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

September 15

What other countries elect their president via an electoral college?

Some time ago, I asked what other countries aside from the US have an electoral college. I got some good responses, but not the answers that I would have liked, especially about electoral college elected presidents in other countries. For some time now, I have been wondering what other countries aside from the United States elect their president via an electoral college or a similar committee. I am not sure if the US is the only country that does so, although I know Hong Kong's leader is elected by a committee, although I was thinking of independent countries that elect their president via an electoral college. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

According to our article Indirect election, there are several countries in which the president is elected indirectly, most commonly by the parliament: Germany, Italy, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, India, and Israel. Of these Germany has a special body to elect the federal president, but that body is composed mostly of members of parliament. And in none of these countries is the president the head of government. Here in Finland the president used to be elected by an electoral college, whose members were elected by the people and could in principle vote for whomever they wanted, but that system was abolished a few decades back. The president back then had considerable power over day-to-day politics, too.--Rallette (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind, however, that in at least some of the countries you mention the president is little more than a figurehead and doesn't have quite the power that the president of the USA does. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Good answers, but are there any countries apart from the US where the indirectly-elected President is also the head of government?

In the United States, the President is not the "head of government." He is 1/3 of a three-part government in which Congress has evolved to have far more power than the President, but both are held in check by the Supreme Court. -- kainaw™ 13:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree. "Head of government" does not mean "sole source of authority and power"; rather, we define it as "the chief officer of the executive branch of a government". More specifically, though, it is used where the head of state is a separate office. In a presidential system, however, the two positions are combined in the office of the president (or whatever the applicable name is). The US President clearly fits this description. — Lomn 14:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess that an article Government (disambiguation) (unfortunately, the link is red at the moment) would make the things even clearer: in "head of government" the "government" is not the system of political institutions, but "Cabinet of Ministers", "Council of Ministers" or something equivalent (in case of United States - United States Cabinet). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

vatican See. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Pope? If so cardinals are appointed by the previous pope not elected by anyone. Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Previouse Popes. It is entirely possible for a Cardinal to outlive multiple popes. Just a very minor nitpick. Other elective heads of state elected indirectly to consider, at least historically, include the Holy Roman Emperor (elected by seven princes known as Prince-Electors and the King of Poland who was elected by a convention of noblemen. The High King of Ireland was also elected from amongst his peers as well, as may have been the Bretwaldas of pre-conquest Britain. --71.200.75.37 (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Kings of Poland were not elected by elective representatives. Every Polish nobleman had the right to come to the election field and take part in the vote. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong, sometimes called King of Malaysia, is elected for a fixed term. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's part of what I was getting at. Is the OP primarily interested in a system where the head of state is elected by a group who are themselves elected? Or any system where the head of state is elected? If it's the later, elective monarchy may be of interest. In such a system, people doing the electing may be hereditary as in Malaysia. (Not necessarily direct of course, the Yamtuan Besar is himself elected.) Or selected by one of the previous heads, as in the Vatican. And in the Vatican case the candidates for both can theoretically be any good Catholic male compared to Malaysia where the candidates are the people doing the electing.

BTW, reading that article it mentions the interesting example of Andorra where one of the co-princes is the King of France, except since there's no King of France that position no falls onto the President of France who is of course elected by the French people. Of course a similar thing may happen in a number of other territories except in those cases the head of state isn't considered a monarch.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Argentina had an ellectoral college up to the 1994 amendment of the National Constitution MBelgrano (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The President of India is not elected by the parliament, but an electoral college of some 4,000 people (members of national and state parliaments). see Electoral College (India). --Soman (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Adoption by persons of same sex

Someone said to me that an adoption is a process whereby a child is given the right parents.

So, in a state where persons of same sex are allowed by law to enter into a marriage (or otherwise called, for instance, civil partnership, ect):

1. Are persons of same sex who have engaged into a marriage also allowed to adopt any child? What are such states now? I am not certain if in Germany such persons are so allowed.
2. Should persons of same sex who have engaged into a marriage be also allowed to adopt any child?

182.52.98.183 (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on LGBT adoption which breaks it down by country and also by states of the US and of Australia. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

1. That depends on the location.
2. Of course they should. Any random male/female heterosexual pair of people can create a child. Why on earth should a homosexual pair be prevented from adopting and raising a child? All scientific studies on the subject indicate that children of homosexual parents fare no different--and in many axes of measurement actually fare better--than children of homosexual parents. There are untold numbers of children worldwide who are alone and need love and support and role models. Only religious fundamentalists campaign against homosexual couples being allowed to adopt these children and raise them into thoughtful human beings. I'll stop here before I start ranting. → ROUX ₪ 09:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly please don't rant, but please provde at least a few citations. If indeed "all scientific studies on the subject indicate" so, you should have no problem with that. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

From the article I linked to:

"One study has addressed the question directly, evaluating the outcomes of adoptees less than 3-years old who had been placed in one of 56 lesbian and gay households since infancy. Despite the small sample and the fact that the children have yet to become aware of their adoption status or the dynamics of gender development, the study found no significant associations between parental sexual orientation and child adjustment, making the results consistent with notions that two parents of the same gender can be capable parents and that parental sexual orientation is not related to parenting skill or child adjustment. The findings point to the positive capabilities of lesbian and gay couples as adoptive parents."

