Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

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

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

July 20

U.S. Legislative prayer.

In the U.S., is it true that prayer starts each day in the legislature? What are some resources I could find the answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanzerotree (talk • contribs) 01:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a bunch of info on this general topic: [1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, lots of countries do this, for example the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Gabbe (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The chaplains of the US Congress also have homepages: see House and Senate versions. Gabbe (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The most legitimate complaint about it is that they are using tax dollars to pay those chaplains. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading U.S. Supreme Court decisions upholding the prayer against Establishment Clause challenges. From what I recall, the court found that the opening prayer is secular tradition rather than religious proselytization. The framers of the constitution never objected to legislative chaplains. It seems similar to public displays of the Ten Commandments. The U.S. Supreme Court has quite a nice depiction of the Ten Commandments, surrounded by ancient law givers. History is --75Janice (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)allowed. I believe early Courts would find Establishment Clause variations. There never was absolute separation of church and state in the United States. Indeed, several states had established religions after the ratification of the First Amendment. 75Janice (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)75Janice

. Please cite references and not your poorly remembered impressions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Kind of like when the High Court declared that Christmas was a folk holiday and that therefore it was OK for the U.S. government to honor it as a paid holiday? And I have ultra-strict constructionist pals who've informed me in the past that some individual states did, at one time, have "state religions". They don't anymore, at least not officially, possibly thanks to the Equal Protection amendment and/or High Court rulings that rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights cannot be denied by individual states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by the "High Court", Bugs? I thought the USA has a Supreme Court. Or is it colloquially referred to as the High Court over there? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's a media thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's something new I've learned today. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"High court" is often used in journalistic terms to describe to the highest court of the appropriate jurisdiction. In New York, the high court is the New York Court of Appeals, in the U.S. federal courts, it is the Supreme Court. I could be wrong, but I don't think the chaplains and prayer haven't been seriously challenged in modern jurisprudence. Modern establishment clause jurisprudence since Lemon doesn't address this issue directly. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That bit of journalese doesn't apply everywhere. In Australia, the highest court in the states is their Supreme Courts, and the highest federal court is the High Court of Australia. I've never heard anyone interchange the terminology. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Air Force One identification while in transit?

How does Air Force One identify itself when traveling outside the U.S.? Does it file flight plans in advance? It seems to me that there would be security concerns about being too open with that information, and safety concerns with being too secretive about the journey. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

All flight management is done using the airframe number, the designation Air Force One is purely to indicate that elpresidente is on board.

ALR (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, to rephrase the question - do the air traffic controllers//aviation authorities of a country passed in transit know that the president is aboard? What's the balance between security and obscurity here? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a recording between Air Force One and Ottowa ATC. They call it "Air Force One", that being its call sign. Here's a quote from some FAA regs: When in radio communications with “Air Force One” or “Air Force Two,” do not add the heavy designator to the call sign. State only the call sign “Air Force One/Two” regardless of the type aircraft. --Sean 13:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

All aircraft in civil aviation must file flight plans, and the Air Force One is no exception. There was, I vaguely recall, an instance when GW Bush went to Iraq, and the security was so tight that a fake flight plan was submitted. Apparently the FAA could not comment on this afterwards, and I do not immediately remember any aftermath. 88.90.16.109 (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Would AF1 be a part of civil aviation? It is driven by USAF pilots, and I think the plane is part of the USAF as well. Wouldn't that make it military? Googlemeister (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Military aircraft still have to interface with civil flight controllers, else there could be embarassing collisions. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, we are not required to file flight plans except under certain circumstances. I, as a private pilot, can legally take off and fly an airplane from here (East coast USA) all the way out to the West coast without filing any flight plan (and for that matter, I don't even need to talk to anybody on the radio unless I choose to or am going to pass through controlled airspace). Generally, in the USA, only if you are flying under instrument conditions or above 18000 ft Mean Sea Level do you need to file a flight plan. Of course, the smart thing to do is to file a flight plan for any lengthy trip, but that's not remotely required, just encouraged. Falconus^{p t c} 20:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Air Force One will, on occasion, act like a normal plane for top-secret trips. For example, when Bush visited Iraq for Thanksgiving they acted like a small to medium plane (saw it on National Geographic channel) --mboverload@ 01:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Religious Wars in Antiquity

Wikipedia's page on Religious Wars refers to wars involving the Christian and Muslim worlds, as well as the Israelite conquests of neighbouring Canaanite kingdoms in the Bible (which may or may not be historically accurate). Are there any examples of religious wars occurring in the ancient world between non-monotheistic nations or cultures? How about civil religious wars? Paul Davidson (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There are the Sacred Wars which took place between various city-states in Greece. You could probably argue that because religion and state were so interconnected in the ancient world, any war involving the Greeks and Romans (especially on a large scale, like the Persian Wars or the Punic Wars) were somewhat "religious" in nature. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Though I was not familiar with these wars, there's nothing in Wikipedia's write-ups to suggest they were fought over religion, even as a pretext. The Third Sacred War appears to have involved some intra-religious disputes, but I'm more interested in wars motivated by religious differences. Any other suggestions? Paul Davidson (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In ancient times, each group had its own particular gods, which were often closely-tied to the specific culture and particular way of life of those who worshipped them. Some gods were said to be on the side of their own people in war, but there was no real proselytizing fervor (in the sense of later eras). If tribe A conquered tribe B, it was sometimes said that gods of tribe A were stronger than the gods of tribe B, but there was generally no specific odium theologicum. The first true religious war in anything like the modern meaning of the phrase was probably the Maccabee revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes ("Epimanes"). AnonMoos (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is really only the Abrahamic religions (all monotheistic) that justify warfare for their defense or advancement. So I don't think that you will find religious wars, in the usual sense of that term, between non-monotheistic religions. However, other wars have been waged for ostensibly religious reasons. An example is the flower wars waged by the Aztec Triple Alliance against its enemies. These wars were waged to obtain captives ostensibly needed for sacrifice to gods such as Huitzilopochtli. There is evidence of human sacrifice to gods in earlier Mesoamerican cultures, such as the Maya civilization, which dates back to antiquity, so Maya warfare may have had a similar religious justification. Marco polo (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm…so what you're suggesting is that, Abrahamic or monotheistic religions aside, you really don't see a lot of wars aimed at proselytization, conversion, or religious eradication. AnonMoos: Yes, "Odium theologicum" is exactly what I'm getting at, although I wasn't familiar with that term before. Paul Davidson (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that odium theologicum is specific to the Abrahamic religions. They are the only religions that claim that there exists only one god who is the source and epitome of righteousness (as defined by their sacred scriptures), such that any other religion is evil and odious. Non-Abrahamic religions generally view other religions as misguided or deluded at worst, not as offenses meriting their adherents' annihilation or forcible conversion. (Note that not all adherents of Abrahamic religions take such a view of other religions.) Marco polo (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Mahayana Buddhism had a lot of "proselytizing fervor" in some historic contexts, and in periods of breakdown of order in medieval Japan, armed militant monks would often descend from hilltop monasteries and take a hand in factional fighting. Not sure that any of that would really be called a "religious war" though... AnonMoos (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Japan, there was a period during which Buddhism was the state religion and Christians were persecuted. Still, that was closer to modern times and not in antiquity. Paul Davidson (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Islam and Hinduism were, and are, frequently in conflict in India. That's not really ancient, and the conflict isn't always strictly religious, but Hinduism isn't monotheistic, so maybe that counts. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The separation of "religion" and "national culture" is a fairly recent thing in most places. If your consider your king to be a god, as did some ancient cultures, it's hard to draw a distinction between your king sending you to war and your god sending you to war. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Jurors taking notes

