Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

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)[reply]

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

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

Expensive book

There are two parts to this post:

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?
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

=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)[reply]

Academic books are generally absurdly expensive, it's the Great Academic Publishing Scam. Publishers know research libraries need to keep current with the latest research, hence the high price of monographs and especially journals. They also have small print runs and are rarely remaindered, so you often find piss-taking valuations like those in the second hand market (the top price copy on amazon is always delusionally priced by optimistic booksellers). You could look on bookfinder.com or set up an rss feed from the appropriate ebay search, good luck. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 15:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here [1] 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: [2]. 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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. Ka renjc 20:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, that is just what I was looking for, Karen. Thank you very much. 86.45.145.165 (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Section 1589 refers to family. My children, my grandchildren, my father, mother, gandparents, greatgrandparents are my linear relatives. There is a direct linear relationship (a direct bloodline).

My uncles, aunts, cousins (and their descendants) are my colateral relatives (an indirect bloodline). I share some ancestors with my coleteral relatives but we don't share all our ancestors. Example: my maternal grandparents are the ancestors of me and my aunt (my mother's sister). But I also have ancestors which she doesn't have. My father and his parents, etc (my parental ancestors).

The degree of relationship between myself and my coleteral relatives is determined by the births. The son of my aunt is my cousin. The son of the son of my grandfather's brother is also my cousin. But the first (son of my aunt) has a closer degree of relationship than the second (there are fewer "births/steps" between myself and the first than the second). This degree of relationship is important in marriages (I'm not allowed to marry my closest relatives) or inheritances (my closest relatives get more than my distant relatives if I die). Flamarande (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC) PS: I just hope you can follow my text. All of this is just my understanding of the matter and I'm not a lawyer.[reply]

Section 1590 obviously refers to the relatives of one's wife/husband (the spouse = "the intermidiate relationship by blood"). Example: Her brothers become my brothers-by-marriage, her nephews become my nephews-by-marriage, etc.

Interresting is the second law. The relation continues even if the marriage is dissolved. I'm speculating here but "dissolved" can mean divorce and/or death. Example: My wife has a under-age brother. He obviously becomes my brother-by-marriage. Their parents are dead and they don't have any other relatives. Some time later my wife dies (or divorces me first and then dies). I can (if I wish) become the legal guardian of her under-age brother because he is my relative-by-marriage (even if she divorced me before dying). Or another case: my wife and her brother have a lot of money. She dies (or she divorces me and then dies) and a few years later he also dies. I, as his nearest relative-by-marriage, am his heir and get all the money. Notice that I'm not a lawyer and my examples are just educated guesses. In particular, inheritances have their specific rules and laws. Flamarande (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

To the first question, looking around Wikipedia for a moment, it's unfortunate we don't have articles on different types of Bachelor of Arts degrees. Anyway, an "English degree" means a degree in "English literature", which means you read a lot of the Western canon and write about it. A degree in creative writing still involves a lot of reading, but as you'd expect there are a lot of fiction writing courses. Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are there seperate 'English Language' and 'English Literature' degrees available? 80.47.181.74 (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed degrees in English Language, which is a separate subject from English Literature (although many courses are available that combine elements of both). English Language degrees may include the study of linguistics, sociolinguistics, philology and lexicology, among other subjects. Here is the course structure of the English Language degree course at the University of Kent, for example. As for creative writing, this is certainly offered at degree level, although usually in conjunction with a literature element. The University of East Anglia has a well-known and prestigious creative writing department - the MA in Creative Writing was established there by Angus Wilson and Malcolm Bradbury - and at undergraduate level offers a BA in English Literature with Creative Writing which is probably a good example of its type - the course details are here. Ka renjc 14:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

See air rights. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

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

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))[reply]

He was making a joke. Engineers and technical people love to see how things work. --mboverload @ 22:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When Robespierre was executed, there was a distinct absence of Kings and Queens in the vicinity, in no small part due to his own efforts. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be more painful, since the blade might not sever the spinal column right away, as it would do the other way (or at least as it was supposed to do...). He could have been laying there for awhile with a blade stuck in his neck. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, maybe it was just because Robespierre had already shot himself in the face, and if they put him face-down, his jaw might not have remained attached... Adam Bishop (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being executed face-up would be considered more frightening for the still-alive victim. Being able to see the blade waiting to come down is much more real than facing away from it. Steewi (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a particular rule that might force it, other than the people's desire to punish someone they *really* didn't like. Steewi (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all ... much appreciated! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"...we don't want..."? Interesting that you can speak for the entire isle. Dismas|^(talk) 00:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've regularly seen police in England carrying MP5s. In the U.S., most states permit citizens to get permits to carry guns, in some cases this isn't even necessary (you must check local laws). But in every U.S. states, even those with strict gun control, the police regularly carry handguns. I find it very strange that you find gun carrying so disruptive, and especially strange that you find it problematic by the police. Even in places with extreme gun control, like Chicago, the police carry guns without any suggestion of dissent. Shadowjams (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we rarely see armed officers in the UK, the sight of a policeman with a gun instantly makes us think there's a serious problem. Police here rarely flaunt their weapons, and not long ago you could tell armed officers because they would be wearing a huge coat on a hot day to conceal their holster. It's a cultural thing. I understand that when there is a need for firearms, then something more accurate than a handgun is usually deployed - MP5s seem to be in favour. If they were in more-or-less plain clothes, it tends to suggest that they were on a non-routine operation. Alansplodge (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably a smaller ratio of gun-carrying people in the UK. I suppose that on average the UK criminals are not so quick to shoot upon the police (unlike their US counterparts). Notice also that nobody mentioned the United Kingdom National DNA Database suggesting that only a few have problems with that database (the largest of the world). But hey "we don't want any identidy cards". Flamarande (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar things could be said about identity cards and CCTV and (symbol of oppression X). The fact that people somewhere else got used to it is not really an argument. Just as well, since this isn't really the place to have an argument. 81.131.29.26 (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear! 92.15.12.165 (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all of a same mind here--this isn't the place for a gun debate. I find those notes interesting though. When I've been in England I've often noticed armed police, usually openly. Perhaps I have an eye for concealed weapons, of which I've seen some in London, but openly armed police are pretty common in Heathrow and around major attractions.

There's a certain irony, in the U.S. fully automatic weapons and sub-machine guns are extremely rare, even among police. I've never seen an MP5 in the civilian U.S., but I've seen it in England. Shadowjams (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They started marching around airports with machine guns some years ago. I think its horrible - as if Britain were some Latin junta. 92.15.12.165 (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The civilian US? What's that?Flamarande (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The non military non police citizens. Shadowjams (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you saw the MP5 but the article Right to keep and bear arms states that MP's are not allowed to UK civilians. I guess that the MP5 belonged to an English police officer. On the other hand I vaguely remember that the US Supreme court recently judged that according the Constitution the Right to keep and bear arms can't be suppressed or diminished by US cities and states. That speaks ill for the future but let's drop the matter. Flamarande (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the US will be a bloodbath quite soon since nothing has effectively changed (sarcasm?)... but yeah, let's drop that issue. I think you misunderstood my earlier comment. The people carrying sub machine guns (not really machine pistols) were clearly police, but they were quite frequent around certain places in downtown London, and in the airports. The point was about the frequency of firearm exposure. Even in extremely restricted areas of the U.S. police carry guns, and so regular people see them regularly. In most states of the U.S. people can carry guns under most instances, and a large proportion of Americans are at the least familiar with them. That was my point, as I stated above. Shadowjams (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Central London is the city where I'd expect to see armed police walking the streets, to be honest. When I lived in Barnsley, Yorkshire, I regularly saw them walking a particular street, which I found alarming (it was 20 years ago!). Then I found out they were guarding the home of Roy Mason, the Barnsley MP who became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the height of the troubles. It became a little more comforting then. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happens in the US, or what Americans think about it, is not really relevant to the questions asked: Is this routine nowadays? What might they have been doing? 92.15.12.165 (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my last post, I would say "yes" to the first question, and "anything from personal protection to anti-terrorism" to the second one. Not US: UK born, bred, resident. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends where one is. The main places that you'd expect to see armed patrols are within, and just outside, the Government Secure Zone, and around certain areas of what are terms Critical National Infrastructure in London. So it's a matter of routine on and around Whitehall, around certain key transport hubs, of which Heathrow is the most obvious and already noted and certain other buildings, including the Bank of England.

As to the point of whether we want it or not, we live in a democratic state and however flawed the electoral system might be it oes provide some form of legitimacy to any government that implements these policies and approaches. It is a matter of policy that no government can bind a future government so it is entirely reasonable for the current or future governments to rescind the decisions of a previous government. This is not really the place for a debate on government policy and direction.

If you wish to challenge the various acts that provide a legal basis for armed police then feel free to raise a suggestion at Yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk

ALR (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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}

Can you give us a link to these claims? On the surface this seems preposterous. --mboverload @ 22:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be ridiculous. --Tango (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure that would violate the first-sale doctrine. (For which there are some exceptions, but not this sort of one.) --Mr.98 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's to do with copyright. If this is about the Disney name, as the OP says, then it would come under trademark law rather than copyright law, I expect. That doesn't make it any less ridiculous, though. --Tango (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an IP question in general, though, and the concept applies just the same. They lose their rights to dictate what you do with their stuff once you buy it—just because it is their IP doesn't mean they own it anymore (and the fact that it is their IP specifically is relevant here, since that's the only thing that would plausibly extend to the whole brand). There are some exceptions to this with EULAs and etc. but as a general rule it is how commerce works in just about everything except the software domain. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual property, right? Just checking... 90.193.232.32 (talk) 09:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's the conclusion that I came to as well. Dismas|^(talk) 10:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I that was true, my sister would have to hide her cat (named Disney). Astronaut (talk) 12:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like it came from the same folks that cooked up the "cryogenically frozen" story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it stems from a recent episode of Antiques Roadshow, which featured a large aerial photo of the park in Florida, during the 60s when it was still half way in the development phase. An ex Imagineer brought it in, said it had hung in their office for years, and when they were gonna throw it out he asked for and received it. The expert said they(Disney) could take it back if they wished and also put a price on it, but said it would be alot more if he had the repro rights on it, but disney still had those. 76.22.140.195 (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's very odd. If it is actually Disney property and they are "loaning" it to him, that's one thing. But if they've given it to him, it's his. Note that the physical ownership is entirely different from the question of who owns the reproduction rights (which is a copyright question distinctly). Obviously if you owned the reproduction rights it would be worth more than if you didn't—it's the difference between owning one photo and owning the ability to license more of the same photo out. But entirely separate from its worth as an antique in and of itself, and entirely separate from the issue of whether Disney could revoke his ownership rights. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disney is neurotically aggressive about protecting the image of its icons (a function of being a business that makes extremely large profits off of peddling entertainment to innocents). If, for instance, you were to purchase dolls of disney figures and place them in erotic poses in some bizarre art display, you would quickly have half a million disney lawyers crawling all over you, and they would most likely come armed with an assortment of legal pretext like the one you mentioned above to remove the figures from your possession and destroy the offensive material. It's unlikely they would come after anyone for non-offensive, non-copyright-violating uses, but they will deal harshly with anything that sullies their characters' reputations (and threatens their bottom line). --Ludwigs2 18:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High heels

Why have high heels not gone out of fashion in the same way that the bustle or the corset have? 92.28.245.229 (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People's tastes change. Also corsets and high heels hurt, are bad for you, and can cause serious injury. --mboverload @ 22:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A culture continuously changes, and the clothes that a particular person wears usually are related to the person's cultural norms. For example, I would not be at all surprised if baseball hats are no longer worn in 150 years in America for the same reasons that we no longer wear tophats or bonnets in America. The American culture has changed. (I'm using the US as an example; it changes everywhere, though not always at the same rate). Falconus^{p t c} 23:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not as a general-public fashion statement, but ballplayers themselves probably will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High heels are going out of fashion- I see far fewer of them than I once did, and they are more and more reserved for formal occasions. I was just remarking the other day how nice it was that women didn't seem obligated to wear heels to work any more. Like bow ties, tailcoats, and, yes, corsets, I imagine that they'll stick around for a long time in formalwear. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I felt like sticking in gratings to stop women wearing stilettos into a hall and destroying the floor but was told it's against health and safety. Thankfully that seems very uncommon now. Dmcq (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High heels add a few inches to a woman's height, and that might be the reason they are still around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the article itself says, "Reasons for wearing high-heels, which are almost exclusively aesthetic, include: they change the angle of the foot with respect to the lower leg, which accentuates the appearance of calves; they change the wearer's posture, requiring a more upright carriage and altering the gait in what is considered a seductive fashion; they make the wearer appear taller; they make the legs appear longer; they make the foot appear smaller..." etc. So long as those criteria are thought important (by women, or by men in assessing women's attractiveness), high heels will probably continue to be worn. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fisherqueen -- Ten or fifteen years ago at the university near where I live, it seemed like women almost never wore thin or spike heels around campus during the daytime (though they did wear kind of broad platforms), but they appear to have made a comeback in recent years... AnonMoos (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar reasons could be put forward about bustles and corsets. They also change dimensions. 92.29.124.254 (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, bustles and corsets are not really compatible with the requirements of modern lifestyles, or the idea that a woman should quickly and seamlessly transition from wearing workout gear to wearing eveningwear. A Victorian woman in a corset and bustle had servants to do most of the housework, and never had to try to get into a car seat with corset and bustle on... AnonMoos (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same thing about high heels, and the servants wore corsets too at least. Perhaps high heels came into fashion later than the other two, so are still around. 92.24.188.89 (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some lady's-maids wore corsets, but the ones whose jobs involved strenuous physical labor couldn't and didn't. During most of the 19th century, just doing the laundry was a very tedious and fatiguing task of "women's work" which was technically not too far removed from pounding clothes with rocks by the riverbank; and in a typical middle-class household, it was often an all-day job that had to be done once a week. In any case, high heels are a very temporary disability -- wearing high heels at 9 PM isn't incompatible with running a mile the next morning. And have you noticed how often modern women remove their uncomfortable shoes for a few minutes when it's convenient? By contrast, it's logistically impossible to remove one's corset for five minutes while temporarily relaxing in a public place (for that matter corsets can be difficult to get into or take off at all unless you have a servant standing by, another thing that's not very compatible with modern lifestyles). AnonMoos (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infantry on U.S. navy ships

