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

August 20

why did mike myers and Robin Ruzan divorce?

This question has been moved to the Entertainment Desk Exxolon (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

American search and rescue dogs

Did any American search and rescue dogs participate in the same efforts following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami?24.90.202.42 (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Weiyang Palace

How could Liu Bang justify the building of another monumental palace even larger than Epang Palace, six years after it's burning, which along with Qin Shihuangdi's mausoleum and the Great Wall had claim countless lives during the despotic rule of the previous dynasty?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The deal with an absolute monarchy is The monarch is the state, and so ostentatious displays of wealth and power mean not only that the monarch is able to build them, but by extension the state is also strong enough. Monarchs across cultures and time have always felt the need for ostentatious displays of their wealth, and by extension the strength of the state they lead. How is Weiyang functionaly different, in this regard, than is Versailles or Sanssouci? Look, despite being involved in numerous expensive wars across Europe, Louis XIV found the enormous amount of money needed to expand a little country cottage into the model royal palace for all of Europe, in terms of its size and expense, it made little sense. After all, one might say if Louis is going to get involved in all of these wars, and if wars cost money, why is he also blowing so much on this rediculous building? In the end its probably the paradoxical truth that the monarch in the weaker position financially needs to build the bigger palace. After all, how better to prove that you are NOT in financial staights than to blow large sums of cash on a huge palace. Its probably the same deal for most of these sorts of palaces. --Jayron32 03:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This complex is one of the major reasons why Japan has been so successful in modern times. Historically, they didn't have to prove to people they were so rich, because they knew their state was smaller than China, larger than Korea or the Ainu people, and threw out every other society except a small Dutch colony on an island in a bay in Kyoto. Because of that, they didn't have to impress foreigners, and when they almost deforested Honshu and southern Hokkaido in the 1500s from building opulent structures, the emperors and shoguns decided to be more environmentally sensitive. Because they didn't care about impressing foreigners, they were able to drastically cut back the number, size, and scale of new building projects, far more than they could have if they tried to compete with other societies. They started managing their resources better, and didn't get sucked into the same cycle as the Chinese emperors, who brought about their demises from draining the treasuries. And look where the two countries are now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Australian election count television?

Hi, is there any internet streams accessible outside Australia of tv coverage of tomorrow's Australia election vote count? 121.72.203.118 (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Australian does a decent job http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-analyser Jabberwalkee (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have heard a rumour that ABC will let non-Australian users view their live coverage on the webcast here. In the UK last time, the coverage from Sky News Australia was shown on one of the UK Sky News 'red button' selections. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 121.72.208.23 (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Leaving Berlin mid-1945 - going where?

Hi,

Something I've wondered since watching Downfall, and gotten more curious the more I read - according to our article, upon the announcement of Operation Clausewitz, "all ministries and departments" left Berlin. According to our article on Hanna Reitsch, in the final days, she left "flying the last German plane out of Berlin". My question is - to where were they going? When I visited the Imperial War Museum a few months back, a plaque read that the Allies had occupied the rest of Germany by this point, so where could Hanna land, and where did the ministries decamp to? And if there was unoccupied territory remaining to which people could and did flee, why was the capital not moved there, as surely it would be better to conduct the war, even its end, from unoccupied territory rather than an encircled, devastated city? --Saalstin (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This map shows, in blue, Axis territory in the last days of the war. I don't think Hitler was ever going to leave Berlin; for one, he was either too deeply resigned or in denial. Also, moving an entire government is more difficult than even moving all the people in it. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 13:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, very interesting - thank you very much :) --Saalstin (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

To answer your more specific question about Reitsch's final destination, our article states that Reitsch was instructed to join Karl Dönitz, who was head of the final Nazi "government" in Flensburg. So she probably intended to fly to Flensburg. Marco polo (talk)

See also Flensburg Government. Alansplodge (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There was also some concern at the time that a national redoubt was being set up in the Bavarian Alps. As it turned out this was propaganda fabricated by Goebbels.Comradezombie1 (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

also see rat lines where catholic priests helped to smuggle Nazi's out of europe mostly to south america —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Did the intelligence services of the US and UK assist high ranking Nazis in escaping so they could help in postwar anticommunist efforts? Did this extend to safehouses and fake papers, or just looking the other way? Edison (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the political and military leadership, but a large number of scientists and their research were brought out. I do not know how politically affiliated these individuals were to the previous regime, however. Googlemeister (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

About which, see the article Operation Paperclip. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the US imported Von Braun and other relatively non-political Nazi rocket scientists, who scaled up the V2 to create the Saturn V and achieve the 1969 moon landing, but I was more interested in German intelligence officers who were in various ways sheltered by the Allies because of their usefulness in fighting Communism during the Cold War. Edison (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Gehlen Organization fits the bill? Recruiting former SS officers to spy against USSR in postwar. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

See also, ODESSA. P. S. Burton (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Blimp/Zeppelins

While watching Saving Private Ryan, after the storming of the beach, you can see many troops and artillery entering the beach in the background. There appear to be a few blimps attached to the landing craft, and I was wondering what the purpose of them would be. I've seen similar images on other war time films over cities, and I assumed they might be used for observation, but it doesn't make as much sense there. My only other thought would be that they could somehow stop arial assaults, though I can't see how. -- WORMMЯOW  13:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind - I've just found Barrage balloon-- WORMMЯOW  13:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare's Sonnet 12

I read the following statement concerning Shakespeare's Sonnet 12: "The placing of the sonnet within the sequence matches the number of minutes (60) in an hour." What does this mean? I cannot figure out what they are saying. What does the ordering of this particular sonnet as number 12 have to do with the number 60? I am confused. Can anyone offer any insight into this? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC))

The statement in question appears not in the Wikipedia article but in "Sparknotes.". It does not make much sense, so perhaps you should contact the author of the Sparknotes in question. The number 12 recalls the numbers shown on a clock face. Another crib, Cummings, talks about the mention of minutes in Sonnet 60, which makes a bit more sense. Edison (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this is typical academic over-analysis. I seriously doubt that Shakespeare themed his sonnets based on the order in which he included them in a folio. I mean, I'm sure there's all sorts of mathematical relationships that you can pull out of this: 12 is 1/5 of 60, there are 5 feet in every line of a sonnet, there are 12 lines in the main body of a sonnet... and lo, I count the moments of the days; with metered lines to give the hour its praise. poppycock... --Ludwigs2 17:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The brain is a wonderful pattern matching tool. Over-analysis of the Bard or conspiracy theory (the Bard didn't write anything himself, the greatest lie in literature), it all comes from the same part of the brain! PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

So, once again, can anyone offer insight into what the author of that quote may have meant? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC))

Not without seeing the quote in context (that page is not provided in the online book preview that was linked). --Ludwigs2 20:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There really is no context. Page 1, for example, is titled Sonnet 1 ... and it discusses Sonnet 1. Page 2 is the same for Sonnet 2 ... and so on down the line. Page 12 is titled "Sonnet 12", and there is a footnote after the title. The footnote is the quote listed above. Namely: "The placing of the sonnet within the sequence matches the number of minutes (60) in an hour." Thoughts? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC))

My thoughts: a hastily put together badly edited book. I suspect the author wished to make the point that sonnet 12 deals with time and has an encoded reference just as sonnet 60 does, but managed to fumble the remark (why mention there are 60 minutes in the hour anyway, not many don't know that). There are much better works analyzing the sonnets but you could try this site first. Also sonnet 81 mentions other significantly numbered sonnets and discusses climacterics. meltBanana 04:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The line would make perfect sense as a footnote to sonnet 60, which speaks of minutes. Maybe somebody was copying and pasting but forgot to change it to "the placing of the sonnet within the sequence matches the numbers (12) on a clock." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Yes, that makes the most sense. It was probably intended as a footnote for Sonnet 60, and it fell through the cracks of the editing process. Or, the wording was incorrectly edited if indeed it were intended as a footnote for Sonnet 12. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC))

PLA Woman

Who was the woman, quite prominent in the PLA, during the time of Arafatt (?). ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanstaple (talk • contribs) 21:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hanan Ashrawi? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks jonny- this was one of those occasions where it seemed easier to prod a person rather than submit a cluggy google query- thank you again- Stanstaple (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Gini coefficient of a commercial entity

Has any commercial entity ever publicized its own internal Gini coefficient? -- Wavelength (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't know -- but many news stories have contained stats along the lines of that in Japan the average income of a top executive is something like 7 times the average income of an ordinary worker, while in the U.S. it's more like 100 times (though I don't remember the exact numbers). AnonMoos (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha! - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the Gini Coefficient is a measure of income distribution within a population, if a commercial entity (company?) were to “publicized [publish?] its own internal Gini coefficient,” it would have to measure the income distribution, say, in Microsoft, and do so based on (one assumes) the extremely narrow salary and other company-provided data. Since the human resources department already has all the salary-and-benefits data it might need, I find no reason why anyone would want to calculate a Gini Coefficient about a specific company. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ben & Jerry's ice cream company used to have a policy that no employee's pay would exceed 7 times that of the lowest-paid worker, which effectively states their worst-case GC (of income). --Sean 14:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

August 21

When did basic human society begin? Can that even be defined?

One of the things that fascinates me most about human history is how, even after 3000 years of development, it's reasonable to say that my feelings of love, jealousy, anger, happiness, and pride -- as well as my interactions with my family and friends -- are essentially the same as those of, say, an ancient Egyptian. So I've begun to wonder -- how far back can these basic social structures be traced? If I could observe hominids in the Neolithic Age would I see recognizable corollaries, or would they seem more like chimpanzees? etc... 61.189.63.176 (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

More likely at least as far as the age of Behavioral modernity ca. 75,000 years ago. AnonMoos (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

err... you see the basic elements of these structures even in chimpanzees. Man as a social animal would clearly trace back to the mesolithic, and probably into the paleolithic. Late paleolithic hominids were already making cave paintings, burying their dead, using rituals and creating adornments - all of these speak to strong and complex affective bonds between group members. --Ludwigs2 02:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You may like to read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind for an exceptionally brilliant (if flawed) [counterfactual?] theory of a situation in which you do not share the same mode of consciousness as an ancient Egyptian, let alone emotional spectrum. The Rhymesmith (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The beginning of human society could be defined as starting at several different points: when two or more humans got together, when two or more families got together, when objects were manufactured, when language was used, when writing was first used. Take your pick. The creation of artefacts and/or knowledge that survived the death of the originator and were passed on to the next generation would be an important milestone, since this would allow the "intellectual capital" and 'artefact capital' to accumulate and build. 92.28.247.39 (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Real writing has only existed for about 5,000 years, and was absent from large areas of the globe only a few centuries ago, and so is not generally considered to be a necessary part of human societies. (Writing does greatly help in consolidating civilizations, which is a different thing from societies). AnonMoos (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

directions towards the debate

Where should I go if I'd like to learn (through discussion) about US opposition to the mosque in NY? [I'd rather avoid boards habituated by lunatics]. Thanks folks 212.129.92.84 (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You won't find many non-lunatic discussions on this issue. No one except ideologues really cares one way or the other, and the ideologues on both sides are over-the-top obsessive. It's worse than trying to talk about Marxism back in the 50's. what is it that you're wanting to know? --Ludwigs2 02:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't very insightful or useful... AnonMoos (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but its mostly true. There really isn't a reasonable opposition to the building of a mosque in a community, none whatsoever. There are loud oppositions, but in the framework of the U.S. constitution, freedom of religion is supposed to be a value protected and defended. Except, of course, when that religion isn't yours, apparently... --Jayron32 05:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Plus, the mosque (actually a community center) is being proposed for a site two blocks away in an defunct Burlington Coat factory building. in almost any other context it would be seen as an asset (replacing an abandoned building with a frequently used gathering place that would bring potential consumers into the region on a regular basis); it's only because of a faintly hysterical and highly improbable set of assertions (that this is some kind of 'victory shrine' being funded by radical muslims with terrorist connections) that it begins to seem problematic at all. But that's US politics for you. --Ludwigs2 05:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding fuel to the debate is the "symbolism", for lack of a better word, due to part of one of the planes having fallen on the building. By that reasoning though, most of lower Manhattan should be ruled out since ash from the planes, and bodies, went everywhere. Dismas|^(talk) 06:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree: it was very insightful and useful. If you think about it, nobody who is moderate would care. 92.230.70.110 (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Moderates" may well be interested in what all the fuss is about and may care deeply that this has been ramped up, entirely unnecessarily, into such manufactured and divisive hysteria. Bielle (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No true moderate... --Mr.98 (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely, analagous, I think, Mr.98: one may be a moderate on the matter of the outcome, while abhoring the unseemly drama of the process. Bielle (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is that this entire conversation has been along the lines of "nobody who is not a lunatic, by definition, has an opinion on this," and so on. Which I think is kind of silly. Now we're defining moderates by their lack of caring on this point. Again silly. The posts above just reflect the opinions of the people who posted them, nothing more. "Nobody reasonable would worry..."::"No true Scotsman..." I don't know where "constructive" conversations about this specific topic are taking place, but the idea that there can't be any, because the posters above don't think the issue is worth debating, is just ridiculous. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

And I agree with your point; moderates can debate the issue, though this is not the place for such debate. Why does it look like I do not agree? Bielle (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you perhaps read 98's initial (cryptic) comment as a response to you instead of 92? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A debate on the issue among moderates would last perhaps a minute, because that's how long it would take a moderate to describe the situation and realize there really isn't an issue to be discussed. The only thing left to talk about after that is why people are still talking about it. --Ludwigs2 17:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am a moderate, and I disagree. I think there is plenty of room for discussion amongst moderates. To argue that nobody but a fanatic would have any opinion worth sharing is just chauvinism. I think the thing should be built, but I can certainly see non-crazy reasons for being uncomfortable with it. This isn't a place to debate those points, of course. But to say they are just not worth debating is not a contribution when someone is asking about where they can find debates. It is a non-answer. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

To the OP: Why do you want to learn about this via discussion? If you want to read about this, I would recommend Wikipedia's Park51#Opposition_to_the_location. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

An interesting read. Given the level of opposition I think the claim above that no moderate opposes is questionable. Okay you can say 60% of Americans aren't moderates which may be defendable if you are speaking in general terms but in the context of the US, I would say a lot harder to defend. Note that this doesn't mean I'm saying the opposition is resonable. Since so many other people are soapboxing, I must say I find it funny that conservatives like the American Center for Law & Justice, who I presume are usually the kind of people to oppose stuff like stopping what people can do with their private property [1] by protecting historic structures are trying to get the current building designated as such. Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

look at the polls: a majority of Americans think building the mosque there is wrong (which I would probably interpret as 'in bad taste'); a majority of Americans also think that the group has a perfect right to build a mosque there. It's a bit more polarized in New York, for obvious reasons. So, it's in bad taste but allowable, joining the likes of pornography, fast food, and certain noises commonly mis-designated as music. The only controversy here comes from journalists (and other public fanatics) who are trying to make the act into something more than mere bad taste, for reasons that are both obscure and questionable.

