totalitarian because it'd be totalitarian.. ok?". For sure, it might run into some issues because it'd be the only game in town, but that doesn't necesserily mean that it couldn't run fairly well with a good system of checks and balances. I think the argument that the only reason countries "work well" is because there is competition from other countries screams and that some countries seem to rather succcessfully remain unfree/totalitarion/incredibly messed up despite there being competition from other countries.

This actually happens to be a question I've mulled over a few times, thinking to myself "hey, if we had one government think how streamlined it could be...". Warning:OR My sister made the argument that with one world government you, the individual, would have less say in the decisions that were made because instead of being you and 30ish million people voting (I'm in Canada) it's you and 6ish billion other people. I called bullshit on this because as far as 'global' decisions go the average person has a less than 1 in 6 billion vote because certain organizations (hello G20) don't even contain the whole world so representation is already skewed and it would seem some sort of world order would just level the playing field. As a Canadian I like my vote counting with the 'big boys' but at the same time, it's a bit ridiculous for me to think that a NWO would be a crisis because people in LDCs would get a bigger vote...

/OR flagitious (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a reason to fear a world government. Assume it's dictatorial. Then it's bad. Alternatively, assume it's democratic. Then it will likely look after all its citizens equally. In other words, it will take steps to change an economic system where 300 million Americans and 450 million Western Europeans consume most of the worlds economic output, and 1 billion Chinese, Indians, and Africans each are left with the scraps, or nothing at all (all number roughly rounded ;-). Since nearly all of us are profiteers of the current economic system, we are likely to lose out. To misuse Jefferson, "Indeed I tremble for the West when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. So, we should fear the NWO because we realize that our current system is inherently unfair and we just happen to not be on the receiving side of the stick. Ok, I can live with that reply. It's odd, though - I never took your average NWO fearing conspiracy theorist to be as learned as to have read Immanuel Wallerstein and contemplated his World systems theory and the deep moral and social implications thereof. Somehow someone who rants about FEMA concentration camps just doesn't strike me as quite that far in their studies :) TomorrowTime (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the fear of world government by (mostly) American cranks boils down to a perceived threat to American exceptionalism and U.S. global hegemony, in the minds of conspiracy theorists aided and abetted by perceived internal traitors who serve for them as scapegoats. This can often also be connected to a general xenophobia, and sometimes to a more specific anti-Semitism, depending on the claims made. (Incidentally, while U.S. hegemony may be increasingly shaky, I think the likely outcome is not world government but an ever more fractured world. Elites in Russia, India, Europe, and China distrust one another far too much for the unification of Eurasia to be conceivable in the next century, much less the whole world.) Marco polo (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Marco polo (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ludicrously idealistic and over-optimistic I may be, but there is surely a possibility that the combination of economic globalisation, shared recognition of global environmental interdependence, increased recognition of the value of science over superstition, and shared information through the internet and sites like this one, will actually start to relegate xenophobia and religious fundamentalism to the margins, and promote the achievement of benign forms of shared responsibility, if not actual global government. Always look on the bright side of life.  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I sort of suspect as much with the conspiracies centered around the UN and its sinister role, but UN conspiracy theories and NWO conspiracy theories are not necessarily mutually inclusive of one another... TomorrowTime (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's highly possibly that we already have a One World Government, but most people just aren't aware of it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

People always complain that government is unresponsive to their needs, even at the local level, but especially at the federal level. How does anyone here think that a globalized government would be an improvement? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The European Union and the old Hapsburg Empire both offer ample proof that large super-states are too cumbersome, far-flung, and cannot integrate its multi-nations, each with its own etnicities, religions, special interests, local econony, culture, language, etc. How could a world government possibly function effectively serving the needs of each citizen?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

By coming to a recognition that people across the world have much more in common with each other than the trivial, superficial and minor factors like language, culture and "ethnicity" that serve, in some circumstances, to divide them. Maybe climate change or some other form of global environmental catastrophe would do it. Or an alien invasion.  ;-) Come on now, people, let's get together... Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. quite adamantly does not subscribe, its own internal issues notwithstanding. Shadowjams (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem with NWO, IMO, boils down to basic human psychology. people (at a certain level of development, at any rate) are prone to ingroup/outgroup (us opposed to them) reasoning. 'us' is usually not well-defined, 'them' is never well-defined, but regardless it's a powerful psychological motivator based in the assertions that (a) people can be meaningfully cast into types systematically, and (b) these types will necessarily carry a moral component. one of the brilliant insights in Wallerstein's work, for instance, is that people will naturally associate race with economic deprivation, because not associating race and economic deprivation would imply that economic deprivation is caused by exploitation, and that worldview violates most people's preconceptions that their ingroup is morally good. The idea of world governance violates the heart and soul of 'us vs. them' reasoning, and is automatically interpreted (by people at that developmental level) as a trick by evil 'thems' to dominate 'us' by Machiavellian legal tactics.

in other words, no one is capable of understanding the value of world governance until they have developed past the need to identify themselves in terms of an outgroup, because as long as ingroups are defined in terms of disliked outgroups, any NWO will seem inherently threatening. It's basically the same reasoning as went into the American civil war and Jim Crow era - Southern whites could not accept federal governance, because southern whites defined themselves in terms of their superiority to blacks, and the federal government (by insisting on inter-racial equity) threatened their very identity as whites. --Ludwigs2 09:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no way a single government would work because of the vast diversity in human beings. There would have to be a single capital, a single language, and a single political party. If all people were programmed as robots to think alike, then it would be feasible, otherwise rebellion and civil wars would break out everywhere.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That's taking a very pessimistic view of people. People have far more things in common than what divides us. Humans have only differentiated from each other over the last 150,000 years or so, which is the blink of an eye in terms of the earth's development. There's no reason why there has to be a single "capital" - power can be diffused between different places, or even held within the www. There's certainly no reason why there would have to be a single language, and every reason why there should be multiple political groups serving different areas and "ethnicities" in different languages - but all within an all-encompassing consensual global framework. It just requires the gradual expansion of existing international treaties and organisations, while retaining much local control. And, of course, there would be local rebellions - just as there are fights on street corners now. Why on earth does it require people to think alike? This all goes back to the presumption that governments exist to control people, I suppose - which is certainly true of some, bad, governments, but not good ones. So, elect a good one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are a lot of questionable responses in this thread, but this [Jeanne Boleyn's response] takes the cake. A single world government would not require a "single political party" or people to be "programmed as robots to think alike". Governments can and do function with multiple parties and diverse opinions. —Kevin Myers 13:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Myers, you can say what you like about my opinion, but I challenge you to go out into the main street of your city/town/village/suburb and stop a random selection of people and ask them their views regarding the possibilty of a single, world government, and then gauge their reactions. Somehow I don't think the average person's response would be exactly orgasmic! And if you think a single government can function with multiple parties and diverse opinions, study the history of the Ottoman and Hapsburg Empires as well as the causes which led to World War I.As regards taking the cake, I prefer a chocolate layered cake with gollops of icing served with a trencherman's portion of French vanilla ice-cream.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And I prefer pie, so obviously we could not be citizens under the same government! —Kevin Myers 16:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The concept of a single world order would have to answer the question that every individual should ask: "What's in it for me?" A lot of Americans have asked that about the U.N. and I expect a lot of Europeans continue to ask that about the E.U. Meanwhile, please note the motto Novus ordo seclorum on the back of your U.S. dollar bill. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What's in it for me is a better life for my children and grandchildren, and for their peers, wherever they might be. Surely that's the only valid worthwhile goal for all of us? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a gloom-and-doom Cassandra, but I need to point out that the flower-power hippie All You Need is Love pipedream ended at Woodstock on 15 August 1969, the day troops were sent to Northern Ireland because of political/religious conflict. The let's get together generation then totally self-destructed at Altamont four months later.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a teeny bit US- and culture-specific, don't you think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

How is Britain sending troops to Northern Ireland in 1969 US-centric? Anyway, that hippie, love-and-peace, drug-fueled, and sexually-enhanced, counterculture was basically founded and inspired by both the British rock scene and the anti-Vietnam War American protesters, with the Beat generation having been the midwife.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