Does say, an Arleigh Burke destroyer or Ticonderoga cruiser usually carry marine corps personnel? If not, are there people aboard trained for boarding actions and other similar tasks?--178.167.197.71 (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I served on a Leahy class cruiser in the 1980s, and we did not carry marines onboard. The ship did have a security force (a secondary duty, mostly for some technical rates, such as Electronics Technicians and Fire Control Technicians). Prior to a cruise to the Persian Gulf we formed a Ship's Self-Defense Force which went to Little Creek for two weeks of training run by Marines. At no point were boarding techniques taught, but we were trained to repel boarders. -- 58.147.53.253 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ships sent out on anti-pirate patrol might have a different complement though. Rmhermen (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Once when we sailed in the Caribbean we embarked a Coast Guard detachment for boarding and inspecting boats. Ostensibly these were safety inspections, but the main motivation was drug interdiction. -- 58.147.52.160 (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 4

Small Claims Court Subpoena

I'm trying to sue someone in small claims court and the guy never accepts the subpoena. The police tried his office and his home and no one at either one accepted it. The court dismissed the case after trying to serve him 5x. He will also not sign for certified mail. This is in California if it makes a difference. Is there anything I can do? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.30.156 (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not legal advice,but in novels. a sweet looking girl says "Hey there, Aren't you Johnny Jones?" He says "Yup!" Then she hands him the subpoena and says "You're served." Or she makes it into a paper airplane and flies it so it hits him. "Served." Research what is the minimum standard for service of a subpoena in that jurisdiction. The person to-be-served should not be able to scoff at the entire legal system by refusing to receive a subpoena. Your IP address implies Virginia. Google Books has info for subpoena service Virginia at [3], but you might wish to consult an attorney. Edison (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're quoting interesting ways of serving papers found in fiction: Search for the word Princeton in the text of [http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/a1/burn-after-reading-script-transcript.html].—msh210℠ 08:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP specifically said they were in California (it is just thre ISP which is in Virgina). The correct Google Books search should be subpoena service california which gets this search. If it was me, I would go back to my lawyer. Astronaut (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot provide legal advice. You should either consult a lawyer or the clerk of the court (who will usually help people in small claims court with procedural questions like this). --Tango (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is straight up legal advice. Contact legal aid in your local community. Shadowjams (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!!! What is the purpose of this passage?

Hey guys! I'm a high school student living in Korea, and I just took my English exam yesterday. There was one question whose answer I couldn't quite agree with, and I was wondering if any of you are willing to back me up. The actual answer (according to my English teacher) is (C), but I'm having a hard time persuading my teacher that the answer could be (D) as well as (C), and all I need is a solid reason to convince him to see my way. So here it is.

What is the purpose of this passage?
A couple of years ago, my mother took me along to a place where she volunteers in her free time. It's called Lunchbox Of Love, and they deliver meals to elderly people who can't afford to buy food for themselves. I really wanted to help, so I asked what I could do. They said they needed someone to deliver food to some seniors who lived on narrow streets. The car that usually made the deliveries was too big to go down those streets, but I could easily ride my bicycle down them. It was kind of hard to find their homes at first, but after a while I figured out where everybody lived. I even made a little map to help me get from place to place more quickly! If you're looking for a place to volunteer, I really recommend Lunchbox of Love. You don't just take food to the elderly people. You also make them smile, since they don't get a lot of visitors. They'd invite me inside, and we'd usually talk a little before I left. It was very nice because they reminded me of my grandparents, who passed away when young. I really liked visiting them. (A) to urge (B) to order (C) to inform (D) to persuade (E) to congratulate

What I originally thought after I finished reading the passage, before looking at the multiple choices, was that there would be a choice that said to recommend. But a glance at the choices told me that there wasn't one. So I narrowed the choices down to two possible answers, (C) and (D). I was torn between the two choices, but I eventually picked (D), because it was closer to my initial guess, "to recommend". And the sentence "If you're looking for a place to volunteer, I really recommend Lunchbox of Love." stood out, and helped me get rid of my wavering doubts. Plus, I thought that if this passage was written to inform, the overall tone should be more objective. But this passage is clearly subjective, and the narrator tells us his personal experience from his own point of view, and is telling us how fulfilling and These assumptions lead me to choose (D), and was quite confident that I got it right, until the answers were revealed the day after the exam.

I understand my teacher's position that the purpose could be seen as "to inform". However, I still believe that the answer (D) is not incorrect because of the reasons stated above. I am posting this on Wikipedia in high hopes that many of you agree with me, and are willing to back me up on this. All you have to do is post your opinion below mine, with a few reasons why the choice (D) is also correct. Any contributions are welcome and appreciated. Guys, I really need to get this question right, I'm begging you. Thanks. Johnnyboi7 (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. Whilst the purpose of the passage may be to inform the general public of what the "Lunchbox Of Love" does, the language used in the passage is quite emotive. The use of personal anecdotes with phrases such as "make them smile", "we'd usually talk a little", "reminded me of my grandparents" and "I really liked visiting" are typical of the information from charitable organisations looking to persuade people that there is more to volunteering with them than simply doing the job. That said, I also think the question is quite unfair. Answers A, C and D could all be considered the correct answer, and therefore there is no one correct answer.

It is worthwhile considering these three variations:

"The charity is called Lunchbox Of Love, and they deliver meals to elderly people who can't afford to buy food for themselves."
"The charity is called Lunchbox Of Love, and they deliver meals to elderly people who can't afford to buy food for themselves. They need someone to deliver food by bicycle to some seniors who lived on narrow streets. If you're looking for a place to volunteer, we really recommend Lunchbox of Love."
"A couple of years ago, my mother took me along to a place where she volunteers in her free time. It's called Lunchbox Of Love, and they deliver meals to elderly people who can't afford to buy food for themselves. I really wanted to help, so I asked what I could do. They said they needed someone to deliver food to some seniors who lived on narrow streets. The car that usually made the deliveries was too big to go down those streets, but I could easily ride my bicycle down them. It was kind of hard to find their homes at first, but after a while I figured out where everybody lived. I even made a little map to help me get from place to place more quickly! If you're looking for a place to volunteer, I really recommend Lunchbox of Love. You don't just take food to the elderly people. You also make them smile, since they don't get a lot of visitors. They'd invite me inside, and we'd usually talk a little before I left. It was very nice because they reminded me of my grandparents, who passed away when young. I really liked visiting them." Actually that's exactly the same as the original.

The first informs people about the charity. The second urges people to volunteer. The third, by adding the personal story, is much more persuasive. Astronaut (talk) 12:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a borderline case. It might be intended to persuade, but it's really a soft-sell. I'd be interested to know what the teacher's reasoning was. Maybe he thought several of them could be an answer, but that (C) was the "best" answer. Maybe the problem is the wording of the question. Instead of "What is THE purpose", it could say, "What is the MAIN purpose". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of your question:

to solicit answers
to persuade people to agree

I'm persuaded, anyway. It could certainly be (D). If it was a wikipedia article, we'd complain about the bias. 213.122.50.94 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh I'm with you. Without the sentence that begins "If you're looking..." it's informative: with that sentence it's persuasion. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mixed passage, but I don't think it's a concerted attempt to persuade (or to urge, which is another possibility). I do agree that "to inform" is a bit too general though. But 90% of it is them informing you about their experience, with some recommendations on the side. (Which is not quite the same thing as persuasion.) I vote with the teacher, I guess, but I also vote "this is not a very good passage to use for this purpose," because as the discussion above indicates, even native speakers are going to find areas to quibble over here, which makes it a poor multiple-choice answer (there is no unequivocally right answer). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, guys!! Anyone else who agrees with me, please sign your name below and a brief reason why. I'm kind of hoping to start a sort of a online petition....the more people the better!! Johnnyboi7 (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not really the place to start an online petition. If you believe your exam paper as been incorrectly marked, you might be able to appeal (you certainly can with GCSE exams here in the UK). The first place to go is probably the headmaster/principal at your school. Astronaut (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Sorry, but I'd go with 'inform' on this as well. Persuasive speech needs an overt goal, a thing you are trying to persuade people of, which this passage lacks. The problem, of course, lies with the phrase "If you're looking for a place to volunteer, I really recommend..." it is the only phrase in the passage that even remotely resembles persuasive speech - the remainder of the passage is closer to a fond reminiscence - but the phrase is a conditional that merely offers an option, not a persuasive statement (such as, say, "Volunteering at the LoL is an experience you will enjoy, so you should go down tomorrow..."). Keep in mind that it's perfectly possible to inform people about experiences you enjoy without it being an effort to persuade them to try it themselves. e.g.: I'm happy to tell you that I really like the taste of vanilla-bean ice cream, but my intention in saying that is not to persuade you to go eat some. --Ludwigs2 14:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and disagreements here

When I read the original paragraph, and the choices, I picked "to inform" without any hesitation (before seeing any of your text). I disagree strongly with the "persuade" answer.

The question is: "what is the purpose of the text." It means, when the author wrote down to write the text, to what end did he or she do so? Now let us look at the possibilities. The author wrote this text to urge. Well, then they must have began or ended with an exhortation. "I am writing with pain in my heart and the hope that after reading my missive you will be on my side and tell your children ... ". No: not at all. To order: "John - I'm going to have to speak to you Friday afternoon, please come to my office". No. To inform: "We are having a special on Lettuce for $0.22" or "Unfortunately, the appeal was denied. We have no further options and have to drop the case, sorry." Yes: "A couple of years ago, my mother took me along to a place where she volunteers in her free time.... I really liked visiting them." That's the beginning and end of it. It's the ending that really gives it away: it's just a story about this nice place. To persuade: "Dear Fellow Neighbor, I am writing to make you aware of the great danger inherent in trans fatty acids and to urge you to look on the labeling for this pernicious toxin, choosing healthy alternatives when you can..." No. To congratulate: "Good job on that presentation! I could tell the clients were really impressed, congratulations on getting the contract." In conclusion, to me, it's obviously informative. It's the ending that really gives it away. 85.181.48.148 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read it as primarily being about someone merely describing the joy of their experience, which is also how I initially saw it, then, yes, the "best" answer is probably "informing". But it's not THE answer. None of the four possibilities seemed to be totally on the mark. The problem is that the one posing the test question is being slippery, by asking what is THE answer rather than what is the BEST answer. But that's how things go sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The passage tugs at the reader's heartstrings in a blatant attempt to promote participation in the charitable effort, so I would consider its main purpose to be to promote participation, that is, to persuade the reader to offer his time. For it to merely "inform" it would need a rewrite to make it less promotional and to give it a neutral point of view. Edison (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my view: the vast majority is descriptive; hence, the most important purpose is informative. However, this phrase ["If you're looking for a place to volunteer, I really recommend Lunchbox of Love."] encourages an action, which is persuasive. It isn't wrong to interpret the entire paragraph as persuasive because of this phrase, which IMHO means there are two right answers: either ( C ), or ( C) and ( D ). DOR (HK) (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. This is why it's important to think about test construction. A, B, and D, all pretty much mean the same thing in this context, so I would have eliminated them immediately; no instructor would design a test where the supposedly correct answer had two synonyms among the multiple choices. That almost answers it without even reading the paragraph. After that it's easy, unless you're cynical and also consider "self congratulation" to be a subset of "congratulation". APL (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pride and Prejudice