I mean really... when did the US press corps trade in their classic fedoras for aluminum foil hats? --Ludwigs2 18:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

While agreeing the press are milking this for all it's worth, which doesn't surprise me, I disagree the controversy comes entirely from journalists. When a clear cut majority of Americans are opposed (even if they accept it's their right) and prominent mainstream politicians (including the other main P/VP team of 2008, a former speaker of the house of representatives, the mayor at the time of the attacks) have also expressed opposition (sometimes I would say in a rather offensive manner) and/or raised other question you can't blame that on journalists. Heck the fact that your saying it's comparable to pornography somewhat illustrates the point (imagine the outrage if someone prominent had said building a church was comparable to pornography). It seems someone made a similar point "Columnist Errol Louis pointed out that a mosque, Masjid Manhattan, has been located "a stone's throw" away from the World Trade Center site since the 1970s, and that a strip club, New York Dolls, is currently in the same area. "The nightly boozing and lap dances do not seem to have disturbed the sensibilities of those now earnestly defending the sacred ground near the World Trade Center site." Journalists would have nothing to do if everyone significant had either ignored them or said the opposition was nonsense (as you seem to suggest is the way Americans feel) but this didn't happen. Nil Einne (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and adding to the drama is the fact that people (inside and outside the press) don't seem to understand Islam. This idea that it's a vicious religion is pretty quickly dispelled upon reading the beginning of each chapter of the Koran, "In the name of Allah, the merciful, the compassionate", or variants thereof depending on the translation. There aren't any good arguments against building this here; it's just the people who don't do their basic reading on the subject. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's a complete and total 100% non-sequitur. There's absolutely no contradiction whatsoever, for example, between the fact that the Qur'an contains a number of abstract injunctions to ethical behavior (what C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man would call the "tao") and the fact that during the first 1,050 years of Muslim-Christian relations (from ca. 633 A.D. to 1683 A.D.), Muslim states were overall more aggressive and expansionist and imperialist in attacking Christian states than vice versa.... AnonMoos (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, have you ever heard of the Crusades? They were a series of holy wars, in which it was the Christians invading Arabic lands. And saying "but they were Christian lands" would be akin to Mexico invading the southwestern US and saying "but those territories were Mexican states"; would that make any sense whatsoever? Besides, Basil II had decided that, even though he could take back the Middle East, he was more interested in establishing the Byzantine Empire further north in the Balkans, specifically in Bulgar land; it wasn't just the Muslims conquering, it was the Byzantines leaving as well. My point was, people in the US don't seem to understand Islam as a whole as opposed to the very few extremists; that's akin to saying Jimmy Jones represents Christianity. That's what's causing a lot of the ridiculous hysteria on the building of this mosque... and I might say, I don't live far from New York, and I find the protests far worse than the concept of having a mosque there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's nice -- it does nothing whatever to change the fact that Christian-Muslim interactions started with unprovoked attacks in the 630s which cut the size of the Byzantine empire in half, and resulted in the establishment of the Umayyad caliphate, which was a classic empire of the worst colonialist kind, considering that it consisted of a small ruling elite of Arabs who lived off of exploiting the non-Arab and non-Muslim (largely Monophysite Christian peasantry) -- and during many following centuries Muslims were more aggressive (and overall more successful) in attacking Christian states than vice versa. It was by no means obvious that the overall balance was swinging in favor of Christians until about 1683. AnonMoos (talk) 05:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it harder to get laid if you have few friends?

My social skills are decent, the problem is that I don't really have much of a peer group at all at the moment (in the past I've had loads of friends). If I was looking for girls to see if any of them would want to date me or have sex with me or do something nice like that, would I be better to do so with another group of males? I mean, going to parties and stuff like that is a GOOD way to meet girls, even better than going to bars and nightclubs. But I just don't do that anymore. God damn, when did I lose my life.--Hsardoft (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to meet girls, or just get laid? That makes all the difference. Having more friends would arguably mean more introductions to potential girlfriends. I suppose the other thing is that a vibrant social life by nature builds your self-esteem which supposedly makes you more attractive to others. sonia♫ 09:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that the sort of person who makes for a good, healthy relationship is going to prefer someone more confident, who isn't going to be relying on them for all social contact. Not saying that this describes you, but people use rules of thumb when deciding whether to start a relationship, and you not going out much or spending much time with friends is one such rule of thumb that will tend to send confident girls running. Parties are indeed good ways to meet partners, as are other semi-organised social events. Are there any things you're interested in which you could join a club or society for? They can be gateways to social interaction, and often lead to parties or even just additional friends who you can then have parties with! 86.161.255.213 (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been going out with (or should that be staying in with?) a fellow socially awkward introvert for four years now, and I fail to see what's bad or unhealthy about it. These apparently super-attractive confident people are welcome to one another's strident company. Bit of a myth about confidence, I think, or over-hyped, anyway. 81.131.65.17 (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you are pretty confident, as evidenced by your reply here. Confident doesn't mean loud, or a social butterfly, it means confident, comfortable in yourself and your decisions. A confident person will not let their partner push them around, unless they want to be pushed around. A confident person will be fine with their partner meeting up with friend(s) and relative(s), without feeling jealous that their partner is talking to someone other than them. A confident person will not worry that their partner doesn't love them, just because they spent a few hours or days apart. A confident person is able to leave a relationship if it is broken, and will allow the other partner to leave it. Given this, it's quite important to know at the start of a relationship that you and your partner are confident enough, and people who've been in a few relationships before will tend to sound this out fairly early, though they may not use the same words to describe it. Hence, people use rules of thumb. If you an exception to the rule, that's great and to be occasionally expected, but the OP can neither rely on that being the case, nor rely on others assuming it to be the case with him. In any case, it doesn't sound like he is a socially awkward introvert. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The tricky thing is that once you have left the age at which socialization is obvious and easy — e.g., school, with its many opportunities for meeting other people — you can end up in an adult doldrums if you are not the sort of person who is a party animal or a bar fraternizer, or the mates you are looking for are not in those categories either. You could, of course, always try internet dating, which is pretty mainstream at this point.

I'm not sure having more male friends would matter much, unless those males also are surrounded by potential women you would get along with. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, assuming the OP is straight, anyway. Marnanel (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The OP clearly said "If I was looking for girls to see if any of them would want to date me or have sex with me or do something nice like that, would I be better to do so with another group of males". This would seem to suggest they are a male looking for girls. There's a slight possibility they are a female looking for girls, but it's not clear to me why they would use 'another group of males' in such a case. It's true whether they are straight is unclear but that's somewhat irrelevant if they are looking for girls at the current time Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As a woman I would have to say that the moody loner is a lot more sexually appealing than a guy surrounded by a bunch of obnoxious yobbish mates. Can you picture James Dean in a group of lads all acting like desperate, panting dogs eager to mate?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As a moody loner, I'd have to question that - it never worked all that well for me as a dating stratagem. I think it's one of those things that's more appealing in the abstract imagination than in concrete experience. Personally, I always had much better success with the intellectual firebrand approach. Some of my best relationships have started over heady debates.

But really, it all depends on what your goals are. if all you're looking for is fun-in-the-sun then the 'frat boy' approach (a bunch of guys out bar-hopping together) works well: it's a good way for good-looking but not too bright guys to hook up with good-looking but not too bright girls, mostly because it sets up a kind of competitive system. If you want a more serious, sophisticated kind of relationship, though, that will get in your way (serious women don't respect frat boy types). In that case you want to find someplace where you can settle in - a bar or a cafe or a community center (or whatever) that you can treat like a second home. Once you're a regular someplace, it becomes an easy thing to talk to women without it feeling too much like you're hitting on them, because you'll be a familiar face they can be more comfortable with. --Ludwigs2 18:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Rule No. 1 for Moody Loners: You must never operate as a moody loner in order to enhance your social interactions, and particularly not for sexual purposes. If you assume the role with that outcome in mind, it will not work for you, because it is the worst possible contradiction in terms. And whatever else may be true of them, moody loners have integrity. Being a moody loner is something you are, not something you do. If the Jeannes of the world notice your moody lonerness and invite you to engage with them in rough animal coupling, that's nice and I hope you enjoy it and all, but just don't kid yourself that that's what being a moody loner is all about, because it ain't. Loners have a special grasp of what it means to be ontologically alone, but moody loners are the alonest ones of all. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was inspiring. I wish I weren't too moody to appreciate it. --Ludwigs2 20:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Spoken like a true moody loner, Jack ;) 24.189.87.160 (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Lonenesse oblige. (I was almost going to say "I'm a long-term Wikipedian, so obviously I'm a moody loner". But I figured that there are probably a few stray counter-examples to that rule of thumb, so it doesn't necessarily hold true in 100.00% of cases.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Jack dear, I have never invited ANY man, whether he be a moody loner or Jack-the-Lad, to engage in rough, animal coupling. The moody loners always notice my own special sultry fascination and take the first steps toward an explosive cosmic merging of the physical and spiritual.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well put, Jeanne darling.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do I feel like I've just stepped into a made for TV movie? cue the swelling romantic music, and cut to some softly suggestive imagery...--Ludwigs2 22:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's far more romantic to couple to the sound of the driving beat of the Rolling Stones!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Good Lord, NO! You and I will never be lovers, Jeanne, if that's your thing. Try Mahler (opening movement of the 10th Symphony) or Wagner (the Liebestod from Tristan und Isolde). -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're talking Richard Wagner, better Ride of the Valkyries, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

cars in St.Pierre and Miquelon

the photo Image:SPM footballers 1984.jpg shows two cars. Does anybody know which cars are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.82 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Made that a link, for the convenience of people who know cars. --Anonymous, 20:55 UTC, August 21, 2010.

I'm not a petrol-head, but the one on the left could be a Renault 9 saloon. The white van could be a Citroën C15; "Early models had a single wide rear door, but this was awkward for loading in a tight space and prone to sagging or to snapping off in a high wind, so, after a year or two, only conventional 2-door versions were sold with fold back hinges." Can anyone confirm or otherwise? Alansplodge (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Straw Dogs

I would first like to confess that I have never seen this film, and was originally waiting until I saw it to ask this question, but my curiosity outweighed my patience. OK, now on to the question. Is it possible in real life for a rape victim to actually enjoy the assault, like the character Amy in the film? What if the person assaulting them is a complete and total stranger, and not a person they had/have a romantic relationship with? How do such conflicting feelings play in the aftermath of the assault for the victim? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.4 (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna need an answer that's more detailed than "no". 24.189.87.160 (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Is it possible?" Just about anything is possible in the compendium of human sexual desires and practices. Rape fantasy is not at all uncommon, but pairing that with actual enjoyment of real-life rape is probably not very common. I suspect that it would be exceedingly rare for anyone to enjoy being raped, or to have conflicting emotions for that reason. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A rape fantasy is different, as the woman (or man, depends who's on the receiving end of the "rape" in the fantasy) would not only anticipate it, but actually want it to happen. But if you're unexpectedly and unwilling assaulted in real life, could you really be sexually stimulated against your will? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

To put it another way, in a rape fantasy the "victim" is actually controlling the situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Rape is (by definition) a crime of violence. both men and women can experience physiological pleasure when raped, but that usually tends to increase the psychological violence of the act by inducing feelings of guilt and confusion which make the victim feel even more disempowered and violated. This is not the same as 'enjoying' the assault.