The study in question is Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families; Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter? (Rachel H. Farr, Stephen L. Forssell, Charlotte J. Patterson). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether or not they should be allowed to adopt a child should not have been asked here, because it calls for opinion; and if asked, should not have been answered. This is a reference desk, where our own personal opinions on such subjects are irrelevant. The best we can do is provide links to people whose views are published in reputable sources. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 10:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this is a fine article about the whole issue [1]. Flamarande (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That article is about a specific proposition in a specific jurisdiction regarding gay marriage. It neither produces evidence, nor discusses gay adoption. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The question asks whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt any child. As with any adoption, the couple's desire to adopt a given child needs to align with that child's needs and desires. There are certainly going to be children who do well after being adopted by a same-sex couple, better than when raised in a children's home, just as there are children who will do fine raised in single-parent households. However, some children are going to need the stability and attention of a stable couple (so a single-parent is not enough), and some are going to find life hard enough without dealing with secondhand homophobia, and some older children may be uncomfortable with a gay couple due to their upbringing before this point (so a gay couple will be unsuitable). Nobody has a right to adopt, and certainly nobody has the right to adopt any child they like. Should gay couples be able to adopt some children? As referenced above, the evidence is that this has good outcomes, and many areas allow it. Be wary, however, of making the comparison to heterosexual couples conceiving children: most jurisdictions have stricter criteria for adopting and fostering than conceiving! After all, this is a second chance for a child that is often already hurt. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll reiterate one of Mr. 86's key point: adoption (whether by a single parent, a heterosexual couple, or a homosexual couple) cannot be seen as equivalent to conception. There are good and bad reasons to conceive, and there are good and bad reasons to adopt, but the overlap isn't necessarily that great. I know a good deal of heterosexual couples who have conceived who probably "shouldn't" have, whatever that means. If it were up to me, the government would lace the water supply with contraceptives and charge big bucks for an antidote Buddy431 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Gene Wolfe short story?

It's the one where the main character is born without a head; his face is in his belly; his parents kindly make a marionette head to make up for the lack. Can anyone tell me the title, and if they can point me to the text itself, all the better. Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's "The Headless Man". The only book publication I know of is in the Wolfe collection Endangered Species (1989); it originally appeared in the magazine Universe in 1972. Where I live, at least, the story is visible in its entirety at Google Books. Deor (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Indian Partnership Act

1. Whether a partner have right to file a case against another partner? 2. If yes, on which ground he can file a case against other partner? 3. In which court he should filed that case?

PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION AS PER INDIAN LAW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashant.law (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. For legal advice it is best to consult a lawyer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Heres the text: [2]. I think that yes, a lawyer is probably a good idea in a case like this. Buddy431 (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

US senators

Do US senators automatically get a US security clearance when they are elected? I presume that they need clearance since the senate has oversight on CIA and such. What if they would normally be ineligible for a security clearance? Googlemeister (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Automatically? No. Even the President has to go through background checks before being given clearance. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

. This is a reference desk. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder. Our article Security clearance states unequivocally that the President of the U.S. has access to any and all information of the U.S. government, period. I'd be surprised if it was even theoretically possible to deny the President access to some item of classified U.S. government material. After all, the classification system itself is established by an executive order of the President.--Rallette (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not all members of Congress have the same level of clearance. Members of the Intelligence committees (Senate Intelligence Committee/House Intelligence Committee) have access to classified information that other congressmen don't. You need special clearance to serve on these committees. —D. Monack ^talk 21:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Followup

Have there been any notable cases of Senators/Congressmen being denied clearance in a way that conflicted with their duties? --Sean 15:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. For example, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) was denied access to classified documents related to the "continuity of government" in the case of a catastrophic terrorist attack.www.naturalnews.com/022170.html —D. Monack ^talk 21:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

A snippet view does not show the text which comes up in Google Book Search, but per [3] "The American political arena," by Joseph Fiszman, 1962, p 473 "Congressman Condon had been denied security clearance by the government to atomic bomb test sites." A website indicates this was Congressman Robert Condon. A witness before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee had stated that Condon had attended a Progressive Part meeting also attended by Communists. The Atomic Energy Commission barred Condon from the test site based on secret evidence, although all members of Congress had been invited. The US House rules specify that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence [4] determines which members can attend a closed hearing, and a member who is found by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to have breached security by unauthorized disclosure of information can be removed from committee membership [5]. I did not find a document relating whether and how a Representative or Senator gets a security clearance. Someone who was senile, a drug addict, or a suspected adherent to some enemy of the US might be kept off committees which get access to intelligence or other confidential documents. The socialist party of Eugene Debs managed to elect a US Representative, Victor Berger who served 1911-1913 and 1922-1929. He was convicted of violating the Espionage Act by speaking against US involvement in World War 1, but the conviction was overturned. Congress refused to seat him when he was elected in 1918 and in a special election in 1919, but seated him when he was elected in 1924 and 1926. It would be interesting to see which committees the House seated him on, and if he had access to secret documents. The FBI has long done investigations of US congressmen, such as the 1934 investigation of Senator Huey Long [6] and the 1941 and 1942 FBI investigations of Senator Burton Wheeler and Representative Hamilton Fish at the request of Roosevelt for making isolationist speeches, to see if foreign money was financing the activities. [7]. Roosevelt wrote "There is absolutely no valid reason why any suspected subversive activities on their part should not be investigated by the Dept. of Justice or any other duly constituted agency." Edison (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What's tricky about clearances is that the FBI doesn't grant them. Some of them (like Q clearance) require a mandatory FBI investigation. But the FBI then just passes that information on to the agency that does grant clearance (e.g. the Department of Energy, in the case of Q), and they make the determination. I believe that agencies that have mandatory investigations (like DOE) also have the power to grant "emergency clearances" without investigations. I'm fairly sure, though, that they don't get to determine who is on Congressional subcommittees (like the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy), so they probably don't get to deny clearances in those situations. The odds are that they let Congress make that kind of decision in-house, and it's not unlikely that the Congressmen who make that decision don't ask the FBI regarding people they are suspicious about. But this is mostly conjecture on my part. It's certainly the case that agencies can deny classified information to individual Congressmen. It's not entirely clear whether they can deny information wholesale to Congress. A relevant case here is EPA v. Mink (1973). --Mr.98 (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see this videographic evidence. schyler (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I assume (hope) you know what that onion in the lower right corner of the screen means, right? --Mr.98 (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bronze-Age Spanish clothing?