In Pride and Prejudice I came upon an odd statement "[Lydia's] letters of Kitty . . . were much too full of lines under the words to be made public." What does this mean. I first interpreted this to mean that the letters contained lewd content, but at the culture of the time I thought it was highly unlikely. Also how much were 1000 pounds back then, in today's pounds, euros, and USD. Thanks. --Larry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.163.6 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondence, particularly from loved ones, in that period and in that environment, were often read aloud to other family members, or the letters handed around, or the contents divulged by the recipient. In this context, Lydia was underlining the parts of her letters that she didn't wish to have shared with anyone else . . . for Kitty's eyes only. I don't know how common the practice was, but by Austen's treatment of it I assume it would have been fairly well-recognised. It's revealed later on that Kitty was already aware of Lydia's plans to elope, while the rest of the family were clueless, so we can presume information like this formed part of the underlined sections of her letters. That's the only logical conclusion I can reach from the paragraph (I read the whole paragraph for further context). Maedin\^talk 16:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I would guess that "lines under the words" is more likely to refer to "reading between the lines", where the writer implies things without stating them overtly. 92.15.12.165 (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not sure, :) However, it seems unlikely to me that Austen would use such figurative language, and not in that style; not necessarily that she wouldn't, but having read the preceding and following paragraphs, it wouldn't suit the passage. Let's not forget that neither Kitty nor Lydia were particularly bright (Lydia definitely not), and to convey messages "between the lines" isn't really expected of them. A few chapters later, in Chapter 4 of Volume Three, we get "To Kitty, however, it does not seem so wholly unexpected." and two pages later, "Poor Kitty has anger for having concealed [Lydia and Wickham's] attachment; but as it was a matter of confidence one cannot wonder." Keeping in mind that Kitty and Lydia could only have communicated by letter, and that it's a little difficult to reveal who your lover is "between the lines" without the whole family also finding out, I think Austen is referring to outright admissions from Lydia, being underlined to highlight their secrecy. I don't offer it as fact, but as a likelihood, and I could easily be wrong. That she's referring to "reading between the lines" isn't implausible, either. Maedin\^talk 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above would require that there was a convention that underlined words were private and not to be repeated to others - I've never heard of anything like that. 92.15.12.165 (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that's possible. Neither have I. But that doesn't mean it didn't. Another aspect that I think reinforces my position is how "too full of" has been used. This implies to me that, had there only been a few sentences underlined, then Kitty would have inked out, after reading, the bits which weren't for sharing. Instead the letters were so full of underlines, that she had to keep the whole of the letters private, for practical reasons. It wouldn't be quite so easy to quantify had Lydia just been writing between the lines. And again . . . Lydia was impetuous, dim, silly, ridiculous, obvious, coarse. Lydia did not engage in subtleties. I feel pretty sure that Austen never meant for us to think that Lydia laboured over letters, trying to say secretive things in roundabout ways; I can much better see her revealing all to her closest sister, and then dashing lines under everything she wouldn't want her mum to read. I don't know if you've read the whole paragraph, but the context helps a little. If you don't have the book, it's available on the web, Chapter XIX of Volume II. Maedin\^talk 19:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After lots of googling I couldn't find anything on an underlining practice. But I did find a book called Bits of ivory; narrative techniques in Jane Austen's fiction that concurs; see here and just search for Kitty, all mentions are relevant. Maedin\^talk 19:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not simple to convert historical money into modern money. There are various sites which attempt it one way or another: [4] but the difficulty is with the market basket: what is currently expensive was not necessarily expensive in the past, and what is currently cheap was not necessarily cheap, and many things were not available at all. Here's a page titled "the cost of living in Jane Austen's England" [5], which says £1000 is at least enough cash to keep a family of five and five servants very comfortable for a year. I'm not sure servants and phaetons feature on today's consumer price indexes. 81.131.38.168 (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further up that webpage it says that £250 per year is enough to keep a "gentleman", wife, three children and maid. So £250 then would be worth at least £25000 now, perhaps £50000. The maid's wages would be much less in real terms than what she would get now. 92.15.12.165 (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But she could buy a lot more oysters... for instance. 213.122.23.61 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

what's with all the penis on chatroullete?

can someone explain that to me? Does, like 25% of the population secretly want to show strangers their erect or semi-erect penis, but public decency laws prevent them, so on chatroulette they finally can? It seems, from chatroulette, that the number has to be way, way, up there. Or maybe pervy exhibitionists just swarmed on that service? (all, what, 170,000 of them worldwide?)

I'd like to know the answer, please. 85.181.48.148 (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Chatroulette it was one in 8 at the last count. eg http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1286848/Chatroulette-considers-penis-filter-clean-website.html

It's definately happening. Give 'em an inch... Did you want the psychological analysis too? I'm not qualified to do that.77.86.10.42 (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be nothing more than a manifestation of Gabriel's Theory ([6]). -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes I want the psychological or sociological analysis. If you go to any other public part of th world where you are expected to chat face to face, no one shows you their hard cock instead. Is it a gay thing, where the cocks meet up and jointly masturbat or what? Who are all these people and whatdo they get out of going on vhatroulette and sitting their with their hard cocks out? Should I just try it myself, and see what happens (or what I get out of it)? I would prefer one of you tried it instead and reported here, (or you can link to someon else, like me, not inthw know who has tried it for his edification and blogged he result6. I'm really curious!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.48.148 (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently if you get too many complaints, you can be blocked for awhile. Kind of like what happens in wikipedia, and for somewhat similar reasons. Hard telling if it's a "gay thing" or not. One clue would be to find out what percent of those complaints amount to "Where's the rest of it?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the proper question is what population of people who regularly use chatroulette prefer this activity; it is not the "general population".

In any case, it's just technologically-enabled exhibitionism of the classic sort. Chatroulette obviously appeals to the exhibitionist subset, for fairly obvious reasons (anonymous, safe). See the article for description of psychological studies, etc. Nothing new to showing genitals (and it is not a "gay" thing specifically at all), but the technology has made it easier to do without negative consequences. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It need not be a "gay thing". It could be a "male bonding" thing. Kind of like comparing the engines on your pickup trucks, or the gauges of the items in your gunracks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are females on Chatroulette, too. I don't know why one would assume that the "cocks out" activity is mostly homosexual or male bonding when there is an equally (more?) valid heterosexual explanation. Guys are quite convinced that their erections will attract females and so sit around stimulating themselves, waiting for females to turn up. In hopes that they will cam with them, maybe display their goods, too, or at the very least expecting the ladies to hang around long enough to admire, have a good look, see it in action, etc. I'm sure there is a strong element of simple exhibitionism, but it doesn't normally expect interaction or exhibitionism in return. Maedin\^talk 10:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually our exhibitionism article makes it clear that most "flashers" actually would like interaction if they could get it. I definitely think this behavior is classic exhibitionism but with the bar much, much lower than it had been. It's quite a different thing if being a "flasher" means you broadcast yourself (without your face) from the privacy of your home, rather than having to be that guy who runs around naked under a trenchcoat. I think what something like chatroulette probably shows is that many more guys are exhibitionists than one might normally assume, once you throw out the consequences. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, there's really nothing sexual about this - it's more of a pecking order behavior (no pun intended). Male primates of certain species have similar behaviors, where they display their genitals to each other in lieu of actually combat for dominance. Basically it's a personal challenge to others: forcing people to look at your genitals either (a) makes them uncomfortable and embarrassed (a sign of weakness) or (b) makes them interested or excited (a sign of subservience). No question that the people who do it get a rise out of it, but it's more of a dominance issue than a sexual one (i.e. more at Alfred Adler than at Sigmund Freud). --Ludwigs2 17:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real specific idea what the motivation is, but the same phenomenon is seen on Wikimedia Commons, where commons:Template:Nopenis was created in response to frequent uploads of low-quality cellphone-camera snaps. AnonMoos (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Lights

Is there still a right to Ancient Lights in the UK? The article is not very clear. Thanks. 92.15.12.165 (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - see this and this. The article could be clarified - I'll look at it but have no expertise in the matter. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, reading the article in the first link, it says: "'Ancient lights' signs, or other signs and stone plaques... generally only amount to an assertion of a claim to light, with no legal effect as such. They may, however, in some cases, be important in historical terms and are, of course, a warning to the possible assertion of light, and if dates, etc are on the stone plaques they may establish the age of certain features." Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackshirt wearing policepersons, UK

Am I correct in thinking that the UK police used to wear dark navy-blue uniforms, and now wear black instead? This article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/birmingham/10499030.stm suggests they've started to wear black shirts as well.

Why have the police chosen black clothing, with its associations with fascism and Darth Vader? Are they trying to make the public afraid of them (and hence dislike them also)? Wouldnt it make their jobs easier if they reverted to the navy-blue uniform with white shirt and tie, so that the public respected them instead? 92.15.12.165 (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The police as a whole haven't chosen black shirts, one or two constabularies have. As to why - the answers are in that article. Blue shirts were the norm until the 1980s for number 1 dress and the Met led the change to white shirts, although not all forces followed and some still wear light blue shirts (some in West-midlands wear yellow and PSNI wear green). For working dress, not all forces wear shirts - some wear black t-shirts, polo shirts or the zip up black shirts as mentioned in the article and as seen worn by bicycle and tactical police in some areas. As to whether a change in uniform would increase perceived respect - I would imagine that a multi-million pound change of uniform for all constabularies wouldn't be welcomed too much by the taxpayer. Nanonic (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Police oficers and PCSOs in Hertfordshire regularly wear black zip-neck shirts. Sadly, the days of the shiny-buttoned tunic have gone the way of the duty-band and the cape with the lions' heads. Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What follows is pure OR, so take it as such.

Uniform color has a lot to do with the perceived relationship between the officer and the citizen. Blue (along with tan) is a service color - it tends to imply that the officer is a civil servant doing a low-class but necessary job (that's why meter-maids and beat cops almost always have blue uniforms). Black is an authority color: you'll notice that 'elite' force uniforms (such as SWAT teams in the US), as well as riot control uniforms, are almost always black, sometimes even obscuring their faces with black masks. This is fairly cross-cultural: note that WWII SS uniforms were black whereas German regular army uniforms were navy blue. There has been a gradual and unfortunate shift in the US and Europe away from the 'civil servant' model of police to an 'authority figure' model of police, so you can expect to see shifts in uniform designed to make officers appear more authoritative and intimidating, which will mean a lot more black uniforms. c'est la vie. --Ludwigs2 17:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the traditional "midnight blue" traditionally used for British police uniforms was very nearly black to the naked eye, so maybe not worth getting too worked-up about. Comparing the UK police to the SS in any way is overstating the argument to my mind. Alansplodge (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: the regular German army wore Field_grey or Feldgrau, not navy blue. The Prussian and German armies wore a colour close to navy blue in the 18th and 19th centuries, however. Also, our article on SS uniforms of World War II (1939 - 1945) says that black was mostly used only in ceremonies, and eventually by 1942 not used at all, replaced by field grey. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blind are unreasonable?

I came across this quote by Percy Bysshe Shelley. See the bolded section.

If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him? If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future? If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers? If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him? If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has, filled with weaknesses? If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them? If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him? If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable? If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees? If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him? IF HE HAS SPOKEN, WHY IS THE UNIVERSE NOT CONVINCED?

The only part of this I don't understand is If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable?. What does this mean? --mboverload @ 22:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He must mean metaphorical blindness, which we still use today to describe unreasonable people. Blind faith, "how could you be so blind" by not recognizing something obvious, that sort of thing. It's used that way a lot in the Bible, Jeremiah 5:21 is probably the earliest use. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible uses this metaphor for unbelievers a lot, but a quick search of a concordance didn't reveal any instance of God being angry at the "blind". Rather the authors tend to take a patronising attitude towards them. "Let them be," as it says in the bit about the blind leading the blind. So that part of Shelley's otherwise satisfying rant doesn't seem to work very well. 213.122.24.47 (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley is not actually talking about God in this passage, but rather backhandedly berating religious zealots (you know, the kind of people who rant about how we should fear god, worry about our salvation, spend hours a day in fervid prayer, etc.). Zealots like that often angrily berate others for being blind to God's will - Shelley is saying "Why are you angry with people who don't experience God the way you do, when it was God himself who made them such that they do not experience Him?" the whole passage is basically Matthew 7:5 - "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." --Ludwigs2 07:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I read it as saying: How could God hate unbelievers, since he gave them the capacity to be unbelieving? --Mr.98 (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

Wright-Moyeux map

I'm trying to correct an error on Wikimedia Commons. This photo supposedly shows the Wright-Moyeux map of 1599:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WrightMolyneux-ChartoftheWorld-c1599-large.jpg

However, this cannot be the case. The map shows Australia, which wouldn't be discovered for another 8 years. It calls Australia "Holandia Nova", a name which came into use in 1644. Where is this map actually from? Also, does anybody know whether the original version of the file (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/WrightMolyneux-ChartoftheWorld-c1599.jpg) shows the real Wright-Molyneux map? --Bowlhover (talk) 05:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this book (Discovery of Australia, 1922), a map by Hakluyt published in 1598 includes a vague squiggle of the north coast of (something), apparently seen from afar by the Victoria but never visited. It would not surprise me at all if Wright had picked up on reports and rumors of that sort and engaged in a bit of 'proactive' cartography. the book author is highly skeptical of any european having visited Australia prior to its official discovery, so... --Ludwigs2 08:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite prepared to believe that, many years before the official discovery of the continent, Portuguese ships sailed down parts of the east coast and along the southern coast for quite some distance. But the map in question shows the remainder of the coastline, the exact opposite of the parts the Portuguese may have explored. I know of no theories that claim that that much of the west and north was known anywhere as early as 1599. There's no way it's a 1599 map. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This version of the Wright-Molyneux map (which I've just noticed is the second link provided by User:Bowlhover - sorry!) does not show Australia, apart from a short stretch which could represent part of the north-western coastline. It looks to me as though the version linked by User:Bowlhover could be a later edition, post-1600, updated to show the later discoveries around Australia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the description in the lower left read 1599? Fives and sixes look rather similar, and I don't have the technical wizardry to check. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The map seems to be Joseph Moxon's reprint of Edward Wright's A Plat of all the World (London), with the date 1657.--Wetman (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under 'Holandia Nova' it appears to say 'Discovered A^p[?] [April?] 1644'. It's small writing, though; I might be wrong. --Joe^Talk_Work 04:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Skateboarding an artform?