I am soon to be a member of a jury, for the first time in my life. It's spurred me to wonder why, in all the film/TV courtroom dramas I've seen over the years - and that's a lot - I've never seen jurors taking notes. There's often a lot of complex information presented to juries, yet they seem to be expected to remember it all; or maybe they're not expected to remember all the detail but instead they're required to form their impressions of the defendant's guilt or innocence based purely on the evidence they remember hearing and seeing, and not on their own interpretations of what they heard and saw, which is what their notes would be. Is this actually the case, or would it vary between jusrisdictions? And why would it be inappropriate or undesirable for jurors to take notes of what they're being told or shown? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is very appropriate. The average IQ is however astonishingly low. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the average IQ is precisely 100. ZigSaw 13:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The above rather "wtf?" comment notwithstanding, the answer is that – in the UK at least – jurors can take notes. See page 5 of this document. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 09:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have sat on two juries at the Old Bailey. In both cases, each juror was equipped with stationery for note-taking. In both cases, I was the only juror to take advantage of this. --Dweller (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, in American juries where taking notes is permitted, the notes have to be given to the court once the trial is over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This law blog entry and its comments by other lawyers has some interesting discussion of the pros and cons. --Sean 13:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The jurors do not need to take notes. A transcript is available to them during deliberations. Googlemeister (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A transcript is useful, but I don't see how it replaces notes. You would use notes to record your thoughts, impressions and conclusions when listening to the evidence. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You might have particular questions about particular testimony, and having only the massive transcript in front of you, plus our inherently faulty memory, might be insufficient. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Many universities record their lectures, yet students still take notes. --Sean 16:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In this passage from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Carroll has the jurors provided with slates in order to take notes. Their average IQ was however astonishingly low, as will be seen from the narrative. Sussexonian (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the info. It turns out I still haven't been a member of a jury. I attended court along with 50-odd other potential jurors, and I was one of the people who were selected at random to be in the jury, but I was challenged by the prosecution (they didn't have to give any reasons), so back I went to the rear of the court room. We challengees and non-selectees could not leave until the empanelled jury chose a foreperson, which took at least 20 minutes, and when they came back into court for the trial to finally begin, I noticed many of them were carrying notepads. (JackofOz =) 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone who served on a jury for an Ohio criminal case told me she was not allowed to take notes, if I recall correctly. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

When I did jury duty, (In Massachusetts) I did not personally take notes, but I know that at least one of the other jurors did. Frankly, even though the case went on for three days, I felt perfectly confident that I was able to remember the facts of the case, which were not at all complex. (There were many witnesses called, but they had surprisingly little of value to say.) There were a couple of dates that were important, but the critical factor was the difference between the dates, not the absolute dates.

On the other hand, we were not given transcripts. The proceedings were tape recorded, but jurors did not have access to the tapes. So if the case had involved complicated details I pretty much would have been forced to take notes. APL (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW the thing you decide sounds like a Peremptory challenge. I know someone in NZ who had a similar thing albeit from the defense, she was a young female and I think it was a rape or male assault female or something of that sort so it's probably not that surprising. Nil Einne (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's described as "the right in jury selection for the defense and prosecution to reject a certain number of potential jurors who appear to have an unfavorable bias without having to give any reason". This was all explained to us beforehand, and we were advised not to take it personally, because it's more likely to simply be about getting a better male/female balance, or age/youth balance, than any perception that an individual person is more or less likely to go the prosecution/defence's way. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unidentified African masks

Hi there, I'm uploading photographs of African masks taken in Burkina Faso. The masks come from various origins, so I need help to identify them. Here they are : commons:User talk:Romanceor/Unidentified masks. Many thanks for your help. --Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 12:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You would need a specialist in West African art to identify these, and I doubt that we have such an expert on the reference desk. Your best bet might be to contact a museum with a good collection of West African masks and ask the curator for assistance. Marco polo (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that you live in France, there would be the Musée du quai Branly and the Musée Dapper, both of which should have curators with the required knowledge. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this really by Rush Limbaugh?

It reads like something his critics would love to hear him say, but if it were the case that someone else wrote it and put his name to it, it seems like he'd easily be able to sue them: http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-even-want-to-be-alive-anymore,11521/ I don't like the guy, but even to me, it's a very strange article. 71.161.42.141 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The Onion is a satirical news source. — Lomn 15:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And to follow up on that, even our conservative-leaning Supreme Court ruled years ago that even extreme forms of satire are protected speech. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

How about a reference? Bugs is alluding to Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be the one, yes. Regarding Onion, I thought everyone knew they were satirical. Do they have a disclaimer anywhere? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious. You know, like their headlines about Soccer officially announcing it's gay. --mboverload@ 01:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got some bad news for you. --Sean 15:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Information on Illuminati

Reading the article on Illuminati i faced a doubt that whatever was presented in the movie 'Angels and Demons', about the history of Illuminati, is that all truth or not? Was the great discoverer Galileo a part of Illuminati?? Were illuminati against the preachings of Bible and that of the church? And did they ever pursue hostile methods to prove themselves true? if possible please add few more details about Illuminati in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid.cosmo (talk • contribs) 15:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A better place for this request would be Talk:Illuminati. Angels and Demons should not be misread as a documentary.--Wetman (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen or read Angels & Demons, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that Galileo was not part of the Illuminati, based on the simple fact that the Bavarian Illuminati was founded 1776, more than two centuries after the death of the man. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what they want you to think. Googlemeister (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read Dan Brown's books. They are fictional novels. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you would like the more speculative (read nonsense) side of the illuminati, David Icke is fascinating if not mind-boggling.Jabberwalkee (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How does Mr Icke explain the fact that the "Illuminati" have not engineered a lethal accident to stop him revealing them? According to Icke they can and will do far bigger things than that. 92.29.122.159 (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Animal Artist Robert Hickey

I have an oil painting of a Collie, Champion Fancycrest's Flash of Glory. It was painted in the early 60's on commission for my late father Joseph J. Williams who owned the dog, Flash. He also owned and operated Fancycrest Kennels from the mid 50's till it closed in the late 60's after the accidental death of the dog Flash. The painting is signed by Robert Hickey. I am interested in finding out information about this Artist and other works he may have done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.54.27 (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is his web site. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Death

Hey again. I was watching a French movie, and one of the characters was Death (personified). But it was a woman! This reminded me of another movie (also French) I saw maaannnnnyyy years ago, and death was also personified as a woman. Why was death portrayed as a woman? In English movies he's always a man. Thanks. 76.229.207.213 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: I passed the first time off as a coincidence, the writers trying to be creative or add diversity or something but now I think there might be something behind it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.207.213 (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it was Hel? --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would call it artistic license. Women are normally associated with giving life rather than taking it away. So making the death angel female is a different take on the usual. And it got your attention, so it must have worked. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Artistic license because in reality death is a man? It's just a different take than the (Western) usual. Staecker (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Could also be a valkyrie. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's too trite to point out, but death is feminine noun in French. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 22:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Death being male is, at least in part, a Judeo-Christian influence. Indeed, death (mawet) is a masculine noun in Hebrew. Some originally pre-Christian personifications of death such as Loviatar and Santa Muerte are female, and death is a feminine noun in a number of languages, e.g., in Russian (smert'). Plague is often personified as a female, too. --Dr Dima (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In Neil Gaiman's The Sandman (Vertigo) series, Death is a particularly interesting female character, who has come to have her own series. Steewi (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There have been a number of death goddesses (our article at death deity doesn't seem to mentioned sex statistics, though :-), such as the aforementioned Hel, as well as Ereshkigal. In Marvel comics, death is itself personified as a woman - to the point where the character Thanos falls in love with "her". Matt Deres (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was really just the Grim Reaper's Granddaughter? --Jayron32 02:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The French word for "death", which is mort, is a feminine noun. This might have had an influence on choosing the personified death's gender. For the same reason, in Bulgarian folk tales the fox is a "she", unlike English folk tales, where the fox is a "he". --Theurgist (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In my world view, dogs are always males, regardless of their sex; and cats are always females, regardless of their sex. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Charles Perrault probably didn't think so. --Theurgist (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting, Jack, my English teacher taught me the same when I was at school in France, but when I arrived in England, and explained this, I was told "What nonsense, dogs can be he or she". So I thought this teacher was not quite as competent as I had thought, you are the first I hear to confirm the dog part, the cat part is more commonly accepted. --Lgriot (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you need to differentiate between the general and the specific. Dogs can, of course, be 'he' or 'she' depending on whether the particular dog is male or female. However, when people talk about a generic 'dog' or a generic 'cat', the dog is nearly always 'he' and the cat is nearly always 'she'. So when people talk about a dog they saw digging in their front garden, and they had to chase it away, they will generally call it 'he'. And if it's a cat, they're more likely to call it 'she' (although I think this is much less strong than the association for dogs). 86.164.66.83 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason why a vulva is referred to as a pussy, and not as a puppy. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, though not entirely connected, in my native Slovene "death" is also a feminine noun, and death personified is usually called "the old lady with the scythe". As a translator, I sometimes bump into the dilemma of what to do with the idea of a male death personified... TomorrowTime (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Alalakh, Mukis