Hello, and I'm looking for several good examples of Bronze-Age Spanish clothing? Specifically sometime around 1300 B.C., if that helps. --66.189.24.40 (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't have any article on this. The vagaries of preservation mean that survival of textiles and similar is unusual, so Bog bodies, principally Iron Age and from northern Europe, might give some ideas. If you look at the article on Ötzi the Iceman, who lived and died around 2000 years before the period you're interested in, something like Ötzi's gear might have been common enough Bronze Age winter-wear for the Pyrenees. There are no Iberian Golden hats mentioned, but again an idea although hardly everyday wear, so too horned helmets. There are endless images of Middle Eastern Bronze Age clothing such as this Elamite one, from roughly a thousand years before the period you are interested in. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There are also several bronze age graves from Northern Europe where the clothes have been found almost intact (for example the Egtved Girl). Considering that it was much warmer in Northern Europe at the time, perhaps there could be some similarity in style. But this is conjecture only, as I know next to nothing about the Spanish bronze age. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Some place to start one's research would be at the article Pre-Roman peoples of the Iberian Peninsula. While not all of these lived strictly in the 13th or 14th centuries BC, some did. It may give you some clues on peoples to research outside of Wikipedia once you have a short list of cultures. --Jayron32 02:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Other leads may be found at Prehistoric Iberia and Atlantic Bronze Age. --Jayron32 02:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha! nice one J. On the Prehistoric Iberia page the models are standing there in their birthday suits. which I guess pretty much answers the question. Richard Avery (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh, that picture is supposed to show people that are from a period several hundred thousand years older than the bronze age. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's all well and good, but is there anyone who could give me a good illustrative example of what they wore DURING the Bronze Age? I don't think knowing what great-great-great-great-great-great Grandpa Emanuel DIDN'T wear is going to help me much... --66.189.24.40 (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't appear to have any pictures here at Wikipedia. But the links I provided above will give you some starting points to research the names of different groups of people who may have lived in Bronze-Age Iberia, and from there you can take those lists of cultures and start your research outside of Wikipedia, such as at other websites, or at books in libraries. --Jayron32 04:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

After basically cross-referencing the articles of Mils Espaine with that of the Tower of Hercules and also that of A Coruña, I've come to the conclusion that what the Irish called the Milesians were likely the Artabrians, telling from what was said in the Milesians article, which called the tribe from Brigantia the 'Brigantes', which may only be a name given to the tribe due to convenience, probably from knowing just the location they were from. The article on A Coruña makes it seem possible that the Tower of Hercules was built by the Artabrians, which would, as suggested by the article on the Milesians, match up with the stories. also, due to this being largely an Iberian area for the most part, the Artabrians may have been influenced to some degree by the culture surrounding them. so it's very possible that they wore clothing similar to that of the Iberians, rather than what is traditionally viewed as Celtic garb. Also, the reason I ran up and threw this up here is because on the 11th I was the one looking for what the Milesians probably would have worn. so that sort of explains the specific interest in what was worn around this time period in Spain. --66.189.24.40 (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Melting down swords in Japan...?

Okay, I'm getting some definite confused memories here - I'm hoping someone can clear this up. A good few years ago I watched a documentary about the long, difficult, complex process of making the best-quality swords for samurai. During this, it was mentioned that, at one point, someone (probably a government?) asked the people for household steel, to melt down and use for their own purposes (probably a war effort?). The unskilled people melted down their expensive, high-quality swords, resulting in brittle, rubbish steel, essentially ruining the whole process that had made their swords so efficient in the first place.

Does anyone have a clue what I'm talking about? Can anyone point me to an article? I'm mostly interested in the event itself, not the documentary. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

China had a program something like that in the 50s or 60s, where their peasants were encouraged to make their own steel in backyard forges but I doubt it was swords they were melting. Googlemeister (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup. See Great Leap Forward#Backyard furnaces --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Just for reference, I shall add in the link to the article about Sword hunts in Japan. The common people were not allowed to own swords, and from the Meiji Restoration onwards nor were the samurai class. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been able to find several web pages that say that after WWII the Americans confiscated a lot of swords and melted many of them, but I haven't been able to find any confirmation from books or scholarly articles. Looie496 (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(OR) I was told by a head priest at a temple in Nagoya that during WW2, bronze bells from temples were melted down and used for munitions, and temples would receive a smaller bronze bell in return (I didn't ask when they received them, though - during or after the war). This was to explain the very small bell they had at the temple. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions. I'd guess I mixed up sword hunts with the backyard furnaces. Maybe there was a Far Eastern night on the History channel, or something. Cheers! Vimescarrot (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Backyards? Furnaces? Far East? Aye, it were probably about Newcastle or something :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Inobtrusive classical music

I'm trying to do my homework and listen to classical music, but I notice that my writing has a noticeable decrease in quality when listening to certain pieces, probably because they are "engaging" and distract me. What are some pieces that do not do this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't be listening to music while you do your homework; do one or the other. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 22:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Background music is fantastic, because it keeps your mind busy enough processing stuff that you don't get bored or distracted- in my case anyway. But yes, music that's too engaging will be of detriment. sonia♫ 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You might try ambient music which is intentionally created to be enjoyed as background while engaged in other tasks. Much of it rewards attentive listening as well but like any music genre it's not to everyone's liking. —D. Monack ^talk 23:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

[ec] Given the purported Mozart effect, listening to music while writing may not be a bad thing. But "inobtrusive" is too subjective for anyone to help you. Elevator music, however, is by definition inobtrusive. I would look for pieces with little dynamic range -- volume swells are what I find most obtrusive in classical recordings. How about one of those popular CD's with "best of" classical music with background nature sounds? (Hey, you asked.) Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