After reading both articles, I'm still a bit confused to see how skateboarding is a viable form of art. Any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.94.53 (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that in the eye of the beholder? I sure don't think it is. It can be artful, but not an artform.--mboverload @ 09:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, consider: some people skateboard, doing tricks. To what end? It is not to get to work, or get home. It is not as a form of aerobic exercise. It is also not usually a "game" like basketball. Instead, teenagers do skateboard tricks to impress. Because it's cool. Sorry, but doing a performance in order to impress pretty much guarantees you are making art. And yes, that includes tight-rope walking in a circus. 84.153.200.147 (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it is nice to watch, like figure skating. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not just to impress, it can be seen as a sport too, see Xgames as an example of a skateboard competition. 200.144.37.3 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...or a skill.--Wetman (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those questions that falls under Classificatory disputes about art. I personally think that, like all creative play, skateboarding has the potential to be art, but that it would be setting the bar trivialisingly low to say that creative play was qualification enough. Art also signifies, but not everyone would agree with me on that. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 13:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion about uploading images

Hi and thanks everybody for your help.

My query is pertaining to this person's biography on Wikipedia. I've found 2 images of this person. First one is hosted on Hindi wikipedia but there is nothing mentioned about copyright. The user who uploaded the file has got her page protected so I cant post her a message inquiring about the same.

I am not sure if the other image that I've found is really of the same person. If it is of the same person then I can get it released under CC license. Also, tell me if I should upload the first image in the article.

Thank you once again. --SanskritGuy (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the Hindi wikipedia image is not a good source since it has no copyright nor licence information. We are not in a position to know whether it is being stored and displayed in accordance with a licence or in breach of copyright. As to the second, clearly you need to ascertain whether it is the person in question. I'm not sure why you are configent you can get it released under a CC licence ... surely that would depend on the copyright holder, presumably the photographer. Do you know who the photographer is? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which penny did the Copperheads use?

During America's Civil War, anti-war Democrats were labeled Copperheads (politics) by the Republicans. They adopted the name and used copper pennies as badges. Which version of the penny did they use? Gobonobo ^T ^C 14:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question. The common penny at the time would have been the Indian Head cent, but the article on the Copperheads implies they used pennies with Liberty on them, which would have made them earlier versions. There are quite a few candidates if that is true. My guess, based on just what would probably have been in circulation at the time, is that the 1855 cent is possibly the one in question. On the other hand, I see other sources on the web (not necessarily better ones) that say it was the Indian Head that was used. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More poking around. Things still a bit unclear. This forum discussion has a number of replicas and alleged originals, some of which are Indian Head, some of which are 1855 cents. Unsurprisingly, I guess, it seems to have been somewhat inconsistent in practice which was used. Indian Heads would have been easier, but the appeal of using Liberty was probably high as well. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr.98. That forum is exactly what I was looking for. It seems that the copperhead pins that Clement Vallandigham referred to during his court martial had LIBERTY inscribed on them. They were most likely the large cents#Braided Hair, or Late Dates (1835–1857). ~~Too bad we don't have pictures for those.~~ Thanks for the link to commons as well. Gobonobo ^T ^C 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Eagle pennies had been minted into the 1850s, so they were likely to be found as well. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely, Flying Eagle pennies and the early Indian pennies were actually called nickels back when they were in use. Googlemeister (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you responding to me? If so, I'm confused about your meaning; why would a coin from the 1850s not be likely to be in circulation in the early 1860s? Nyttend (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that the flying eagle cents were not in circulation, but those coins were only 88% copper, so the pennies do not look like copper (they are pretty yellowish). And in those days, the flying eagle cents were called nickels (but the earlier pennies were not), so it would seem an unlikely symbol for a group using copper as their symbol. Googlemeister (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Elizabeth II

What is the relationship, if any, between Queen Elizabeth I (who was the Queen of Endland during Shakespeare's time) and Queen Elizabeth II (who is the present-day Queen of England)? Thank you. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

They have a common ancestor: Elizabeth of York (I's grandmother, II's great-great-great...etc grandmother), but Elizabeth II is not a direct descendant of Elizabeth I. See Direct_descent_from_William_I_to_Elizabeth_II#Family_tree. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Elizabeth I was the "Virgin Queen", she can't be expected to have many direct descendants. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's a genetic thing. If your biological parents didn't have any children, there's a strong probability you won't have any either. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously though, to answer the question, the relationship between the 2 Elizabeths is "(first) cousin 14 times removed". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Liz the First was around long before cloning had been invented, else history might have been different. Back to the OP's question, Juju implied but didn't explicitly state, that every British monarch since the Norman Conquest in 1066 A.D. has been a descendant of William I, known to his buddies as "the Conqueror". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's true. Every single English and British monarch has descended from William the Conqueror and Matilda of Flanders.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of influential women, it's a little known fact that Queen Matilda embezzled a lot of the King's doubloons or razzbuckniks or whatever it was they were using for money then. William's last words were, "Matilda! Matilda! She took me money and ran to Venezuela!"[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda was not an influential English queen consort. Anne Boleyn, Margaret of Anjou, and Eleanor of Aquitaine were easily the most influential.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that matrilineal or patrilineal descent? One is more credible than the other. 69.120.0.81 (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, all the monarchs in the last 110 years are descendants of Victoria and Albert. I don't know if Albert was a descendant of William or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albert is descendant of Eleanor of England, Queen of Castile, a descendant of William, but I'm not sure if that would be the closest link. He wasn't a descendant of Sophia of Hanover though.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William I had a great aunt Emma, who was queen consort to both Æthelred the Unready and Cnut the Great, thus providing a rather tenuous link to the English throne before 1066. Edward the Confessor was William's first cousin, once removed. Alansplodge (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William I gain his throne through conquest and not by inheritance. The Anglo-Saxon throne at the time was not hereditary but elective. If the throne was hereditary it would have eventually passed to the kings of scotland instead.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have actual genetic tests, any pre-modern claims about descend from a given male are only opinion ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given its importance to continuing the royal line, I expect there was a lot of attention paid to the matter. However, if there is evidence that any of the royalty were suspected of not being descended properly, that would be interesting reading. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To actually answer the question posed, Elizabeth II is the first cousin, 14 times removed, of Elizabeth I, since her 12thGreat grandfather, James V of Scotland was the first cousin of Elizabeth I. Elizabeth of York and King Henry VII are their most recent common ancestors, assuming no "Non-paternity events" in the family tree. The incidence of nonpaternity among caucasians in the UK is estimated at 1 to 2%. Royal births are carefully monitored to make sure that the little prince/princess really came from the royal wife. Fertilization of the royal ovum is not so carefully monitored. In the era of DNA testing, it would be simple to document that some heir to the throne was fathered in a non-paternity event, without quibbling over who he or she resembles. Edison (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(**ahem**) I actually provided the "first cousin, 14 times removed" answer about 38 hours ago, Edison. Your answer was somewhat more discursive, I'll give you that. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed your actual answer amongst all the chit chat.Edison (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This was very helpful. I appreciate the feedback ... thank you! (64.252.65.146 (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

UK newspaper

What is the most comprehensive and unbaised UK newspaper? I need one that I can downloada reader from to read on my laptop with wifi. Also where would I be able to download the reader/gadget thing Thanks, 76.229.149.185 (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which you feel to be "unbiased" is rather a matter of your own political alignment - none are free of a given political orientation, although in fairness the broadsheets tend to be less obviously partisan than, say the Express or the Daily Mail. The Times is somewhat right of (the British) centre, the Daily Telegraph probably a bit righter still. The Independent is a bit left of centre, The Guardian a bit lefter still. But they're all well written pretty comprehensive works of professional journalist of good standing and (bar the columnists, whose job is often to be antagonistic) the readerships of each could read the others without deflagrating. Each varies by what, and how, they distribute electronically. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I get both the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph, if possible. That way, they sort of cancel out :) Plus, you're not paying any money to Rupert Murdoch. But more seriously, any of the broadsheets will be okay as long as you know what their bias is and watch for it. The Guardian has an annoying tendency to report science and statistics without much of a feel for them: it almost seems like all their subeditors have dyscalculia. Seriously, they throw numbers and graphs around as if it doesn't matter what they actually are: I've seen them print the same graph 4 times on a single page without noticing, giving figures that are out by orders of magnitude, and even scattering numbers in an article without defining what they relate to. If that bothers you, avoid it. Out of all of them, the Telegraph seems to fit most actual news in. If you're reading the paper for news, and not opinions, I'd go with that and watch for a right-wing bias. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph also has the best cryptic crossword, so when you're tired of reading front page news about Tiger Woods getting a few scratches in a wee car accident, you can do something actually worthwhile and complete the cryptic. Maedin\^talk 20:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph has two cryptic crosswords now - the "ordinary" one, which is generally regarded as being at the easier end of the broadsheet spectrum, and the fairly-recently-introduced "Telegraph Toughie", which does what it says on the tin, though still being accessible to the average solver. As to whether either of these is "the best" - YMMV or ^{[citation needed]}. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think The Times would be you're best bet - unless their new paywall becomes a problem. I agree with the above, but I think The Telegraph is just too right-wing to be considered "unbiased". It's Tory in a retired-Colonel-from-Tunbridge-Wells sort of way. I would like to echo the sentiments of Finlay - as long as you know the bias, most people can zone it out. I have, at some point, regularly read all of them- so I am not passing dispersions on their news content. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help identifying a figure in the Bible

"In the first place, I'm sort of an atheist. I like Jesus and all, but I don't care too much for most of the other stuff in the Bible. Take the Disciples, for instance. They annoy the hell out of me, if you want to know the truth. They were all right after Jesus was dead and all, but while He was alive, they were about as much use to Him as a hole in the head. All they did was keep letting Him down. I like almost anybody in the Bible better than the Disciples. If you want to know the truth, the guy I like best in the Bible, next to Jesus, was that lunatic and all, that lived in the tombs and kept cutting himself with stones. I like him ten times as much as the Disciples, that poor bastard." -Holden Caulfield, The Catcher in the Rye

Bold my emphasis. Does this passage relate to an actual figure in the bible, and if so, who? ^Avic _ennasis @ 19:59, 23 Tamuz 5770 / 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely, he's the man in Gadarenes, living amongst the tombs, possessed by spirits. Our article on Legion (demon) is dire, but this is the demon(s) referred to. When Jesus "cast out" the spirits, the passage reads, "Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked." Accounts of the story in the books of Luke and Matthew don't include the cutting with stones, but the account in Mark does. Pretty sure he's never named, but the happy ending is that he returned home, "clothed and in his right mind". Read all about it (KJV is best) here, starts at verse 1: [8] Maedin\^talk 20:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most influential women in history