Allegedly there has been a state around Alalakg between the 16th century and 1340. ITs names were allegedly Mukis or Amka. Can you show me some English language reference about this state? For further information have a look at Mukis in the Hungarian Wikipedia. --Ksanyi (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on Mitanni which may be of help. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Quantitative easing and spending cuts

Why in the UK has the government been pumping money into the economy through quantitative easing, yet on the other hand is cutting back on putting money into the economy by reducing the amount of money the government spends? Just a secret plan to make bankers wealthy at the expense of government employees? 92.28.243.14 (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"The government" changed on the 6th of May this year. The original bunch, the Labour Party, did quantitative easing. The new bunch, the Conservative-Liberal coalition, are making cuts. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 21:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought the Bank Of England did the quantitative easing, and that they are supposed to be independant of politicians and not under their control. 92.24.182.138 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To an extent, yes. The Bank of England needs the permission of government to carry out quantitative easing, though. --Tango (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

See fiscal policy and monetary policy. They work in different ways and on different scales. The biggest advantage of monetary policy is that the government doesn't have to take out a loan to expand the economy. Also, the inflation created by increasing the money supply helps reduce the value of the government debt. Also, as a country with flexible exchange rates and free capital movement it would be expected that monetary policy is far more effective than fiscal policy (see Mundell–Fleming model and Impossible trinity. Basically, the Mundell-Fleming model suggests that any increase in government spending will cause the local pound to appreciate until exports have reduced by an amount similar to the increase in government spending.Jabberwalkee (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

'Economic work'

UNICEF defines 'child labour' here in terms of hours of 'economic work' or 'domestic work'. I couldn't find a definition of what they meant by either. Does anyone here have an idea?

Thank you,

Daniel (‽) 22:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

From Schultz and Strauss (eds) Handbook of Development Economics, Volume 4: "economic work" refers to the "economically active, excluding the unemployed" (and 'economically active' means participating in the production of economic goods and services). "Domestic work" is non-economic work excluding community service or volunteering. 'Non-economic work' means participating in non-market household production. Hope this helps.--Pondle (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Daniel (‽) 10:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

criticism of ceremonies and rituals

i was thinking of ceremonies and rituals as a whole and questioning their validity. i've convinced myself that they serve little purpose and are not very constructive. before going further and perhaps writing some kind of thesis or essay (in part to practice my writing skills), does anyone here know of anyone in particular who has spoken against ceremonies, rituals and traditionalism as a whole? any helpful wikipedia articles regarding the subject? i'm referring to things like graduation ceremonies, holiday shopping, holiday meals, national leader inaugurations, funerals and the purpose of the activities that occur when performing them. 74.58.149.102 (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd start, of course, with the articles ceremony and especially ritual; and each of those has many interesting links to related articles. Rituals are not efficient if you're analyzing society like an engineer would; they probably are a drag on economic output; but they are super-important for several hard-to-measure aspects of society like social cohesion (unfortunately not a good article), and making people feel important and valued. On the darker side, they also help create an "us" within a society, meaning there's a disfavored "them". Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The primary purpose of these things is to bring people together. Weddings, funerals, ball games, church services, holidays, conventions, class reunions, family reunions, all of that stuff. It's cultural. And it was especially important in generations past, when travel from one place to another was difficult and expensive. So these kinds of gatherings were special events that people looked forward to and which broke up the day-to-day grind. You might start with things like holiday and reunion, and see where they take you. I expect there are many wikipedia articles that get into these various things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

i'm not looking to start a whole debate (although i'm not stopping you) but to clarify, i am not questioning celebrations and events themselves, i am questioning the protocols involved. like eating turkey on thanksgiving, firing gunshots into the air at a leader's inauguration, wearing black square hats when graduating, that sort of thing. i will read and do research on the subjects using those links but i'm wondering if this topic has ever been dicussed in a critical point of view or if historically, anyone in particular shared such beliefs. thanks for the help. 74.58.149.102 (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rituals are a cultural thing. They're something familiar in a world of chaos. A simple example: Playing "Taps" when a soldier is buried. It can evoke tears, whether you knew the deceased or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your points because I didn't see how User:Baseball Bugs' inclusion of "baseball games" fit under the umbrella of a ceremony or ritual. It's a process for determining the better of two teams and has a purpose whereas, as you contend, firing gunshots does nothing other than make a loud bang and symbolize something or other with no concrete result. Dismas|^(talk) 02:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I often have that same feeling while watching Cubs games. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ceremonies and rituals are unique to groups. Not all people observe funerals, weddings, births, "coming of age," and other of life's events in the same way. So — the ceremony and ritual is not just a marking of the ostensible event, but also a re-familiarization with the identity of a group with which one has ties. (Not neckwear.) "Generic" ceremonies and rituals of course also exist. I think they fulfill similar roles in the lives of individuals. They have their own "flavor." This is all just all of my own musings. Take it with a grain of salt, which should ease the blandness. Bus stop (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking out against the concept of ceremonies and rituals? That's a pretty broad thing to be condemning... every day at a certain time I play StarCraft and have a wank (not at the same time obviously). Is that a ritual, assuming it's done for the sole purpose of my own enjoyment? What separates that from a ceremonial meeting/luncheon of the local chapter of the Water Buffaloes? If it brings enjoyment to the people doing it, I don't see how it isn't "productive"... ZigSaw 13:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

that is your personal routine and i'm all for it. you made the conscious choice to masturbate and play starcraft. if it were standard to masturbate only at 11:30 while wearing a red shirt and hat, just as one is required to wear matching hats and exit stage left when graduating, i would fail to see the point. i'm keeping ritual and routine separate and keeping ceremonies and celebrations separate. there's nothing wrong with celebrating one's commitment to be in a relationship forever but if it's standard to break dinner plates as a part of that celebration, then you're in the territory of pointlessness. as for enjoyment, there is no way nearly every person celebrating thanksgiving had an appetite for turkey that day but some people find they are almost required to eat it because "that's just what we eat on thanksgiving". i'd rather eat wonton soup on thanksgiving and be thankful for that. 74.58.149.102 (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

How about being thankful for being there with your family, and thankful for having something to eat and not being homeless or something? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Some rituals do indeed have points. Such as, starting written sentences with capital letters. This makes the text easier to read; it really does. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Trinity House

Is there any connection or not (historically) between the Trinity House and the Hull trinity house. [2] [3] It's not clear to me if these should be in the same or different articles? 77.86.76.212 (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

All indications are that Trinity House Hull remains separate from the [London] Trinity House. The second document you link explains their separate histories, along with that of Trinity House Newcastle. The current Trinity House website FAQ gives a contact for Trinity House Hull alongside those for the Royal Navy, RNLI, etc, implying that it is not the same organisation. Warofdreams talk 13:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that's what I had gathered but wasn't sure - I was wondering about any formal or informal links between the "seamen's associations" prior to the actually formation of the different Trinity Houses, and whether they had close links as well (ie separate in legal terms, and in accounting terms - but nevertheless working together closely??) - this seems to be a difficult question to answer.77.86.76.212 (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation of a Wikipedia page

Hello, i would like to translate the page about Byron Katie in Romanian, maybe even add more data. How should i contact, or how could i start translating it? This is the link of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Katie Thank you very much.79.113.238.9 (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You can translate it yourself if you want. This is quicker than requesting a translation (Wikipedia:Translation)

I assume you want to use it on http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagina_principal%C4%83 , once translated it's helpful if you place a template such as Template:Translated page or similar with a link to the original article on the talk page.