At the global scale, Ireland was/is a minor dispute, compared to, say, the Rwandan Genocide. And I wasn't talking about "that hippie, love-and-peace, drug-fueled, and sexually-enhanced, counterculture" - see Stoicism#Social philosophy, and Mazdak, for two examples of much earlier beliefs in cosmopolitanism. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, with harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding, etc. What such pie-in-the-sky idealism fails to take into account is individual ambitions, both good and evil. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be idealistic, but it also makes good sense for everyone for humanity to act in each others' collective interests. Isn't that what we're trying to do, in our own little way, on WP - that is, sharing knowledge, and expanding potential? So we can make a bigger pie, and have one slice each here on earth. That's my "ambition".  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The libertarian view is what is called "enlightened self-interest". People will be more willing to do something if they see what's in it for them. If you think every wikipedia editor is trying to share knowledge and expand potential, drop by WP:ANI or WP:AIV sometime and see how that's working out. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate to point out the obvious, but as it stands world government is a de facto truth. it's no longer a question of whether we want to have a world political system, but rather a question of what kind of world political system we want to institute. currently we have a kind of international corporate oligarchy, where financial institutions can find an extensive degree of free reign by surfing between different national jurisdictions - e.g. companies gamble on dangerous processes that threaten the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands in multiple countries (Bhopal, the gulf spill); Fast food industries encourage beef production in central america and south east asia, which leads to deforestation that contributes to global warming, and causes periodic toxic smogs that affect numerous countries as neophyte farmers burn off trees; US companies render entire third world nations dependent on their good will, or exercise significant impact on US legislation through lobbyists and campaign donations. These days if you fart in Bangladesh people complain about the stink in French Guiana; there's no getting around the fact that some kind of international structure will fall into place to deal with it. --Ludwigs2 21:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because in popular fiction, the evil bad guys are always out to rule the world, and we've been conditioned to believe that any one entity who wants to control the world is automatically bad? Or maybe it's because the claimed efforts to bring a NWO are being carried out in secrecy, rather than out in the open? I don't know. This is really a question for psychologists. There was an article not too long about about the psychology of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, I'll see if I can dig it up. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if these directly answer your question, but these articles from Psychology Today[12] and Science News[13] might shed some light on the psychology of conspiracy theorists. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And the reason they're carried out in secret is to avoid popular input. And there you have the core problem with the notion of a new world order, "philosopher kings", and all that sort of thing. Basically, it doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why people believe in oddball conspiracies is really a different question than has been asked here, which is why many people instinctively fear the idea of a world government. The answer to the original question is actually quite simple, I think. Most people fear losing control of their destinies, and a world government, the ultimate Leviathan, would be so large that some people fear that they, as individuals or in small groups, would have no ability to influence it. No one likes to be governed without their own consent, so it's natural to fear the creation of a massive world state if you believe that your input would count for little in that government. Not everyone feels this way, of course, as the members of the World Federalist Movement would attest. —Kevin Myers 16:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would your "destiny" be, to any great degree, in the hands of any government, whether at local level, regional, national or global? The aim of good government - at whatever level - is to enable everyone to take steps towards achieving their destiny, isn't it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a good example of why a World Government could never work. If editors cannot reach a compromise at Talk:British Isles, how could people expect to work together towards a common goal within an enormous superstate where everybody is claiming a piece of the pie? By the way what kind of goal would entice the global citizens to work collectively towards achieving it? Happiness? Peace ? Power? Wealth? Or just the right to exist with a number, a state-provided job, an allocated apartment?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You've hit it on the head when you bring up goals. You'll never get the world's population to agree on what the global goals should be. It's hard enough to get agreement on goals even in a small town, never mind world-wide. Globally, unless you can do away with the fundamental us-vs.-them mentality, it can't possibly work. How would this postulated global government fix the Islamic-states-vs.-Israel problem, for example, without one side or the other being the "loser"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that a lot of the people subscribing to conspiracy theories are favourable towards libertarianism, and thus already are adverse towards government on national and federal levels? I am sure a world government would probably be their worst nightmare regardless of it being totalitarian or not. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

So it would be fine as long as you don't place a high value on individual freedom. And the distinction between that situation and totalitarianism is...? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

So anyone not favourable to libertarianism does not place a high value on individual freedom? Sounds like a strawman to me. Anyway this is not the place to discuss the merits of libertarianism. I merely mentioned libertarianism because adherents to that ideology holds a particular adversity against government. I could have used adherents of anarchy (in any form) as an example that would be equally relevant. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Who would the world government be accountable to? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The US government, for example, is accountable to the people. I imagine proponents of a world government would say the same about it. —Kevin Myers 03:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The US government is NOT accountable to the people of other countries which is one of the main objections worldwide to US foreign policy and general hegemony. The US has historically acted in some pretty undemocratic ways towards other nations to which it is not accountable. This is fairly well documented. That is not to say that the U.S. is particularly evil, its just that when it acts in its own "national interests" these have sometimes tended to run counter to the interests of the people in non-US nations... --Jayron32 04:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

True, perhaps, but completely unrelated. Am I missing a joke here? Is every other reply supposed to be a non sequitur? —Kevin Myers 04:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, this sparked a big debate and there were some points that address my original question somewhat (the multiple systems theory, phobia of the pop-cultural evil overlord stereotype, aversion to government in general) but I can't say I'm fully satisfied with any of those. The debate also showed, in action, the knee-jerk assertion: world-government = totalitarianism expressed without much explanation, which is what I find baffling in the first place. Well, I suppose this is not really an answerable question. Ultimately, it seems to be a matter of faith - you either believe in conspiracy theories and with the territory comes a seemingly irrational fear of NWO, or you don't. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

How, in your opinion, would a one-world government work? Would it be a loose confederation something along the lines of the U.N.? Or would it have the strength of a typical central government? How would it enforce its laws? What would those laws typically consist of? How would it handle complaints? Until you have answers to those kinds of questions, it's really hard to pin down whether it would be something to fear or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

A Question on the Federal Reserve

From what I have read, the Federal Reserve controls the interest rates on financial products offered by banking institutions in order to promote a stable economy. During periods of inflation, the Fed raises interest rates. During periods of deflation, the Fed lowers them. All of this is done years in advance after extensive economic forecasting to ensure positive results. Assuming what I have written is correct, are financial institutions barred from offering their own interest rates? If so, why are we taught to comparison shop for different financial products if they're really all the same? If I'm completely wrong, please enlighten me. Any help is gladly appreciated. 66.176.245.57 (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, the federal Reserve controls what interest rate the United States uses for its transactions. Since banks do business with the United States, they will adjust their rates so they make money but remain competitive. But I'm far from an expert in this.—msh210℠ 06:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. The Fed sets the rate for short-term loans from the Federal Reserve to banking institutions -- the "federal funds rate". From there, the free market determines interest rates. Banks set rates to other customers higher (so that they can make money) while not raising them too high (so as to remain competitive with other banks). So while the Fed may influence whether your interest rates hover around 4% or 8%, it's still up to you to determine the best rate that hovers around that average. Note also that interest rates are rarely the only item of significance when comparing financial products: fees, for example, are set entirely independent of the Fed. — Lomn 13:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The Federal Reserve has direct control over two interest rates: 1) the Federal funds rate (or Fed funds rate), or the rate at which banks can borrow from other banks' reserve accounts in the Federal Reserve System; and 2) the discount rate, or the rate at which banks can borrow from the Federal Reserve System itself. These rates in effect set the cost of money for commercial banks. In a sense they set a floor for the rates that banks charge their customers. The rate that commercial banks charge to customers will virtually always be higher than the Fed funds or discount rate, because the yield spread between the interest rate banks have to pay and the interest rate that they can charge their customers is most banks' main source of income and profit. Banks may compete against one another by offering slightly lower interest rates to attract borrowers, so it can make sense for borrowers to shop around, but those rates will virtually always be above the rate that the banks pay to borrow money from the Federal Reserve. Marco polo (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"years in advance... to ensure positive results." Ha! If only. While there's plenty of "extensive economic forecasting", the Fed isn't infallible and isn't always working that far ahead -- if, in fact, it's working ahead at all. Plenty of actions by the Fed appear reactionary. Of course, the actual decision process of the Fed is fairly obscure, so it can be hard to pin down exactly why they're doing what they're doing. Even if the chairman reports on why the Fed is taking a particular action, is it the whole reason? Is it the reason at all? The Fed is deliberately removed from most of the checks and balances of the federal system. — Lomn 13:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So, for example, in a stable economy, Community Bank B takes out a loan from its local Federal Reserve bank at a two percent interest rate. Community Bank B then loans out that money to various consumers at five percent interest in order to create a profit. However, in an economy ridden with inflation, the Fed ups its interest rates to six percent interest on its loans. Community Bank B, to make up the difference, ups its interest rates on its loans to nine percent; contracting the money supply. Am I correct in this? 66.176.245.57 (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

To conceive of this properly, you should understand a crucial point: One of the most important classes of loans banks receive are overnight loans. Banks are required to have a minimum reserve every day. Chaotic everyday business being what it is, banks often have too little on hand "overnight," and are obliged to borrow for literally one day ("overnight"). The interest charged on such overnight loans is a crucial element of the cost of doing business. So part of your mental model should be "overnight loans," as opposed to simply "a bank borrows money and then lends it" -- banks MUST secure overnight loans frequently, and so have no discretion, say, to abstain from them for a while if they don't like the rates. 63.17.72.210 (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, 'years in advance' isn't far from the mark. In normal times, it takes 6-9 months for interest rate changes to take effect, so having a good forecast is vitally important. I would also point out that the actual decision process of the Fed is fairly well understood by those who follow it closely. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Special relationships between countries

Friends (human) do not feel the need to constantly tell each other that they have a special relationship. If it is indeed "special", it’s just something they both accept. They might sometimes tell each other how much they love them, or appreciate them, or miss/need/want them or whatever, but not "We have a special relationship" every time they see each other.