According to an article in the New York Times earlier this month, research says that much of what we have been told about how to study is wrong, including the advice to study in a quiet, nondistracting environment. Looie496 (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have several CD's with classical music selections titled "Music for Meditation"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I listen to classical music all the time while I'm on the computer at home (not at work, unfortunately). Mostly, I put the radio on and then I never have to do anything except listen passively to whatever others have programmed for my listening pleasure today, while I work my fingers to the bone. If I really don't like a piece, I can always go and put a CD on (or an LP, more likely). Most of the music I listen to is instrumental, which is lucky for me because vocal music tends to interfere with my concentration on whatever I'm writing about, whereas instrumental doesn't ever do that. Sometimes operas are scheduled, but most operas are sung in languages other than English, and if my brain cannot latch on to the words it gives up trying, and treats it as if it were wordless sounds. But when the music stops and the hourly news comes on, that's when I have to down tools or turn the volume way down, because I just can't type about X when someone is talking in my ear about Y (or even about X, for that matter). It's just beyond me to just "tune out" the babble; that is the most obtrusive sound of all. Even spoken introductions to pieces of music, interesting as they might be, giving fascinating bits of historical background etc, can sometimes go on for too long and I end up shouting at the radio, "Shut up and get on with it". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean unobtrusive. 92.29.119.246 (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a fan of lots of Bach's music for this kind of thing. Much of it is very engaging if you listen, but it doesn't demand that you listen. Pfly (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A friend of mine did most of her work for her degree while listening to noise (music), mainly Nurse with Wound, precisely because its lack of structure or any clear message makes it unobtrusive and it doesn't grab and control the attention. 81.131.10.172 (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Another thing worth mentioning is that no music (or sounds generally) are obtrusive if the volume is sufficiently low. I don't mean so low that you can't hear them at all, that would be rather pointless ("I'm going to put some Monteverdi madrigals on while I study tonight, but I'll turn the volume down to zero so that the music doesn't distract me" - yeah, that's a solution Margery Dawes would be proud of). I mean loud enough to have the sense there's music around you, but it's sort of like it's coming from 2 rooms away and it doesn't bother you. The exact level will differ from person to person. I make this point because many people seem to recognise only 2 volumes for music: full blast, or turned off. There are lots of choices in between. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

September 16

Julian dates v Gregorian dates

I'm planning to wear red on the date of the October Revolution in Russia (not so much as a political statement as a historical-knowledge statement). The date is often given as October 25, but this was under the old Julian Calendar. Under the modern calendar, it would be sometime in November, but most people know the date as October 25 and don't realise it is a different calendar, and so would'nt get it. Should I wear red on the traditional date (10/25) or the November date? Is there any precedent in other holidays? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where those "most people" live who know the date of the October Revolution, but they're not anywhere near me in Maryland. Why not spread the word and wear red on both the Julian and Gregorian dates? One for the Old Bolsheviks, ones for the revisionists. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Even though the Commies always called it the "October Revolution", they actually very sensibly celebrated it on 7 November, because the anniversary falls on that day in the Gregorian Calendar, which they adopted a few months after the Revolution. To celebrate it on 25 October would be retrograde and kind of pointless. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, see also Thermidorian Reaction for another famous event which is known to us by a calendar no one uses anymore. --Jayron32 02:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

C. Iulius Caesar was murdered on the ides of March (15th) in the Julian calendar.
Sleigh (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

18 Brumaire. History repeats itself: first as tragedy, then as farce. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Big Julie's death is still remembered on 15 March, and rightly so. The Gregorian Calendar did not have retrospective effect prior to its introduction date of 15 October 1582 AD. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Gregorian date of the Great October Socialist Revolution was the Seventh of November, 1917, and that's when old Leninists and Communists in the former constituent republics of the USSR (and beyond them) will celebrate (and have celebrated) it. My memory is confirmed by the articles on the Russian Revolution in Wikipedia and in Le Petit Larousse Illustré 2004, and by my little-read 3-volume Selected Works of Lenin (Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1967), volume 2, page 451, where the proclamation To the Citizens of Russia! from the Revolutionary Military Committee of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies† is dated 10 a.m., October 25, 1917, and whose source (the evening newspaper published by the Petrograd Soviet) is annotated by the editors as October 25 (November 7), 1917.

But I'm not sure if there's a good answer to your more general question. George Washington was born before the British Empire adopted the Gregorian Calendar, but Washington's Birthday used to mark the Gregorian date of his birth (February 22nd, 1732 New Style), not the different Julian date observed at the time he was born (February 11th, 1731, Old Style, when the New Year began on March 1st). On the other hand, Guy Fawkes Night, celebrating the thwarting of the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, falls on 5 November in modern (Gregorian) calendars, but November 5th (O.S.) was also the contemporary Julian date of the event, as shown by the contemporary letter from Sir Edward Hoby extracted at Gunpowder Plot#Flight. (A traditional rhyme begins, "Remember, remember, the Fifth of November, Gunpowder, Treason and Plot! ..." — although my father and brother remembered standing in line to watch the House of Commons with someone who remarked, "Guy Fawkes, now there's someone who went to Parliament with the right idea!").

† Whose rather clumsy translation begins: "The Provisional Government has been deposed. State power has passed into the hands of the organ of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies—the Revolutionary Military Committee, which heads the Petrograd proletariat and the garrison." ¶ By the way, I'm a non-Leninist democratic socialist/social democrat, so my sympathies are more with the Mensheviks than the Bolsheviks. In the year this collection was published, fifty years after the October Revolution, I heard none other than the Provisional Government's prime minister, Alexander Kerensky, then at Stanford's Hoover Institution, talk at Berkeley to mark, if not exactly celebrate, the anniversary. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember having a similar discussion about "Friday the 13th" a while back. I think what I ended up saying there was: no calendar system is "wrong," but all calendar systems are "arbitrary." I recommend celebrating the October Revolution on the same day that most Russians do, since it was a Russian event so they get to decide when to celebrate it. As to what to "call" that day, that's really entirely up to you (eg., this year I personally prefer to call it "Sweetmorn, The Aftermath 19, Year of Our Lady of Discord 3176"). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I was going to mention that, but I couldn't remember where we were discussing it. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a note about calendar systems. All are "arbitrary" in the sense that they are imposed by humans rather than nature, but if you have the right number of "days" in a solar year (or close to it), you get better results. If you set your "year" to be an arbitrary number of days, you end up with no consistency in the seasons and other effects that make having a calendar somewhat useless. So any calendar system is arbitrary, but if you don't set it up in a "science-based" way then you're celebrating Christmas in the winter one year, in the summer five years later, and so forth. That kind of thing matters if you're dependent on the calendar for things like planting and harvesting times. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. As I said way-back-when:

..."What makes calendar systems arbitrarily "disagree," btw, is that they are trying to reconcile (at least) two different repeating cycles in time that do not perfectly correspond: in the case of "solar" calendars, for example, the period of Earth's rotation about the sun (a "year") is not, unfortunately, an integer multiple of the period of Earth's rotation about its axis (a "day"). There are various ways to deal with that problem; the Gregorian system is better at dealing with it than the Julian system, but both systems provide some scheme for naming all days in all years." ... etc.