If you want to use a translation outside wikipedia the only requirement is that you follow the relevant licensing arrangements which include attributing the source.77.86.76.212 (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

July 21

The Bunkers at the Greenbrier Resort

I have read that the government spent over 14 million dollars to build the bunkers at the Greenbrier Resort in White Sulphur Springs, WV. Today, 2010, who own the bunkers - the US government, or the present hotel owner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eensy-Weensy (talk • contribs) 00:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that "The Bunker" is fully owned by the Greenbrier. As per this page, "In 1995, the US government ended the lease agreement with The Greenbrier, and later that year, the resort began offering tours of the historic facility." --Zerozal (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

They could make quite the wine cellar out of that bunker... Googlemeister (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/technologynews/view/1068644/1/.html

If found guilty, the company could be fined or handed a prison sentence.

HOW DO YOU PUT A COMPANY IN PRISON???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.176.202.135 (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This would be a good question to ask the lazy reporter and his or her lazy editor. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In some jurisdictions, and for some violations, directors or executive officers could be jailed, as they were responsible for the actions of the company. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Pirates of the Carribean

Question

I would like some imformation on piracy in the carribean. how they lived, and why they beacame pirates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.172.1.2 (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Part of the origin of such piracy was that Spain prohibited ships of other nations from trading with its Western hemisphere colonies, yet its own ships couldn't really offer the colonists a broad range of goods at competitive prices. Spain's ability to enforce this trade ban was somewhat limited and sporadic, but if the Spaniards did manage to catch an illicit trading ship, then they were often quite brutal and viciously harsh in imposing punishments. This particular set of circumstances quickly transformed some who were initially interested in trade into armed raiders. Of course, piracy eventually developed into a whole way of life... AnonMoos (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of relevant articles at Category:Piracy. Piracy in the Caribbean is particularly relevant, and has a substantial (but unreferenced) section on the causes of piracy at that time. You might also want to look at Golden Age of Piracy, and some biographical articles, such as Bartholomew Roberts, Henry Morgan, and Edward Teach. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(I love the formality of that title, to get it away from sounding like the Disney ride/movies.) -- Zanimum (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(Wikipedia actually has a whole series of serious articles named "Piracy in [Geographic location]", while articles starting with "Pirates of" all point to fiction. "Penzance", for example. APL (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC))

You might also try Buccaneer, which is about the early origins of "pirates of the Caribbean". Pfly (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Third highest ranking official of the UN

Who is the third highest ranking official of the United Nations (following the Secretary-General and the Deputy Secretary-General). Is it the Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services? Cheers —P. S. Burton (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No doubt your question is inspired by recent press reports. No, there is no third highest ranking official. Below the SG and DSG is the Senior Management Group, akin to the UN cabinet. USG/OIOS sits on this group but only as an observer. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 11:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I missed the recent press reports. Link? --Sean 15:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This one, for instance. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 15:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Viennese for your quick answer.P. S. Burton (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

essay help

A tells his friend, B, that he wants a house built on his (A’s) land, but he cannot see how he will be able to afford the normal, full costs of having the house built. B, who runs a building firm, tells A that he would be able to find the time to undertake the job, and would be able to do it for a price which is lower than a commercial building firm would charge. While A and B are still in negotiation as to the price and other details about the final scope of the works, B starts the building work. When the house is nearly complete, A breaks off the negotiations because he finds that he cannot afford even the (lower than commercial) price which B wants to charge. What liability in contract, if any, does A have to B? can someone point me in the right direction on this one what should i argue here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.248.18 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

can u tell me what to argue ...please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.248.18 (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It will depend on the specifics of the contract (if any) that was signed and the particulars of the relevant jurisdiction. — Lomn 17:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And it would depend on what type of course this was for. A law school course would require a different answer than, say, a philosophy or rhetoric course. This sounds very law or pre-law to me, which would mean that there are specific lines of argumentation that are hidden away in your textbooks relating to the contracts or lack thereof. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And, jurisdiction is everything. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a pre-law contract homework question, but because the IP is from India, I'm not sure. I'll tell you though that this is easily a standard common law contracts question. You should try looking at promissory estoppel and should try to determine when an agreement becomes a contract, if it at all. Maybe that will get you on the right start. Shadowjams (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It does depend on whether A gave permission for B to go ahead and could stop the proceedings at all times. Would A know what the cost would be at all times? If there is an informal agreement, then the emphasis will be on what is reasonable. B is in the wrong in going ahead in working before agreement is given. B is expected, then, to keep the cost well within budget. Does A own the house? Does B have an intrest in the house? Could A say "No" at any time and at all times? MacOfJesus (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Presuming there is no legislation that mandates written agreements, check out the rule in Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company and if you have a law textbook the section on acceptance by conduct.Jabberwalkee (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Pirate Latitudes

At one point in Pirate Latitudes, the characters get a large supply of silver bars, only to find out that they're tainted by "worthless" platinum. Is it true that platinum used to be worth a lot less than silver? If so, why? --138.110.206.100 (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is true. Platinium was considered more or less worthless (I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the Spanish conquistadors were frustated on finding here and there platin instead of valuable gold or silver). As to why, I can't truly help you. Perhaps because platin was and still is extremely rare and hard to find? Another factor is the refinement: how can it be refined and how much does cost? I suspect that platin was simply unknown to the public/customers and therefore not used in jewelry and currency. AFAIK the precious/valuable metals in ancient times (Classical Antiquity, Middle Ages and Rennesance) were gold, silver and copper (more or less in this order). Flamarande (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Platinum is much harder to work then gold and silver, which is one reason why it would be less desirable. Googlemeister (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, during the late 18th century/early 19th century, Aluminum was once considered a precious metal, on par with silver and gold. Before modern aluminum smelting techniques, it was very expensive to extract (despite being one of the most common metals in the earth's crust), and as such, caried a high price. It was used for coinage and in jewlery. The small pyramid on top of the Washington Monument is capped with aluminum specifically because it was so rare and precious. --Jayron32 02:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Platinum is an industrial metal rather than a precious metal. Without a strong chemical industry to use it, there isn't much demand for it. --Carnildo (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

that doorbell song

what's that song, going down, pause, and then back up: cabeebacECDG GDEC. I know I'm TOTALLY butchering this thing with the transcription, but I think you will recognize it if you play that. So, what's the name of that song? Thanks! 84.153.184.144 (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

See the article on Westminster Quarters. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal question (probation)

I am in Texas. If someone broke a law and was sentenced to 30 days in jail or 1 year probation, and chose probation. If down the line, they decided that they were tired of the classes, fines and endless hassles, and went ahead and let the state incarcerate them for the 30 days they were originally sentenced to, would that be the end of it ? Would the debt be paid and the book closed ?

Thanks Killa Klown (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be a question specific to Texas law, so I doubt wikipedia would have it. Have you checked google and/or called someone who might know, such as the prosecutor's office? The Probation article has a few what-if scenarios, but most of those have to do with violating probation, which I would doubt is the right way to go about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay if you believe it is specific to Texas law, that is cool, but do you or does anyone have opinions as pertaining to their state laws ? To me, I am curious how you guys would interpert this moreso than how the law might.