So, what is it about international relations between certain countries that does require this constant affirmation that their relationship is "special"? I’ve been hearing all my life about the "special relationship" and "special bond of friendship and cooperation", and similar gushing phraseology, between the United States and Australia. It came up again the other day when our new Prime Minister Julia Gillard phoned President Obama to say "G’day, mate; Kev's gone, I’m in charge now". That in itself was fine, but both leaders took the time and trouble to assert, for the 10,000th time, how special and close and warm and mutually supportive the bonds of unity and cooperation and friendship and amity are between "our two great countries". Why do they do this? Do they think we mere citizens all have short memories and need to be constantly reminded of it? Or do they perhaps not quite believe it, and feel the need to fake it till they make it? Or is it just one of these traditions whose origins are lost in the byzantine mists of arcane protocol? (Jack of Oz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Friends (human) do not feel the need to constantly tell each other that they have a special relationship." They certainly do if they are children, or young teenagers. ("You're one of my best friends, but she's my best best friend ever." "You hate me, don't you?") That is, immature people. Is there a lesson here? To me, there seem to be quite a lot of similarities between the relationship patterns of humans who have not yet fully matured, and high-level international politics. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I had to laugh when I read this, since we Brits are always being told that there is a "special relationship" between ourselves and the USA. (And of course, we have an article on it - Special Relationship.) America must be something of a tart if she has so many special relationships going on, no? It seems to me that the ones who assure us that there is a special relationship between the US and UK are invariably British politicians who don't want to face up to the fact that Britain is no more important to the US as an ally than any other country. Tony Blair pretty much did all that was required of him during the Iraq war in a doomed attempt to demonstrate the closeness of the relationship. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 07:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's called politics. Or political "schmoozing". A couple of Wills stated well this notion of nations being friends or having special relationships:

"Nations do not have friends. They have interests." -- George Will

"The best friends the U.S. ever had were the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans." -- Will Rogers

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, the degree of influence that we have with the US is a widely seen as a measure of successful foreign policy. Margaret Thatcher telling Bush the Elder not to "go wobbly" (and him obliging) was a success[14]; Gordon Brown chasing Barack Obama round a conference venue in the hope of a few words was a failure[15]. The news that David Cameron was going to tell Obama to tone-down the anti-British rhetoric over the BP leak did him no harm at all; what was actually said can only be guessed at. Few seem to care if we upset the rest of the European Union; some relish it. Good relations with the "old" Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, NZ) appear to be rather taken for granted I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Coming from the perspective of an American who does not support U.S. global hegemony, I can say that we in the United States tend to hear about "special relationships" with the United Kingdom, Israel, Canada, Mexico, and Australia, in roughly that order. In my perception, "special relationship" seems to mean something like "Although you are a client state, we respect you." In the case of Israel, it is a little different, in my opinion. There, it means, "We will back you even if your actions harm our interests, because internal politics require us to do so." In the case of countries other than the United States, I think that the "special relationship" claim is politically important to each country's government, since, for the government to seem credible in the eyes of many of its citizens, it is important for the United States to reaffirm its "special relationship" with that government. Within the United States, there are constituencies with ties of affection to each of the "special relationship" countries, and parties and political figures within the United States angle for the support of those constituencies by affirming the "special relationship". Marco polo (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is sort of national neurosis in Canada; I remember reading a couple of weeks ago about how proud the Canadian Forces were that the US "let" them command the NATO forces in southern Afghanistan. I'm sure the US didn't put much thought into it, they are busy elsewhere and Canadian troops already happened to be there, but it always comes across as if Canada has a teenage crush on the US and is always trying to be noticed. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Imperial Tombs

How many tombs of Chinese emperors are still intact? It seems in the cases of Egyptian Pharaohs they tombs were robbed and looted within centuries of their death. There is a lot of talk about Egyptian tombs and the quest to find another intact one like the one of King Tut when in China their might be hundreds of tombs as richly stocked and intact tombs. I heard that Qin Shi Huangdi's tomb might be intact but are their older Chinese imperial tombs?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

questions

what is ecnomics ? what is an economy? what are the basic problems of an economy? more definitions of economics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseshakthi (talk • contribs) 13:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you read our articles on economics and economies? Our outline of economics may also be useful. — Lomn 13:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

1. what is economics? a. "economics is the science dealing with what goods and services are produced, how they are produced, and for whom" or b. "economics is the study of the human attempt to fulfill infinite desire with finite resources" c. "economics is the study of the exchange of goods and services in society"

2. what is an economy? an economy is a system of pipes and funnels leading from one person's wallet to the other's refrigerator, thence their dining table, into their mouths, and, if you will believe it or not, all the way through the toilet system, past the waste processing plant, out into the ocean, where it is now outside the system of pipes and funnels. (outside the economy).

3. what are the basic problems of an economy? how to allocate resources, how to produce goods and services, and through what mechanism (these days usually fiat currency and a price they will be exchanged at.)

4. more definitions of economics. see b c, etc. you can also say "Economics is the study of wealth", in its broadest possible sense.

92.230.234.237 (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

We won't answer homework questions here, btw. Shadowjams (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Heroism

Can you tell me where I may find the subject of " Heroism " well treated of, besides the papers of Messrs. Carlyle and Emerson ? -- Orwell Asks (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What context are you looking for regarding heroism. There;s lots of ways that one could go with this... --Jayron32 14:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, our article Hero — actually the "See also" links toward the bottom of the page. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Practice of intentionaly burning suburbs when anticipating attack ?

I am doing a research on a certain city in Europe. By 19th century its fortifications had become cumbersome to the locals and where eventualy torn down. Among the problems described is a rule that prevented use of masonry in suburbs outside the city walls. It doesn't explain the reasoning behind the rule, however troughout the course of history the suburbs had been torn down or burnt down (the last such instances were, respectively to make an esplanade and due to a scare anticipiating an attack) and a rule which enforces buildings to be made of less durable and less fireproof material (if no masonry is allowed it seems to leave only wood) would appear to be related to that. So was it common strategy to destroy suburbs ? If so what would happen to the population (in this case it is said that the walled part of the city had population of 15000, while the suburbs had a population of 65000, sheltering them in the town during an acctual attack seems a bit unrealistic) ~~Xil (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Thiers wall of Paris was surrounded by a so-called zone non aedificandi where no construction was permitted, which eventually became a slum after military interest in the city walls waned. The demolition of peacetime barracks and support facilities around permanent fortifications was a common measure in wartime to clear a field of fire for defenders. I don't have specific knowledge of practices concerning the populace in such areas; it might vary according to the ruthlessness of the individual state. Acroterion _(talk) 15:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure that they weren't using the masonry from the city walls to build the suburbs. Reusing already cut stones was a common procedure. Rmhermen (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wooden buildings outside the walls of fortresses would be pulled down when there was a threat of a siege in order to clear fields of fire. The last example of this I can think of is during the attack on Fort Eben-Emael on 10th May 1940, when many of the garrison where engaged in dismantling wooden office buildings outside the gates, when they should have been shooting the Germans who had landed on the roof. In the mid-19th Century, because of the increasing range of artillery, there was a move away from the old continuous bastioned-trace to the "Prussian System" of a ring of widely spaced Polygonal forts. This combined with the exponential growth of cities due to industrialisation and improved transport, meant that old laws about building in front of old fortifications quickly became obsolete. As you say, efforts to enforce these old laws caused all kinds of contradictions. Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know which city you are referring to, but typically, through the early modern period, as suburbs around the city expanded, the old city walls would be abandoned or torn down, and a new set of walls would be built around the outer suburbs, bringing them within the city's defensive circuit. This happened several times in cities such as Paris and Berlin. There were interim periods when suburbs accreted outside the existing set of walls, but typically, the suburban population would have been able to take refuge within the walls in case of attack. The situation you describe, where the suburban population (and presumably area) was several times that of the city within the walls, suggests a point in time after the walls no longer had military value, as Alansplodge has explained. If walls had remained crucial for defense, then a new set of walls would have been constructed around at least the inner ring of those suburbs before they outgrew the walled city. Marco polo (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it has been already established that star forts were not huge hit in 19th century, however it was said that the suburbs were 10-times the size of the city by the end of 18th century and it seems they started to form much earlier and they were protected by wooden palisade untill 1808, so perhaps there were other reasons not to include them. I allready found out that they apparently didn't give a damn about what happaned to suburban population when they lost their homes. In any case I was hoping there is an article on this burning practice, I wonder if there may be other reasons for that ? ~~Xil (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Printing money