It used to be a common legal tactic to defend rapists by asserting that the victims implicitly wanted to be raped and explicitly enjoyed the act, and you will still see that theme romanticized here and there (romance novels, certain movies and TV shows, comic books, and the like). It's still the case in most fundamentalist religious sects to blame and punish the woman for a rape (particularly in strict Sharia law, but also in more traditional Christian and Jewish sects). --Ludwigs2 22:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The rapist's defense is usually the "look what you made me do" game. It's the same argument that child molesters have often used - that the child somehow "seduced" them, thus absolving themselves of blame in the matter. (Mary Key Letorneau used that defense.) And you're right, that game is as old as civilization. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I was only wondering if it were truly possible for a rape victim to feel any sort of physical pleasure (not that it translates into enjoying the act, I know that. My question sounded wrong when I included that word). Until I came across this film and read the discussion threads on IMDB specifically talking about that scene, I thought it was plain impossible for a rape victim to feel anything other than pain, since their body is being violated. But yeah, I know rapists always try to claim that the victim was somehow "asking for it", and unfortunately, some dumbass juries and court systems will buy it. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As 98 said, anything is "possible", but I think to actually enjoy being raped you'd also have to enjoy having your house broken into or your car stolen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, please don't confuse the physiological responses of the body - which are largely outside of conscious control - with the emotional/psychological state of 'enjoyment'. It's perfectly possible for a sensation to be pleasurable and unwanted, or to elicit a physiological response without the concomitant emotional state. For heaven's sake, it's a common response for men who are hanged to get erections - would you suggest that that these men are enjoying their last few noose-ridden moments? --Ludwigs2 23:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Though we should also not completely disentangle the physiological and the emotional. It seems as foolish as trying to disentangle the senses of taste and smell, which are both pretty essential for how we experience food. I expect that the physiological and the emotional/psychological are as equally entwined for any kind of sexual activity. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

They are connected. I've heard of men (in prison or wherever) who, while they're being violently raped, become aware that they have an erection. Again, far from the enjoyable thing that erections normally are; for most men this would be a shocking, confusing, distressing and even probably guilt-laden realisation, which would be quite enough to deal with even without the feelings of outrage, violation and emasculation from the forced penetration of their body. They're not in the right space to come to the sober realisation that this is just an automatic physiological response, and does not mean they're "enjoying" the rape, or that they're gay. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This formed a major plot point in this 2004 film (link piped to hide potential spoiler). 05:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There you go. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, the answer to your question depends on the definition of rape. Numerous statutory rapes, for example, including sexual acts between willing partners whose close respective ages fall afoul of the law - or, more contentiously, adolescent males seduced by older women, are often wholly enjoyed by both parties. If one construes rape more narrowly as forcible intercourse or intercourse without consent, then, yes, it is still possible to enjoy being raped. It is possible to both physiologically and psychologically enjoy being raped. This is certainly not a common reaction, but it does stand within the realms of logical, physiological, and psychological possibility, and to assert otherwise is a disservice to the eccentricities of the human mind. That being said, the number of individuals who enjoy being forcibly raped is almost certainly so nugatory so as to be irrelevant other than as a curiosity. The Rhymesmith (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, wait. There are people who consciously enjoy being raped as well? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I learned a lot from the responses. Yep, the human mind is one incredibly complex thing, way more than I ever thought. I thought being raped was more than bad enough when you obviously don't want it, but for your body to respond in a way that you wouldn't want it to must make the process of dealing with the emotional and mental scars after the fact even more difficult... 24.189.87.160 (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If you have difficulty conceiving how - consider the following. There is no logical bright line between statutory rape and rape - or even sex and rape. In cases such as that of Mary Kay Letorneau, the evidence suggests that the underage boy in question enjoyed intercourse, although he is not legally considered to be capable of giving consent. In cases where an individual gives consent while inebriated - one can enjoy intercourse without wishing for it to happen. And so on, and so on, until you reach the rare few who actually have enjoyed being forcibly raped for various reasons. (This is, in a way, as philosophical question as it's psychological, given that it's contingent on the concept of rape, which is contingent on the concept of free will). Of course, as one moves from perfectly normal consensual sex between adults down the gradations to a case in which intercourse is forced upon one individual, the number of people who enjoy the sex is reduced dramatically. Of course, the number of those who consciously enjoy rape is so small that it should generally be ignored, lest rapists continue to cite an aberrant minority of reactions as an excuse for rape. The Rhymesmith (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand consenting underage teens who don't know better and people who use poor judgment when drunk. But people who enjoy being forcibly raped... that's like someone who enjoys being beaten (and not in a BDSM kind of way). Surely that must signal a mental/psychological problem of some sorts? 24.189.87.160 (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

by definition, one cannot consent to being raped. There are certainly people who like BDSM-type activities, and likely some smallish subsection of that group that that likes activities that closely mimic rape, but in fact they consent to that, and so it has none of the intrinsic violation that is a concomitant of rape. Generally people who practice BDSM are quite cautious to retain some degree of control over the situation. I've never heard of any clinical or legal case where an individual actually sought out being raped in its proper sense. It's not unthinkable, of course (and the fact that the fantasy is prevalent in the society shows that it's possible), but... --Ludwigs2 03:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any cases of people who sought out being raped, although I'm sure I could find at least one if I rooted about in Psycinfo. That being said, a very small minority enjoy being raped in all appreciable sense of the word. Whether or not this constitutes a mental problem (in the diagnostic sense of the word) probably depends on whether or not this is an isolated phenomenon. The Rhymesmith (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Too much heat, not enough light. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
actually, Rhymesmith, there is a bright line distinction. statutory rape means sexual interaction where one participant is not considered under the law to be competent to make the decision to have sex. it says nothing about whether the act was actually consensual. Rape in its proper sense means sexual interaction where one participant is forced against their will. You cannot equate a teenager who wants to have sex but is prevented from doing so by the legal system with an adult who does not want to have sex but is forced to do so by someone else; that's just silly. The distinction may be difficult to apply under the law, but the distinction is clear and unambiguous. there are no 'gradations of rape'; one either consents or one doesn't. --Ludwigs2 03:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Read what I wrote. There is no logical bright line. There is a legal bright line, which is itself founded on gradations in the concepts of consent and rape. The law creates a category of crime, named rape, which fits over a certain category of human behavior. The distinction is not clear and unambiguous - it's impossible for there to exist an "unambiguous" law, in the logical sense. Yes, there is a reasonably obvious difference between consensual sex with a minor and forcible sex, but the legal definition of statutory rape is founded on the concept that the 'consent' of a minor is not in itself consent, as you yourself admit. I am not equating the two at all, but merely commenting that they are both legal fictions superimposed on a spectrum of human sexual behavior, and which are contingent on the legal and cognitive concept of consent. There are numerous types of rape in which precisely what counts as consent, legally and psychologically, is exactly the concept under debate - such as in instances where one is under the influence of alcohol or other drugs; when one is a minor; when one is psychologically traumatized; when one is irrationally fearful, etc. - as I commented. Saying that one either consents or one doesn't is thoroughly ridiculous from both a legal and psychological perspective, and also given the number of cases in which what constitutes consent is exactly the issue at hand (that is the whole point of the concept of statutory rape). Consent is a legal and psychological fiction. The Rhymesmith (talk) No, you have it backwards: there is a logical bright line (yes / no), but legal blurring over evidentiary problems. Sex with an unwilling partner is rape. It may be difficult to prove in court that a partner was unwilling, a partner may be willing and decide later to claim to have been unwilling for emotional/personal reasons, a partner may be restricted by laws (because of age or debility) so that they are not allowed to be willing, but the act itself in the moment of commission is clear. The problem with your line of reasoning is that it is precisely the blurry reasoning used to excuse things like date rape (e.g. "well, she was pretty drunk, and she kinda struggled, but I 'convinced' her"). The assertion that a partner was 'convinced' rather than 'overpowered' is specious rationalization. --Ludwigs2 07:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC) You appear to misunderstand both how the brain works and how logic works. (Moreover, if you actually think that the spoken words "yes/no" always precede consensual sex...) You speak of one being "unwilling". You speak as though unwillingness and consent are a clear mental state, which is simply not the case in all cases. You are welcome to believe that there is a single attitudinal and cognitive act known as "being willing", but the whole of neuropsychology is against you. You are, ludicrously, claiming that because my line of reasoning can lead to situations you dislike, there's therefore something logically wrong with it, which is gibberish. Since we're speaking of drunk individuals - those who 'give consent' while drunk are often held to not have been capable of giving consent in the legal sense (even having said, explicitly, on tape "I want to have sex with you"), the legal sense of consent being an abstraction from the cognitive sense. In cases where one says "I wish to have sex with you", and the numerous cognitive factors that can adversely influence volition (arousal, influence of alcohol/drugs, fear, etc.) are not present, the cognitive and legal concept of consent works without analysis. You say that the act itself in the moment of commission is clear. That's simply not true in all cases. As much as you might like for there to be some clean and clear neural and behavioral analogue to your idea of consent, there isn't. That's exactly why the law exists - to provide criteria by which to establish a concept of consent which can be used to (legally) assign penalties, etc. - for the good of society, to reflect cultural values, etc. Consenting to sex is rarely a single attitudinal act. One can, for example, begin to have sex voluntarily, but then become uncomfortable, but be fearful of ashamed of asking one's partner to stop - which has been interpreted by some courts as a withdrawal of consent. Herein the nature of consent as a legal fiction in jurisprudence is revealed, inasmuch as there is no fact of the matter as to whether 'consent' was or was not withdrawn, given that the brain doesn't work in terms of the English word 'consent' and the human concept behind it. We describe certain acts as 'consent' in courts of law; certain acts as 'consent' while speaking about them in everyday conversations (with the difference arising in cases such as 'consensual' statutory rape), and in doing so shoehorn a number of disparate psychological phenomena into one clean category for our convenience. The whole of the law on these matters exists solely to determine what does or does not constitute consent. You are altogether missing the point with the minors - a minor is not legally capable of giving consent. The 'clear act of commission' you speak of has no legal grounding, and in most children under sixteen, no cognitive grounding either. In other cases one can be uncertain of whether or not one wishes to have sex, and wind up having sex, and then charge one's partner with rape, even if the partner was himself (or herself) as uncertain as you (with an equal case against you for rape). An individual can 'give consent' to sex while perceiving themselves to be under duress where no such duress actually exists, or because they perceive themselves to be under social pressure from their partner or others. Courts in such circumstances have to apply the rigid criteria of a law to a situation which does not neatly fit into categories, much as you'd like it to. Of course, with a classical rape such as is imagined when the word is said, the lack of consent is very clear, but a clearcut concept of consent is the first thing to vanish once other cognitive factors begin intruding. One can become aroused and therefore become more willing to engage in acts one would not normally do, but simultaneously, while having sex, have a cognitive brake applied to one's willingness by another salient feature (such as catching sight of a crucifix, for example). Here what constitutes consent in the legal, cognitive, and conceptual senses is deeply blurry, and there's no fact of the matter as to what did or did not happen in terms of consent. One can say out loud that one wants to have sex, and impale oneself to the hilt on another, all from fear (which may or may not be well-founded fear, with well-foundedness itself being partially a cultural and legal construct). Would you like me to explain this to you at the neural level? I understand that you dislike the fact that my reasoning can be used to defend rapists (or 'innocents', as per the situation) in certain cases, but that has no bearing on either how the brain or the concept of consent works. The Rhymesmith (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC) watch the ad hominem language, particularly when I can easily turn it around on you. This isn't a matter of like/dislike, and I did not say anything about the words yes or no. I said - explicitly - that consent as a psychological issue is not an ambiguous concept. As a legal issue it is difficult to define and problematic to determine, but as a psychological issue (not to mention as a philosophical or moral issue) it is quite clear. There are extra emotional issues involving what to do in the situation (i.e., one may be forced to have sex against one's will but not want to pursue punishment for the perpetrator because of friendship, guilt, pride, or other intervening factors), but that is not the same as giving consent. And in terms of pure logic, note that you are essentially defining rape through an assertion that a victim must prove that they did not consent to the act. A freshman course in formal logic would help here: one cannot prove a negative statement, ever, and it's a fairly noxious rhetorical device to insist that they do so. plus... you're going to explain this to me at the neural level? that would be interesting: I know a handful of cognitive scientists who do research on brain functioning, and not one of them would have the unmitigated gaul to make that claim. The field is not sufficiently advanced for them to be able to link high-level conceptual structures to low-level neural structures. If you have some insights that they are not aware of, however, let me know and I'll pass the information on. --Ludwigs2 16:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Ad hominem language? I'm merely replying to your statements - a)The problem with your line of reasoning is that it is precisely the blurry reasoning used to excuse things like date rape (its capacity to explain or not explain date rape had nothing to do with its logical validity) and b) (yes / no) (which stands in stark opposition to your other statement, I did not say anything about the words yes or no). Your example about an individual in duress is disingenuous, inasmuch as we would state in reply to that example that what we normally mean by consent was not given - or alternatively that "consent" was given, but invalidated by the circumstances. My (theoretical and imprecise) examples indicate situations in which what we normally mean by consent fails to gain traction, and is not necessarily the best or most coherent explanation of two people having sex. You insist that there is a clearcut psychological state (which presumably would have a neural analogue) which either does or does not obtain in all cases in which people have sex. I am dismissing this as an absurd proposition in all cases. It's psychologically (although not legally) extremely ambiguous, for example, whether someone whose brain is utterly smashed from liquor and drugs is capable of giving consent. There really is no fact of the matter - as if one could point to a certain factor and say that this mathematically defines whether or not consent took place, when nobody, including the participants, knows whether or not it did - and as such, a psychologist would write off the concept of conscious consent as inapplicable in the situation (whereas a court of law would not). You may be claiming that a clear, cognitive, conscious act of "consent" (whatever that may be, in terms of behavior and the neuroscience of it) needs to occur before sex for the sex to not constitute rape. You're welcome to your own definition, but that definition, considerably broader than the legal one, would indict hundreds of millions of amorous couples as rapists. You are stating that as a psychological issues giving consent is a clear issue. That's simply not the case. You clearly have in mind an idea of what constitutes consent - such that when faced with a scenario, you can say to yourself she gave consent, there, or no, he didn't give consent (you actually do go so far as to state that but that is not the same as giving consent in a hypothetical situation.) The problem is that your certainty about what constitutes consent is not shared by the psychological community in all cases. No. I'm not defining rape through an assertion that a victim must prove that they did not consent. (My freshmen would be intrigued to learn that I need to take a freshman course in logic.) I am making the very clear point that there is no single cognitive act which corresponds to "consent" in all cases in which two people have sex. This ties into my point about the neuroscience of it (which is, incidentally, non-controversial, for the most part). The concept of consent is an English word which applies to a family resemblance of thoughts, behaviors, etc. There is no reason why the brain's should necessarily fire in patterns which are or are not unambiguously "consent". The reason that the brain normally does fire in patterns which unambiguously constitute "consent" is because the concept of consent itself, in order to be useful, had to evolve in such a way that it's an applicable concept in most cases. The field (in which I work, incidentally, so please stop making random assertions about the state of neuroscience) is largely unable to link high-level concepts with low-level neural patterns because most high-level concepts are family resemblances which do not correspond to any single neural pattern. On mere morality, for example, take Greene and Haidt's research into the "warring" anterior cingulate and dorsolateral prefontal cortices - in which neural patterns which are dynamically defined in accordance with the salient features of a situation give rise to a sensibility which we normally (but don't always) call 'moral sense' or 'conscience'. Back to the logical point. I am not defining rape (and am baffled that you even drew that assumption). I am accepting the (US) legal definition of rape, which includes a legal concept of consent, which I also accept. The legal concept of consent is s stylized abstraction from the cognitive concept of consent, and as such there do exist cases in which one can be said to have cognitively given consent, but not legally (i.e. a minor). At no point do I argue otherwise, other than to state that there do exist numerous cases in which the whole point of the law is to ostensively ascribe consent or the lack thereof because there is no fact of the matter as to what actually happened. You believe that there is one clear act in which someone consents to have sex. I am stating that this is utterly unverifiable. There is no single (or even complex) of neural patterns associated with the word consent - and there are numerous cases involving duress and intoxication and insanity and the like in which precisely what constitutes consent is exactly the issue under debate. You may have a neo-mathematical clarity in all cases about whether or not consent existed, but the only thing to back up your own sentiment is your own sentiment. You speak as though there's a single brain state which constitutes consent (with no proof whatsoever), which implies that there's a theoretical algorithm for calculating whether or not consent was given if one is given all available information about the situation and the participants. I am stating that there are cases in which the concept of consent simply doesn't apply normally, or struggles to be intelligible, because neither one of the participants was thinking or behaving in terms of consent or anything similar. I'll try to restate this another way. There is no single psychological criterion or set of criteria that can unambiguously determine what does or does not constitute consent in all cases in which two people engage in sexual relations. The Rhymesmith (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC) by ad hominems I was referring to lines like "You appear to misunderstand both how the brain works and how logic works" and "I understand that you dislike the fact that..." You understand no such thing, and your assertions about what I think and know are wrong, irrelevant and offensive. Just so we're clear... back to the point, however. when you say things like "It's psychologically (although not legally) extremely ambiguous, for example, whether someone whose brain is utterly smashed from liquor and drugs is capable of giving consent" you make your own misconceptions obvious. Everyone knows that a person who is deeply intoxicated is incapable of making effective, rational choices: we even have laws prohibiting people from operating dangerous equipment or creating public nuisances while under the influence, and strong social mores against imbibing intoxicants while working in a professional capacity. Everyone also knows that men and women both will often drink in dating-type situations precisely because they want to take advantage of this diminished cognitive state (it's easier to make the transition from mere dating to mutually desirable sexuality with alcohol to buffer interfering concerns). But there is a clear (unambiguous) difference between someone who decides they want to get laid and gets a bit drunk as an excuse, and someone who had no real thought about getting laid but got too drunk to be fully in control of their actions. Most men simply do not want to pay attention to this distinction, because actually pausing to consider whether a woman is too cognitively impaired to make the decision would make their willy unhappy (fraternities, for instance, do a thriving business in drunk chicks to attract desired pledges, and bars make a ton of money off of 'ladies nights' for the same reason). The law has difficulty on this point is that the law is conservative and generally doesn't want to punish people without clear evidence of wrongdoing with respect to your fourth paragraph: cognitive deconstructionist tripe supported by what I will kindly call 'speculative' scientific assertions. or are you suggesting that Greene and Haidt themselves explicitly claim to have discovered a biological foundation for moral sense and human conscience? I'm thinking I might have noticed that... Really, your primary claim - I am making the very clear point that there is no single cognitive act which corresponds to "consent" in all cases in which two people have sex - is either a pure straw-man argument (I never argued there was a single instantiated moment of decision) or a general claim that people must be assumed by default to consent (since if we assume by default that people do not consent it would be impossible to have an ambiguous situation). If the latter, then you are in fact guilty of the rhetorical flaw I accused you of. By the way, freshman always have misconceptions about their professors. You're not going to impress me by pointing out that a bunch of dewey-eyed 18 year olds think you're an intellectual God. I've had enough dewey-eyed 18 year olds think I'm an intellectual God to recognize how silly that is. Probably best to drop this now - if this is the best argument you have to make, I'm not convinced, and I don't see any likelihood that I will convince you either. we've made our claims - let's be good academics and leave it for others to judge their merits. --Ludwigs2 04:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read all the discussions but it seems to me people are discussing two different things to some extent. People definitely can experience physical pleasure during rape, our Rape by gender specifically mentions "A woman's physiological response to sexual contact is involuntary. In rare cases, women can become physically aroused, produce natural lubrication, and even experience orgasms against their will during rape". And of course when males are raped by females, they would usually need some kind of erectile response. These sort of things are usually mentioned in discussions of rape and similarly it's often discussed how rape victims who do experience these things usually feel ashamed because of them, I'm surprised there is even any confusion over this. If you're discussing 'enjoying' the rape, which to me speaks of a more higher level, conscious thought, then this is a rather different thing and while I would agree that it's possible, it's likely very, very rare. Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a bad choice of wording, based on the plot summary in the original movie article. the premise of the act in the movie is that there was a personal relationship and mutual attraction between the woman and the rapist prior to the rape which added a degree of emotional confusion (much like date rape), though apparently it progressed to something much uglier. I haven' seen the movie, so I can't say more. I think that point is cleared up, though the discussion has strayed into the legal definition of rape, above.