A calendar system is just an arbitrary system for naming days. (Er, can a system be arbitrary?) I'm not sure any calendar is perfect though as far as getting a consistent reliable working definition of "day" right. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Purely from an academic point of view; you should be able to calculate this if you study the Gregorian Calendar and the Julian Calendar, and the need to correct the Julian Calendar (i.e. the one day in four years) you should have no trouble calculating. I am not discussing your reasons for this. It has been calculated that the 12 July should be 8 July in the North of Ireland. (There were many other factors involved, as Julian added 22+23+22 days to one year to compensate for the Caesar years, when no corrections were made, see Julian Calendar, political reasons were also in play. The custom was to add days between February and March.). It does make sense to celebrate the event on the correct date, historically. {Hope this helps}. P.S.: The Ides of March may be already a recalculated date from ancient days, i.e. 14th day, or as a dictionary puts it: 15th of March, May, July, or October, or 13th of other months. MacOfJesus (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• • See also: Roman Calendar, with the section: "Converting pre-Julian dates". Also the many article pages with "Ides..." - MacOfJesus (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What do Los Angeles folk eat for breakfast?

Do they eat whole wheat bread? Kittybrewster ☎ 08:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Los Angeles is a multi-ethnic city. The "folk" do not share a common breakfast preference. Some will eat whole wheat bread. Others will not. -- kainaw™ 12:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Los Angeles is also huge. I'm sure you can find people there eating everything under the sun there. Whole wheat toast wouldn't be out of the question, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Valois in South America

por favor quisiera saber como llega "Valois" a suramerica, concretamente a Colombia, quienes llegan al nuevo continente utilizando este apellido, si la unica heredera de la DINASTIA VALOIS no tuvo descendientes? gracias! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.26.158.158 (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Below is the Google translation of the above question Rojomoke (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

please let me know as it comes "Valois" in South America, specifically Colombia, who come to the new continent using this name, if the only heir of the Valois dynasty had no descendants? thanks! -

Transferred from Science. Ariel. (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The human translation is "Please, I would like to know how the surname "Valois" arrives(ed) in South America, specifically Colombia, who reaches(ed) the continent using this surname if the only descendant of the VALOIS DYNASTY had no descendants? Thank you" Richard Avery (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The surname "Valois" is common in French Canada and bears no relationship with the former royal family. It is much rarer in France (this site says there only a little over 1500 persons with the name there). Various genealogy sites claim the name derives from the village of Valois, located north of Paris. It likely came to Colombia through an immigrant from France or French Canada with this name. --Xuxl (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Some points of clarification and ideas:

• The "house" name of European royalty is not equivalent to surname. Many European monarchs did not have a formal surname; such issues being important for the common people, not monarchs.
• Kings of the House of Valois, if they had surnames and had followed standard Western Europe surname practice, would have taken the surname Capet, being direct, male-line descendants of Hugh Capet, as were all French kings. This is evident as, King Louis XVI of France was refered to as "Citizen Louis Capet" when he was executed.
• Using the name Valois does not mean that the user is necessarily descended from the French royal line. There was a County of Valois, and others may use the name from there, or there could be other unrelated families who used the name.
• There were illegitimate descendants of the family who outlived the legitimate branches. See Jeanne of Valois-Saint-Rémy for one example.

Just some ideas. --71.200.75.37 (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could translate the answers back for 190.26.158.158? Machine translation renders this. (Anyone who does a real human translation can delete this post of mine.) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

El " del apellido; Valois" es común en Canadá francés y no lleva ninguna relación con la familia real anterior. Es mucho más rara en Francia (este sitio dice allí solamente un poco sobre 1500 personas con el nombre allí). Los varios sitios de la genealogía demandan el nombre derivan de la aldea de Valois, norte localizado de París. Vino probablemente a Colombia a través de un inmigrante de Francia o de Canadá francés con este nombre. --Xuxl (charla) 16: 14,16 de septiembre de 2010 (UTC)

Algunos puntos de la clarificación y de las ideas: * El " house" el nombre de los derechos europeos no es equivalente al apellido. Muchos monarcas europeos no tenían un apellido formal; tales ediciones que son importantes para el pueblo, no monarcas. * Los reyes de la casa de Valois, si tuvieran apellidos y hubieran seguido práctica estándar del apellido de Europa occidental, habrían tomado el apellido Capet, siendo directos, varón-línea descendientes de Hugh Capet, al igual que todos los reyes franceses. Esto es evidente como, refirieron a rey Louis XVI de Francia como " Ciudadano Louis Capet" cuando lo ejecutaron. * Usando el Valois conocido no significa que descienden al usuario necesariamente de la línea real francesa. Había un condado de Valois, y otros pueden utilizar el nombre de allí, o podría haber otras familias sin relación que utilizaron el nombre. * Había descendientes ilegítimos de la familia que sobrevivió a las ramas legítimas. Vea Jeanne del Valois-Santo-Rémy para un ejemplo. Apenas algunas ideas. --16:51 de 71.200.75.37 (charla), 16 de septiembre de 2010 (UTC)

Dating in America

How do you approach a girl in America ? I mean what is the ideal way to ask a girl out in a respectable manner... Jon Ascton  (talk)

You can check telenovelas or soap operas, and find lots of sucessful ways to start a relation without actually asking for a date. Or perhaps not so sucessful, but that it will be fun and kept you busy, there's no doubt... MBelgrano (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