Calls for "austerity" seem to be mounting in many rich countries. The argument for austerity is that governments (and entire economies) will face a funding crisis if debt levels reach a point at which investors are no longer willing to lend those governments money. Now, this is probably true in the euro zone, since euro zone countries have in effect lost control of their currency, as I understand it, to the Eurosystem. However, what would prevent other countries from simply spending more than they receive in revenue? If this is possible, it would eliminate the need to borrow. If governments are concerned about preventing deflation and creating jobs, surely printing money and spending it would be a more effective means than borrowing and spending it, since government borrowing tends to crowd out private borrowing. Now, I understand that if a government were to begin printing unborrowed money, government bonds would plummet in value and interest on those bonds would spike. This could lead to a hyperinflationary scenario as government printing accelerated to keep pace with rising interest rates. However, what if, in one day, the government printed enough money to simply pay off the national debt? Of course, this would amount to a default, and the government would no longer be able to borrow money. But why should the government borrow money when it can print instead? Why shouldn't governments end commercial banks' monopoly on money creation, as it currently exists with fractional-reserve banking? Please understand that I am looking for thoughtful responses to my questions (if possible with references to published sources) and not looking to start a debate. Thank you. Marco polo (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Printing money does not create value, it just redistributes it. The value the government would get would come from decreased value of the currency everyone in their country is holding (due to inflation). There is really no difference between printing enough money to pay off the debt and taxing your people enough to pay off the debt - the value comes from the people in the end either way. That kind of inflation or tax would destroy the economy. --Tango (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Governments cannot print their way out of debt because, under the rules of Fiat currency a currency is basically tied to the GDP of the country that issues it (its not that simple, but roughly so). Money is basically a fraction of your countries GDP. If you print more money, you don't actually create more value, you just devalue the existing currency. Modern methods of "printing money" (which involve central banks playing around with interest rates rather than actual printed cash) operate much the same way; it doesn't actually generate additional value for the government, it only devalues currency already in the hands of people. Also remember that actual specie and paper money (which the government can literally print) is such a tiny fraction of money in circulation that actually firing up the presses to print more money has no practical effect on anything. Instead, what governments do is instruct their central banks to lower the interest rates on which they charge to loan money to comercial banks. When the central bank loans money to the commercial bank, it literally creates the money out of thin air. So, when it lowers the interest rates, the commercial banks borrow more money, this increasing the money supply. However, this money is not in the form of printed bills. Its all just entries on ledger sheets. Basically, it all exists in computer spreadsheets. --Jayron32 16:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's called Quantitative easing; same thing - better name. Alansplodge (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

These responses are very helpful. I am familiar with the pieces of this puzzle, but I am not familiar with the connection that Tango and Jayron32 made, between the value of GDP and and the value of the money supply. How exactly are the two connected? In the case of the United States dollar, trillions of dollars are held by foreign central banks because of the dollar's reserve currency status. How are these amounts connected to US GDP? It seems to me that the value of money is ultimately its ability to purchase desired goods and services. The supply of goods and services is somewhat limited globally. Foreign credit has certainly increased the share of global goods and services that holders of dollars (mostly Americans) could command above the value of goods and services produced by Americans. This discrepancy is roughly captured by the long-term US current account deficit. A cutoff or reversal of that credit (which seems virtually inevitable in the long-run) will reduce Americans' ability to purchase goods and services, leading to a decline in the material standard of living. The question is how that cutoff happens. Is the cutoff (which by itself will shrink US GDP and living standards) accompanied by a cut in government spending (further shrinkage of GDP and living standards) and rise in the real tax burden (further shrinkage) such that the fiscal deficit becomes a fiscal surplus, needed to pay off the debt, assuming that it is repayable from a smaller economic base? This seems to be the course indicated by the advocates of austerity. (However, many analysts have pointed out that austerity in Greece will cause economic contraction that actually increases its debt as a share of GDP and ultimately decreases its chances of repayment.) What I am asking is, what if the government simply prints money to pay off the debt? This will still lead to a cutoff of credit and a drop in government spending in real terms, but it would not necessarily lead to an increase in the real tax burden, because the debt would already be paid off. Any real increase in taxes could go toward, say, the construction of green infrastructure, rather than toward debt service. Such a move would inevitably lead to a bout of inflation, if only from the drop in the value of the dollar, along with declining material living standards (which are arguably inevitable anyway), but the main effect of inflation is to redistribute wealth from the holders of debt and securities to debtors and holders of physical assets. Assuming the government intervenes to prevent a hyperinflationary spiral or to implement fiscal and/or currency reforms after hyperinflation, how would this "destroy the economy"? Wouldn't tangible assets and people's skills still have value and provide the basis for a livelihood, albeit at a reduced material living standard? Thanks again. Marco polo (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I said it was a simplification. What I should have said was that it was a gross oversimplification. The value of the U.S. dollar, vis-a-vis other currencies, is determined on the open market (specifically the FOREX or Foreign exchange market). Thus, like all aspects of free markets, there is some volatility, randomness, and unpredictability of it. Still, generally speaking the value of the dollar will be dependant on people's feelings towards it, which is mostly determined by the strength of the U.S. economy (actually, it is determined by people's feelings on the ability of the U.S. government to back the value of the dollar; which is largely determined by the strength of the economy). One measure of the strength of the economy is the GDP. So, roughly speaking, the dollar is backed by the U.S. economy itself; and making more dollars does not increase the size of the economy. It mearely increases the number of shares in that economy the dollar represents; more dollars means each dollar is worth less. There may be real good reasons to do this intentionally, but one of them is NOT to correct government debt problems. Invariably, debaseing ones currency has the result of making a government's financial situation worse rather than better. --Jayron32 19:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make such a connection. The total value of the money supply is fixed (over very short periods of time), but I don't think that total value is equal to anything simple - there are loads of factors, of which GDP of the home country is one. --Tango (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Many of the statements above about inflation are ideological, though we have been so propagandized on the subject that we now accept ideology as fact. Inflation may be good or bad -- there are arguments on both sides. It is absolutely NOT true that "There is really no difference between printing enough money to pay off the debt and taxing your people enough to pay off the debt" or that "Invariably, debaseing ones currency has the result of making a government's financial situation worse rather than better." In the former case, the nation's LENDERS (rich) would be hurt far more than DEBTORS (poor) by monetizing the debt through high inflation -- see the Populists for the pro-inflation argument; by contrast, higher taxes, due to the marginal value of each taxed dollar to different classes, would hurt those with little money far more than those with lots of money. In the latter case, the USA would benefit greatly right now by "debasing" its currency via having a weaker dollar (the international equivalent of inflation) insofar as the greatest long-term danger the USA faces is a runaway trade deficit; and as Galbraith has pointed out, "debasing" currency via inflation is a negligible problem if real wages remain constant. The high inflation of the Carter Administration resulted in only one six-month recession during his term; the lowest quintile of Americans suffered much more during Reagan's first term, with its extremely long recession designed to "break the back" of the inflation that so bothered Reagan's rich employers and masters. 63.17.72.210 (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Economists in Zimbabwe may disagree with you on the joys of inflation and the benefits of debasing one's own currency. As I states above, there may be very good reasons to debase ones currency, or to encourage inflation, getting out of debt isn't one of them. --Jayron32 06:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The debate today is whether the next several years will be inflationary or deflationary. Since there is ample experience in managing inflation – balance the government’s books and jack up interest rates and, after a nasty recession, inflation disappears – and only negative examples of how to deal with deflation, the tendency is to err on the side of the devil we know: inflation. Besides, elected politicians hate to cut spending. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada's independence

Already checked: dominion#Canada, Dominion of Canada#Government_and_politics, Canada Act 1982, Crown Dependencies

I do not understand what rights the UK had in Canada, or, conversely, to what extent Canada was independent of the UK, when. The articles I've listed above do not explain this well. Does anyone know, please?—msh210℠ 15:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

See Dominion_status#Canada_and_Confederation.--Pondle (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thanks, but only partially answers the question. It says — if I understand it correctly — that the UK (or whatever it was called then; the article calls it the British Empire; I don't want to get into that) had complete power to write laws for Canada and nullify any that Canada (or any of her subdivisions) wrote for herself, and explicitly did not allow Canada to write laws that were contrary to the UK's interests. That's helpful, as I said, but when did all that end? That article says "Much of Canada's independence arose from the development of new political arrangements, many of which have been absorbed into judicial decisions interpreting the constitution - with or without explicit recognition", but are there any details on when, e.g., the UK lost the right to veto Canada's laws? And on another note, was that (legislative dependence) the only dependence of Canada on the UK? (Not that it's not a big one.)—msh210℠ 15:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada was functionally independent from the UK from Dominion Day (July 1, 1867). Officially, the Canadian state was still subservient to the UK parliament, but in practice, Westminster did not involve itself in Canadian issues. The UK parliament had the power to do whatever it wanted with regard to Canada, but in practice, as with the entirety of British politics, pragmatics plays a greater role than stautory power. Just as Parliament has the power today to do whatever it wants (it could abolish the Monarchy, it could restore full power to the Monarchy, it could declare or nullify any act it wants), it is contrained by the social laws of practical politics and the constraints of good governance, it could have done anything it wanted in Canada even after 1867. However, excepting in the most rare circumstances, it did not. After the Statute of Westminster 1931, Canada (and the other dominions) were granted greater official autonomy, specifically in that the Canadian parliament was, after 1931, considered co-equal to the British parliament on most issues (excepting, IIRC, succession issues). --Jayron32 16:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

To continue on from Jayron, legal appeals to the Privy Council were ended in 1949 (although the last case didn't wrap up until 1960). The Canada Act 1982 ended the last of Canada's dependence on the UK. Rmhermen (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all. That was very helpful. (And, yes, I meant de jure.) So, although today Canadians celebrate the anniversary of their independence in 1867, their "real" independence (well, independence de jure, or on paper), only came on April 17, 1982. Did the typical Canadian at that time care? Did he notice? Or did he consider himself to have been living in a fully independent country until then also? (Goes to check Google News Archive to see if it made ten-inch headlines in the Toronto Sun....)—msh210℠ 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a big deal at the time, even the Queen was present, but the day is nothing special - we don't get a day off work on April 17, and no one thinks Canada became independent in 1982, if they are even aware that anything happened then (which is unlikely, but then most people probably don't know exactly what happened in 1867 either). (And if you're really wondering what the Toronto Sun wrote, remember that even now, they think that everything and anything that is wrong with Canada is Trudeau's fault.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada was not "functionally independent" as of 1867; it only had functional independence regarding internal matters. Most notably, when the UK went to war with Germany in 1914, Canada was automatically included. Similarly, when border disputes with the US had to be worked out, it was Britain that represented Canada's interests (which meant that its representatives might actually put British interests first). Canada basically asserted its independence shortly after the war, notably by refusing to send troops to defend British interests in the 1922 Chanak crisis, and after one or two Imperial conferences had backed the idea, the result was the 1931 Statute of Westminster. To my mind Canada's real date of independence is in 1931, even though almost no one in Canada thinks of it that way. Even after that there still was no distinction between Canadian citizens and British subjects -- that came after WW2 -- but I think that was just because everyone was happy with it that way. --Anonymous (Canadian), 04:40 UTC, July 2, 2010.