also, rape committed by women against men is exceedingly rare (and most commonly is statutory rape with a willing underage partner). When men are raped it's usually by other men, and they can sometimes have erections and orgasm during the rape (which is generally deeply traumatic, because it adds fears of homosexuality along with physical violations). --Ludwigs2 16:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Per the original question about the old film Straw Dogs, the woman had previously had a history of enthusiastic sexual intercourse with the man who initially forced himself on her. She intentionally flashed her breasts to him while he was working on the garage roof. When he sent her husband away on a snipe hunt, he proceeded to use force to get her to have sex with him. When the sex with the initial man and the second was finished, she was smoking a cigarette. She then covered up the events so her husband would not find out. The above assertions that "NO, NO!" cannot possibly ever turn into "YES, YES" are not supported by reliable sources, despite the wisdom that "No" always means "No." A rape which gave physical pleasure would still be a rape. Edison (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

August 22

Building Identification

Hullo, Just wondering if anyone can identify the building on this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/Us_airmail_stamp_C42.jpg I have already searched all the terms present on it and have found nothing. I am not sure if it is the Universal Postal Union's building in some part of the world (probably Switzerland) or the Post Office Department's building in the U.S. It could be an imagined building by an artist, but I think that is unlikely. Thanks, Henry 69.181.156.221 (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the Ariel Rios Federal Building meltBanana 00:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, that was super fast. I should have known. -H —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.156.221 (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

History of Shepherd's Crooks

Following a discussion on the Language page about the origin of "By hook or by crook"[2], I tried to make a link to an article about shepherd's crooks, only to find it redirected to the Shepherd article, which only mentions them in relation to bishop's crosiers. Therefore I dashed off a quick paragraph on the Staff (stick) page, but this has presnted some new problems. I found an apparently learned paper on the history of crooks posted by the British Agricultural History Society[3], fully referenced, which asserts that the curled-top crook as we know it, developed in western Europe in the late middle ages (about 1500). However, how does this explain the bishop's crosier (or crozier) with a curled top, some surviving examples on Google images date from the 12th Century[4]? Even more odd is the use of what is apparently a crook as a sort of staff of office by the Pharoahs of ancient Egypt[5]. Was it invented, forgotten and then re-invented? Help! Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Remember Jesus referred to himself as "The Good Shepherd", so the crosier is the emblem of this. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. What I'm asking is; if the shepherd's crooks we know today weren't in use until 1500 (see the BAHS link above) how come bishop's crooks seem to start a lot earlier. BTW Bishop's crosiers were originally cruciform (hence the name) and still are in the Eastern church. Alansplodge (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I expect it simply ebbed in and out of fashion amongst clergy and shepherds. The crook is hardly an invention that makes shepherding possible and it probably depends a lot on the terrain and the animals being farmed as to whether (or wether) you need a curved stick which while easy to invent is probably a lot harder to make and keep from breaking than just a stick as that document mentions. Also that document acknowledges that depictions of shepherds are rare and perhaps the hooked stick visual motif had just not been invented yet while shepherds were using them only when required. The egyptian heqa of Andjety represents rule but I don't think there can be any real certainty it was derived from an agricultural implement even though it is paired with a flail which was. The crook seems to have continued as a symbol of power in roman times and it might even have been regarded as a blasphemy or lese majesty to depict a common shepherd with one in the middle ages. meltBanana 18:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

As best I understand it, the practical use of a shepherd's crook (aside from as a walking stick and impromptu weapon against animals that might prey on flocks) is to guide animals this way or that way. a stick with a curve or bend at the far end (a crook) is better than a straight stick, because it can be used for pulling an animal as well as pushing. further, the symbolism of that would not be lost on any pastoral society: I suspect any culture that has a lot of shepherds is going to recognize the use crooks as a simple, practical tool, and recognize the crook as a symbol of benevolent guidance and protection. It's a common symbol in many cultures for the same reason that grain is a common symbol of fertility in many cultures - it's common and obvious for a particular form of society. --Ludwigs2 19:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

A straight stick or club is not as useful for retrieving or guiding sheep as a crook. The "standard shepherd's crook" is not a form likely to be found in nature growing from a tree. I spoke to a craftsman who made rakes, walking stick and such about how he would make a classic shepherd's crook. He said he would harvest a certain type of wood in the spring, then steam it to make it pliable, then clamp it into a form to make the desired bend. He said he would overbend it, because it would spring back a bit, and that he would leave a little extra length beyond the bend to be cut off after the final form was attained. I doubt the accuracy of the reference from the British Agricultural Society, since a classic shepherds crook would have been so useful and so easy to fabricate, and such it has such a long history as a Christian symbol. Edison (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. Alansplodge (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian Studies at university in the UK

Are there other universities in the UK apart from University College London that have undergraduate degrees focused on Central Europe? I can't afford to live in London as a student, or to study abroad for longer than an Erasmus year. What I'd really like to study is the history, culture and languages (okay, maybe not all...!) of the Austrian Empire. Is that either too obscure or too broad a subject? 86.154.105.15 (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The University of Glasgow's Department of Central and Eastern European Studies offers an undergraduate degree in Central & East European Studies, which you can optionally combine with a number of other degrees for a joint honours. Glasgow also teaches German and Russian at undergrad; I'm confident they'd let you combine either with the CEES course. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've confirmed that they definitely allow both combinations. They also teach Slavonic Studies, which you can combine with Russian. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What does Russian have to do with the Austro-Hungarian Empire? TomorrowTime (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The University of Nottingham offer a BA in German and Russian & East European Civilisations, which might be of interest. Both Glasgow and Birmingham offer Central & East European Studies. Sheffield's BA in Archaeology and Slavonic Studies is probably not quite what you're looking for. Warofdreams talk 11:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Saddest Oscar film

This is a follow-up to a question I asked a few weeks ago. What is the saddest Oscar- or other top-award-winning film AND the saddest Best Film, EXCLUDING the Godfather, West Side Story, Schindler's list, and the Pianist (not that those are especially sad, but I've seen them). A related question: What are the saddest Nobel Literature Prize, Pulitzer Prize, or other top-prize winning books? 76.228.196.92 (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadness is not easily quantifiable, different people will have different answers, so you'll have to read reviews of each movie. You have identified some possible top-contenders already, but don't forget to also look at movies from 80 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.14.228 (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

All Quiet on the Western Front (1930 film) is an early Oscar winner that's pretty sad as it covers the horrors of war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How Green Was My Valley (film) from 1941 is pretty sad for reasons I won't get into unless you like spoilers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ordinary People from 1980, and No Country for Old Men (film) are examples of winners that are somewhere between sad and exasperating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans won three Oscars. La Strada won best foreign film. Cool Hand Luke won best supporting actor. Ran won best costume design. Ladri di biciclette won an honorary award from the Academy. Is there a reason you're interested in major award winners? Are you researching the sociology of prizegiving or are you just looking for some good movies? If the latter, there are better metrics, I think. -- BenRG (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Awakenings was nominated in 3 Oscar categories including Best Picture and Best Actor, but didn't win. I think it was one of the saddest films ever made. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How about The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) which used an actual injured veteran in a movie about vets having trouble readjusting to society - filmed only nine months after the war ended. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I initially took "saddest" to mean "worst," which led me to this [[6]] view that The Greatest Show on Earth was the worst Best Picture ever. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, you've got a point. A number of the winners in recent years have been "lame", which is a close cousin to "sad" in that sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

While the Nobel Prize in Literature is more of a "lifetime achivement award" than one for a specific book, Fatelessness by Imre Kertész and Night by Elie Weisel (both Nobel laureates), as well as the Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel Maus by Art Spiegelman are all about the Holocaust. Gabbe (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Million Dollar Baby. Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(not a request for legal advice!!) legally, will two women get in trouble in sweden if they collude to defame someone by inventing rape stories but then abandon the same when the jig is up?