Thanks Killa Klown (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is what I would say. The person was given a choice: either (A) 30 days in jail; or (B) 1 year probation. They chose choice "B". That means that the two parties entered into an agreement (a plea agreement or a plea bargain) with Choice B being the operative terms of the agreement. This is essentially a contract. Now, one party (the offender) simply -- and unilaterally -- decides that he does not like the agreement/contract. He decides to break (breach) the agreement ... by not doing the agreed-upon 1 year of probation requirement. To me, that means that the original agreement becomes nullified. Now, both parties start off from scratch, back to Square One, if you will. So, when the two parties go back to re-negotiate a "new deal", the party of the State (prosecutor) may indeed offer up the same deal (30 days in jail) ... or he has every right to negotiate an entirely new deal. No one -- including the prosecutor -- is "bound" by the old deal, since one party reneged on (breached) that deal. In fact, the prosecutor would/should exact a stiffer sentence for the very reason of "teaching the person a lesson": you cannot renege on a deal, midway through, simply because you changed your mind and did not like the deal that you agreed to. Otherwise, every (future) offender would do the same thing: pick one choice, try it out, change their mind, and expect that the other choice is still available to them. This process defeats the entire point of plea bargaining (agreements), from the prosecutor's perspective. Thus, the prosecutor has the right to change the original deal and come up with a new deal, since the offender reneged on the original agreement. The prosecutor's proposed "new deal" may be stiffer, less stiff, or the same as the original deal. That is the prerogative of the prosecutor. At the same time, the offender may choose to agree with -- or not -- the prosecutor's proposed deal (whether it be stiffer, less stiff, or equal to the original deal). And, if the offender does not want to come to any agreement, the offender can take his case to trial -- as he had the right to do originally. But the ultimate bottom line: what incentive would the prosecutor have to stick with the original deal, if the offender has proven that he will agree to something and then, when not to his liking, renege on it? The prosecutor would and should "up the ante" to teach the offender a lesson: that he had his chance at a good deal, and that he blew it. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

Like I said, or tried to, it would depend on the approach the offender takes. If he blatantly violates his probation, there are probably separate and tougher penalties for that, very possibly with no options offered. But if he simply raises the question with his probation officer, maybe a new deal could be worked out peaceably. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs brings up a good point. If the offender violates the terms of his probation, that can be (and usually is) an entirely new and separate crime (subjecting the offender to additional penalties). But, if the offender simply "changed his mind" (without violating probation), then -- as Baseball Bugs says (and as I stated above) -- a new deal may be reached. This is at the discretion of the prosecutor, not the probation agent ... since the original agreement was with the prosecutor (who presumably decided to drop or reduce some of the criminal charges). To renege on the original agreement gives the prosecutor the right to reinstate the additional (dropped) charges or upgrade the (reduced) charges. In other words, everyone starts back at Square One. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC))

Thank you both for the insight and opinion. Killa Klown (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Mohammedani Ibrahim

Does anyone know Mohammedani Ibrahim's year of death? Some of his photos seem to be copyright-marked, but can't google his life span. Twilightchill t 21:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we have an article on this guy? He took thousands of photographs of some of the early pyramid excavations. See, for example. Zoonoses (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

July 22

Dueling - how do the outcomes relate to one's satisfaction and restoration of honour?

In dueling, if the challenge is declines, is the honour of the challenger deemed automatically restored or still declined? If the agreement is to fire a single shot, the challenger misses and the challenge does not, is the challenger's honour deemed restored, unaffected, or further damaged? --78.148.143.76 (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This, of course, depends on when the duel took place, where, and who was involved. Is it a legal duel, or quasi-legal? Since you mentioned guns I suppose you must be thinking of the quasi-legal seventeenth/eighteenth century duels between nobles when one of them felt dishonoured somehow...and since those were technically illegal I don't think there was a formal set of rules. Generally it was dishonourable to decline a challenge, but was the honour of the challenger restored? Well, was the honour of the challenger at stake? Person A could accuse Person B of something, and offer to prove it in a duel, but Person B could also offer to defend himself through a duel, so if B challenged A, and A refused, would A's honour be impugned? Probably, and he might also be in trouble for making a false accusation (if his accusation could not otherwise be proven, and when requesting a duel that was probably the case to begin with). If A challenged B, and B refused, B would likely be considered guilty of whatever the accusation was, even if the accusation was actually false. If you go further back in time to when duels were perfectly legal and were fought with swords, then there were usually specific rules enshrined in law about who could challenge whom, and for what reasons, and how to get out of fighting with your honour intact. It's all very complicated (for example, a challenge could not be made if the matter was not about property worth more than a certain amount of money, a brother could not challenge a brother, etc). If you have a specific place and time in mind, it would help answer your question more clearly. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is at least one scholarly paper discussing the game theory of dueling. It concludes that dueling is a reputation statement in societies where other methods of enforcement are weak (I think). Google for something like "duel and game theory" or "duel and rational choice" or something like that. Shadowjams (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Identifying an artist

I was wondering if anyone would be able to identify the artist of a painting. I tried reading the signature, but I was unsure of some of the letters, and I wasn't able to find anything myself. The painting is here and a closeup on the signature is here.--十八 02:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears to read "S. Dressen", and some other websites, showing the same signature on other paintings, seem to agree. See this google search, for example. (Though here someone read it as B. Dressen). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: You will also find paintings by F. Dressen, but that artist's signature is different from S. Dressen 's [4]. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

updated Rosie versions

When the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park was officially dedicated, I saw some updated versions of Rosie the Riveter. There was one in particular. It's the same "We Can Do It!" with a modern day "Rosie". The reason I say "modern day 'Rosie'" is because the woman has bangs. I can't seem to find any products with that particular image anywhere. What's a good place to start?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Try TinEye. 92.28.250.141 (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried TinEye. But I have to be registered, and that website is complicated. Are there any other places?24.90.204.234 (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you have to be registered. Find an online image of Rosie the Riveter, copy its URL or that of its page, go to the front page of the TinEye website and paste the URL in the appropriate box. You might be able to get Google to do the same think, as it often offers a 'Find similar' option for images. 92.15.3.219 (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If "bangs" = "a fringe", is it this one? http://moomoney.net/2007/01/23/moo-the-riveter/ 92.15.3.219 (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You could give some more information. When was your park dedicated? Was the image you saw a painting or a photo? What else can you remember about it? Was it the version with a redhead eating a sandwich? 92.15.3.219 (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer your first response, no, that's not the one. To answer the questions on your second response, the park was dedicated in October of 2000. The image was like a computer-generated updated painting. It wasn't the version of a redhead eating a sandwich. It was a brunette with bangs, flexing her muscle while rolling up her sleeve.24.90.204.234 (talk) 01:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a googol images of Rosie The Riveter on Google - try looking through those. 92.28.242.111 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone altered the above from "a googel" to "Google". I've altered it back and changed it to googol which is what I should have written. 92.24.191.36 (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Still, does anybody know what I'm trying to find in "modern day 'Rosie'" images?24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This one? ---Sluzzelin talk 01:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite, but close. The "modern day 'Rosie'" I'm referrring to in a computer-generated, updated image is the J. Howard Miller design, except the woman's bangs are overlapping her forehead.24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

By chance I saw on the internet what you describe as a political poster relating to some place that began with "W" - Winconsin, Wyoming perhaps? I have not been able to find it again. Reading the OPs post again suggests there was an exhibition of many variants of the poster. 92.29.115.186 (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. But what does that have to do with what I'm trying to find?24.90.204.234 (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The title of the question is a clue. If you're going to be obtuse... 92.29.116.34 (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, I don't know how the question's title could be a clue. But who said anything about being obtuse?24.90.204.234 (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

incest and family relationships

Let's look at two family's A's and P's, and then some family relationship. A marries B, has C, their only child, then C marries D, who has ten siblings. One of these siblings is from a marriage between P's and Q's son and D's aunt. Is there anything incestuous? 92.229.13.132 (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How can D's sibling be a child of D's aunt? Rimush (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You tell me. 92.229.13.132 (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"You tell me"? You're the one who posed the scenario. Perhaps you could be a little clearer in explaining it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of the information we have is irrelevant to the question of incest (there's no direct blood relationship between A's and P's families, and the number of D's siblings is not important), and the crucial bit of information is missing: the one sibling of D (let's call her D2) who is the child of D's aunt can only be D's half-sister, and they must have the same father because they do not have the same mother. So D's and D2's father (son of P and Q, so let's call him R) fathered D with one woman (let's call her M1) and D2 with another woman who is D's aunt (let's call her M2). The question now is, is M2 M1's sister (no incest, not even that unusual...R married M1, had a daughter, then they got divorced or M1 died or whatever, and R married M1's sister), or is M2 R's sister (in which case we have incest). - Ferkelparade π 09:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, many societies have traditionally considered it taboo (if not outright incest) for a man to marry the sister of his previous wife. See, for example, the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act 1907. Gabbe (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet in the Bible, men were expected to marrying their brother's widow to continue the family line. Aaronite (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That obligatory type of marriage was levirate marriage. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There's lots of ways to have multiple marriages between two families, for example you could have two brothers marry a mother and daughter (as happened in my mom's family) or like in on my dad's side where 4 members of my grandmother's family (her aunt, herself, and two cousins) married 4 members of my grandfather's family, and none of them had any blood relation to their spouses. In close knit communities, this sort of stuff happens; and it isn't necessarily incestuous. --Jayron32 02:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

closest thing pre-Holocaust to...