Has the Governor General of Canada ever vetoed an act of the Canadian Parliament? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. But once the GG wouldn't let the PM dissolve Parliament. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean: once the GG rejected the PM's advice that he (the GG) dissolve Parliament. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but what I said is what actually happens :) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. The PM never "dissolves Parliament" unilaterally; he needs the agreement of the GG, and the GG is the one who issues the comnmand, not the PM. If what you're saying is that the PM decides when Parliament will be dissolved, then for most practical purposes I'd agree with you. But ultimately it's the GG's decision, and this case shows that the PM does not always get his way. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The legal independance of all commonwealth contries is arguable if you take a strictly theoretical view of their nature. The creation of the colonies and their subsequent independance is owed entirely to statutes of the British parliament. The doctorine of Parliamentary sovereignty holds that parliament may not bind its succesor, that is, there is nothing that parliament can do that it cannot undo. For example, the statute of westminster says that the British parliament cannot make laws for the realms in the dominion. But there is no reason (at least theoretically) that they could not make a law as an exception to that rule, or indeed repeal the statute (or the constitutions of any of the countries for that matter). Independance is a less than absolute concept for commonwealth countries (even today, there are a few matters on which the parliaments don't have full control) so it is a bit artificial to try and pinpoint an exact moment of independance, at least in the same way they do in a place like the US.Jabberwalkee (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why Dominion Day is as good as any other day, since that was the day when Canada became de facto independent. Practically, I don't think that Parliament could rescind the later acts, especially the BNA of 1949 and the Canada Act of 1982 without it being perceived as an act of war or something very similar, by Canada and its allies. In other words, it could rescind them, but it would be functionally like rescinding the Treaty of Paris (1783); reclaiming sovereignty over Canada would be no less impossible than reclaiming sovereignty over the United States. Parliament has the theoretical power to pass any act it wishes, no matter how completely loony. That it does not simply reclaim Canada is no less surprising than any other random bad idea it could in theory pass, but does not. --Jayron32 04:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Guns make the demarcation point much clearer. Shadowjams (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that Canadians do not celebrate "Independence" on July 1; they celebrate Confederation, i.e. the joining of three colonies (the united Upper and Lower Canada, the future Ontario and Quebec; New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) into a single political entity, which became the Canada that exists today. Independence was a gradual process, and some argue that it hasn't fully been realized yet since the Queen still reigns as Head of State. The confusion is because of the nearness of July 1 and July 4 (the US Independence Day) which creates an assumption that the two neighbours celebrate the same events and share a common historical development, which is not the case at all. --Xuxl (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you all for the info. The historical info provided by "Anonymous (Canadian)" (04:40 UTC, July 2, 2010) was especially enlightening.—msh210℠ 16:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting, in response to the question about Canadians caring in 1982, that the document has never been ratified mostly because of the province of Quebec's opposition to its implications that the nine other provinces would be able to overrule it on issues of language and culture. Although this issue has become largely dormant since the 1995 referendum, it remains a point of contention that a large block of the country does not recognize the Consitution as it is defined by the Canadian Supreme Courts.Heather Stein, M.A.; Dra. 17:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversial/interesting legal cases

I'm looking to kickstart my (UK) school's LawSoc with a quick talk/introduction. As an idea for a keynote speech (as opposed to other procedural notices), I thought a controversial case would be good. My first idea was a case of diminished responsibility or similar; something where you could say "Joe Bloggs killed his wife, and walked free". With diminished responsibility itself, such dichotomies between the accepted actions and sentence are rare, since this defence only reduces the crime to manslaughter (maximum term of life anyway). Do the refdeskers know any cases, like this one where defendants have done something very serious, and yet walked out the courtroom? 92.9.43.115 (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Although not exactly like the case you mentioned, O. J. Simpson murder case may be of interest. 10draftsdeep (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have an American law school degree. Lexis/Nexis contains British law. The list of international jurisdictions covered is amazing to me b/c I started with traditional books in a library. I assume WestLaw may do. When I want to highlight my skills, I choose a controversial area of law being shaped by the U.S. Supreme Court. Complexity is more important than controversity. For example, I wrote my writing sample on a limited aspect of the Establishment Clause. Besides commercial databases, accessing legal news sites may be helpful. You may already have done so. Appellate decisions receive much secondary research information.

Since I am not certain what subject matter your course comprises, the above is all I can offer. ADD: I can read an actual decision and learn the facts and holding. A fresh take or putting the case in broad context is helpful.75Janice (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)75Janice

If you want to stir up debate about something that will only get more legal attention in the coming years, bring up this controversial topic: is a psychopath less culpable for his crime because his brain is not "normal", a genetic condition that is not his fault? Read more here. —Kevin Myers 16:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the above suggestion is superb. When OJ Simpson was on trial, I had nothing to do so I watched the trial and read some of the books it generated. Fugue states were referred to in the commentary. During a fugue state someone can kill a person and not know it. I wrote a thesis on the insanity defense. The intersection of mental health and criminal law attracts much scholarly writing. 75Janice (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)75Janice

Here is an article mentioning the case of Kiranjit Ahluwalia and other women, from Sussex and elsewhere, whose murder convictions were overturned. Some more are listed here. Although as you say a manslaughter conviction was substituted, in many cases the final sentence was non-custodial. Sussexonian (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

One interesting case is that of Staff Sergeant Willis Eugene Boshears, a US Army officer stationed in England, who was acquitted by an English court on 17 February 1961 of the murder of Jean Sylvia Constable. He admitted that he had strangled Miss Constable but his defence that he had been asleep and dreaming at the time. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be homicidal somnambulism. WHAAOE. Karenjc 15:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And automatism throws up some interesting links too. Karenjc 19:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

American Accent

What has changed in the American accent in that it sounds so different from recordings of people talking in the 1930's and 40's? It seems like the general change in cadence has been rather dramatic. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't changed much at all. There is no "American" accent. The classicAmerican accent is from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. Everywhere else has a different accent. Plus, the age of the recordings changes the voice.--92.251.158.103 (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There was also an affectation (not really an accent) which existed before the days of electronic amplification of speech. When people spoke before a crowd, they had to speak in a very specific and deliberate manner to be heard in a crowd. Besides speaking loudly, this means that people had to speak slowly, clearly, and enunciate in a certain way. During the time period when amplification, radio, and television were just becoming commonplace, the recordings of public speakers sound weird to modern ears (I think of FDR's "the only thing we have to fear" speech) because people were still speaking in that trained manner for speaking to audiences. That method of public speaking died out with the last generations to be born after the age of amplification, but for the early days (1930's and 1940's) there would be people who were "trained" to speak that way, and so the recordings of these people sound weird to modern ears. --Jayron32 01:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with it. There is a selection bias, because obviously the people we remember with this accent are actors or famous people whose voices were more likely to be recorded, but they actually did have a different accent. Aside from FDR the one I think of most is Katharine Hepburn. They were from old wealthy New England families, and that's how those people spoke normally. Our Boston Brahmin and Boston Brahmin accent articles are not very useful, unfortunately, but this is a real thing. I'm sure we had a question about this recently, but I can't find it...if we could find that I think there are some other useful links to follow. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither Hepburn nor FDR were from Brahmin families, nor did either speak with a Brahmin accent. The Hepburns were from Hartford, with familial connections to Maryland and Upstate New York. FDR was from old New York Dutch (from the Roosevelt side), the same group that produced presidents such as Martin Van Buren, of French Hugenot ancestry (the Delano family), though with some connection to Plymouth Colony. The Boston Brahmins are a specific insular group in Boston itself. There are many other such upper class groups, but they do not necessarily share a linguistic or cultural connection. --Jayron32 03:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I meant the Brahmin accent is one example of this. It is not an affected accent that people were trained to use for TV or radio. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither was what I was describing. What I was describing was a manner of speach that people were trained to do BEFORE TV or radio. There was a manner of speach that people used PRIOR TO TV or radio which carried over to the early days of TV or Radio. Public speaking necessitated it. --Jayron32 03:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, whatever, that still has nothing to do with anything. Geez, this is like talking to Vranak. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have listened to many recordings of ordinary people from the 1930's and 1940's who were recorded on good equipment, and who were just speaking normally, not trying to speak like a orator, and whose speech sounds quite different from people of the same socioeconomic level in the same towns today. Scholars have studied the same individuals over decades in some towns, as and have noted shifts in pronunciation, so it is not just a population shift of various ethnic groups. Right now there is a shift in typical midwestern speech such that "hog" is pronounced such that the vowel sounds more like the o in "cot" and less of an "aw" sound. In addition, rural speakers in the west or south had a much stronger "hick" accent in older recordings. Edison (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion at the Straight Dope Message Boards has some interesting ideas on the topic. --Jayron32 03:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I know from personal experience that recordings from the early 20th century sound quite different from modern speech, even within the same geographic regions. I always wondered if this was a consequence of the recording equipment of the time. Roosevelt has a definite affect compared to even speakers 10 years later (like Eisenhower as president). But I don't think that's the full story. So I agree with the OP, this issue isn't settled simply with assertions about accent. Shadowjams (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Could it be the effect of mass communication? Most modern broadcasting is slanted toward the rather flat midwestern accent, with news caster english being the Cleveland dialect if I remember correctly. Over time, this mass broadcasting could have the effect of modulating out of existence regional dialects. Sort of like moving to a different region, over time your pronunciation begins to reflect more the people now around you and less the people in the area you came from. We now have 3 or 4 generations of people who have learned to speak as much by watching tv and movies as listening to their parents. This would theoretically tend to dilute a regional accent. Same principal but a much more drastic example is several monolithic languages such as English driving many of the worlds smaller languages to extinction. 76.22.140.195 (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