Who are considered to have been the most influential women in history? People always talk about Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon; but what about the females? Off hand, I would say Catherine the Great, Queen Isabella I of Spain, Elizabeth I.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get you started. [9] Others will have their own opinions. --mboverload @ 21:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree with most of the listings, however, Anne Boleyn should have been in the top 30.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Influential in what area? Marie Curie, Amelia Earhart, Joan of Ark, Madonna, Jenna Jameson, Bettie Page, Juliette Gordon Low, and Mother Teresa would make my list. Of course, again, it depends on what you deem as "influential" and how specialized you want to get. Dismas|^(talk) 00:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mitochondrial Eve. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think Mitochondrial Eve's mother was more influential. TastyCakes (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how you define "history"; surely someone so far back would fall under the classification of "prehistoric". Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how you define "influence". What did mitochondrial Eve really do? Not a whole lot, as far as we know. Someone has to be mitochondrial Eve—it doesn't mean the particular person had any particular effect on how history turned out (prehistoric or not). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the term "influential" makes it impossible to feel good about giving any answer; if the 3 men you cite were extraordinarily influential, then what if their characters and personalities were shaped by their mothers? Were the mothers not then equally influential, albeit indirectly? Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason people focus on the men. For most of history it was very hard for a woman to get into politics or war or science, so there are going to be more famous men in history than famous women, regardless of how many women may have been smart enough to be famous. But to answer your question, Elizabeth I was the most influential woman in the West, although there may be a really important one in East Asia that I've never heard of. If you count indirect influence, Mary (mother of Jesus) wins for convincing everyone that she was a virgin and that her son therefore had superpowers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.50.170 (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure Mary actually tried to convince anyone of either of those things. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As others pointed out, it's hard to define what "influential" means. But if you count Mary the Carpenter's Wife, surely Helen of Troy counts, too. Mythologically, her face launched a thousand ships, and realistically that myth has certainly contributed to forming a unified Greek ("Helenic" (!)) identity, with all the historical consequences of that. And we still call a beautiful women "HoT" after her initials! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more in the political sense rather than religious or scientific, such as Isabella I, Elizabeth I, rather than Marie Curie or the Virgin Mary. Joan of Arc was a mixture of religious and political. I am interesting in knowing who are the female equivalents of historical block figures such as Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Martin Luther, Saladin, etc. Mary, Queen of Scots is another example. Lucrezia Borgia could also be listed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think one useful distinction is between active influence (women that shaped history to their will, at least a bit), and passive influence (women who had no important active role, but whose presence still affected history). Mary Jacobson and Helen of Troy are both examples of the second class. Liz-I and Eleanor of Aquitaine are examples of the first class. What about the mother of Genghis Khan? Another example (politically) is Marie Antoinette. Had she not said J’achetai de la brioche, the French revolution might have started later, or not at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you count mothers, do you also count the wives of Henry VIII for the impact of them not bearing children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.139.74 (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Let them eat cake. 86.164.57.20 (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we can move on from the Euro-centric, I’d nominate (in no particular order) Empress Dowager Cixi, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Indira Ghandi, and even Benazir Bhutto, Sheikh Hasina and Agathe Uwilingiyimana for their roles in breaking down political barriers. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if modern-day prime ministers can claim the same kind of importance as Elizabeth I or Catherine the Great—note that nobody mentioned Margaret Thatcher in the lists above. I don't think that Cixi is in the same league either, she just kept the status quo going for a few extra years before her Dynasty fell for no fault of her own. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the truth

The truth is that the most influential women in history are, to use your list, Alexander the Great's mom, Julius Caesar's mom, Napoleon's mom, etc. 84.153.230.67 (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eliakim?

Hello everyone, I am new to the web site and I am learning how it works but at this moment I need help.

I recevied this post: Eliakim; Who is this biblical figure? What is his role in the end of time?

(the one who posted wrote this about it) A certain prophet claims that Eliakim not Jesus will be the one who will open the 7 seals. I have been researching this and was hoping somebody could shed some light on this. Daniel spoke of this and the prophet claims that Eliakim has been mistaken for Jesus and this among other details are errant in doctrine because satan deliberately altered some phrasing in some key scriptures that has caused some false teaching. He believes that the only bible that should be used is the authorized King James version. He believes that every translation after that has been altered.

(This is what I have found thus far) Eliakim son of Hilkiah the palace administrator or Eliakim son of Josiah king, whose name was changed or the priest—Eliakim or Eliakim the father of Azor who is in the blood line of JESUS in Matthew or Eliakim the son of Meleain in the blood line of JESUS in the book of Luke......

Community has anyone ever heard of this and if you have can you give more details so I can contiue to search this out? Thank you --VMallory1 (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the Book of Revelation, the seals are opened by a figure called "the Lamb." While he isn't specifically named as Jesus, it's a reasonable assumption given the Christian context of the book. The Authorized King James Version Bible is very important in literary and religious history, but it is far from the best translation available- most Bible colleges, except those directly affiliated with the King James Only movement, don't permit King James as a text in Bible classes because it is not as accurate a translation of the available texts, and also because important manuscripts have been discovered since it was written. For what it's worth, anecdotally, when I was in Bible college the professors were recommending the New Revised Standard Version as the translation which best communicated the Hebrew, and Greek of the "originals" (bear in mind that when talking about the Bible, there are no "original" texts available, only copies, many of which vary from each other in some degree. That in itself becomes a very interesting area of study). If your friend thinks that the King James version of the Bible is the only one that should be read, and that all other bibles have been rewritten by Satan, then he belongs to a very fringe group of people in Christian thinking, and you do not need to accept his beliefs as your own unless you are interesting in joining him in that particular fringe group. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my answer: Wikipedia does have an article on Eliakim. It isn't very long, but it includes a list of all the appearances of Eliakim in the Bible, so that you can review them for yourself and decide whether a writer of the early Christian church would more likely have been referring to Jesus or Eliakim when writing about "The Lamb." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can Raul Castro be a Roman Catholic?

I was astonished to see that Raul Castro is a practicing Roman Catholic. Communism is an inherently atheist doctrine, which seems to preclude being a Catholic. I understand that Catholicism is important, historically and currently, in Cuba, but this is beyond my understanding. How can Raul claim to be both communist and Catholic? How can a priest legally provide him with the Eucharist? 69.120.0.81 (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that you had to be atheist to be a communist. Can you support this position? --mboverload @ 22:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner may be interested in the articles on Communism and religion and Christian communism. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links above notwithstanding, there was a Decree against Communism issued by the Pope in 1949 which (among other things) resulted in Fidel Castro's excommunication. Staecker (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first Communist Society was the first Christians, holding all in common. The Monastic Monk could well fit this discription. However, the method as a society did not work. MacOfJesus (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A major difference between this and modern Communism is that the modern movement is based on Marx's philosophies, which included the rejection of religion. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why do you think that Raul Castro is a Catholic? I'd like to note that our article listed his religion as "None (Atheist)" until edit [10] and no source has been given for the change... Also, it looks like the user in question has already been warned for something similar ([11]) and has even been blocked for 48 hours ([12]). If no reliable sources support the claim that Raul Castro is a practicing Catholic (I would be surprised if there were any), then that edit would have to be reverted. Feel free to do it yourself it you only saw this claim here in Wikipedia. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believers in the "Social Gospel" promulgated the writings of Karl Marx while purporting to be Christians. In the 1960's through 1990's many purportedly devout Christians were 'fellow travelers" of the communists, demonstrating for "justice," defined as a Marxist world. Edison (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, there is no reason that a communist country cannot also have Catholic inhabitants. Cuba is not the Soviet Union (which was also not entirely atheist anyway). Our Roman Catholicism in Cuba article is pretty crappy, but see Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Cristóbal de la Habana, for example. In fact, just a few days ago, there was a celebration for Elian Gonzalez that took place in a church ([13]). (I don't know if there was a Mass involved or what, but still, it was in a church.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible: "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Karl Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no... we're not practicing theology here. Communism, at least the Russian variety, has an antagonistic relationship with organized religion. Of course, if you're wanting to control some land, that's been little reason to stop you, in most cases. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the old "Jesus was a communist!" theory. In practice, many small and/or isolated groups have worked for the common good for survival reasons. That could be called "communalism". "Communism" is a type of economic system developed (so to speak) rather recently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer, communism is not a monolithic system. Things that are permissible for one communist government can be forbidden by another. Googlemeister (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the original Marxist and Leninist formulations, the philosophy of materialism was very important to their overall theory of Communism as a "science" of history. However it is also possible to just see Communism as an economic and political theory that just doesn't have much to say on whether religion/theology is true or not. (And as others have pointed out, plenty of religious people have seen the general Communist messages as being fairly compatible. To add to the links above, see Liberation theology as well.) There's no inherent reason Christianity and Communism have to be at ends, even if the historical generation of Communism in the late-19th and early-20th century pitted the two against each other. Now it's quite possible that one might actually find Roman Catholicism at ends with Communism, in the sense that a truly Communist state might not be compatible with the centralized power of the Church (or, on a practical level, might not want to compete for power). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digressive query. Mr.98, you twice used the expression "at ends" where I would have expected to see "at odds". Is the former in general use somewhere, or is it an idiolectual derivation from "odds and ends"? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The motive/reason for living in common with a common purse is different in both cases. The Christian did it because of a mutual belief in Jesus. The modern Communist did it as an alternative to Capitilism and a rejection of a belief in God. Hence, the ends, the reason, the purpose, is different in both cases. (Mr. 98 used the term "at ends" in a different sense, but still a valid concept and term). MacOfJesus (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice fresh opiate of the masses, anyone? DOR (HK) (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

First (US) federal building named for a woman

Our article on Juliette Gordon Low mentions that she was the second woman to have a federal building named after her. I take this to mean US federal building and not world-wide. As it happens every time that I read something like this in one of our articles, I want to know what the first was. Why do we do this so often? Why make a claim about the second but not answer the obvious question about the first? So, what was the first US federal building to be named for a woman? I did some searching and quite a few pages mention Low. This one even claims that Low was the first. And if I do a search for first "federal building named after a woman" but then remove the name "Juliette" from the search, that's also the only link that comes back. Dismas|^(talk) 00:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for why we do this, in that particular article, it looks basically ripped off 100% from this source. So blame them for doing it, and us for blatantly copying! --Mr.98 (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mary Switzer Building apparently predates Low. meltBanana 17:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! By the way, that's possibly our most poorly written article... Dismas|^(talk) 03:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What type of psychology disorder is this?

What type of psychological disorder is it when someone constantly needs to hook up with the opposite sex to feel good about themselves? I know a girl that constantly needs to hook up with different men to feel good about herself. She even makes it a competition and says "Lets see who can hook up with more people, me or you." Also, what causes this in someone? Is it lack of confidence? Is it because she has a poor relationship with her father? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like Sexual addiction and Hypersexuality may be helpful for background reading, but if you or anyone close to you has concerns about their health, please seek qualified medical help from a trained professional, and do not seek out or accept advice from random strangers on teh intrawebs. --Jayron32 05:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:.....People/history

I belong to a group and enter historical people and famous actors/actresses. My problem has been that the picture which I enter can be answered by the other person by placing the cursror on it or by clicking on Properties and seeing the name of the person in the picture. How can I use copy and paste and not have the name show up and give away the answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smooth cassius (talk • contribs) 06:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is usually done by renaming the picture - don't provide a link to Wikipedia, instead upload the picture on a different Internet picture storage service provider, but before you do, give the file a nonsense name, or if you feel frivolous, title it with the name of another historical person to see how many people fall for your deception (i.e., cheat by reading the file description :). Of course, since the advent of tineye.com, these sort of games on the Internet have lost some of their appeal. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanization of Western Europe

Why was the Romanization of Western Europe - Spain, France and Italy, among others - so rapid and profound whereas Roman cultural influence in Northern Africa was negligible? --Belchman (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just some ideas: only a thin strip of territory near the coast was (and for a large part is) livable, the rest was desert so too much penetration was unpractical/unworthy. But mediterranean Africa has nevertheless a lot of Roman relics, and so do other apperently un-roman places like, for example, Bulgaria. For example, Bardo National Museum contains one of the most importan collection of Roman mosaics outside Italy. You have to cosider that Muslims invaded these places, leading to the creation of the Ottoman Empire. And they were probably not very favourable to an exaltation of Roman (both pagan and christian) culture. Also Spain was subjected to islamization but it was reconquered.--151.51.61.119 (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must remember that Rome was in Italy; pretty much the entire peninsula was Roman-controlled by the late fourth century BC, and it was the last portion of the empire to remain in solid control of the Western Emperors; only in the fifth century, as the Western Empire was about to fall, did the barbarians take control of significant portions. Even then, the Eastern Empire controlled much of it, with parts remaining in imperial control into the tenth century at least. 151.51.61.119 has a good argument — the Arab conquest is key. Unlike the Germanic barbarians that overwhelmed the Western Empire, the Arabs weren't so easily influenced by Roman culture; the Goths in Spain, the Lombards in Italy, and the Franks in France began to speak vulgar Latin, but Arabic is the language of North Africa. Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the Romanization of North Africa (apart from Egypt and Cyrenaica) was less profound than that of Western Europe. (Egypt and Cyrenaica were less Romanized, because Greek remained the language of status in those parts of the empire, and because Egypt's indigenous culture continued to exist alongside the Greek-speaking Hellenistic culture.) Parts of North Africa, especially the fertile plains, coasts, and towns in the provinces of Numidia and Africa, were quite heavily Romanized. Berbers in the hills continued to speak languages unrelated to Latin, but this was little different from the ancestors of the Basques, who retained their pre-Roman language in the lands around the Pyrenees in France and Spain. Vulgar Latin was certainly spoken in the region during the early centuries of the Common Era. Saint Augustine was a native speaker of Latin from North Africa. Linguists believe that the region's form of Vulgar Latin evolved into a separate Romance language, African Romance, which was spoken in the region for several centuries during the Middle Ages. The difference between North Africa and Western Europe is that in Western Europe, Christianity remained the dominant religion, and Latin remained the language of prestige and status. The ruling classes in Western Europe continued to use their Latin-derived everyday speech, which was considered a form of Latin until at least the High Middle Ages. As nation-states and vernacular literatures evolved, the Latin-derived vernaculars gained status in Western Europe. In North Africa, by contrast, the Muslim conquest abruptly ended the privileged status of Christianity and the Latin language. The dominant religion was now Islam, and its holy language, Arabic, carried by thousands of Arab immigrants, became the language of prestige and status in the region. Prestige languages tend to win out, and, over time, Arabic and Muslim influence overwhelmed and largely effaced the effects of the region's earlier Romanization. However, that Romanization had been quite profound. Marco polo (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belchman -- during the 2nd and 4th centuries AD, the Roman province of "Africa" (i.e. modern Tunisia and northeastern Algeria) was in fact pretty strongly integrated into the Roman empire. It was one of the main grain-exporting "breadbaskets" of the empire (second only to Egypt), and many ambitious individuals from the area joined the lower levels of the Roman bureaucracy and military, and had cosmopolitan careers which could take them anywhere in the empire, from Hadrian's Wall to the upper Euphrates river. If successful, they often returned to their native towns to retire, and endowed baths, temples, and amphitheaters there with their wealth. This situation was disrupted by the fall of the western Roman empire, the Donatist controversy, the Vandal conquest, the Byzantine Reconquest, and the initial Arab conquest. After the Vandal conquest, the agricultural hinterland was no longer so obedient to the coastal cities, and the grain exports greatly diminished. But the event which really destroyed the surviving remnants of Roman civilization was the Banu Hilal invasions of the 11th century AD, when the Fatimids of Egypt punished their rebellious Zirid vassal states in the Tunisia/Algeria area, by launching bedouin tribes from Arabia at them. This had a devastating impact on the hinterland of the Tunisia / northeastern Algeria area (outside the walls of the main coastal cities) -- the population declined, many areas formerly sown with agricultural crops were changed into pasture for animals, etc. Much of the region didn't really recover to the 4th century AD level of civilization or economic development until quite modern times, and for centuries there were wretched peasant villages huddling in the ruins of the ancient baths, temples, and amphitheaters... AnonMoos (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Figures for the battle of chancellorsville (and in general)