Reading this article Palestinian jailed for having sex with Israeli, what is the closest thing that happened to Jews in the pre-Holocaust German atmosphere? 92.229.13.132 (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Pre-holocaust? You mean the Nuremberg laws, among others? Shadowjams (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

if that's the closest thing. I'm wondering what the closest thing that happened to a Jew (a single time) was. 92.229.13.132 (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean "which pre-Holocaust incident is most similar to the one the Telegraph mentioned in their story?" as suggested by Gabbe.

In that case, I would agree with Shadowjams, the Nuremberg laws are similar, in that they prohibited Jews from having sex with non-Jews in Nazi Germany. There is a big difference, however, compared with the case you've linked. There, the man was not punished for having sex with the woman, but for letting her think that he was Jewish. Inter-ethnic intercourse is not itself illegal in Israel (unlike in Nazi Germany), but apparently not revealing your true ethnicity in order to acquire sex might be. Gabbe (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC) added correction Gabbe (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was not looking for a class of laws but the closest SPECIFIC case, for a single Jewish man. What is the closest thing that happened to a Jewish man (or woman)? (Of all the legal things that happened to Jewish men and women pre-Holocaust, which single case regarding a single Jewish man or woman was the closest to the linked event?) 92.229.13.132 (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiding your ethnicity is not a crime in Israel. The man was convicted for rape by deception, acquiring sex under false premises. Poliocretes (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

According to your understanding of what happened, what is the closest case (for one Jewish man or one Jewish woman) that you can think of or reference pre-Holocaust. This is a reference desk, after all. I'm not here to debate what happened in Israel just now or why (in fact, I didn't give my opinion of what happened) I am just interested in similar pre-Holocaust cases, specifically the most similar one. 92.229.13.132 (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, for one, there were constant threats of violence against the Jews in Nazi Germany, and there are constant threats of violence against the Jews in Israel today. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, Baseball Bugs, you are right to suggest that Nazi Germany was under outside threat, and in fact it was eventually conquered by outside forces, certain German cities are partly in ruins to this day. So, that is a correct analogy, as Israel is certainly under this threat from all sides today. However, I wasn't really asking you to think about the threat to Israel, however credible it is. I was asking about the Palestinian in the linked story, who was jailed for having consensual sex with a Jew after misrepresenting himself as another Jew. I was asking what the closest case to happen to a Jew in pre-Holocaust Germany was to this. For example (I'm striking it out, to show that this is hypothetical): "a Jew was jailed for rape after claiming to be Aryan" and "A Jewish man has been convicted of rape after having consensual sex with an Aryan woman who believed he was also Aryan because he introduced himself as [such]". ? So, you see what I have in mind: what was the closest thing to that to happen, to a Jew (not to Germany or its people as a whole)? I am asking for an actual, real case, as this is a reference desk. Thank you. 84.153.200.39 (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You misread what BB wrote. As for "closeness", there is no well-defined metric, therefore the question has no well-defined or unique answer. Circumstances are very different. Nazi Germany, e.g., rarely allowed such niceties as appeals for Jews (you do know that the verdict against Sabbar Kashur is not final, right?). Leo Katzenberger was killed for being unable to prove that he did not have a consensual affair... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, what BB wrote was quite out of place (a polemical political remark irrelevant to the original question), so the OP deserves an applause for doing his best to ignore its true character and (mis)read some relevance into it.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(OP here, though I believe my IP has changed). I think we can all agree that a closer example would be one in which someone had lied about being Jewish. Your example probably comes to mind because it is a famous one - in fact the article seems to indicate that it was only a show trial to the extent that the presiding judge was all but debarred even within the NAZI regime. So perhaps a more usual case would be a better example, maybe from earlier in the period or for whatever reason with softer application of the law than the instanced execution, egregious even in the slewed justice system of the time. This of course, will require real reference work.... 85.181.50.210 (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Using the search term "jew false identity papers ... " may help in this search - it turns up examples of jews who lived in nazi germany with 'aryan' status, in one case married to a nazi officer - that is Edith Hahn Beer. However I didn't find anything close to what you described.77.86.76.47 (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Confusion of historical dates.

Wikipedia lists birthdate of Renaissance artist Sofonisba Anguissola as 1535 and her marriage to Don Francisco de Moncada as 1571. However, it lists de Moncada's birth as 1586, death 1635. Both she and he were very prominent people. email removed as per policy guidelines —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.127.47 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Francisco de Moncada, 3rd Marquis of Aitona is presumably not the same guy...we don't have an article about Sofonisba's husband, apparently. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This book may give a clue google books snippet - it seems his granfather was also called francisco de moncada - this also reveals that the grandfather was made marquis of aytona by felipe II (or spain or portugal don't know) This makes sense since the later grandson would logically be the 3rd marquis by hereditary after the father....

Someone else should check this - not my subject .. in short though it seems she was married to Francisco de Moncada, 1st Marquis of Aitona grandfather of Francisco de Moncada, 3rd Marquis of Aitona (unless the father was also of the same name .. ?) good luck.77.86.76.47 (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(more) The catalan wikipedia may be more helpful (the spanish language one has only a short article) http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesc_de_Montcada_i_de_Montcada_(tercer_marqu%C3%A8s_d'Aitona) His father was called gaston, so the grandfather must be the husband of the painter, it also gives his (the 3rd marquis's) wife as " Margarida d'Alagó-Espés i de Cervelló-Castre" .. hope that helps.77.86.76.47 (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(little more) The article "marquis's of aitona" in catalan http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marqu%C3%A8s_d'Aitona gives the first marquis as "Francesc de Montcada i de Cardona (primer marquès d'Aitona)" no birth but a death in 1594 - this seems to be the right person.

I removed your email address to prevent you getting spam - it's mentioned at the top of the page in the box about asking questions.77.86.76.47 (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, mystery solved - here is the correct man, with correct dates: Fabrizio Moncada. Died 1579. http://www.yourdictionary.com/sofonisba-anguissola

July 23

Butternut color

Uniforms of the Confederate States Army have been referred to as being "butternut" in color. Our article on butternut says the color is similar to khaki. Can anybody find some examples of the color so I can see the differences? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The khaki link that you included has some examples but here is what comes to mind first when I hear the word khaki. Dismas|^(talk) 02:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

compare the color of butternut squash. --Ludwigs2 03:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I know what khaki looks like, my badly-worded question is, what does butternut look like. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a dark khaki brown. I think it possibly refers to the colour of the wood of the butternut tree. Searching the Pantone site [5] for butternut turns up an example. Also, a google image search for "confederate butternut" shows, well, a variety of possibilities. Some are dark khaki, some are practically orange. (There also seems to be butternut yellow, but I think that's a modern invention.) "butternut brown -squash" is another possibly useful image search. With that I found this colour chart: [6] 213.122.54.16 (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Much of today's Confederate "butternut" tan uniform material started out as gray, either warm or bluish in tone [7], [8]. There were home-made Confederate uniforms dyed with the brownish gray butternut color, but the better uniform coats were of a gray which quite bluish. Cloth dyed gray with butternut dye can fade to a more brown color over the ensuing decades, since the dyes were far fro colorfast: [9]. See images of museum examples: [10]. See "Official records of the Union and Confederate navies in the war of the rebellion(1905)" which tells of a captured shipment of British woolen material intended for Confederate uniforms, which was "neither blue nor gray," but "a shade between these." Surviving uniforms in museums bore this out. There were many different uniforms used by various units. Here [11] is one description of the "official" uniforms. There was no big central warehouse with the ability to order up and issue identical factory made uniforms to all troops, and local tailors and seamstresses did with what they had.