UK marriages, mid-80s

This is for a novel-in-progress. I read "Marriage Law" but it didn't help. I need to find out marriage laws in the UK in the mid-80s (and possibly in European countries as well, if what I'm asking about doesn't work in the UK). The four characters affected are a widowed father and his adoptive daughter and a widowed mother and her biological son. The son and daughter have fallen in love; the father and mother have fallen in love. Can both couples legally marry? Or only one couple? If both, does the order of the weddings matter - that is, if the mother and father married first, would that prevent the daughter and son from marrying? Thanks.Blewten (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer; but I cannot see anything in the circumstances you have described which would cause me to even suspect there was any problem or anything out of the ordinary. --ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If there were a law prohibiting the marriage of step-siblings, e.g., then there would be a problem. The Citizen's Advice Bureau says "People who are step relations or in-laws may marry only in certain circumstances. For information about when step relations and in-laws can marry, you should consult an experienced adviser, for example, at a Citizens Advice Bureau." They might know about the 1980s. Try them, Blewten. --NilsTycho (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Bill Wyman was married to the daughter of his son's wife. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Assume that UK law on prohibited degrees of relationship have not changed since the 1980s. (I can't find any evidence that they have.) In this case, the biological vs. adoptive status of the children is immaterial; the important factors will be the ages of the children, the degree to which they have lived together as a family, and the order in which the couples plan to marry. The law says "Step-relatives may marry provided they are at least 21 years of age. The younger of the couple must at no time before the age of 18 have lived in the same household as the older person. Neither must they have been treated as a child of the older person's family." If the four have never lived together as a family, either couple may marry, and if the children marry first it won't affect the parents' plans. But if the parents marry first, then the children become step-siblings and cannot marry until both are at least 21. If either of the children is under 18 at the time of the parents' marriage, or if they have all lived together as a family when at least one of the children is still under 18 (whether this is before or after after the parents' marriage) then the children will probably never be able to marry legally even after they both reach 21. See here for info. Karenjc 08:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the helpful replies! Yes, I was worried about the kids becoming stepsiblings.Blewten (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2

How does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights apply to criminals?

Do the rights expressed in the non-binding Universal Declaration of Human Rights (wikisource) apply to criminals? Certain articles, such as 9, 10, and 11 seem to be written with criminals in mind. However articles 3 and 13 seem to grant "liberty" and "freedom of movement" to everybody. No articles explain a process by which a person may forfeit "the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration", and article 2 seems quite explicit about "everyone" being "entitled" to them "without distinction of any kind" and regardless of any "status". Is there a generally accepted explanation of how these rights should be applied to criminals? --NilsTycho (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Article 9 says: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." That implies that non-arbitrary detention is allowed. Article 30 says: "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." That implies that States are allowed to take action against people infringing the rights of others. Those two Articles are as close as the declaration seems to get to saying you are allowed to punish criminals by withdrawing their human rights, but it is surprisingly unclear, I agree. --Tango (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

A judge is an arbiter... 81.131.22.240 (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hence the keyword "non-binding". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't catch your meaning. Do you mean that because the Declaration is non-binding, it therefore need not explicitly deal with corner cases? Or do you mean that because the Declaration is non-binding, it is not hypocritical to ratify the Declaration with one hand while restricting the rights of criminals with the other? I'm not really concerned with the fact that the Declaration is not legally binding, I'm curious as to the intention of the drafters. --NilsTycho (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Moral rights for long-dead people?

In countries where moral rights such as attribution are perpetual, does this apply (in practice) only to relatively recently-dead individuals? For example, I know that France is one of these countries; could I somehow get in trouble if I published in France something written by Julius Cæsar or Napoleon Bonaparte without attributing them? I'd just curious; I have no way of publishing anything here in the USA, let alone in any other countries. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

A... very legal question I wouldn't dare answer. I have no idea about foreign law. And the French love their moral rights (personal opinion). In the U.S., the most clear version of moral rights is the Visual Artists Rights Act. It's rather limited, but the more important U.S. based rights (in my opinion) are contained in commercial statutes, namely the Lanham Act, which, among other things, protects federally against misleading business practices, like saying you're Picasso (common law fraud might do that too...). Keep in mind too that "publishing" has very interesting definitions, and while the U.S. used to care a lot about whether and when something was published, it doesn't care in the same way now, for most purposes, but other countries do. The U.S. still cares about publication and notice and all of those other technicalities, but the implications are nuanced and rather random. For your question, whether or not something you do inside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States warrants the courts of another country to exercise domain over you is particularly complicated, something I wouldn't even begin to speculate on. Ask a lawyer for details, but if this is a history question, our moral rights article, copyright article, and the others I referenced above are very good places to start. Shadowjams (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no real need to ask a lawyer; as I said, I have no ability to violate these individuals' moral rights, so this isn't at all a request for legal advice. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright sometimes persists 50 to 100 years after the author's death. One can be sued for Defamation in the form of libel or slander of a deceased person, in both cases by any living heirs. The question "could I somehow get in trouble" is indeed a request for a legal opinion which the Ref. Desk. will not give. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"vamos chile mierda"

Where does that phrase come from? Chileans seem to use it a lot to describe their country in positive ways. I can't imagine how calling one's country "mierda" could be prideful. But their soccer supporters use it a lot, and that phrase was all over Twitter after the recent earthquake to urge Chileans to unite. I believe even El Pais of Spain used that phrase to start off an article about Chilean recovery efforts (or something else about foreign relations, I can't remember...). --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 02:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Its a bit like saying "go Chile, for f**ck's sake". 'Mierda' in this context should not understood literally. Not sure were this particular expression stems from though. One could also say "Vamos Chile, carajo" ('Go Chile, damm it'). --Soman (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably not relevant, but in UK slang, "go like shit" means to go very fast[16]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And "he's the shit" means the exact opposite of "he's a shit", which confused my French friend. 81.131.22.240 (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Which of course brings up why being "pissed off" isn't the exact opposite as being "pissed on" in fact, they are closer to synonyms if you think about it... If I am pissed on, I am also usually pissed off... --Jayron32 16:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Be aware that this is a slang saying. Slang does not always obey common gramatical rules (such as words meaning what they actually mean, when taken in isolation), and translations of slangs are easy to make mistakes, specially when done in a literal way MBelgrano (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Jokes also do not follow standard grammar rules, but are funnier when the teller pretends that they do for comedic effect. --Jayron32 00:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The function of mierda here is emphasis. It's a modifier for the whole preceding phrase. Steewi (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Korean and Mayan war

Age of Empires mentions a Korean and Mayan war in Texas. But what is this war? I'm having trouble finding any other mention about it. jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 02:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never played it (and there is no mention of such a war in the article), but as far as I'm aware it's a lot like the Civilization and Total War games, so you can create all kinds of unhistorical scenarios. (In Civ I my Russians once conquered the world in the third millennium BC.) It's just a game. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a joke; the manual writers were trying to be ironic. For those who don't have the game — one feature included in the Age of Empires II expansion pack is the ability to play a game on a Texas map, and the expansion's miniature manual says something such as "you can recreate the Korean-Mayan struggle over Texas". Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Bernardino Luini

I'm trying to find a picture of a painting by Bernardino Luini. Its name should be Ninfa dei boschi. I've searched it with Google, but I think I haven't find the real painting. Any idea?--151.51.61.119 (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only mentions of this painting are in connection with an urban legend about the painting exhibiting paranormal activity. As part of the legend, the painting disappeared, and the museum curators claim they know nothing about it. I wouldn't be surprised if the painting never existed. --NilsTycho (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