I'm talking of course of the wikileaks founder rape allegations that were withdrawn by the accusing women when the jig was up.

my question is, will there be any ramifications for the women for colluding to do what they tried to do until the jig was up, or, can two women (or, I suppose men, or children, or whatever) decide to do that without facing consequences?

Thanks. 84.153.226.90 (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've not yet seen any sources describing this event in your terms. Who claims they have withdrawn the accusations? I'm aware that the warrant has been withdrawn, but there are may other possible reasons than the witnesses withdrawing their statements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I just assumed they would have withdrawn their accusations, or else why would the attorney general say there is "no basis" for suspecting this person? Two people making claims would indeed be a basis. Also someone has removed this whole thread by pretending that I'm asking for legal advice. Just to make it clear to anyone who might have grown up in a cave: I am not two swedish women and I am not requesting legal advice. I am wondering on what the law might be in general on these cases, and this is (obviously) not a request for legal advice. Please don't remove this question again.

also: do they have diplomatic immunity?

My other question is I don't know the names of the two women, I would like to know if they have diplomatic immunity. Thanks. 84.153.226.90 (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would they? It's not impossible, but very very unlikely - they would have to be registered as foreign diplomats in Sweden. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

They would if they were two foreign diplomats. The reason I ask is because people are saying they could just be government operatives, but if so, couldn't they be diplomats who have immunity? I would like to know whether they do. It relates to the above question, in that maybe normally trying to collude to frame someone would be illegal and could land them in trouble, but in this case because of their status the most they could become is personae non gratae. Again, this is not a request for legal advice. 84.153.226.90 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Operatives" are almost never diplomats. There are fairly strict rules about what diplomats can and cannot do without causing a major stink. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Does this refer to the WikiLeaks guy? He was accused of rape and the charges were dropped. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Two separate women accused him of rape, and when he responded that he had heard dirty tactics would be used, and that this was just one of them and without basis, the Internet put two and two together, and became convinced that the government was behind it. The next day, the attorney general withdrew the charges and said there was "no basis for suspicion". So, what will happen to the two women who had been making the claims? Do they get in trouble or not? I mean, the two women knew each other, so if they just invented the story but then chickened out when the Internet reached its conclusion about what they were doing, will they get in trouble for the attempted collusion? 84.153.226.90 (talk)

My understanding is that filing a false crime report is itself a crime in Sweden (and many other locations). However, to prevent people from being scared to report crimes, this is normally only prosecuted when there is copious evidence that the accuser knew that the accusations were untrue, and made them maliciously. I have heard that in actuality the two women did not formally accuse him of rape, but rather simply sought police opinion on a situation. As such the "accusations" may not meet the formal definition of "filing a false crime report". [7] - On your second question, diplomatic immunity is usually only granted to foreign ambassadors and certain ambassadorial staff in the country on official diplomatic business. It's usually not granted to tourists (or even diplomatic personnel on vacation), and is certainly not a factor for citizens within their home country. The reason their names aren't mentioned isn't immunity, but that it is common to withhold the names of crime victims, to preserve their privacy. Indeed, in Sweden it's common to also avoid publishing the names of the accused as well, although in this case the name was leaked by the press [8]. -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

174.21.233.249's right. Also, the crime is called "falsk angivelse" (approx. false accusation) in Swedish and can mean up to two years in prison.Sjö (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Logic train

What is a logic train? Googling has found no explaination. I understand that this and "temple" are techiques used in marketing or advertising. Are any details of these two techniques available anywhere? 92.28.255.31 (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

my experience (you can take this with a grain of salt) is that every marketing department invents its own terms, since you can't very well publish it or people will take it out of context. For example, train of logic probably refers to something like cigarette companies pounding the fact that lung cancer is a strictly stochastic process. The "train of logic" is that by pounding the fact that in an individual case, smoking may or may not cause lung cancer to pop up spontaneously, the customer will ride the train to the conclusion that if they smoke, there could be no harm (which is true) and therefore they should consider the perceived benefits (which are certain) against the perceived harm (which could not materialize) and weigh the sure benefits (social, pleasurable, whatever) unduly heavily. This is just a pure guess, you would have to see what that particular person means though. 84.153.226.90 (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

A train of logic is a discussion that tries to show people that some point A leads to some point B leads to some point C... with the ultimate goal of convincing them of the validity of point Q somewhere down the line. it's related to a train because each point is (theoretically) connected to the next and pulls the next along to the final destination. Unfortunately, most people are not good at logic, and can't distinguish whether a connection between two points is or is not valid. Skilled rhetoricians can use logic to prove just about anything they care to prove. If 'logic train' is a real advertising term, then it probably refers to efforts to construct apparently sound chains of logic that lead to whatever conclusion the advertiser wants to promote. --Ludwigs2 17:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

on what date did the reason for invading Iraq switch from being about their WMD to their freedom?

I'm not trying to start a flame war, and perhaps the answer was that it was a gradual transition but I remember in 2003 the issue was first WMD and then Iraqi Freedom, and I would like to know what date or between what dates the switch was made? Best would be two links, one to a 2003 New York Times article that is earlier and still about the WMD and one that is to a 2003 New York Times article that is a little later and now exclusively about Iraqi freedom. If you believe my whole premise about the switch is in error I can provide some links, but I don't have the dates narrowed down, so I'm curious what the magic "switch" date or dates were. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.242.42 (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

to get things started, here is a january 29, 2003 article that is still about WMD - it doesn't mention Iraqi "freedom" but talks a lot about Weapons of Mass Destruction. 84.153.242.42 (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO there was no specific date. When one story became too difficult to sell, the next one was already in place as an "extra" reason why my country unnecessarily invaded another sovereign nation. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Both arguments were in mind. Tony Blair has always explained it this way: liberating the Iraqi people from a dictatorship was a substantial argument in favour of invasion, but that was not justification for a war in international law. The failure of Iraq to comply with its international obligations on weapons of mass destruction did amount to a justification for war in international law, and it was also a solid argument supporting overthrow of the Baathist government.

The argument about legalities has not shifted, but the liberation of Iraq became more important as a justification in the longer-run, when the reality of Iraqi weaponry became apparent. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

When did they start calling it "Operation Iraqi Freedom" openly? Before or after the invasion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just going by memory, it was always called that from day 1. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Let us not go by memory when it's possible. The very amusing answer to Bugs's question is in the first two sentences of the article section 2003 invasion of Iraq#Military aspects. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

They weren't always in mind as far as some participants were concerned. The then Australian Prime Minister John Howard was questioned on this very issue at the time. He was asked whether the liberation of the Iraqi people from an oppressive regime would be reason in itself for an invasion, to which he replied "Of course it would not be sufficient reason in itself; but we know they have WMDs and that's the main reason for going in". When it was proven the WNDs didn't exist, he changed his tune. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer has it right: the two reasons were always interconnected. Kenneth Pollack, in his influential 2002 book, The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, argued that WMD made invasion necessary, and that recreating Iraq as a democracy should be the ultimate goal. For political reasons, the Bush administration emphasized WMD because that seemed to be the easier case to make. Whoops. And also for political reasons, some of those opposed to the war later pretended that Iraqi "freedom" had never been a part of the agenda. The conspiracy minded prefer to think that the WMD angle had been a deliberate fraud, but Hanlon's razor and the "cock-up theory of history" may be more likely explanations. —Kevin Myers 02:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

August 23

Gold and silver are money...

Earkier today I saw a quote by J.P. Morgan, the financier and banker, along the lines of "Gold and silver are money. Everything else is credit." Unfortunately, I did not copy this for reference purposes and have been unable to find it since. Can you help out? Thanks in advance for your help!

Kent <email removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.138.118 (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google search for that exact phrase found many hits: "Gold and silver are money. Everything else is credit". Using quotes makes most search-engines look for the phrase itself rather than just pages that contain all of the individual words. None of them look authoritative as the original published/quoted material, but all attribute it to him--maybe dig down a few pages in the search hits or add search-terms for things like "quotes" or "sayings" to help get more specific citing. One of the early hits even says it's apocryphal, so there may not be an actual original at all. I've removed your email address to help protect you from spam. DMacks (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that using Google to search for quotations tends to produce very unreliable sources. People often put inaccurate versions on their web sites and other people copy them. --Anonymous, 19:48 UTC, August 23, 2010.

For what it's worth, my edition of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations doesn't have this quote, but, then, it has no quotes at all from J. P. Morgan. Comet Tuttle (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Electronic form of negotiable instrument

Today, I have attended my "negotiable instrument law" class in which I asked my professor that "can a negotiable instrument be in an electronic form containing all particulars required by law, electronic signatures which can identify the persons affixing them, and printable, etc.?"

The professor said that a negotiable instrument must only be in a physical form, that is to say, in a form of paper, even though there is a law governing electronic transactions.

I did not ask him further by reason of class end and hurriedness, but I wonder why it can be so even though there is everything to secure it?

203.131.212.121 (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The many problems that still exist with digital authenticaion and security aside, the simplest ansewer would be that the legal system has not yet decided this is an acceptable means of doing such things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I guess the purpose of requiring a negotiable instrument to be in a form of paper is to maintain it "negotiable". Though, thinking over, I don't see if it be in an electronic form it would be unable to be negotiated or indorsed, etc.

203.131.212.121 (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe electronic "money" hasn't been around long enough to have a legal status?..hotclaws 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of meaningful electronic documents under the Uniform Commercial Code in the U.S. I don't know anything about Thai law (where your IP is from), but in the U.S. negotiable paper only requires a writing (which has a very broad definition under the U.C.C., encompassing many electronic forms) and a signature, in addition to all the other requirements. There may be some issue as to what constitutes a signature, but as a general rule, it's quite possible in many jurisdictions for an electronic document to be negotiable paper.

If you really want to get into it check out MERSCORP. Shadowjams (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is intrinsic to the idea of a negotiable instrument that it is a unique instrument that can be negotiated (i.e., transferred to another, who then has the right to demand payment on it). Under existing technology, electronic records that can be transferred to a third party can also be copied, in which case they are not unique any more. John M Baker (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Knights/dames who have sex changes

This is probably unexplored territory, but one never knows these days.

If a British/Commonwealth male citizen (John Smith) is knighted, and subsequently has a sex change and legally becomes a woman (now known as Mary Smith), which of the following would occur:

• the knighthood is automatically converted to a damehood (Sir John Smith --> Dame Mary Smith)
• the knighthood lapses (Sir John Smith --> Mary Smith)
• the knighthood continues regardless (Sir Mary Smith) because the person has done nothing wrong to warrant the cancellation/rescission of the honour originally bestowed
• something else?

Obviously a parallel issue arises when a dame becomes a man; and with peers of either sex who change their sex. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly certain this falls under the guise of "untested waters" and there's absolutely no way anyone could faithfully determine which of your perfectly reasonable scenarios is more likely to play out. Until it happens, and someone decides how to handle it, there is literally no way at all to forsee how it will play out. --Jayron32 05:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Where would one go to even ask the question? Is there any kind of administrative hierarchy where knighthood is concerned? Like a group that would issue a periodic newsletter ("The Knightly Knews", perhaps) or would be a keeper of the rules (assuming there are any) connected with knighthood? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I would ask the College Of Arms...hotclaws 09:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

They would know, but the full answer to Bugs's question is the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood. The individual orders of knighthood also organise matters for themselves, and there's the Imperial Society of Knights Bachelor for those whose knighthood does not stem from an order of chivalry. Incidentally, knights bachelor who transition will prove a particularly thorny issue, since there's no female equivalent. Marnanel (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The closest I can come to finding any case history in Wikipedia is Michael Dillon, who was the younger brother of a baronet, and was a female-to-male transsexual. Since females can't inherit baronetcies, it's especially noteworthy that the editor of Debrett's Peerage gave his opinion at the time that this made Dillon next in line to the title. This would give some weak evidence in favour of the OP's first option. Marnanel (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Weak maybe, but fascinating nonetheless, Marnanel, and I thank you for that juicy news. That's about whether someone is eligible to inherit a title; it seems to be saying the only thing that matters is that they were male at the moment of inheritance, and having previously been some other sex would be irrelevant. But that raises the question: what if the sex-change occurred after he inherited the baronetcy? Would that then disqualify him (now her) from continuing to hold the baronetcy, or is it still solely down to his sex at the moment of inheritance? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 13:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I know of no case where this has happened, so as Jayron32 said, it's moot. I suppose the question is whether "a dame" means "a knight who is female" or whether it's an entirely separate status. I don't pretend to know the answer. FWIW, there's no rule against women holding baronetcies, only (in general) inheriting them, which makes baronetesses rather rare (the late Maureen Dunbar was a recent example). But in Dunbar's case, she inherited a title which had been held by seven male baronets before her, so I'd guess that "baronetess" means "a baronet who is female" rather than being a separate status; perhaps this gives a clue that non-hereditary knighthoods are also the same concept for males and females under separate names. Marnanel (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 regulates the change of legal gender in the UK. Section 16 specifies that

The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act—

  (a) does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour, and

  (b) does not affect the devolution of any property limited (expressly or not) by a will or other instrument to devolve (as nearly as the law permits) along with any peerage or dignity or title of honour unless an intention that it should do so is expressed in the will or other instrument.

The explanatory notes for the act clarifies that "[t]he descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour will take place as if a person recognised in the acquired gender were still of the birth gender." Gabbe (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

...which is interesting in itself; thank you for the citation. Like the Dillon case, however, it concerns the descent of titles, and doesn't give us any hint as to what happens to titled people who transition (especially when, as in the OP's original question, that title is not inheritable). Marnanel (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

One other possibility is that the knighthood would remain unchanged, but that Mary would be given approval to use "Dame" rather than "Sir". So, if John were a KBE, Mary would be Dame Mary Smith KBE (not Dame Mary Smith DBE). Thanks for the interesting links and things; I guess we just have to play a waiting game to find out what actually happens. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Mogadishu & Mercer Island - how would the residents feel about each other's cities?