The info box sums it up this way for the Battle of chancellorsville: Union: 133,000 or so, Confederate 60,000 or so. I have a couple questions:

1. A few other sources, including some of the articles on here, have figures that are slightly different for the Confederatcy (more like 56,000) to way different for the Union (more like 110,000.) I can understand different sources being a few thousand off, but not 20,000. Is our info box counting all forces available int he battle, but other sources only counting the corps which were actually involved in the fighting?

2. Could the difference be regular soldiers versus volunteers? That doesn't make much sense to me, becuase they all volunteered befor ethe draft. Or, were some of the volunteers actually just state militias that came dwont o help? That would explain a 20,000 difference.

3. How are counts kept, anyway? I presume it has to be someone who is registered with some military, be it state or federal. but, pre-Industrial Revultion, you could have a bunch of [Vikings attack, and hundreds of citizens in a town charge at them with anything that would hurt, and it might get written up as the "Defense of Whathisname" if important enough.

Thanks in advance.209.244.187.155 (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen detailed records of which soldiers were on the muster rolls of a particular civil war company in a particular month. Some of these records naturally were lost or destroyed, but paper enlistment forms were certainly kept, and muster rolls were certainly recorded. But many were missing in action, some were ill or wounded and left behind when the unit moved on, perhaps to go home, or be captured, or die. Some were on leave. Some were in the process of transferring from one unit to another. Some were separated from their units and fighting with a different unit. It would not be surprising if a unit with 2000 on the books had 10%, or 25% absent on a given day. The total number of men who served in a given company over the years of the war might be much higher than the number fighting in a given battle, due to deaths /desertions/capture/injury versus enlistments/draftees. Official unit histories were written and official paper were published as multi-volume compilations in the decades after the war, based on reports of colonels and generals of both sides, who generally knew how many soldiers they had from week to week under their command. When a unit surrendered, names were recorded and they were paroled or exchanged or sent to a POW camp. Edison (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In much of military history, definitive numbers are infamously difficult to arrive at. Numbers for Civil War battles are pretty good, compared to earlier conflicts, because so many records were kept, as Edison says above. Officers were expected to know how many men they had under their command at any certain time, though their count was often not exact or up to date. Even when we know about how many troops were near the battle, there can be discrepancies in accounts, because one historian may count all of the soldiers who were theoretically available, while another historian may only count those who played some role in the battle. As for (2), I think there are rare occasions when historians forget to include local militia in their total, but I don't know how often that happens in Civil War accounts. —Kevin Myers 13:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nullification of future wills?

Do US states generally permit someone to include a clause in a will that nullifies any future wills? I don't ask for my own purposes; I'm curious because of the final paragraph of the "Birth and early years" section of Hetty Green, who attempted to add such a passage to her aunt's will. Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the contract-law concept of unconscionability apply to estate law also? If so, I have little doubt this would fall under it. But IANAL.—msh210℠ 16:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried unsuccessfully to find you a US reference for this, but my instincts say it can't be right. Certainly this suggests that there is no such thing as an irrevocable will, in English law at least. (Mutually irrevocable wills for couples do seem to be a possibility in some circumstances concerning inheritance for step-siblings - some details here but this is not relevant to Hetty Green's circumstances.) The general principle behind wills is that they are a snapshot of your intentions and can be revoked or rewritten at any time, provided you are still mentally competent. Some events will (normally) automatically invalidate an existing will, such as the marriage of the testator. A testator can also invalidate a will by deliberately destroying it completely, preferably in front of witnesses aware of his/her intentions. So if Hetty's aunt had written such a will and then got married, or if she had burnt it in front of her lawyer shouting "I revoke this will!" as she did so, I doubt he would have warned her she could never make another valid will and must die intestate because of the "no more wills" clause in the revoked one, particularly if the latter was now a heap of ashes. It's a fascinating anecdote though; maybe someone else can come up with more concrete info? Ka renjc 16:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This observation is not about wills, but is related: In contracts this never works, I'm told, because if the parties to such a contract want to amend it, they just also amend the part of the original contract that attempts to forbid modifications. This column by an attorney mentions this in the context of video game development contracts. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Hetty Green case, Hetty alleged a contract to make mutual wills. (The description on Wikipedia is not accurate.) The court's discussion suggests that the doctrine of mutual wills is recognized by some jurisdictions but not others; I don't know how the applicable law has developed in the intervening 142 years. The general rule is that the testator can always change a will, but the law will in some circumstances allow a tort or contract claim based upon some enforceable interest of the would-be beneficiary. For example, Anna Nicole Smith, in Marshall v. Marshall, argued that she was entitled to a nonprobate claim, based on her husband's promise to leave her money in his will. John M Baker (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would one individual's massive wealth of Pt crash the price of it if he kept it all to himself?

Someone a few days back on the science ref desk was asking something about if a large asteroid of refined platinum (with a value, given the current price of platinum, in the quintillions of dollars) were found. One respondent said that would drive the value of the metal down seriously. But what if the person kept it all to themself? Would the knowledge alone that the guy had it make other people buy and sell theirs for less? Please ignore all the scientific aspects of this situation. Just assume the guy already has the huge rock on his property. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are really two reasons someone would buy platinum. Firstly for its utilitarian purposes, and secondly as an investment; precious metals are frequently bought for one or other (or sometimes both). If one is buying for simple manufacturing or short-term commerce, then the laws of obvious supply and demand pertain - you buy as much as you need for the best price you can, and sell what you make of it as soon as is practical. Investment is a different matter - for investments you want longer term confidence in price stability. If one party (or a cartel) can significantly increase the supply, that's a Damocletian sword hanging over the long term price, and that'd greatly reduce the investment value of the material. It's difficult to quantify how much that would be, as doing so requires divining the intentions, motives, and future prospects of your hypothetical hoarder. This is precisely the circumstance that pertains for diamonds and, do a degree, for oil. Serious investors do not keep a large chunk of their assets in diamonds in a vault somewhere, and while people invest in oil futures, they do so over a modest period. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Finlay McWalter's analysis. And although the buyer at the catalytic converter factory won't be affected much this week, because the amount of platinum for sale on the open market has not changed, in the coming months and years there will probably be rising prices, if the hoarder keeps hoarding, because platinum mine operators now have this gigantic new risk to incorporate into their analysis of whether to dig new mines or invest money in an increase of production; and some mine operators will decide not to make such investments. By the way, two works of fiction about a tremendous diamond horde that must be kept secret in order to not cause the prices to crash are The Diamond as Big as the Ritz and The Twenty-One Balloons. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You endorse his analysis yet give the opposite answer? Finlay said the uncertainly would reduce the price, which I agree with. It wouldn't increase the price. The miners can't just increase the price to compensate for the uncertainty. They either have to accept a drop in profits, or go out of business entirely. Even if it starts to look like all the miners will go out of business, that probably still wouldn't increase the price since most of the platinum market is secondary (that is, platinum being sold by people that previously bought it from someone, rather than having mined it themselves). People won't pay a high price for newly mined platinum if they can get it cheaply from other people. --Tango (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my answer was 100% in line with Finlay McWalter's answer. He or she treated platinum's value as two separate items: as an investment and as a manufacturing material; and stated that as an investment, the price would drop; but that as a manufacturing material, its price would be determined by supply and demand, as always. In my scenario, the miners aren't sitting at their computers and clicking the "up" button to increase the price; the price is going up because over time, supply will constrict, for the reasons I stated. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The value comes from two causes, but there is only one value. Investors and consumers pay the same price for the same good. --Tango (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not being specific enough. I think that event #1 is that platinum investors would almost all flee the market immediately upon learning of the hoard, because nobody knows whether their few ounces of rare metal is going to be rare or common tomorrow. This would cause an immediate and large price drop. Then event #2 is that platinum miners would mostly stop investment in expanding production, for the same reason: they don't know the value their platinum will hold in a year, or a month, or next week, making any additional investment very risky. Over time, the glut of platinum on the market caused by event #1 will be used by platinum manufacturers. This might take a long time or a short time ("Look, everyone! Platinum necklaces are cheap now! I'll take twelve."). As the glut becomes used up by manufacturers who use platinum, the price will rise because little new supply will enter the market, due to event #2. I don't have any data to suggest how many months or years this might take. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also the examples at Cornering the market. Rmhermen (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Diamonds are an example of a commodity of which there exists far more in reality than is actually in the market. De Beers controls and limits the flow of diamonds which in turn keeps the price high. It's mentioned briefly at Diamonds as an investment. (Possibly this cartel/monopoly situation no longer exists in the diamond market.)77.86.6.186 (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As above - it depends on what the market thinks the likelyhood is of the guy selling the rock. It could cause panic selling if they think he's not going to keep it.77.86.6.186 (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way also see Platinum as an investment - it says that Pt production is ~150 tonnes per year .. (that's a cube of Pt about 2mx2mx2m) - depends how big that asteroid was..77.86.6.186 (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

After 1776 but before Washington

Having read the articles President of the United States and President of the Continental Congress, I'm still not very clear on one thing (I'm not American, so it wasn't covered in school): Who (individual or group) was in charge in the time between the declaration of Independence and the Election of GW? I know that the president is just one branch of the US government (Executive), so I get those divisions, but what about those gap years? Aaronite (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the period specified, the US had a weak central government under the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation. If some emergency had occurred, like an attack by some foreign power, the "Congress" would have requested that the states send their militias to repel the invasion, and if the navy needed ships or the army needed cannon, the congress would have requested that the states send money, with no power to levy national taxes or raise a national army by a draft. The national government had no power to enforce laws, and each state had an equal vote. The states held considerable power, with sole authority to enact and enforce laws, raise taxes, or maintain militias. It is not clear who had the power to make treaties or declare war. A strong central government only kicked in with the ratification of the Constitution, followed by the election of the first President under the Constitution, Washington, and the swearing in of the 1st US Congress. The last years of the Continental Congress were an example of do-nothing government. The last day there was a quorum was October 10, 1788. No business could have been conducted after that date, until the First congress under the Constitution was sworn in, apparently on March 4, 1789. Wikipedia calls the final Continental Congress the Congress of the Confederation, but that terminology is apparently original research by Wikipedians, and not found in official documents of the period. The official printed proceedings of this body [14] call it simply the "Continental Congress." The section covering 1788-1789 still calls it the "Continental Congress." [15]. The Library of Congress site says "The First Continental Congress met from September 5 to October 26, 1774. The Second Continental Congress ran from May 10, 1775, to March 2, 1789." [16]. Edison (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up: the states were mostly in charge of themselves, the Congress was the national government, such as it was. Congress appointed a couple of ministers who were the most important national officers: the United States Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Superintendent of Finance of the United States. (The President of Congress was essentially just a chairman.) Our articles on the Continental Congress are not very good, and don't cover the important activities of Robert Morris, John Jay, and the various commissioners sent overseas, which is probably why your questions arose.