American Foreign Policy

I read somewhere that the ultimate aim of the American Foreign Policy to India is disintegration of the Indian state as a single nation, is that correct ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No. --Jayron32 16:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

To expand a bit on Jayron's answer: No, not at all. —Kevin Myers 16:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

May be during the cold war years, when we were in the opposite sides. I believe Selig Harrison has written something about this (i am not sure)--Sodabottle (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding conflicts in North-Eastern India, there have been accusations of videshi hath ('foreign hand'), CIA involvement, etc.. For example regarding the role of Western missionaries in influencing militant groups. But even if that would be correct, it would not mean "disintegration of the Indian state as a single nation", just like the separation of Bangladesh did not mean the end of Pakistan as a single nation. --Soman (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sodabottle, I don't recall ever hearing that India was a cold war opponent of the USA. Do you have a cite for that? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a Cold War opponent of the US. It was officially neutral, basically the founders of the Non-Aligned Movement. That meant that sometimes it sidled up with the USSR to get what it wanted, sometimes to the US. Clever policy, to be sure—keep everybody feeling you could switch sides at any moment, and everybody plays pretty nice with you and puts up with a lot. (Cf. Joe Lieberman.) In practice they got more out of the USSR than they did out of the US at many points, which did strain things a bit. (See India – United States relations.) But they were never officially on the other side or officially considered as such. Which doesn't, of course, mean that the CIA or whomever didn't have all sorts of schemes in place—they had those even for allies, much less neutrals or enemies. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say that India wasn't so much of an opponent of US, but certainly belonged to the other camp. The Bangladesh Liberation War for example, US and China backed Pakistan whilst Soviet Union backed India (and Bangladesh). The relationship has been pretty much coloured by the fact that Pakistan was (and largely remains) a US puppet state, tied up in schemes like CENTO. --Soman (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

US Postal Insurance vs. Delivery Confirmation

Not sure where to ask this, but this seemed the closest. I was at my local post office mailing a package. I asked to insure the package, which costs an additional fee. The postal worker then asked if I wanted Delivery Confirmation added for additional fee. And I got a bit confused. If I send a package by US Postal Service and I buy their insurance to cover the cost of the item, is purchasing delivery confirmation at an additional fee an unneeded expense? In my head, it seems logical that if someone didn't receive the package, USPS insurance would pay for it. If the recipient received the package, but claimed they hadn't, insurance would also pay me. I'm trying to think of a situation where delivery confirmation would be necessary if insurance is purchased. I think the local post office is trying to make an extra buck off an unsuspecting sucker. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Assume you send a time-critical document, i.e. a contract termination notice or a legal brief. You may need to be able to prove that it reached the recipient on time. Also, some items may be irreplacable, no matter the cost. Think about a rare book or a family heirloom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything insured over a certain amount ($600 maybe) needs to be signed for when delivered anyway (so the postal worker I talked to said), so delivery confirmation would not be required in that situation. Googlemeister (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

facebook account delete

How do you completely delete your Facebook account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.233 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

See "I want to permanently delete my account" on this page. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

But this will not delete all the traces of your presence there. There is still the cached pages of search engines and web archiving services. Don't put anything online if you don't want to stay there forever.--Quest09 (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Or at least don't make it publicly viewable. You can set up Facebook so it won't appear in search engines or on web archives. (Additionally, I'm pretty sure Facebook doesn't show up in archives.org because of its robots.txt settings.) --Mr.98 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

robots.txt are only respected by respectable search engines. In general, do stick to the rule of not uploading anything that you don't want to be there forever. There's still the possibility that someone steals your pictures and upload them somewhere else. --Quest09 (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

How many university graduates speak English?

I can't find any statistics anywhere online, so I'm hoping someone else will be able to do a better job. What proportion of the world's university graduates speak English? (I'm flexible on what standard of English ability should be required.) Thanks. --Tango (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think anyone would be able to answer that question in a satisfactory way. You could could number of people who take TOEFL tests or who graduate from English-medium education or obtain degrees in English language, but that would only be a fraction of the total English-speaking university graduates worldwide. --Soman (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There are decent estimates of English speakers in the general population, why can't there be similar estimates for the graduate population? --Tango (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There are fantastically shitty estimates of English speakers worldwide. See List of languages by total number of speakers and List of languages by number of native speakers. The history of the "total number of speakers" article contains older versions which give a better idea of what a complete clusterfuck the data is for questions like this. There really is very poor data on the number of speakers of languages worldwide. This is confounded by a) poor sampling methods b) poor defintions of what defines a distinct language (as opposed to multiple dialects of the same language) c) political reasons for inflating or depressing numbers of speakers of certain languages. There's just no really good data for this, and so for any subset of the data, there is likely to be even worse estimates. --Jayron32 18:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought a smaller population would allow for better estimates. It is much easier to sample graduates than the general population. Of course, it requires someone to have actually done a study into it, but people do studies into much stranger things. --Tango (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

James Monroe

Are there any living desendants of US President James Monroe and his wife, Elizabeth Kortright Monroe? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

According to our Wikipedia articles, he had at least 3 grandchildren via his daughter Maria and Samuel L. Gouverneur. They are listed in that article, which can give you some extra names to search the geneology websites under. There would be no patrilineal descent from Monroe; he only had one son who died as a child. --Jayron32 18:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Jayron.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

if a professional marries a client they are mutualy in love have they got rights not to be penalised

Ethically morally it is not allowed in England to have a personal sexual relationship with a client if you are a profesional social worker for example but what if you fall in love and get married have you got any human right to appeal being penalised eg/ losing your job or losing registration status and can you appeal if you are struck off. What then if the power balance is equal and the feeling is mutual and marriage is involved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.202 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You're supposed to end the professional relationship if you wish to start a romantic and/or sexual one. As long as you end the professional relationship (by asking one of your colleagues to take over the case, usually) as soon as you realise you are falling in love and before you act on those feelings, then you should be fine. If you marry them while they are still your client, then you will almost certainly get into trouble. If the other person were particularly vulnerable then you might get into trouble if it seems you have taken advantage of them. Professional conduct is usually governed by a code of conduct within the profession rather than law, so if you want a precise answer for a specific case then you need to consult that code of conduct. The professional body will be able to provide advice - that is part of the job of professional bodies. --Tango (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the gist of the question is whether there is any existing human rights legislation that could be used to "trump" a dismissal for this type of professional misconduct, where someone is deemed to have broken their terms of employment by breaching the type of code of conduct Tango describes. We cannot give any specific legal advice or opinions on legal matters here, and I cannot find any links to similar cases you could look at for your own research. Some European human rights legislation has been interpreted successfully in various EU countries in test cases against a variety of domestic laws and practices. We have an article on the European Convention on Human Rights, parts of which have been used in such cases. But if this is an enquiry about someone's personal circumstances, rather than just a general request to know what the law says, you need to talk to a legal professional. Such a case would be complicated and high-profile, and would probably involve a challenge to existing UK law, so it is well outside the scope of the reference desk to provide an answer. Karenjc 21:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Merciful Death

Which is the English term to denote, in a context of warfare, the act of killing someone in order to prevent a more horrible death or suffering? For example, someone mortally injured in enemy territory and without chances of reaching a place to be healed, someone about to be captured and risking being tortured for a long time, or with knowledge that the enemy shouldn't get, or other such scenarios. An article that mentions this links to Euthanasia, but I'm sure it's a whole different thing MBelgrano (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Coup de grâce. (Yes, I know it isn't English, but it is what we say.) --Tango (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Usually mispronounced, when misappropriated by sports commentators, as "koo de grah" rather than "koo de grahss".

Slightly more generally, we also refer to "putting someone out of their misery/suffering"; that might apply in a war context where a soldier comes across an enemy soldier who'd been horribly wounded by something the first soldier had nothing to do with, and decides the best thing is just to shoot him. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless you're this guy, then you get charged with murder... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

We also say "mercy killing". (I note that the last situation you describe, where the person must be killed to prevent the enemy learning something, is different: there you are sacrificing the person, if it's coherent with the person's morality that they should be killed.) 213.122.27.137 (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"Mercy killing" usually refers to euthanasia, though. It could be used in the context of warfare, but it's not the primary usage. --Tango (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The killing of a wounded adversary who is no longer capable of offering resistance is covered in Third Geneva Convention . Would the hypothetical soldier kill his comrade in arms who was wounded equally severely, to prevent the "horrible suffering" or would he give him morphine and send him to a forward surgical station? In the case of Iman Darweesh Al Hams, a wounded 13 year old Palestinian girl, an Israeli officer, "Captain R.," allegedly fired an automatic weapon into the girl's body, emptying the magazine to "confirm the kill" as she lay wounded. The girl had been suspected of carrying weapons or explosives, which turned out to be textbooks. 17 bullets were found in her body. The army chief of staff, General Moshe Yaalon, said repeatedly that the officer acted properly. In a trial, the officer was found not guilty of illegal use of his weapon. Then R. was promoted to Major and paid 82,000 New Israeli Shekels as compensation for his defense expenses and time in jail . In general, a "mercy killing" to prevent "horrible suffering" is considered Homicide or at least Manslaughter in North America (not to be taken as legal advice). See also Jack Kevorkian. Edison (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

As I write this, by co-incidence, my mother is telling about the horrible past things ! Just before 1947 it was rumored that the village where her family then lived may fall on wrong side of the Radcliffe Line the departing British rulers were going to draw. It was decided by the elders that in that case girls will be put to death. An handicapped aunt was also supposed to meet the same fate ! In India such merciful death of women was very common. In some part whole groups of women would burn themselves lest they fall in hands of Islamic invaders. This was called Jauhar Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Its rather sick that places and people exist in the world where this kind of thinking even has to be contemplated. 76.22.140.195 (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

July 3

What is this clothing called?