When I saw the alliteration of both cities in a forum, I decided to ask this:

1. If a resident of Mogadishu ended up on Mercer Island, how would they feel about it and if they could write a summary about their time there (in a paragraph or two), what would they say?

1. (Same as question 1, the other way around.)

1. If a Mogadishu resident was given a choice to leave Mercer Island and return to their home city, how would they respond to that?

1. (Same as question 3, the other way around.)

1. And how do Mogadishu and Mercer Island compare to each other?

Thanks, --70.179.165.170 (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why should the residents of either city have to feel anything special? It's not like those are the only two cities in the world that alliterate. You could possibly have a weak case with cities with identical names, like Paris and Paris - in this case you could expect some reaction, but simple alliteration is not enough, IMO. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Do I detect the slight whiff of homework? You need to ask this at WP:Reference desk/Hypothetical questions. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Read our articles on both cities, then type the name of each city into the search box of Google News to see what's happened in each city recently, and you will have a basis for answering these questions. Marco polo (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like homework to me. 92.24.178.101 (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this is the OP. This was not homework; I just read a forum thread that referred to turning the bottom of Coruscant from Mogadishu to Mercer Island singlehandedly by fighting crime there in an upcoming MMORPG called Star Wars: The Old Republic. That random topic sparked this bit of curiosity, that's all. Sorry. --129.130.33.187 (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Population

What percntage of the worlds adult population is dependant on others? For example, people on benefits, sick and mentally ill people, manchildren still living with their parents and don't work, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prize Winning Tomato (talk • contribs) 15:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Very nearly 100% of the world's population is dependent on others. Marnanel (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd need to really qualify what you mean by "dependent." You have a number of different things in your examples. 1. financially dependent (to varying degrees) on government programs; 2. physically dependent on caretakers, 3. financially dependent (to varying degrees) on other family members. I'm not sure these categories even adequately exist across all nations/cultures. It would be much easier to give state-specific answers to any of those three, though how to draw the line in the first and last ones is going to vary a lot by culture as well. (E.g. are those who use "socialized medicine" count as "on benefits"? what about families that all live in the same household for cultural reasons? if elderly mom and dad move in with the adult kids family, does that count as dependence?) It is comparatively easy to get statistics on narrow definitions, e.g. "how many people are in state-run institutions for the mentally ill in the United States?" (But even that can be difficult, if no one has compiled them all in one place.) It is much harder to get statistics on things like "how many sick (how sick?) or mentally ill (how ill?) people are in the world." --Mr.98 (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The exact number and percentage will depend on your definition, but the majority of the world's population dependent for most or all of their subsistence on others are children under 18 years of age. The next largest component would be the elderly and infirm. "People on benefits" is a substantial share of the population only in the rich countries, especially in Europe. The total share of people who are really dependent, in the sense that they don't earn or produce enough to support themselves, is very roughly 50% of the world's population. Remember that most of these are children, most of them in the developing countries. Marco polo (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but the OP asks specifically about the adult population, which is the trickiest bit. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops! I did not read carefully enough. Pardon my negligence. As for the adult population, the percentage will vary greatly from country to country. In this case, the rich countries, especially Europe and Japan, will have higher percentages than developing countries, because elderly people make up a larger percentage of their populations and because they have more extensive social welfare systems. In some European countries—particularly countries where women's participation in the labor force is relatively low, such as Germany—I think that this number can be close to 40% of the adult population, whereas in developing countries, it could be as low as 20%. (There are of course countries, particularly in the Middle East, where few women work outside of the home, but most of those women certainly do work—cooking, cleaning, tending farm animals, raising children, etc.) Worldwide, my rough estimate would be on the order of 28% plus or minus a few. Marco polo (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Depending on your definition for the first part of you question... a traditionally Communist society would have the entire population dependent on others (in the sense that theirs is a collectivist society). ny156uk (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As Marnanel points out, except for the very rare case of someone living by themselves, feeding, clothing and housing themself using only things they have made from scratch themselves, none of which involving a tool built by someone else, never calling upon anyone for help or defence, we are all dependent on others to some degree. Given the variety of examples the OP used, I think this is quite valid. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Plaque near William Wallace plaque in St. Bartholomew Hospital in London

Reading The Dark River written by John Twelve Hawks, I found the sentences that say "Finally, Gabriel walked up Giltspur Street past St. Bartholomew’s Hospital and found two memorials that were only a few feet apart. One was in memory of the Scottish rebel William Wallace, while the other plaque was placed a few feet away from where the Crown had burned Catholics at the stake."

What I want to know is what the event related to the latter plaque is.

Please help. --Analphil (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Analphil (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

According to this site the martyrs were in fact Protestant. Poetic licence, perhaps? --TammyMoet (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about Smithfield here, which was the place to burn people who had upset the Crown. If the Crown of the day disliked Protestants, Protestants would be burned here. If the Crown disliked Catholics, they would be Catholics. I don't know which particular Catholics might be given a blue plaque, but I might hazard a guess at John Forest (whose sentence was, rather awfully, read out by none other than Hugh Latimer, and you know what happened to him...) Marnanel (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Even better poetic license would be if those plaques were inside the hospital, in the surgical unit and the burn unit respectively. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all of you. Great help!--Analphil (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Were Catholics ever burned? Certainly the Marian persecutions produced a lot of Protestant martyrs, but Catholics weren't persecuted like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Marnanel has already given John Forest as answer to that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth made a point of not bringing heresy charges against Catholics, but rather treason charges -- based on Regnans in Excelsis, Cardinal Allen's schemings and connivings and bloodthirsty ranting tirades, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, most were hung, drawn and quartered, although a British person in general might not be expected to know that (as they have been rarely mentioned in school history books). Any blue plaques at all for Catholic victims of the state have been rare, only being put up recently. For example, the one on Holywell St, Oxford. So I'd side with poetic license (or lies). 86.161.255.213 (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

William Wallace was himself hung drawn and quartered. As for him being called a rebel, I guess it depends on your perpective. Others would describe him differently. [9]. Sorry, gone off subject a little bit there. ;) Jack1297 (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

August 24

Piano Music

I've got some sheet music to a song I want to learn for fun. It's a national anthem (La Marseillaise) and not too hard. THe problem is that the sheet music calls for a vocal part (which I don't have, since I can't sing), and the right hand in the piano part only supports the vocal, without carrying a complete version of the melody, so I decided to play the vocal notes with my right hand. My question is: should I play the left-hand part of the piano part with my left hand, or the right hand melody-supporting part. The LH part is basically a bunch of octaves and chords. 68.76.159.51 (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly play the left-hand part of the piano part; it's designed to underpin the full melody, which by your account is conveyed by the vocals. But they're your ears, and there are only a couple of options: try both and report back. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be best to attempt to re-arrange the right-hand part so that it includes the melody notes and some of the original right-hand part. 124.171.201.251 (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Greatest English-speaking orators of the 20th Century?

I need some examples for a public speaking training class I'm giving next week. Anyone care to take a stab at selecting ~5 exemplary orators from the 20th century? I confine it to that period because I'll need to find pictures of these people (a photo of a bust of Cicero would not suffice!) No need to rank them with respect to each other, just 5 legendary speakers. Thank you. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

William Jennings Bryan; Winston Churchill; Martin Luther King. —Kevin Myers 03:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Franklin Roosevelt's another possibility. Looking at a list of the top 100 American speeches of the 20th century, and dropping people like Nixon (a very poor speaker, in my opinion), you've got Malcolm X, Mario Cuomo, Ronald Reagan, and many others -- some with audio. We have a list of speeches, with many possibilities in the 20th century section. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's said John F. Kennedy. This would be more fun if we had some major restriction. How about nobody that received, or could have received, a military funeral. That eliminates most high-level state offices. Go. Shadowjams (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler probably warrants a mention in terms of effectiveness. Robert Menzies (Australia) if you are interested an English-speaker not from the US or UK. The article orator may also assist (but it's not all that good) 124.171.201.251 (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Did Hitler speak English? I'd be surprised, since he was an average person before he got into politics. Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought Hitler would eventually come up. I would have no idea because I don't speak German. Of the current runners King, Malcolm X, and Williams Jennings Bryan seem appropriate, but I don't know how Cuomo factors in there. Maybe it's a New York thing. I can think of dozens without my restriction (Patton, Robert Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt...).

Hitler didn't even bother to speak standard German. He didn't speak English. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, he didn't speak English. Nothing to do with being average though, whatever that means. Jack1297 (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's one: Randy Pausch. Shadowjams (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Senator John F. Kennedy's weekly editorials were broadcast in Australia.
Sleigh (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Jawaharlal Nehru. Marnanel (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Edward R. Murrow? Billy Graham? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Reid? Jack1297 (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Enoch Powell? I don't agree with him politically but his speeches were something to listen too. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

George Carlin. That's not a joke, by the way; his routines were meticulously timed and honed down word by word. I'd assert that he spent more time perfecting his delivery than most politicians. Other comedians might qualify, too, but he really stands out in this regard. Matt Deres (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Aneurin Bevan overcame a speech impediment and spoke very impressively; James Maxton was also regarded as hugely impressive in his day. Enoch Powell certainly has a claim; you might add Sir Keith Joseph but for his unfortunate tendency to put his foot in his mouth with a duff argument. If you rule out Hitler as a non-English speaker, then you might take Sir Oswald Mosley as a substitute. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh this one is so obviously Yogi Berra! Googlemeister (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald wins by a long shot followed by JFK and Adrian Kronauer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Shakespear

In Midsummer Nights Dream it says:

I know a bank where the wild thyme blows,
Where oxlips and the nodding violet grows,
Quite over-canopied with luscious woodbine,
With sweet musk-roses and with eglantine:
There sleeps Titania sometime of the night,
Lull'd in these flowers with dances and delight;
And there the snake throws her enamelled skin,
Weed wide enough to wrap a fairy in.

What plant is "luscious woodbine"? What is "eqlantine"?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you try looking up Eglantine (which takes you to Eglantine rose, another name for sweetbriar) and Woodbine (which takes you to Woodbine (plant), another name for honeysuckle)? Marnanel (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Barry Ronge

I did my Matrix English exam on a book by Barry Ronge which envolves the entomology of phrases, eg to eat humble pie was from the poor people eating certain part of the deers body, so if a noble was to eat this, they would be increasing their humility. I would like to read this book, but cannot find it on amazon, and cannot remember its name any help please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably Spit'N'Polish. There's several copies available here. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 15:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Spit'n'polish" appears to be the name of a column, not particularly about linguistics, that he writes for The Sunday Times (South Africa), e.g. here; so I assumed the book was merely a collection of these columns. I can't find the contents anywhere, so I don't know for sure. I may be wrong, of course. Marnanel (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it was a book? There's a column about idioms by him here, and I'd have thought he'd have plugged his book if he had one on the subject. By the way, it's "etymology": entomology is about insects. Marnanel (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but it was definatly not spit and polish, I am certain it was a book dedicated to the entymology (i did pass the exam by the way) of phrases in the english language. Thanks, any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no 'n' in etymology. Get that 'n' right out of your head. The study of insects, entomology, has an 'n'. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Etymology is the study of bugs in the language. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

_{I wonder what is the entymology of "pearls before swine" ;-) Richard Avery (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)}

Thats what I would like to know too. Maybe there are books on the subject, much like a ditionary, but by different authors? This would be just as helpful. Please pretty please. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Compare and contrast the state governments of Virginia (USA) and Victoria (Australia)

Please provide some guidance on how to compare and contrast the state governments of Virginia (USA) and Victoria (Australia). TheFutureAwaits (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at our articles Government of Virginia and Government of Victoria (Australia)? These will provide the facts that could serve as a basis for a comparison. Marco polo (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes but they seem wildly different to me. I don't see any obvious similarities except that they share representation. Am I missing something obvious? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Also more generally, U.S. State and States and territories of Australia. 72.2.54.34 (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

One is part of a Republic and one part of a Constitutional monarchy. However, they both predate the unification and independance of their respective nations and both have their roots in the Westminster Parliament. However, they have developed along quite different lines. Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

To find similarities, it may be helpful to compare them to a governmental system that's different. Government of China and Government of Iran might be good starting points. Even Government of France might help, as there is the common law/civil law distinction. -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The big difference is that Virginia has a presidential system (although its chief executive is called a governor) with separation of powers, while Victoria has a Westminster system, which is a type of parliamentary system of government. The other thing you should look at is what powers the state governments have in the constitutions of the U.S. and Australia. They may be different -- for example, in Canada, health care is mainly handled by the provinces, whereas in the U.S., the federal government takes a broader regulatory role. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Mwalcoff's first sentence should not be read that Australia has no separation of powers at all - see Separation of powers in Australia. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak

In a recent discussion (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 19#"Evidences for biblical accuracy" questions), the original poster (WordyGirl90) quoted Deuteronomy 23:12–14 as purported evidence for Biblical accuracy. (The pastor of WordyGirl90 purported it as such, and WordyGirl90 was skeptical.) In the ensuing comments, the following points were made.

• "... it's not hard to figure out that you'll get sick if you hang around human excrement."—Adam Bishop
• "It could just mean that they noticed that washing yourself does wonders to improve health, which is often cited as why ritual purification shows up in many ancient religions the world over."—M@rēino
• "People had, after all, been around for many thousands of years at this time and would have been able to learn that those who spent time near excrement or sick people tended to get sick ..."—Marco polo
• "It doesn't take a whole lot of medical training to know that it's better to bury excrement in a hole outside of camp than (as I assume is the opposite) leave it standing in a pile in the middle of camp."—Ludwigs2

The cause of the 1854 Broad Street cholera outbreak was discovered to be the dumping of human excrement in a way which polluted the water supply. I have three questions.