While I doubt there's any one answer that can be generalized as the "ideal" for all of the US, variations on "Would you like to <do something> with me?" is a perfectly acceptable way to ask a girl out in a respectable manner. Fun fact: the first such question I addressed to my wife was "Why don't you come watch Monday Night Football with us?" — Lomn 14:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see why you kept her. Googlemeister (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Jon, for you I would recommend starting with There's Something About Mary -- good luck! ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all please be ready to seed her with her child if she would like one now. It is extremely rude to go on a date with a woman, and when she says "Jon, I would like you to seed me with child tonight", not to do so. Please be prepared to support the child with between one fifth and one third of your net pay. Do not date a woman if you are planning on being unemployed or without a source of income, this is extremely rude. Above all, take it easy, relax, be yourself, and have fun! 84.153.224.118 (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The first rule is to ignore advice random idiots people post on internet message boards, as chuckleheads will post stupid advice "for the lulz". (vide supra; also infra, if I'd hazard a guess.) Movies and television, especially Romcoms, are also renowned for presenting a horribly distorted and unachievable view of romance. Sorry I don't have any advice, but even if I did, I would probably urge you to ignore it as ignorant prattle. -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I second your final sentiment: to your supra and infra, you should add intra. 84.153.224.118 (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

To find a date is the second step... You must have in mind a lady you care to court. A way to do this is go to a meeting/place that you find intriguing/exciting. For example, go to a local advocacy group of some sort (Habitat for Humanity, etc.) and get involved. This does demand de-isolation, a difficult detail to do, yes. It also, however, ensures a lasting cooperative relationship with one who has similar ideals. Church-groups meet regularly to discuss Bible-based topics, a place to meet a respectable woman. In contrast, you could always go for the Rule of Ugly-Early. schyler (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Habitat for Humanity is certainly a respectable place to meet a girl in the US, but I've met quite a few there who were serving an alternative sentence. Something to be wary of there, Jon. BTW, are you planning a visit to the US yourself sometime soon, or is your question more just theoretical? Have you looked at the Dating article? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Movies and television, especially Romcoms, are also renowned for presenting a horribly distorted and unachievable view of romance" Oh, no! Does that mean that opening her window and getting inside her house during the night to ask what does she feel for me, is not romantic? Well, that explains why did she call the police instead of kissing me, as in the telenovela. Well, what about kidnapping her before her wedding? Don't tell me that doesn't work, it's a classic! MBelgrano (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that there are an increasing number of "Online dating services" for the explicit purpose of finding a date. This doesn't work so well if you have a specific girl in mind who you want to ask out, but if you're just looking for a girl it may be an option as a socially acceptable way to get into a romantic relationship. Depending on your age and interests, such services may be more or less popular among your demographic (the stereotype is that they're more popular with middle aged people). Here's a site that appears to try to collect and organize statistics about online dating (I don't vouch for its reliability, but it at least appears that they know what they're talking about). Buddy431 (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a time when foreign students in the US would simply walk up to any American girl and ask "Do you have a boyfriend?" in the tone one might ask "Is this seat taken?" It was not always well received. Dating services were mentioned. There are more ways to meet someone than going to a bar and picking someone up, but that might be a quick way to get to coupling. The venue will sort the type of person, to some extent. A religious Jewish girl joined a Jewish traditional folk dance club at college, not because she had the faintest interest in the activity, but to meet a certain sort of man, and it worked out for her. If you go to church, you can meet girls. Sing in the choir? Join a religious study group? Rent a community garden plot and you will have lots of opportunities to talk to neighboring gardeners. Take an adult ed class in anything and there will be chances for discussion, or "study groups." Play a sport or join a health club. Have any friends? Let them fix you up with a date. Edison (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

How tall was Éamon de Valera?

Former Irish revolutionary and president Éamon de Valera's was famously called "The Long Fellow" because of his unusual tallness but I have never seen the height defined. The nickname "The Long Fellow" is still in common use; one of his biographies is even called The Long Fellow; so, how tall was he, and can you provide a trustworthy reference, preferably online? I've looked around with no success. --O'Dea (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This Sunday Times article from 1962 gives his height as six foot three. Karenjc 18:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that source, Karenjc. Your search was better than mine, and the Sunday Times sometimes gets its facts correct. The newspaper's phrase "six foot three" triggered a memory of a verse I learned when I was eight:

John Hickey

had a ten foot mickey

and he showed it to the lady next door.

She thought it was a snake

and she hit it with a rake

and now it's only two foot four.

There it is for posterity in Wikipedia. It's important to lower the tone a fraction when we're all so busy at serious Wikiwork.--O'Dea (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Which gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "The Long Fellow." Textorus (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Voting in Dáil Éireann - or not

The article on Recognition of same-sex unions in Ireland says, in the lead, that the Civil Partnership Act 2010 "was passed without a vote by the Dáil on 1 July 2010 and was passed by the Seanad on 8 July 2010 by a vote of 48-4." And this is confirmed by the cited sources. But neither the article nor the sources explain how you can pass a bill without a vote.

The article on the Dáil has a section on voting procedure, but that doesn't seem to address this particular circumstance. Can anyone enlighten me on this parliamentary point? Textorus (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

From some searching I managed to find [8] Nil Einne (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the link. Sort of like voting-by-abstention, sounds like. Never heard of that before, wonder if that is peculiar to the Irish Parliament. Textorus (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Dáil largely adopts British Parliamentary procedure which means that when a question comes to be decided, the Speaker asks those in favour to shout 'Yes' (in Irish, "Tá"), and then asks those against to shout 'No' ("Nil"). If everyone shouted 'Yes' and no-one shouted 'No' then there's no need to go counting and the Speaker just declares the result. Other Parliaments on the British model do it that way too. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, I understand what you're saying, Sam, but then that's a voice vote, no? (The same thing is sometimes done in the U.S. Congress, too.) Which doesn't seem to be what was described about the passage of this bill. Textorus (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Normal usage in the UK is to regard only divisions - where MPs walk through the lobby, get their names ticked off and are formally counted - as votes. I suspect Ireland is the same. The vast majority of questions which have to be decided are done just on "collecting the voices". Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

As it said at the link Nil posted, they only ask for votes against, and if nobody speaks, it passes. It's sort of like half a voice vote. The same thing is done in the Canadian Parliament on some procedural questions, but I don't think they do it for actual legislation. --Anonymous, 04:28 UTC, Setpember 19, 2010.