What is/are the name(s) for these gown-like articles of clothing?

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

--69.165.131.155 (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Stola. --Jayron32 01:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Carytid from the Parthenon, showing typical greek womens dress, the peplos

A Peplos might actually be more correct, if you mean this . 76.22.140.195 (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Expensive book

There are two parts to this post:

1. Why is Significant Tornadoes 1680-1991 by Thomas P. Grazulis so expensive? I would think if the demand for the book was so high as to make the price that expensive, they would print more copies of the book...but that doesn't seem to have happened? Why would they choose not to reprint the book or somehow else make the price more affordable for those looking to buy it? In essence, what are the economics at work that make this book so expensive/high demand, but still not be reprinted?
2. Is there anywhere (in my searches I couldn't find anywhere) that I could find this book for under 100$?

Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It could be explained by there being a small number of people than really really really want the book. Remember, when we talk about "supply" and "demand" they aren't numbers, they are functions of price. A book that is out-of-print will have a pretty flat supply curve - people tend to decide to sell a book based on whether they still want it or not rather than what they can get for it. If the demand curve is also pretty flat (the same number of people want it regardless of how much you charge) then the two curves will meet at a very high price. A new print run will need to have a certain size in order to get the unit price below a certain point and there may not be enough people wanting the book for that to work. --Tango (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sellers of used copies of the book anticipate that demand for the book is high enough for an individual to pay the asking price. To reprint the book there would have to exist a suitably equipped publisher, an estimate by that publisher of the number of copies that can be sold, willingness to invest in the costs of printing and distribution and no unsettled copyright issues. The OP has already located a used copy of the book at a seller in California who asks just under $200. The OP can offer $100 and see what happens. The Ref. Desk will not survey used book sellers nor negotiate with them. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

=P Talk about assuming the above and beyond...I wasn't asking for the ref desk to survey/negotiate used book sellers, just to research online if there was anywhere I couldn't find that had the book for cheaper...don't worry, I don't need someone to do more than find it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Tha Vanishing Hitchhiker

This seems to be a worldwide phenomenon as the wiki article goes. You hear a lot about it in Indian folklore, as I can vouch for. How is it really in west ? Has anyone any real firsthand experience ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Here [17] you can find some information about it. That site has also a large collection of true stories of every kind (some of them very disturbing) sent by readers and listed by month: [18]. Also, if you want a more folkloristic/quaint western ghost similar to it, we have: White Lady (ghost). And what about Indian Vanishing Hitchhikers? Do you have any information about them? --151.51.61.119 (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"No maps for these territories"

I am looking for the source of this phrase, i.e. its first (or earliest available) publication and author. Just to pre-empt some general answers, I'm familiar with the map-territory distinction (and derivative phrases like "the map is not the territory") and the documentary of this name. Thanks in advance, 86.45.145.165 (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Originally the phrases Hic sunt leones or Here be dragons were used, which might mean "No maps for these territories" is relatively recent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that is instructive. 86.45.145.165 (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a movie. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the one I linked to in my question? I am fucking amazed. 86.45.145.165 (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Gibson himself says here in his blog, on 2 Feb 2003, that the phrase comes from his own text for Memory Palace, the surreal 1992 Barcelona performance show to which he contributed the text. He also says in the same place: "though I didn’t recognize it when the maker of the film first suggested it as a title". That suggests to me that it's an original coinage by him for Memory Palace (and not anything very significant to him) rather than an earlier stock phrase with which he was already familiar and which he would have recognised when it was suggested as the film title. Karenjc 20:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Determination of the degree and line of the relationship by blood and by marriage

Would any person mind exemplifying me as to the determination of the degree and line of the relationship by blood and by marriage in accordance with the following provisions of the German Civil Code? These kinds of determination are nowhere to be seen in my country's civil code, the Civil and Commercial Code, and in those of the countries in the same region such as the Civil Code of Japan, etc., even though the German Civil Code has been their model. Thank you so much.

"Section 1589 (Relationship by blood).

(1) Persons one of whom is descended from the other are related lineally. Persons who are not related in direct line but who are descended from the same third person are related collaterally. The degree of relationship is determined by the number of intermediate births.

(2) (repealed)

Section 1590 (Relationship by marriage).

(1) The relatives of a spouse are related to the other spouse by marriage. The line and the degree of the relationship by marriage are determined according to the line and the degree of the intermediate relationship by blood.''

(2) Relationship by marriage continues even if the marriage by which it was created has been dissolved."

203.131.212.36 (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

how should we refer to him?

A man weds my daughter and becomes my Son-in-Law. What does the man who weds my granddaughter become? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.8.250 (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing here, but probably grandson-in-law (or "that lazy guy which I don't like at all"). Read this meager article: In-law. Flamarande (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Grandson-in-law, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, grandson-in-law. It's not even ambiguous, since the son of your son-in-law (which, at first glance, you might call your grandson-in-law) is also the son of your daughter (you hope!) so is just your grandson. --Tango (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And if the son of your son-in-law's not the son of your daughter, you'd probably call him a "step-grandson" rather than a "grandson-in-law". Buddy431 (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

university

what would a degree in the English Language or in Creative Writing actually involve? And how many points would a distinction in a BTEC introductory diploma be worth?

80.47.187.29 (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean UCAS points? The BTEC Introductory Diploma doesn't give you any UCAS points. It's a Level 1 qualification on the National Qualifications Framework (it's roughly equivalent to 4 GCSEs at D-F grades). UCAS points are usually for Level 3 qualifications (equivalent to A levels). --Tango (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Freehold land - upwards and downwards

If I own some freehold land in the UK, then how far does that ownership extend upwards and downwards? Downwards to the centre of the earth - or more? Upwards to the edge of space, or to infinity and beyond? Can I charge aircraft and spacecraft a toll for flying through my airspace? Do I temporarily own all the planets, stars and galaxies above my land? Thanks 92.24.179.245 (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are difficult questions to answer. Countries on the equator have tried to claim ownership of space at geostationary orbit (which very valuable), but haven't been able to enforce that claim so it didn't go very far. The Civil Aviation Act 1982 Section 76 says a aircraft flying over your property at a "reasonable height" doesn't count as trespass (so you can't charge for it). I can't find any clear explanation of who owns the region under your property, but mineral rights can certainly be owned by someone different from the owner of the surface rights. --Tango (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as the United States: "Common law provided that the owners of real property owned that property from the center of the earth to the heavens. This rule has been eroded by modern legal restrictions such as land use regulation laws, environmental protection laws, and air navigation requirements. Even today, however, the owners of land may sell or lease air space parcels above their land." This is taken from Business Law by Henry Cheeseman; copyright 2010; page 755. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

Execution of Robespierre

In the Maximilien Robespierre article, it states: "Only Robespierre was guillotined face-up". What is the significance of this statement? In the historical context, were there certain reasons why a condemned might be executed facing up or facing down? What was the thinking at the time? I have no idea, although I can surmise. I am just wondering if there is any historical information about this type of scenario. My presumption is that facing up allows the condemned to watch the guillotine blade fall ... and, thus, heightens his anxiety or fear or "torture", if you will. But, that is only a supposition on my part. Would there be any reasons or protocol for which the authorities would force a "face up" execution? The "face down", I imagine, was the standard ... is that correct? For what reasons would authorities deviate from that standard? Thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

Any engineer would find face up more interesting, to watch the mechanism in action. Edison (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Engineer? I don't understand what you are saying. Please clarify. Thanks. I can't imagine that the person in charge of the execution (the King, or Queen, or whoever) was particularly concerned with the condemned person having an "interesting" experience. 64.252.65.146 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

Cops with machine guns, central London

Last week I saw two men near the Bank Of England ambling along in a relaxed manner with machine guns held close to their chests. While I guessed that they must be policemen, only when they walked past me could I see "Police" in quite small letters on their backs.

Is this routine nowadays? What might they have been doing? There were no bullion wagons to be seen. I feel outraged that the boys-in-black should be freely showing guns on the streets for no obvious reason. That is something, like identity cards and state CCTV, that we don't want in this isle. 92.15.0.171 (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's only routine for the police guarding certain buildings (Parliament, airports, nuclear facilities, etc.). I wasn't aware that the Bank of England was such a building, but it's possible. --Tango (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Can Disney take my stuff?

Here's a vague and strange question: I heard that Disney can claim anything with its name on it to be an "artifact" and take it, even if I've purchased it. Does anything like this actually exist? ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間}