• Why did the people of London not know that their method of disposing of human waste was unhealthful?
• Did anyone of that time and place (perhaps a clergyman of the Church of England, or a Jewish rabbi, or someone else) comment publicly about the relation between the passage in Deuteronomy and the environmental health problems of London?
• With cholera outbreaks occurring in even more recent times, how thorough is knowledge globally in 2010 of the connection between ineffectively discarded human excrement and the transmission of cholera?
  

—Wavelength (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that, in general, people did know that polluting the water supply was unhealthy. There's a discussion of Mediaeval approaches to sanitation in this book, similar to others elsewhere, which stresses that long before 1840, there had been regular moves to regulate such dumping. However, they were rather short on evidence as to what exactly caused diseases. The then-popular miasma theory, while incorrect, did correctly identify foul water as a potential source of disease - but, it held that the problem was the odour, so would have seemed plausible that if water was extracted from such a location but filtered so that it was of reasonable smell and appearance, it would not cause disease. Warofdreams talk 16:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The scientific and medical establishment of the time based their opinions on the classical texts. They were firmly of the opinion that disease was spread by miasma - foul air. Therefore, if water didn't smell bad it wasn't thought to be dangerous (as Warofdreams says). There wasn't a better theory. Paradoxically, it was the need to remove bad air from people's houses that led Edwin Chadwick and others to instigate the modern London sewerage system that saved the capital from further cholera epidemics[10], We're still using that system today. Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised the article doesn't mention Edward Tufte's lengthy analysis of how this problem was solved, in the context of communicating information well with pictures. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the map in Tufte's book and included in the article mentioned by the OP is pretty neat:

To answer the OP's first question, though: I don't think "the people of London" generally were any more inclined than anyone else to drink diarrhea-contaminated water. So knowing if it was "unhealthful" or not, or even whether Deut. prohibited it or not, probably did not contribute much for or against whether they wanted to actually drink it themselves (because there is a biologically instinctual "taste aversion" to fecal matter in humans). In this case (London 1854), it was presumably too dilute in taste to detect (thought to have been caused by a single dirty diaper accidentally disposed of near a drinking well) but not so dilute in cholera bacteria to prevent most people who then drank from that accidentally contaminated well from getting sick.

Regarding the third question, and considering eg. Cholera#Epidemiology, I'd say that better education would probably help but, again, since no one wants to drink fecal-contaminated water if they can help it whether they are "educated" or not, it's really a matter of poverty and infrastructure underdevelopment as to the preventable "cause" of most outbreaks in the world today. Wikiscient (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Tearfund refers to Deuteronomy 23:12–14 on page 63 at http://tilz.tearfund.org/webdocs/Tilz/PILLARS/English/PILLARS%20Hygiene_E.pdf.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is taken up at some length in Charles E. Rosenberg's The Cholera Years. There are a few things that make cholera tricky. 1. You don't have to actually eat excrement, you just need the water to be contaminated by it. So it's a little more subtle than just encountering excrement. 2. By this point in time, you have an established medical and public health community. The problem is, they don't know much of anything (by modern standards) and have elaborate theories about disease which are just wrong (miasma theory). But being "established" and all, they are not terribly prone to admitting they are completely wrong, even in the face of pretty hard evidence. (It takes years for the Snow theory to actually be put into practice in places like New York or Chicago for this reason.) 3. There were very strong moral and ethical associations with the idea that cholera was caused by miasma specifically and poverty indirectly. It was the classic case of feeling that the victims of an outbreak were really to blame for its propagation, and that what was really needed was social or individual reform. (Compare, for example, AIDS in the 1980s, or the belief that surgery without anesthetic was purifying, even after anesthetic become common, or the idea that vaccination was against God's will, and so on.) So there were active social forces against a simple contamination model and which actively resisted it as something "too simple" that couldn't really solve the "base problem," which was that poor people were awful and needed to learn how to be better people. Rosenberg's book is really quite excellent social history of medicine, and is still a classic, these many years after it was written. Highly recommended. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

See ISBN 0226726770 and ISBN 978-0226726779. -- Wavelength (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

History of France, 16th century

Why was it that king Henry IV could not be crowned king in Rheims cathedral, as was the tradition, in 1593, instead having to hold his coronation in Chartres cathedral, even though the city of Rheims had surrendered to him as early as 1590, and the entire province of Champagne was under the governorship of his loyal follower Jean d'Aumont?

80.47.116.1 (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Henry IV was crowned at Chartres in 1594 "because Reims was still in the hands of his ardent enemies, adherents to the Catholic League." The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) According to the article on Bishop Nicolas de Thou (info from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia): "As Reims was still in the power of the Duc de Mayenne, Chartres was chosen for the coronation." ---Sluzzelin talk 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why does the article on Rheims misleadingly suggest that the city had submitted to the king in 1590? 80.47.116.1 (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point, maybe it did and then fell again in the hands of the enemy, or maybe the date in the article is wrong. Does someone know any more? --Lgriot (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Children's Science Fiction Collection

I’m looking for a collection of children’s science fiction stories I read in the mid-nineties. I don’t remember the title of the collection, but I loved the stories. 1) a pair of astronauts are broken down on the moon with a newly discovered creature that eats metal like their ship (they eventually figure out it’s active only in the sunlight). 2) an explorer is attacked by a five legged behemoth, which kills his crew, but the guy survives by hiding directly underneath it where the creature can’t get to him 3) a group of teenagers are stuck in a full-immersion game, get past the last level for freedom, but instead are transported back to the first level on a harder difficulty setting 4) a sick astronaut meets a new sentient alien species, and it goes great and peaceful, but when she returns, her cold has killed the entire population and they try to save themselves by stabbing an effigy of her before they die. Looking back now, these are pretty common sci-fi tropes, but I loved them as a kid. Does anybody recognize the collection?160.10.98.106 (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not specifically recognize any of them, but I do recognize the "we're screwed" theme that is popular in Robert Silverberg's vast collection of science fiction novels aimed at young teens. I only read two of his books, but I've read about his book's reputation multiple times. -- kainaw™ 02:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

August 25

Racist French law?

I recently read in the news that France is deporting all Roma (Gypsies). How isn't this racial discrimination a violation of French and EU law? --70.134.48.188 (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph on France in our Romani people by country article links to some of the controversy and criticism. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

They aren't deporting all Gypsies, just those from some eastern European countries whose citizens don't have automatic residency rights in France... AnonMoos (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

They are also not "deporting" them in the sense the word suggests, historically, i.e. stuffing them into trains against their will and dumping them off somewhere uninhabited - it's not all of them as you say, it's a free choice and they get a small amount of money for leaving the country and returning to their country of origin. This doesn't change the fact that this indeed smacks of racism and I'm terribly uncomfortable with the news regardless. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

off-topic discussion with some comments worth reading
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So instead of picking individual pockets, they are picking the collective pockets of France, taking the money and running. What's wrong with this picture? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I'm not saying you are one, but obviously a racist white would say "Roma pick pockets". So, if the reason you were saying that is that you are a racist white, I would be able to respond to this question by saying : "The same thing is wrong as when, instead of individually lynching an arab, you believe a story about how Iraq will destroy you with weapons of mass destruction, and support going in killing tens of thousands of arabs militarily." See how it feels? "Whites love to murder arabs" is as racist as "Roma pick pockets", and it doesn't matter to what extent either of those questions is statistically "true": it's a racist statement that has had no place in civilized society for going on the better part of a century. Read a book, grandpa. 84.153.253.222 (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC) First, gypsies are not a "race". Second, I know people who've had their pockets picked by gypsies. Third, France is trying to fix what they see as a problem. Instead of crying "racism", maybe you could offer an alternative solution to the problem? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC) First: you're factually wrong to say "gypsies aren't a race". Gypsies links to Romani_people which says : "The Romani... are an ethnic group ... ". Ethnic group means race, if it weren't race it would call them a community of people or something. Second: your implication with the sentence "I know people who've had their pockets picked by gypsies" is, simply, a perfectly normal, human conclusion. It just so happens to be the better part of a century out of date. Let me tell you something: I know Americans who cheer when a bunch of arab civilians are blown up before their eyes by heavy munitions. The implication that white Americans love to murder Arabs is the racist implication. Let me reiterate: "my friends were stolen from by Romani" -> "Romani steal" is racist. This might be radical news for you grandpa, but in the rest of the civilized world the fact that this conclusion is racist is very, very old news. Like, the better part of a century old news. Seriously, read a book or something. 84.153.253.222 (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Romani people are not a race. An ethnic group is not a race. For example, the Irish are not a race. Arabs are not a race. Irish and Romani and Arabs are all part of the Caucasian race. If we ever cheer when something bad happens to Arabs (or Muslims extremists, actually), it's because of 9/11/01, and the perps did plenty of cheering against us then, so enough of that stuff, yeh? Thinking back, it wasn't pickpocketed, it was strong-armed and robbed, on a Paris commuter train. I suppose that's an improvement over being pickpocketed? Maybe not. And it wasn't a century ago either. And if it's so out of date, why are the French trying to deport these folks? Take your complaints to the French government, not to wikipedia which has no jurisdiction in the matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Dunno Bugs. You still seem to be asserting that, whether or not the Romani people are a race, they are a group of theiving bastards who deserve to be deported for that reason. At best that seems like crass ignorant stereotyping of the type which - despite the pedantic arguement about definions of race - smacks very strongly indeed of racism. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC) In Bugs defense (sort of), it's hard to understand this outside of Europe. We don't have Gypsies in North America, and we never hear anything about them, unless it is in fiction or in anecdotes told by tourists about pickpockets or beggars. When we think "Gypsy" we naturally think "thieving bastards", which of course is ignorant stereotyping, but how would we know any differently? (Actually we do have Roma here, but they don't beg on the streets or live separately from the rest of us, like they do, or at least like we imagine they do, in Europe.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Adam, well to be honest, the "thieving bastards" stereotype is pretty much prevalent in Europe as well. A Hungarian party is actually making good progress on fighting "chicken thieves", which apparently in Hungarian is just a code word for "Gypsies", so you can imagine what the prevalent idea about them is. Another anecdote: apparently, some decades ago (but now not particularly often heard anymore), there was a story about how the Roma were cursed to wander the world without a home because it was them who provided the nails for Jesus' crucifixion. Putting aside the ridiculous anachronism of this folk tale, it does demonstrate just how people felt about them. The stereotyping is strong here as well, is all I'm saying. Which, however, doesn't really excuse Bugs' outburst, at least not in a cultured discussion environment as this board is supposed to be. I can understand the IP - one cannot just simply sweepingly accuse a whole group of people of being pickpockets - let's keep chauvinism like that for the discussions in bars and try to maintain some level of discussion here. Innocent until proven guilty and all those civilizational achievements, yes? The IP is trying to draw parallels - let me draw a simpler one, one easier to connect to: it's like saying "all Americans are stupid". God knows you hear that one often enough, and god knows it's far from being true. To Bugs bellow: actually, Roma are really not that hard to make out - they are originally from the Indian subcontinent, and they are fairly easy to spot in a predominantly Caucasian continent like Europe. Especially if you go to a country with relatively few foreigners like my own - if you see an Indian looking chap in London, you might wonder. If you see an Indian looking chap over here though, there's no doubt whatsoever what ethnicity he is. I dare say it's similarly easy to point them out in France. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Stereotyping is the word. It's not "racism" as such. How would one even identify a gypsy if one saw one? But the OP is yelling at us about it, when his real complaint seems to be with the government of France, and we don't really have much influence with them fellers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Stray Cow "Problem" in India

reruns
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mr John M Baker has shown great understanding in observing that The discussion above was closed, prematurely in my view, and on a false understanding of the facts (i.e., on the assumption that the answer is "that's what they believe"). I'm not sure of the appropriate protocol, but it seemed better to start a new section than to re-open the closed discussion. He is referring to the discussion I opened to investigate into the phenomenon for the page I created Stray Cow Problem in India. The page has been (almost) deleted. Further he cites Marvin Harris to explain the special place of cow in India. He points out to his writings available online, a part of Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The Riddles of Culture,a chapter "India's Sacred Cow.". My reply -One thing that I can assure you is that compassion for animals, which propels the things like prevention of cruelty to animals in west, is last thing on Hindu mind. In India you will often see villagers guarding a cow just hit so badly by a vehicle or train, trembling with pain and sure to die. They are standing at guard, with lathis etc. around her, lest some westernized type vet come and put her to death ! The idea is it should not be killed no matter in what condition it is in ! Mahatma Gandhi writes to have witnessed a stunt in a Hindu holy festival, a cow with five legs ! On inspection it proved a fraud - the people (maybe brahmins themselves ) had grafted a limb they had amputated from a living calf. It was all done for money - what devoted Hindu would refuse a gift of few rupees to such a special cow ? At a separate incident, Gandhi had to fight fiercely to relieve an ailed calf that was sure to die anyway (guess western education had put some sense in him which later evaporated) Last paragraph of Mr. Harris also agrees with me “ they can tether an old or unhealthy animal until it has starved to death. They cannot slaughter a calf but they can yoke it with a large wooden triangle so that when it nurses it irritates the mother's udder and gets kicked to death. They cannot ship their animals to the slaughterhouse but they can sell them to Muslims, closing their eyes to the fact that the Muslims will take the cattle to the slaughterhouse. These violations of the prohibition against cattle slaughter strengthen the premise that cow worship is a vital part of Indian economic life and culture. ” This is what I find strange, instead of compassion for the animal there is actually an intense indifference that extends to cruelty.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC) I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board, with a link to this discussion. —Wavelength (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC) C'mon man. There was no need to through links there ! What I want to ask is a simple question concerning psychology Jon, you need to ask a question or this section is going to get closed as well. The RefDesk is not a place for you to get on your soapbox and point out stuff you think is stupid. Matt Deres (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC) edit conflict I was writing my question which was long and complicated when this edit conflict occurred - you inserted your obstructive text in-between. Do you mind if I remove what you have written ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC) How about posing a one-sentence question of 25 words or less? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Agree with Bugs, I am not reading the question or attempting to answer it, it is too long. --Lgriot (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 China National Highway 110 traffic jam

"The traffic jam slowed down thousands of vehicles for more than 100-kilometers and has lasted for ten days." ! (August 10-24 2010)
• I was intending to link this article to some other similar occurences, but there don't seem to be any articles on Wikipedia like this one. Has anything like this happened before? It seems a huge distance and length of time for "thousands" of vehicles to be in a traffic jam. Links to related WP articles if possible please! 220.101 talk^\Contribs 07:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The evacuations for hurricanes such as Katrina might have been in the general neighborhood, but they weren't so long-lasting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw a reference on DarkRoastedBlend that said that the road to Yakutia in Russia has been known to get blocked up for days on end from bogged vehicles. Steewi (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a barely adequate reference here: http://englishrussia.com/?p=315 Steewi (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a famous short story by Julio Cortázar, "La autopista del Sur" about people being trapped for weeks in a traffic jam on the outskirts of Paris. It became the basis for Jean-Luc Godard's film Week End. Cortázar was exagerating a bit, but in the 1950s and early 1960s, Paris was notorious for its humongous trafic jams before and after holiday week-ends. --Xuxl (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrecks on Interstate 95 and other busy roads often cause traffic jams for miles and hours, but obviously nothing like 10 days.