That pantone search was great, thanks for al of the replies. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

20th century

Does anyone know of any nice quotes from or about the 20th century? Preferably from a wide range of different years and places. Also, whilst I'm here, does anyone know where I can find pictures of famous people or events from the 20th century, but taken this century or late in the 19th?

80.47.250.144 (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And I forgot to mention, I would like for the quotes to be in some way relevant to the subject of history, if that is alright. 80.47.250.144 (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You won't find photographs (which I assume is what you mean by "picture", given your use of the word "taken") of events from the 20th century that were taken in another century, that would require a camera that can see through time... --Tango (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the OP is looking for a photo of a person/place etc that came to prominence during the 20th century but was taken outside of the 20th century. An example would be a photo of FDR as a younger man during the late 1800's or perhaps a present-day photo of Hiroshima. --Zerozal (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense for "people" but not for "events". --Tango (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Ask not what your Country can do for you, but what you can do for your Country". {Citation reference not necessary, surely.} MacOfJesus (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". - Franklin D. Roosevelt, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933. --Zerozal (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not try http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=20th+century+quotes - there are many sites.77.86.82.77 (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is too vague. If you want quotes about the 20th century, that can be rather specific (for example: [12][13][). But from the 20th century—a near infinite number are out there. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We have a whole article about this: 20th century. The article needs a lot of help and editing, but it's got a lot of material that should be useful. In a box toward the top, the article has helpful links to our articles 1920s, 1930s, etc., if you need more detail. These articles have a lot of iconic photos that should be useful. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"There is a Santa Clause!" "One small step....One giant step for mankind", in 1969. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Get it right, Mac. That's Santa Claus, no e (unless you're referring to a movie). And Armstrong said "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Armstrong was supposed to say that, but in the event seemingly omitted the 'a'. Much argument about transmission faults and scientific analysis of the recording has been expended over this question. see this. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Most human beings who were alive then, and millions more born since then, have been involved in some way with the debate about what Armstrong actually said. Let us PLEASE not have yet another debate about it here. My point was that he used "step" for (a) man, and "leap" for mankind. MacOfJesus seemed to not quite appreciate the contrast Armstrong made there. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"....This was their finest hour". "No other time ... so few for so many." (All linked to History).MacOfJesus (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

For a non-English quote: "Ich frage euch: Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg? Wollt ihr ihn, wenn nötig, totaler und radikaler, als wir ihn uns heute überhaupt erst vorstellen können?" (Joseph Goebbels). --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Plastics". Clarityfiend (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking it would perhaps be better to direct the OP towards some Quotations or Image-website. I fear the he/she may not fully grasp the grand scope of the question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(I see myself as pointing the OP in the direction of the quotes). (I was expecting more come-back in not giving the Churchill quotation exactly). MacOfJesus (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Money

Let's say I had a ridiculously large sum of money, like several trillion dollars. I then, in a scene not dissimilar to the scene in the esteemed cinematic film, the Dark Night, piled this money in a warehouse and lit it all on fire. What would this do to the economy, if anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToilFoil (talk • contribs) 10:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Reducing the supply of money is a cause of deflation. How much of an effect there would be would, I guess, depend on the ration of money destroyed to money in the economy in question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends where the money came from. If you had been keeping it in a vault and not doing anything with it, then it would make no difference (money in a vault doing nothing doesn't affect the economy, so getting rid of that money wouldn't affect it either). If it had been in circulation just prior to you destroying it, then it would cause deflation. --Tango (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The M0 number published by the government would be decreased by several trillion dollars, which some people would notice and react to. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Only if the government noticed you burning it. --Tango (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, while there are a few trillion dollars in the economy (depending on how you count it.) there's nowhere near that amount in cash money that you could actually set on fire. APL (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the flip side? If he (the OP) had stored this money in a vault for many years, and then tomorrow decides to go out and spend it all? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC))

It would cause the opposite - inflation. There would be deflation when he stored it, though, which in theory would all cancel out. In practice, if the storing was done gradually and the spending quickly, then the markets would overcompensate and you would get net inflation. --Tango (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

These people are so stupid above. What would happen if you burned trillions of dollars that you already physically had, and people knew about is, is that suddenly there would be a panic as to the "true value" of the dollar, the dollar would plummet on forex markets, people would desperately try to acquire anything instead of their dollars. The likely effect of that, nobody knows, but I for one think it would be great economic stimulus. 92.230.65.204 (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you figure 92? Googlemeister (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also IP 92 please refrain from making personal attacks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you reduce the money supply you get deflation and a rise in value on the forex, not a fall. --Tango (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

See K Foundation Burn a Million Quid. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Theories of Conflict and International Security

Poverty, Conflict and International security: Analysis of Linkage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.219.193.222 (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Question? If not, then look at the relevant pages, article pages on Wikipedia. International threats to security come from terrorist groups with different idology. They offer a threat to those of their own race but with a different idology. This is not linked to poverty. It is more to do with land ownership and power. MacOfJesus (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The topic is quite large and no doubt has numerous books written about it. No one-paragraph answer (like the one given above) will be of much use, especially if it is unsourced. Googling "poverty, conflict and security" turns up all sorts of books that are probably good places to start, like this one. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall

This question is for reference only, no offense. If Prince Charles succeeded the throne of England and became King of England; would his current wife, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, became Queen of England? If so, what title would she take?--AM ^(talk) 12:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This is covered in the article at Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall#Titles and styles. There are even sources and everything. Also, there's no "throne of England" anymore. The full title is a bit of a mouthful, for more info see "Style of the British sovereign". Gabbe (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. According to the article, the expected title of Camilla queen Prince Charles become king hasn't been decided yet. I have one more question. My British civilisation lecturer said that if Camilla can't be entitled Queen, Prince Charles could refuse/deny to become King and, instead, his eldest son Prince William could be the next King. Is this possible?--AM ^(talk) 13:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If Elizabeth II dies today, Charles would immediately be king whether he wants to or not. However, he could choose to abdicate. The last time a British monarch abdicated it proved to be a sticky situation, see Edward VIII abdication crisis, His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, Statute of Westminster 1931#Implications for succession to the throne, etc. Gabbe (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