P.S. The claim that the term "Congress of the Confederation" is "original research" by Wikipedians is truly bizarre. A Google Book search of that phrase gets nearly 52,000 hits going back to the early 1800s, including original documents. Whether Wikipedia actually needs separate articles on the Continental Congress, the First Continental Congress, the Second Continental Congress, and the Confederation Congress is another question. Personally I'd merge them all under "Continental Congress", if I ever got around to working seriously on the subject. —Kevin Myers 07:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would go along with merging Second Continental Congress and Congress of the Confederation, since the Library of Congress says they are the same organization. Edison (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My request for citations to document the official name was "Congress of the Confederation" rather than the term "Second Continental Congress" per the Library of Congress and official publications of the body itself has been on the talk page of the article since June 2007, so I do not consider it "truly bizarre." Some of the hits are a description rather than a name as such. And I could not find that term used even as a description in books actually published before 1815, at Google Book search (that service has a habit of misdating books, since it just notes the first date it sees at the beginning of a book, often part of the title). An example of this descriptive use is Jefferson Davis using the descriptions "Congress of the Confederation" and "Congress of the Constitution" in a comparison of their powers:[17]. The article about the US Congress is not named the "Congress of the Constitution." In a detailed work about the US from 1784 to 1803, "Ark of Empire," by Dale Van Every, the Continental Congress is discussed, but the term "Congress of the Confederation" does not appear. I acknowledge that it has been widely used as a description, even though I have not seen documents from that body in which it so named itself. Maybe they are out there. I suppose it makes sense to use it as a descriptor in the title of the article. But it was not "the name of the organization" while it was in operation. The term they used on documents seems to be "The United States in Congress Assembled," which makes sense, since they did not foresee other congresses to come after them, and which would not make a useful article title for the penniless and powerless congress of that era. Edison (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The standard (if old) scholarly work on the Continental Congress, Burnett's The Continental Congress (1941), says: "Many historians have drawn a distinction between the Continental Congress and the Congress of the Confederation, applying the first name to the period before the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, the later to the subsequent period." (p. viii) Burnett decided to ignore this distinction, since the Congress was essentially unchanged after the ratification of the Articles. Most historians have followed his lead. The distinction is thus clearly not "original research" by some Wikipedian, though the distinction appears to be outdated, like much historical writing in neglected Wikipedia articles. Probably the first step in bringing our coverage up to current standards would be to merge Second Continental Congress and Congress of the Confederation, as you suggest. —Kevin Myers 02:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Continental"

This thread makes me wonder — although I was a history major in college, and I'm rather familiar with the basics of American politics at this time, I've never understood one thing: why did they use the term "Continental"? Why didn't they call themselves the "Colonial Congress" or something else? Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because they fought to not be a colony. They were as much in control of a continent as any European state was at the time, or is today, in control of Europe. Also, and I have no real proof of this, I suspect the current use of "Continental" has more in common with 20th century philosophical terms than it does with 18th century political ones.

Another aside, the OP didn't say as much, but the original title kind of begs the question, the original capitol was Philadelphia, not Washington. Shadowjams (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get things straight, the original capital was Philadelphia. (Or was it? I'm only correcting the language here, without knowing the facts.) Capitol is the name of the building. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 10:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was the first. But the first of no less than nine capitals. Can any other country ever have had so many capital cities? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They called the congress "Continental" (i.e. covering the continent, a grand but unrealized goal) to distinguish it from the other congresses that were then being formed on the provincial level, such as the Massachusetts Provincial Congress and the North Carolina Provincial Congress. In practice, they usually just called it "the Congress". —Kevin Myers 12:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that distinguished the founding fathers was a long-term vision - something that some say we lack nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many times has Germany won the FIFA World Cup?

Wouldn't it be zero, since West Germany won the previous times (not Germany)? 203.206.255.12 (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea but your question reminds me of the question about if your car is still the same car you bought from the factory if since then you've replaced all the parts. Dismas|^(talk) 06:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the connection myself, Dismas, but you may want to look at Ship of Theseus. Deor (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Germany national football team, governed by the German Football Association DFB, states that "...the pre-war traditions and organisations of Germany were carried on by the Federal Republic of Germany, which was referred to as West Germany... With recognition by FIFA and UEFA, the DFB maintained and continued the record of the pre-war team..."; and "...The reunification of Germany was confirmed in August to take effect on 3 October 1990, with the access of the former GDR to the Federal Republic of Germany. The members of the East German association Deutscher Fußball-Verband acceded to the DFB in November..." So, these strongly imply, at least, that West Germany was organised and recognised internationally in the period 1950-90 on the same basis as Germany as a whole was, both before and after that period. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I would liken it to the USA losing states to the Confederate States of America. Do you consider the modern day USA a different country from that? Or even the pre-1960 when the last states were created vs. today? cha ndl er 13:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As [18] FIFA.com says, Germany have won it three times --87.115.36.236 (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although Germany played as West and East Germany up, the two merged in 1990. The East German team technically merged into the West German team, and they were unified as one, and so, Germany have won the world cup 3 times. -- Jack?! 22:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although no one has every stayed awake for an entire game of soccer, so we have to take the players' words for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.139.74 (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way, there never was such a country as "West Germany". That was just a nickname for the German Federal Republic. In 1990 the German Democratic Republic (nicknamed "East Germany") was absorbed by the German Federal Republic. After this there was no point in the old nickname, so people started using "Germany" as the short name of the German Federal Republic instead. But West Germany and today's Germany are the same country. --Anonymous, 00:00 UTC, July 8, 2010.

German reunification goes into this in some detail, and even explains why "reunification" is not the best term to label what happened, even though it's what we call it (and hence it's why our article is so named). -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be considered discrimination in Ontario?

Suppose I'm an employer and I hire a bunch of people to lift heavy things from A to B. My research suggests that the average man (that I hire) can lift 400 kg from A to B in an hour, while the average woman can lift 100 kg in the same time. Would it be legal to pay my male employees four times what I pay the females? Of course, ideally, I should keep track of how much each person has lifted and pay them accordingly, but suppose that's impractical.

Note: All of this is hypothetical. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paying by amount of piecework done has certainly been legal under some circumstances, but I don't see how lifting things really qualifies as piecework... AnonMoos (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest your research is wrong. First of all, even in a single lift - a measure of pure strength, the factor would not be four to one. Second, the difference diminishes as the endurance factor increases. Certainly paying men more would be discrimination, just as paying white people more than black in management positions because there are more successful white managers than blacks would be discrimination. You could well have individual women outperforming individual men in your group. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics and facts are two different things. Men are usually stronger than women. Now if he does just pay all the women a quarter the amount he pays the men becase of their sex, that is sexism, but if he pays by the amount they can move, and the women move less, that's fine.--92.251.137.196 (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the article Equal Pay Act of 1963 helpful. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a U.S. law; the O.P. was asking specifically about Ontario. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry; forgot what side of the (to me very distant) border Ontario is on! I would have made amends with the relevant info from the Ontario article, but Adam Bishop is ahead of me. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant laws for Ontario are the Employment Standards Act and the Pay Equity Act. We don't have articles for them but you can read them here and here. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a practical level, remember that you aren't hiring "the average" man and woman, but specific individuals. If Janet moves more boxes than Bob, it isn't fair to pay her less just because you're assuming she's average. And I, too, would be a little astonished to find even an above-average man moving 400 kg an hour, all day, without finishing up the day in a hospital. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it one 400 kg weight per hour? Eight 50-kg ones? Twenty 20-kg ones? In the U.S., a case with 10 reams of 8.5 x 11 paper weighs around 50 pounds, just under 23 kg, "heavy" by some measures; you'd have 3 minutes to move one if you wanted to hit 400 kg per hour.

Is moving the weight entirely by muscle power a bona fide qualification? Does the worker get to use a hand truck, a pallet jack, a forklift? If not, why not? --- OtherDave (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

400 kg/hr is not really all that much. That is only about 25 full milk crates an hour, or one every other minute. Googlemeister (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're paying people based on how much they can move, that's fine. Women tend to be weaker than men, so it's likely they'd get paid a less. You are discrimiating based on strength. However if you are assuming that all of the women can only lift a quarter of the amount all the men can lift, when in fact some of them can lift more than some of the men, you're being sexist. Nobody is average.--92.251.137.196 (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of something I heard about firefighters. According to rumour, the physical requirements to become a firefighter ask men to carry heavier people on their shoulders than it ask of women, yet men aren't paid more. I guess they get around the problem by not sending the women firefighters into houses to save fat people; there will be other work at the fire for her to do, so it's not like she's being lazy. Though I wonder what they would do if random distribution ever resulted in an all-woman fire hall that had to rescue a fat person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.139.74 (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one that one male firefighter can lift that two female firefighters can't lift. Indeed, I remember learning the 'fireman's carry' in girl scouts- it was a two-woman carrying method that worked very well. Mr Fatty is not more likely to die at an all-female fire hall- he's just more likely to be carried by two people, which frankly is probably more stable anyway. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you would need to hire an additional person for that. Googlemeister (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if it's impractical to test each individual's strength? Why is it illegal to pay women less if, on average, the women would receive just as much money for kg moved as the men? --99.237.234.104 (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because then you're not giving the really strong women enough money and you're giving the weak men more money than they deserve. 142.104.139.74 (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been court cases in Canada about job requirements involving the ability to lift things. I remember that one of the railways had a requirement that an employee had to be able to lift and carry a coupler singlehanded, and this was challenged as being an excuse to discriminate against women, most of whom could not do it. The final judgement was in favor of the female applicants on the grounds that moving couplers around was only occasionally required and there was no legitimate need for it do be done singlehanded. I think a requirement on firefighters being able to lift a certain weight, and this was in Ontario, was similarly overturned. But I don't have specific cases to cite, and this is not exactly the same as the original query topic anyway. --Anonymous, 01:01 UTC, July 8, 2010.

American Evidentiary Law Hypotheticals

I am an American lawyer who needs to brush up on litigation skills. Evidentiary law seems uncomplicated until I try answering hypotheticals. We had a superb teacher in law school but I was nursing a broken heart and never completed the daily homework. Can someone recommend where I can find the best set of hypotheticals with cogent answers so that I may master the material now? I have a set of fairly recent Bar/Bri materials. Thanks.75Janice (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)75Janice.[reply]

Examples and Explanations. If you're not familiar with that series, search on Amazon.--达伟 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your client is convicted of an overdue library book and sentenced to 10 years in the electric chair. How much should you charge him for your services? 24.118.123.34 (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E&E is always good, but if you need a professional level practice guide then I know there's an evidence practice guide but its name escapes me right now. I may try to answer again in a day or two after I've looked around. I know Moore's Practice Guide is excellent for the FRCP. Honestly, if you're asking this question on here you probably not looking for a detailed answer. The lexis/westlaw notes for any of the FRE rules are good. Also remember spell check before turning anything in. There are three in your OP. Shadowjams (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the Vietnam War

Did (m)any women dress as men and go to Vietnam as soldiers? I heard a Peter, Paul and Mary song ("The Cruel War", maybe?) in which a woman is talking about how she will do that to be with her love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceridhwen (talk • contribs) 23:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am 99.99% Sure that no females served in front line combat duty during the Vietnam war, It would be pretty much impossible for a women to have snuck into the army dressed like a man as they do a pretty thorough physical before you even get into training. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what he/she said, but here is an interesting list List of wartime crossdressers meltBanana 12:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about dressing up as men, but there certainly were Vietnamese Women at War. (Incidentally, the Peter, Paul and Mary song is part of a stream of folk music around the theme of a woman who wants to accompany her love to war. See several references in this discussion at Mudcat.org. Example: The Warfare is Raging, which was collected by Cecil Sharp in Appalachia in 1916). --- OtherDave (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani military history.