The longest traffic jam I've ever seen here in the US was on the Pennsylvania Turnpike one Sunday last month. I should add that the Pennsylvania Turnpike, along with the West Virginia Turnpike are quite possibly the scariest roads east of the Mississippi. The Pennsylvania Turnpike is perpetually under construction, but the construction never seems to improve the quality of road. For the most part it's narrow, bumpy, filled with trucks who barrel around the curves, and the speed limit changes every few miles.

When I passed this particular incident (fortunately it was in the other direction), the jam began at mile 110 ("Somerset" interchange) and stretched back to mile 100. It appeared the jam had been caused by an accident that had been cleared. I continued listening to the small travelers' information stations at each exit, and it turns out that the jam ended up stretching about 25 miles back past the previous interchange (exit 91, "Donegal") before finally beginning to loosen. I'm sure it took several hours to travel that distance. I resolved never to complain again about sitting in traffic on I-66. Xenon54 (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been in traffic jams for a couple of hours on Highway 401 (Ontario) because of accidents (and long ones, but not that long, on the Queen Elizabeth Way/Gardiner Expressway, not because of accidents but because they're just jammed every day). Adam Bishop (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

brief wherein Nike argues the right to lie.

Hi guys, first of all please see all these references (a simple Google search): Nike right to lie

The first of these says:

“ While Nike was conducting a huge and expensive PR blitz to tell people that it had cleaned up its subcontractors' sweatshop labor practices, an alert consumer advocate and activist in California named Marc Kasky caught them in what he alleges are a number of specific deceptions. Citing a California law that forbids corporations from intentionally deceiving people in their commercial statements, Kasky sued the multi-billion-dollar corporation.

Instead of refuting Kasky's charge by proving in court that they didn't lie, however, Nike instead chose to argue that corporations should enjoy the same "free speech" right to deceive that individual human citizens have in their personal lives. If people have the constitutionally protected right to say, "The check is in the mail," or, "That looks great on you," then, Nike's reasoning goes, a corporation should have the same right to say whatever they want in their corporate PR campaigns.

”

[Emphasis added.]

I realize this summary could be biased, so I would love to look at the original brief wherein Nike purportedly argues the "right to lie", so I can decide for myself whether they really did so. Can someone link to it please? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.253.222 (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Nike v. Kasky. Lots o' links on that page, including to the decisions and briefs. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hard-boiled detective novel with an amnesia story within the story

Does anyone know of a Hard-boiled detective novel with an amnesia story within the story? The private eye tells the femme fatale about a case he had about a missing man who got hit in the head by a pole and then went off and started a whole new family. --Gary123 (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I vaguely recall reading that story. I am pretty sure it is a story by one of the two masters, Hammett or Chandler themselves, but I can't remember which one. The name of the guy with amnesia is even used as a sort of morale to the story IIRC. I really hope someone here knows the answer, because now you got me wondering about this too. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Not the answer, but you might be interested to know that in the novel Traitor's Purse (aka The Sabotage Murder Mystery) by Margery Allingham, the detective-cum-secret agent protagonist Albert Campion spends most of the novel in a state of amnesia, despite which he continues to investigate, and manages to solve, the crime/conspiracy. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Google searching indicates that the film version of The High Window by Chandler includes amnesia, that there was a radio series episode by Hammett called The Amnesia Killing, and that there were at least two other 1940s films featuring amnesia. 92.15.17.245 (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

Fiction about controlling people with language

I'm interested in reading stories, and novels (and even non-fiction if it's interesting enough!) where the plot or backstory involves trying to control the general public through the use of language. An obvious one that springs to mind is Newspeak in 1984, but I'm sure there must be more examples. So please chip in with any related (even if it's quite tenuously!) suggestions. Snorgle (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Snow Crash features some extensive stuff in which people are literally programmed using neuro-linguistic programming (sometimes in ancient Sumarian). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

More interesting from a linguistic point of view are Languages of Pao and Ascian language. ("Snow Crash" had many gaping plot holes and basic coherency problems.) AnonMoos (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but it still rules. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In the novel Dune, the Bene Gesserit can control individuals through Voice, which technically fits your query. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In Alphaville (film) people rely on a "Bible" that is actually a dictionary that a tyrannical computer continually "updates" by removing the words for human emotions that it forbids. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the Bene Gesserit Voice wasn't a use of language, but a use of tone of voice. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Election campaigns of people with gimmick names (intentional or not) or just strange names

I know there's a person in Virginia running for congress with the name Krystal Ball and a senator in the Philippines named Joker Arroyo. I guess it would be too subjective to have a category with the name of my question above and maybe there wouldn't be enough people in it to make it worthwhile, but there must be more than what I've mentioned. Thanks. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This guy would probably merit inclusion in such a category. --Viennese Waltz ^talk 14:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Austin Mitchell, a fairly successful British MP of a generally serious and non-gimicky nature, changed his name (for a time) to Austin Haddock (although I don't think he ran for election on it). This article mentions him, Mr Pro-Life, Harry Potter, and Seán Dublin Bay Rockall Loftus. The Crosby by-election, 1981 featured the unsuccessful candidature of Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel. - Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, most of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party candidates would qualify. For politicians with strange names, Seymour Cocks is my favourite. Warofdreams talk 15:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The United Kingdom general election, 2010 saw for example a man named "None Of The Above Zero" (formerly named Eric Mutch) on the ballot for Filton and Bradley Stoke as well as "None Of The Above X" (formerly named Terry Marsh) on the ballot for South Basildon and East Thurrock. Neither was elected. Gabbe (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What Science Fiction Novel Is It?

A few months back I read this article about a science fiction novel, whose theme was very interesting and appealing to me, but have since been unable to locate it again.

The few details I do recall about the novel are that a cure for old age had been found, thus rendering people nearly immortal (save for accidents and violent crimes); because of this, the companies no longer needed fresh blood, since the same people could work for years on end, and thus society as a whole was no longer refreshed, economically and politically, leaving the youth disillusioned - and the story focuses on such a young man and how he handles it.

That's as much as I can remember, if anyone would help me find it, I would gladly appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xall (talk • contribs) 16:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

TV Tropes (which is great for this kind of question) has a section Who Wants To Live Forever, about films, literature etc. that features the downside of immortality. It's so long that you'll age noticeably while reading it. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably not what you were thinking of, but I remember a short story called, I think, "Outnumbering the Dead", about a such a society, and one of the few people for whom the immortality treatments didn't work. Paul (Stansifer) 18:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is this princess?

A flickr user uploaded this photograph and described the photographed person as "princess what's-her-name". Who is this woman? The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Princess Margriet of the Netherlands was in Ottawa in 2002, and it looks like her. (She was actually born in Ottawa, in a hospital which was not in Canada at the time. I am not making this up.) Marnanel (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was just the maternity ward, but it's still a funny story. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, since Margriet doesn't seem to have been in Canada in January 2002, and there is a British flag in the background, are you sure that's her? Adam Bishop (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, not sure at all. I didn't notice the month; sorry. Marnanel (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW that flag is the Queen's colour of the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada see here, so not British. Mikenorton (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can anybody make out what's on her lapel? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The title "princess what's-her-name" might be said to suit Marie-Christine von Reibnitz. Whether she was in Canada at the relevant time perhaps someone will find out. Sussexonian (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The title might suit her, but it's certainly not Princess Michael of Kent - unless she's had a major cosmetic surgery recently. Anyway, the princess does look like the sister of the Queen of the Netherlands. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly looks like Princess Margriet of the Netherlands with her husband Pieter van Vollenhoven in Air Force uniform. The car has a Quebec numberplate which would indicate Canada somewhere. MilborneOne (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is social class about income and wealth, or about education and behaviour, or perhaps a combination of both?

Consider the following hypothetical example: a male, 25, barely any better off than a stereotypical British chav or ned in the UK has a job as a cleaner as it's the only job he can get. He swears and drinks and has tattoos and doesn't know much, dropped out of school at 15, and so on, no qualifications, no hope. Then contrast this with a male, 25, who's got a degree in philosophy, thinks a lot and is considerate, but has the same occupation (as a cleaner) because philosophy is not a vocational subject and there are no decent jobs going. Are they of different social classes despite having the same occupation?--CokeIan (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The philosophy graduate could get a better job - maybe not as a philosopher, but with a degree like that, he's got plenty of other skills to apply to other jobs. If that's the only job he can get, he's just lazy. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Social class is purely about what society values at the moment. The caste system in India cares only about your parentage. "Upper crust" cares about money. "Intelligentsia" cares about education. In your example, if beer guzzling < Goethe as light evening reading, then you already know the answer. In the end, however, class has nothing to do with someone being decent or kind, which is the only "class" that (IMHO) really matters. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

[ec] Before we start much of a discussion on this one, I must point out that social class is a nebulous concept, and we need to define our terms. It's tied up with income and wealth, but it's clearly not entirely about such matters, or the Distressed Gentlefolk's Aid Association could never have existed. Education certainly plays a major part in it in the UK: not just what university you went to, but what school. But again, it's not clearly defined anywhere. Furthermore, it's not the same thing across cultures: in the US, it seems to be more of a euphemism for "income bracket" irrespective of previous education. And then again, "working class" and "middle class" can be synonyms for "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie" as terms of art within Marxism, which are much more clearly defined. So let's not have a long argument at cross-purposes. Marnanel (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Social structure of the United Kingdom article has: "Though definitions of social class vary, most are linked to factors such as occupation, level of education and wealth." If it were determined just according to those three dimensions alone, then, yes, a difference in education level, all else being equal, would result in a difference in social class. Wikiscient (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely the concept of social class is about more than the job someone does. I, for example, have a reasonably well paid, lower middle class job, yet I come from a working class background, and still see myself as working class. If I were to win the lottery tomorrow and thus never need to work again, whilst living in a big house with a flashy car, I'd still consider myself working class. Maybe that reflects more upon my attitude, and I've therefore missed the point... TicketMan - Talk - contribs 20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Red flag above London GLC building

Someone told me that when Ken Livingstone was head of the Greater London Council, he would come in early each morning to raise a red flag above County Hall, so that Maggie Thatcher would see it when she arrived at her office across the Thames. Is that true? 86.136.138.232 (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Marnanel (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Untrue. Perhaps this is a confusion of two stories. Islington council, then under a left-wing Labour administration, began flying the red flag from the town hall on the days of full council meetings in the 1980s. This practice continued until 1995, although the red flag was joined with the flags of the United Nations, the European Union, and the Union Flag. The GLC did not fly the red flag, but it did make use of the fact that the balcony on County Hall is semicircular and part of it faces Parliament. In January 1982, a point when morale in the Labour group of the GLC was low due to the Judges having struck down the policy of reducing public transport fares, a large sign went up on the part of the balcony facing Parliament which read "London's Unemployed Dec-81 326,238" - and until the GLC was abolished, the sign was updated each month giving the unemployment figures.

Other councils did fly the red flag. Lambeth council did so during the 1980s under Ted Knight. The Labour council in St Pancras under Charles Ratchford also flew the red flag in the 1950s. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

They did fly the flag under Charles Ratchford, but they started doing that under John Lawrence - see [11]. Sheffield City Council supposedly flew it on May Day during the 1980s under David Blunkett, although strong evidence is hard to come by. Warofdreams talk 20:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A codicil to that answer: the red flag did fly over County Hall during Ken Livingstone's leadership, but only for May Day in 1985 and the week following it (6-12 May 1985). This flag flying was to celebrate the fourth anniversary of Labour winning control. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Freedom of royal women in ancient Greece

I have understood that upper-class women in ancient Greece lived a restricted life, a secluded life comparable to women in the Muslim world, and was not allowed to mix with men socially. I just realized, however, that I have only read about this in association to the republic of Athens. It seems to me, that the royal women under the Hellenistic era was not at all secluded but mixed with men at court. Did the seclusion not apply to women at the royal courts? Or did the customs simply became more free under the hellenistic age then earlier? --Aciram (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)