But note that Charles can become King and be married to Camilla without her becoming Queen. Neither Albert (of Victoria) nor Phillip (of Liz-2) were Kings, after all. And the UK "constitution" is flexible enough to allow for a lot of meddling. If Charles wants to remove himself from the succession, he can convert to Catholicism ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Albert and Philip weren't Kings because that isn't the title for the husband of a Queen Regnant. The title is Prince (Consort). The wife of a King, on the other hand, is a Queen. Camilla would be entitled to the style "Queen" if and when her husband becomes King, however that doesn't mean she would use it. She's entitled to the style "Princess of Wales" now but doesn't use it because the public associates that title with the late Diana, Princess of Wales and would object to Camilla using it. She might choose to use a different style while Queen Consort for similar reasons. At the end of the day, it would be Charles' decision (the title's of royals is one of the few things where the monarch is allowed to act other than in accordance with the advice of ministers), so him abdicating because someone won't let his wife be called "Queen" doesn't seem likely. It's not impossible that public pressure would cause him to abdicate, but it's very unlikely. A lot of people perceive a monarch abdicating as a dereliction of duty and would strongly object to an abdication due to nothing more than pride. --Tango (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you all very much for these clear explains. I think I've got the picture now.--AM ^(talk) 13:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Some more information under Morganatic marriage, specifically Morganatic marriage#United Kingdom. My own opinion is that Charles (or George VII to be), will be highly unlikely to abdicate. His grandmother (to whom Charles was very close) always despised the Duke of Windsor for deriliction of duty. Alansplodge (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The case of "Prince Consort" is a little more complex. Victoria actually bestowed it on Albert as his official title, and he's the only example of one (Philip is a "prince consort", generally speaking, but it's not his official title, and "king consort" has also been used to describe the husband of a queen regnant). In fact, it has already been officially announced that Camilla will be "Princess Consort" when and if Charles ever becomes king. See the last paragraph, here. Karenjc 20:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Prince Albert and Prince Philip were already "princes" before they married a reigning monarch, and they retained these titles on marriage. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Albert was a Prince. Philip was not. He had been born a Prince of Greece and Denmark, but renounced these titles in March 1947, becoming plain Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten (in private life he was simply Mr Mountbatten). In November 1947 he married Elizabeth, who was not the "reigning monarch", but the heiress presumptive, as her father George VI was still reigning. At that time he was created Duke of Edinburgh. Elizabeth became Queen in February 1952 when George VI died. Philip remained Duke of Edinburgh, nothing more. Only in 1957 was he created a Prince of the United Kingdom. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The precedent as regards prince consorts is surely more complex than this. Philip II of Spain during his brief marriage to Mary I of England was officially recognised as King of England and Ireland (although this ceased on Mary's death) and Mary's sister Elizabeth I of England famously refused to take a husband. But things had changed by the reign of Anne of England - her husband, Prince George of Denmark, was always referred to as such, never as a king. --rossb (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

However, Anne's older sister Mary married William of Orange, and he ruled as William III of England even after Mary's death (but then, he was next in line after Anne, anyway). Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

how much is spent on various activities in the US per year

I am looking for a list or table that shows how much money gets spent in the US/year for a wider range of things and activities in everyday life, eg how much gets spent on, say milkshakes, or dog grooming.

This question arose in the context of a debate (on slashdot) about how much money is being spent on solar energy research, and is this "alot" of money. This question can be answered in a lot of ways, eg the amount of money spent on solar RnD relative to how much we spend for other energy sector activites, but I thought relating it to something ordinary like dog grooming would be a good perspective - I don't know what the answer is, but my personal feeling is that if, hypothetically, we are spending 1$ on solar RnD for every 5$ of dog grooming, then we are not spending "alot" on solar.Cinnamon colbert (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Market-research firms compile these kind of numbers (all estimates, of course) and charge thousands of dollars for the data. Sometimes information is available from a trade association. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The US government is probably the source you want. A bare start is this document, which mentions how much the average consumer in the US pays per year for clothing, insurance, rent, and food. It's much more general than you asked for but it's a start. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is another BLS document that drills down further: How much did the average American consumer spend on doing the laundry in 2008? A little multiplication should get you the answer you asked for. Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Confucian ritual

Does Confucianism (neo or otherwise) have a ritual that involves kneeling and silent prayer. The ritual might even involve moving forward, backward, and side to side before the kneeling. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

July 24

Catholic heirs of Mary I

Did Mary I of England have any immediate Catholic heirs? Could it have been possible for her to do what Anne of Great Britain but instead skipped the Protestants in favor of the Catholics?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There was Mary Queen of Scots, of course, but after she was gone the focus seemed to shift to semi-convoluted arguments (based on John of Gaunt and Catherine of Lancaster, I believe) that some member of the Spanish royal family was the best candidate. Of course, at the time of Mary I of England's death, Mary Queen of Scots was firmly under French influence, and France and Spain were rivals... AnonMoos (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There was Margaret Douglas. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking for the name of a percussion instrument

I'm looking for the name of a percussion instrument. I've heard its sound many times but never knew what it's called. The instrument appears in the intro of Rosemary Clooney's recording of the song Sway. --96.227.54.59 (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a cowbell? Or agogo bells? It seems to be some sort of deadened metallic idiophone. 99.53.113.16 (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a cowbell. In contrast, the agogô has more of a ring, is usually higher and pitched (that is it has a clearly discernible note, even when only one bell is being played). The slightly different cowbell sounds you can hear in the Clooney intro are produced by dampening the bell (by tightening the grip harder with the hand that holds it) and of course by hitting it harder or more softly. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --96.227.54.59 (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

changed names

It is a very common custom to change names of people in controversial accounts to avoid danger to both the narrator and the person in question.I want to know if there is any standard way to change the names or is it just a random fit? (there shouldn't be as that would defeat the purpose i suppose)I mean if the changed name doesn't mean anything why give a name at all? Could have as well said that the person wants to remain anonymous? Does it make any difference? --scoobydoo (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a standard way of replacing real names with pseudonyms. If you're telling a short story involving only one anonymous character, it might be OK to not give the person a name, but if you're telling a complicated story with multiple characters whose identities need to be protected, calling the characters "A", "B", etc would be both confusing and distracting. I think stories whose characters have names are easily to understand. --96.227.54.59 (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I often see news reports that police have arrested "a 26-year old man" or "a 30-year old woman" where the actual name of the arrestee is not revealed.

In English literature a person's name may be concealed, as though to avoid slandering a living person, as in the following excerpt:

You know Mr. C**** O****, you know his estate, his worth, and good sense: can you, will you pronounce it ill meant, at the least of him, when anxious for his son's morals, with a view to form him to virtue, and inspire him with a fix'd, a rational contempt for vice, he condescended to be his master of the ceremonies, and led him by the hand thro' the most noted bawdy-houses in town, where he took care he should be familiarized with all these scenes of debauchery, so fit to nauseate a good taste? The experiment, you will cry, is dangerous. True, on a fool: but are fools worth so much attention? -- Fanny Hell, John Cleland 1709 - 1789 Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

July 25

The King has entered this building ... (aber ... wo ist der Kaiser?)

In Chancellor of Germany:

Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, a point which historians agree marks the beginning of the Third Reich. ... Hitler used the Enabling Act to merge the office of Chancellor with that of President to create a new office, Führer; although the offices were merged, Hitler continued to be addressed as "Führer und Reichskanzler" indicating that the Head of State and Head of Government were still separate positions albeit held by the same man. This separation was made more evident when in April 1945 Hitler gave instruction that upon his death the office of Führer would dissolve and there would be a new President and Chancellor. On 30 April 1945, Hitler committed suicide and was briefly succeeded as Chancellor by Joseph Goebbels, as dictated in Hitler's Last Will and Testament.

If Nazi Germany was called the 3rd Reich, why didn't it has a Kaiser, a king or an emperor? How could there be beef if there wasn't a cow? If Hitler did not have a son or daughter, who's going to inherit the Reich? How could a dictatorship call itself an empire without setting up a king at first? Did anyone protest? -- Toytoy (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The term "reich" doesn't appear to have an English equivalent. It was used during the Weimar Republic as well, so it apparently isn't specific to a monarchy. It's not used anymore because it's associated with the Nazi era. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

“Les Miserables” question

Towards the end of the novel (Part Five Jean Valjean – Book 3 – Chapter 8 [Page 1122 in my book]): Jean Valjean is in the sewers and Thenardier approaches him. It is very clear that Thenardier does not recognize the man he thinks is a "murderer" (Jean Valjean) or the "corpse" (Marius).

However, later on (Part Five Jean Valjean – Book 9 – Chapter 4 [Page 1236 in my book]): Thenardier goes to Marius in an attempt to blackmail Marius for not exposing Jean Valjean as a "murderer" of the unnamed "corpse".

OK, I understand why Thenardier is wrong about the facts, and why he would approach Marius if he knew about Jean Valjean, but I am not following how Thenardier later realizes that the man was Jean Valjean.

I obviously missed something between those pages. Any one remember?