Thanks for confirming that. Do they then have a voice vote where they ask for ayes and nays (or whatever) if there are people against? Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now that I think of it, I'm only talking about procedural situations where unanimous consent is required. Consent is indicated by silence. So there is no need for a followup procedure if someone votes no. --Anonymous, 00:29 UTC, September 20/10.

In the US Congress, there are certain votes where the President of the particular House in question will call a vote, "All in favor say 'aye', all against, 'nay'", then they'll gavel and say, "the ayes have it", wihtout ever taking a vote nor even considering how many nays there might have been. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct, Everard, but that's still a voice vote, not "no vote," as the Irish press described the passage of the bill I mentioned above. Unless that's just the peculiar custom of the Irish media to report it that way if there's no actual division or electronic vote taken. Textorus (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Voting on the voices is pretty much the default way motions are passed or rejected in the Australian Parliament. There's only a division (ie. where the names of those voting for or against the motion are recorded) if a member or senator asks for one. That makes sense if the numbers are fairly even; more often, it's blindingly obvious that the vote has gone the way it's gone (because most motions are decided on party lines and those numbers are known exactly), but the losing side wants it to be recorded for posterity that they opposed it and wants all their individual names mentioned in the record of proceedings. Or, where a member wants to vote against their own party's position, they'll call for a division so that they can "cross the floor". -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hannah Boone Pennington

Bold textI searched for Bucks County Pennsylvania and got to the page. But I dont see anything on the History part that Hannah Boone Pennington was born there. She is the brother to Daniel Boone. She was born in Bucks Co. PA. and buried at Old Mulkey Meeting House Church cemetary in Tompkinsville Ky. This is a fact! and I live here in Tompkinsville Ky. and seen her grave many many times. It reads on her gravestone Born in Bucks Co., Pa. If you need anymore information on this you can contact (contact info removed) She is the park manager. I think it should be mentioned on that page for Bucks County that Hannah Boone Pennington was born there.

Not sure what this is in reference to, but it's a bad idea post phone numbers here. I have removed the contact info you provided. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have made this into a new section for you, as it is unrelated to the previous question. Also, all I can say is that if you feel that that person is notable enough to be mentioned on the page you refer to, then you should post your request on that page's Discussion page (see the tab on the top left of that page), and not here. This page is for general questions related to the Humanities, and not for requests for additions to articles. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 22:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Unknown play

During a conversation with my father about a production of Death of a Salesman that I'm going to see, he got off on a bit of a tangent about a play, later made into a movie, both called Marty. I think he's confused though. He says it was written by Chekov but I can't find anything by that name by Chekov or Miller. Anyone know what he might actually be thinking of? He mentioned the idea that, like DoaS, the characters are all living lies. Anyway, any ideas? Dismas|^(talk) 23:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Your dad meant to say Marty was written by Paddy Chayefsky. DoaS was by Arthur Miller. Both are great plays. Textorus (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I read that article but going by the plot here, I wasn't certain that is what he was referring to. I know DoaS was by Miller and is great. I saw it once in high school and saw the film with Dustin Hoffman. Now I get to see it with Christopher Lloyd playing Willy Loman. Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 00:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, enjoy. Textorus (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

September 17

US$ to £—help me get the most out of it

I have about 200 US dollars that I need to convert to GB pounds. I can afford to wait for a little while, and needless to say I'd like the exchange rates to be favourable when I do exchange. I realise in the current economic climate that "favourable" isn't necessarily "good", but I'd like to try anyway. My questions are: where do I start? What am I looking for? Where should I keep a track on the currencies moving? I have vague ideas on how to maximise, but no specifics, no idea how to go about watching the market, and I'm not even sure I've got the right "vague ideas". I've searched for some help, but a lot of it is about currency trading as an investment or hobby or career, and hasn't really helped me. Differentially (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Update: I can afford to wait for a little while before I exchange, and out of interest, and as a little game, and to learn, I'd like advice on where to start looking at the market, tracking the exchange rate, maybe reading up on the USD → GBP likelihoods. I am not looking to get rich quick, predict anything, or outsmart the market. Thanks. Differentially (talk) 08:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and neither is the Reference Desk. Exchange rates between currencies fluctuate every day, and lots of people with Harvard MBA's and highly paid jobs on Wall Street can't predict from one day or month or year to the next what the market will do, so you can't either. Besides, $200 is such a small sum, and those are two stable currencies, so in the course of any given week probably you're talking about essentially a few cents' difference, most of the time, or if you're really unlucky, a couple bucks at most. Why does this concern you so much? It's the cost of a cup of coffee. Trade your dollars for pounds at the nearest bank or airport, and enjoy your life. You aren't going to get rich or go broke with that little piece of change.