I read with great pride about pakistani students being awarded with sword of honor in sandhurst,etc.Also the first female student to be awarded it in pakistan. Has any of pakistan's illustrious military institutions;P.M.A,o.T.S.,P.A.F.A,etc,ever awarded their coveted "Sword of honor" to any foreign student.If so, who, when ,where and who was the first to be awarded it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Papasheikhtijan (talk • contribs) 23:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 8

Poetry

Ok call me a philistine, but what is the point of poetry exactly?--88.104.91.80 (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to remind those of us who are capable of understanding that there is more to life than getting laid and arguing over stupid crap. --Ludwigs2 00:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or to aid in those endeavours. Matt Deres (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.139.74 (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's art, just like a picture. If poetry doesn't invoke feelings in you, that's just because it is not your cup of tea. To some other people, poetry means a lot. Poetry is fairly valuable to us as a society; I heard many poems when I was a kid, and I believe that most other Americans do as well. Falconus^{p t c} 02:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I can't stand poetry, and I skip anything printed in Italic text when I'm reading fiction that contains or quotes poetry. That said, the "point" is the same as any other art (most of which I can't stand). It's a form of expression that, to some, expresses something in a way that no other means can. I tend to think of poetry as lyrics without music. It annoys me less that way, but at least it helps me understand why others might appreciate it. Aaronite (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry is just a way of using imagery and metaphor to express some idea that would be difficult/impossible to express prosaically. If you don't have any interest in non-prosaic things, then you probably will have no interest in poetry. --Ludwigs2 03:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether iambic pentameter, haiku, or free verse, there is also the adherence to a structure, more or less demanding, which calls upon one's creative talents. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The question rather implies you have not written poetry. Writing poetry yourself might provide you the best answer. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T. S. Eliot would disagree: "The most important thing for poets to do is to write as little as possible." -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dirac said "In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in the case of poetry, it's the exact opposite!" 20.137.18.50 (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a TV series about civilization, a few decades ago, that was hosted by Abba Eban (sp?) and one thing I recall about it is his repeated references to countries or cultures that produced "poetry and philosophy", which was apparently regarded as a sign of true civilization. I take it to mean that it's a people who have stopped fighting massive wars sufficiently that they have time to reflect on the human condition and such, to create art, i.e. things that have little or no "practical" value, but which are "beautiful". Which may be why there are so many more poems connected with the Jews than with the Philistines, for example. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the original point of early epic poetry was to make it possible for one person to learn great tracts of narrative by heart. Some early poems were in circulation as oral traditions for a long time before they were written down. Everything mentioned above followed later. Alansplodge (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Teeth of the League

On the making of the Treaty of Versailles:

... the French representative on the relevant committee, Leon Bourgeois, kept pressing for an international army or any other mechanism that would endow the League of Nations with automatic enforcement machinery in case Germany abrogated the Versailles settlement -- the only cause of war that interested France.

For a fleeting moment, Wilson seemed to endorse the concept by referring to the proposed Covenant as a guarantee of the "land titles of the world." But Wilson's entourage was horrified. Its members knew that the Senate would never ratify a standing international army or a permanent military commitment. One of Wilson's advisers even argued that a provision stipulating the use of force to resist aggression would be unconstitutional:

A substantial objection to such a provision is that it would be void if contained in a treaty of the United States, as Congress under the Constitution had the power to declare war. A war automatically arising upon a condition subsequent, pursuant to a treaty provision, is not a war declared by Congress.

Taken literally, this meant that no alliance with the United States could ever have binding force.

-- page 236 of Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger

Now, how did the U.S. overcome this constitutional obstacle when it created the NATO? -- Toytoy (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as stated in our NATO article, the NATO pact does not actually oblige member states to use armed force, only to take measures they consider necessary. The NATO allies merely agreed in principle to consider an attack on one ally to be an attack on the alliance. In the case of the U.S., taking military action would happen in the normal way, with a congressional declaration, or if the situation is urgent, by order of the President. As for the technicality about treaties of alliance with the U.S. not being binding, surely that's the least of a potential ally's concerns. If they expect the U.S. to cop out on that pretext, they're hardly going to rest their security on such a pact. And even if a treaty was "binding", what could the other party do if the U.S. reneged? Would they sue?--Rallette (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well-stated. The "voluntary" nature of it would be the part that keeps it constitutional. Another consideration is that the U.S. political climate was rather different after WWI than after WWII. The USA was still pretty much isolationist after WWI, and WWII pretty much put an end to that. Also, we were not quite strong enough after WWI to impose our will on the League and make it work. After WWII, we were, and we said to our European buddies, "OK, this time we'll do it OUR way, and make it WORK." No small part of it was the Soviet threat which NATO was supposed to be able to counter. There was no similar threat to the US after WWI. (In 1918 the USSR was not ready to be a world power either. By 1945 they were.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bugs; after WWI the US just refused to have anything to do with the league, despite the best efforts of Wilson. That might be why it didn't work. Alansplodge (talk)

That "constitutional obstacle" was only an obstacle in the opinion of one of Wilson's advisers. It was shown later in the century to not be an obstacle at all. In the US, the President, as commander-in-chief, had (and still has) broad latitude to deploy the US armed forces as desired. If he were to decide that it was in the interest of US national security to station 10,000 troops in Europe to defend Alsace-Lorraine, then he could do so. The entire Korean War and the entire Vietnam War were fought without a declaration of war on the US side, for example; this led to the War Powers Resolution, in which Congress tried to curtail Presidential power to commit the US military to combat; but see the Questions regarding constitutionality section of that article for a discussion about the respective roles of Congress and the President. It is all arguable. Note that the attitude in the early 1900s did differ from the much more militaristic attitude in the late 1900s; but the Constitution didn't change during that time. Wilson could have committed troops to a permanent military force, perhaps justifying it with the same Constitutional arguments that US presidents used after World War II; but Congress could have responded by passing a law specifically forbidding that deployment. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dzban Pełen Słońca

This is the title of a play performed in May 1975 at Warsaw's Jewish Theatre. Was it written by Peretz Hirshbein (I'm not sure, so not posting yet to that Discussion page), and originally in Polish rather than Yiddish? And how to translate Dzban Pełen Słońca to English? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the part of this review that's visible without a subscription, the Jewish State Theatre performs in Yiddish "with simultaneous Polish translation over earphones distributed free to patrons", and the authors of Dzban Pełen Słońca are Michal Szwejlich and Szymon Szurmiej, "from stories by Peretz Hirshbein". According to the part that's not visible but shows up in the Google search snippet, a literal translation of the title is "a jug of sunshine" (though Sunny Ways seems to be the play's "official" English title). Deor (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More accurately, the Polish title means "a jug full of sunshine". The Yiddish title is Oyf a zinekn veg. [19] This source also confirms that the play was written by pl:Michał Szwejlich and pl:Szymon Szurmiej based on works by Perec Hirszbejn (as his name is spelled in Polish) and directed by Szymon Szurmiej. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and note that Polish uses sentence case in titles, so to be 100% correct, it should be written Dzban pełen słońca. — Kpalion^(talk) 14:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Dispute Resolution, UK

Can anyone be an arbiter, or is ADR regulated in some way? Thanks 92.28.250.159 (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ban cars, only taxis in cities

If all cars were banned in cities and only buses and taxis allowed to be used, would the price of hiring a taxi fall in the long run? 92.28.250.159 (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it? With a reduction in choices by the public, the price would be likely to increase, unless it were regulated tightly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that holds. Taxi markets are always different fleets pitted against each other, so in an ideally capitalist market (where there is no price fixing), there would still be plenty of place for competition. Increased demand for taxi services would also increase supply over the long term—there would be more taxi fleets vying for your business than there are now, when demand is rather low. Taxis generally are regulated pretty heavily, though, in cities where they are used (I think all fares must be the same in big cities). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is impossible to know. In pure capitalism, competitors will drive price down. It is also easy to have price fixing to keep prices high. As a required service, the local government many tax the service to increase prices higher. It may decide to subsidize the service, making it free. There are many other possibilities as well. -- kainaw ™ 14:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, one would expect demand to rise, which would mean higher prices in the short term. However as demand rose, there would be increased motivation to increase supply (more taxis), until the price leveled out at what the market could bear. Would that be higher or lower than at the moment? I'm not sure. It's of note that taxis are more expensive in New York City than they are in Los Angeles, even though in NYC they are used more frequently. On the other hand, the comparison might not be as good—the distances in NYC are a lot smaller (so per mile fare probably has to be more) than in LA, and per trip costs are probably more expensive in LA, due to the distance. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, taxi fares are for those people who have rigid demands: people who can't drive or who find driving too difficult (e.g., no parking lots in some parts of the city). If you don't have a car and your trip is not important, either you take the bus, or you just stay at home.

Depending on your country or local government, a taxi driver license may be easy to get or very difficult to get (e.g., London). If your country or city bans all private cars, you can only take mass-transportation or ride a bike, the supply of taxis may rise and the costs by distance may drop.

In most taxi markets, taxi fares are rigidly regulated. Some countries may allow higher fees for "sexier" cars (e.g., a limo taxi with a swimming pool in the back of the car). Cities in many countries may only allow one fare plan (sorry, only no-frills taxis). This results in less demand and some taxi drivers may have very few riders. They just leave the market to look for other jobs.

Now if all private cars are banned, taxi fares MUST be lowered to a point where a very elastic customer may call a taxi. Otherwise, people may just stay in their homes abusing their wives and kids and dogs ........

Taxi fares will drop.
Cars may become more expensive: Fewer people buy cars.
People are moving back to inner cities EVEN IN THE U.S.!
Lives will be better.

In some countries, where most people are using mass transportation, as far as I know, taxis or human powered- or motorcycle-powered three-wheel passenger cars are very inexpensive by their own standards. If you REALLY NEED TO take them everyday, they shall be very affordable. -- Toytoy (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC) {{fact} on those bullet points. Googlemeister (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting people to use bicycles (2, 3 or 4 wheels) should help make people healthier and less overweight too. 92.24.188.89 (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In places like central London, cars are almost banned, especially when compared to the number of people working there. yet the city functions perfectly well. In smaller cities things should be even better as there are less people to transport. For most of their history, cities and towns have not had cars. Its only in the last sixty years or so that they have been common. Making cities car-free would revitalise city centres and reduce urban sprawl. 92.24.188.89 (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treaties

Why were there so many Treaties of Versailles and Treaties of Paris? --138.110.206.101 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because France was the most powerful country on continental Europe from the 16th century until the end of the 19th century. It participated in most wars and had a very active foreign policy, which necessited a lot of diplomatic treaties having to be approved in France for them to have any value. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Language of diplomacy? Diplomatic love of French cuisine? The French always being involved in something? All of the above? Hopefully someone else has a more informed answer, I figured I'd cover everything that first comes to mind. (ec, obviously not fast enough to be first...) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UN is located in New York. I have yet to see a Treaty of New York or Treaty of Connie Island. On second thought, only Italian gangsters would make such treaties. Some participants may be in the East River, sleeping with the fish. -- Toytoy (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Treaty of New York. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The location of treaties is usually a carefully chosen political move designed to (a) impart grandeur and ceremony to the proceedings and (b) make statements about the new relationships of the treating parties. I mean, seriously - treaties could be signed in the Hoboken Holiday Inn or in some ambassador's back yard over beer and barbecue and still be perfectly valid, but it would be a sign that the participants are not taking the treaty seriously. France was a major player in many wars over the last several hundreds of years, Versailles was about as good as you could get for grand ceremony, Paris is (and has been) the seat of French government - what more could you ask? --Ludwigs2 18:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for quote

I think it's from C.S. Lewis. There might have been a few themes, that life is about the choices made in the littlest things, and that when looking back it may have been one of those decisions that opened up a whole new landscape. Ring a bell for anyone? 198.161.238.19 (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sounds a bit like Till We Have Faces, but it's years since I read that, so I might easily be wrong. --ColinFine (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who has the more powerful military?

India or Great Britain? 148.168.127.10 (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please define "powerful". Do you mean greatest number? Do you mean most nuclear missiles? Do you mean most money spent on technology? Do you the most kills so far? -- kainaw ™ 18:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As above, it depends greatly on what you mean. The British Armed Forces are a very high-tech military with very good power projection. The Indian Armed Forces, on the other hand, are extremely large (about 20 times the active personnel of the UK) and generally modernized, just not up to the level of the UK. Neither country has the reasonable means to conquer the other, though Britain would likely come out ahead in an all-out nuclear exchange (owing to a combination of numerical and range superiority). Indian deployment of ballistic missile submarines (slated to occur soon) would alter this significantly. — Lomn 18:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, any discussion of a one-on-one all-out nuclear exchange is purely academic. If Britain and India ended up in a nuclear war, the rest of the world would get involved (defending their allies, taking advantage of their enemies being weakened or distracted, etc.). Even if a one-on-one nuclear war took place, you don't need much nuclear capability on each side to result in mutual destruction. India doesn't currently have a delivery system capable of reaching Britain as far as I can tell, but it is developing several systems that could probably manage it. It would really only take one large nuke to successfully reach the centre of London and detonate to completely devastate the country. --Tango (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heck you don't even need a delivery system if you are taking the first shot. You just need a shipping container labeled "Used Pinball Machine Parts" put the thing in there, and take a load of cargo containers to London. Googlemeister (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving WW1

If you were called up as a private soldier during World War One, what were you chances of surviving until peace? Thanks 92.24.188.89 (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any specific country in mind? Dismas|^(talk) 19:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer would also depend heavily on whether you were called up in 1914 and not discharged during the war, or whether you were called up on 10 November 1918. Marco polo (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would also depend on if you were a French private, or an Australian private, or a Turkish private. Googlemeister (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is more in the category of a 'back of the envelope' calculation. According to List of surviving veterans of World War I, the estimate for the total number of military personnel who served during World War I is 65,038,810, and there were approximately 9,750,103 military deaths during the war. Now not all the people in the military were called up, but most would be. Overall that would make an 85% survival rate. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]