If you are a young person, as I suspect, instead of trying to conjure up a magic formula to save a few pennies, you would do much better to read up on sensible long-term investing; putting just a few dollars a month now into a well-chosen IRA or 401(k) plan - or the equivalent wherever you may happen to live - can easily turn into a million dollars by the time you are ready to retire, if not sooner - without having to wonder and worry about it, either: the magic of compound interest. That's the thing to focus your attention on, not trying to outsmart the market. Textorus (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice, but I believe you've misunderstood my post. I am not asking for any predictions on what the market will do. Nothing of the kind. I'm asking out of genuine interest how best to watch it, what makes a better exchange rate over a worse one: if I can learn something about it, and for a month or a couple of months enjoy watching the exchange rate fluctuations and seeing what happens, then it's worth that cup of coffee to me, even if, when I have to change the money, I don't end up getting any better rate than I can get now. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm a young person trying to conjure up a magic formula, or why you think it concerns me so much? I'd just like to see what I need to do to get the most out of it in the next couple of months, even if I don't end up doing so . . . it's not a big deal! I'm not trying to outsmart anything. I already do long-term investing. Thanks anyway, though. I apologise if I my original post was of the wrong tone. Differentially (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you haven't considered the “time is money” factor. How much is your time worth to you. I'm not just talking about the puny amount that your employer might pay for an hour of your work but how much an hour is your own free time worth? The rate differences plus commission for a sum of 200 on any day will probably be way below this. Second: With that small amount you will not be able to negotiate a favourable exchange rate with your bank. I also know people who have found that come the day to convert the commission rate has suddenly gone up. I think it would be better to concentrate on finding who is going to offer the best exchange rate and fee now. Then think about how much interest you will be loosing on the amount sitting where it is now and decide if there might not be better things to apply one's time to. It is a worth while exercise when tens of thousands are involved but it's a form of gambling that most people loose out on (otherwise everyone would be rich currency traders). You'll spend hours on trying to save cents and still may lose. --Aspro (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly for interest, call it a little game. I don't need the money in pounds at the moment, so I thought I would do something slightly more interesting with it for the next couple of months. I'm not quite silly enough to think I was going to get rich on $200. You say it would be hours, and that's the sort of information I was asking for. I was thinking of something like a good website that tracks the exchange rates, maybe with a few editorials and news pieces, perhaps some numbers. Though telling me that it's not worth it is useful information, too. Differentially (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Aspro is right. However, Differentially, if you just want to track the currencies as a hobby (which I guess is a little more exciting than stamp collecting), or to satisfy your curiosity, just google up "exchange rate dollars pounds" and you will find a long list of sites that track all that and will give you lots of cool graphs, charts, etc., all for free. U.S. magazines like BusinessWeek and Forbes, as well as the Wall Street Journal, have articles on all aspects of trading and international exhange, etc. etc., so google their websites. Beyond that, go to your local bookstore and browse through the Business section for books on currency exchange. Also, there are several well-known "financial advisors" who put out their own books, magazines, TV shows, and so forth, that you can easily google up as well. Have fun, mate. Textorus (talk) 08:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. - I see there are two inexpensive, mass-market books that ought to answer your questions and give you a good education in this subject: Currency Trading for Dummies and The Complete Idiot's Guide to Foreign Currency Trading. Those series are usually very helpful at making esoteric subjects understandable, so give them a try. Textorus (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Efficient Markets Hypothesis says that you cannot predict the exchange rate, or the stock market for that matter. However a lot of people make money out of promoting the belief that you can. As far as I know Warren Buffet for example makes investments in companies, not in the stock market. You could try simulating trading with imaginary money, but make sure you include the deal costs. The dealing costs alone would drain your money away. 92.15.2.221 (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the efficient markets hypothesis assume that everyone has access to the same information? Because that is not true. Also, EMH should prevent economic bubbles, which are known to occur. Googlemeister (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not. Only the strong-form efficiency version implies that prices reflect all information, which is not the same thing as everyone having access to all information. See the relevant paragraph in the article. In any case, how is Mr. Average in Averagetown going to get access to genuine information ahead of the market? Even the big institutional investors cannot beat the market (study the statistics not the advertising hype), so even they have not found any 'system' that beats it. Day trading is notorious for people losing all their money (see the third external reference). EMH is consistent with "economic bubbles" as it indicates that markets move at random. Why should EMH "prevent economic bubbles" - please explain why you think that? The market reacts as new information comes in, so they are never going to be a smooth line. 92.29.118.215 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Plausible age for child to take "living together" (or any euphemism) literrally

I had begun to ask about what age children can understand euphemisms, but - since I'm writing a scene here - it makes more sense to ask if it's plausible for a child of about 10 or 11 to think that. Note that this kid would not have heard anyone use the term living together in a negative way. There was an interesting study reported here that says other language, such as ironic or rhetorical, can be understood very young, but if it's still plausible that an older child could take the phrase literally, I'll use that. (If not, I have another idea.)

My slight sperger's (or whatever causes it) confuses things for me further, as I take things somewhat literally as an adult. So, it's hard to use myself as a gauge, and I don't want to have this character taking that much literally.

Thanks in advance. Oh, and P.S., nice change on how to put links in, I havne't been here since the change, I don't think. It really helps me to do it.Somebody or his brother (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. What does 'living together' mean, if it doesn't mean 'living together'? What's it a euphemism for? 'Cohabitation', as per your link? 'Cohabitation' means 'living together'. Also, to take 'living together' literally, would mean to take it to mean 'living together'. So, really, I don't understand the question here. Are you asking what a plausible age for a child to understand the word 'living together' to have a shady meaning would be? I'm 37 and it hasn't happened to me yet. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your example has me a little confused as well, but I'll at least let you know that my eight-year-old daughter is just starting to begin understanding that sometimes words and expressions mean more than what the word literally means. She would take "living together" to mean two people who happen to share the same house - sexual arrangements between the two would not even enter her head, so she likely wouldn't even attempt to "read anything into" it. But other euphemisms would be readable by her, yes. Matt Deres (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Matt; you answered my question. I think 10 would be plausible for such a misunderstanding. Inf act, I now wonder if *I'm* the one who has been reading too much into the term "living together" as used by some, as perhaps it isn't as common a euphemism for having sex as I think. But, in trying to make sense of the way people use language when they're *not* being literal (including sarcasm, irony, etc., explaining the link) perhaps I have begun trying to read too much into peoples' speech.Somebody or his brother (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The euphemism you want might be sleeping together, which is so frequently a euphemism for having sex that non-sexual uses of it often have to be explained. It is also opaque enough that a child could misunderstand. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Now, that would make the question make perfect sense to me, as 'sleeping together' can certainly have two meanings - one of which is sexual in nature, and the other merely indicating sleeping arrangements. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Living together" can have more than one meaning. "After dating for a few months, Tom and Katie are now living together" - does not just mean that they're sharing a house as friends and sleep in separate bedrooms, it means they live as a couple and would be assumed to sleep together and sometimes have sex as well. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Jack is right. In cases where the speaker wants to be certain of conveying the understanding that the two people are not sexually involved, American English speakers would probably say, "Tom and Bob are rooming together," or "Katie and Sue are roommates," if there's a chance that the listener would misconstrue the meaning of "living together" in that context. Textorus (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes living together for a couple will usually be taken as a step (way?) beyond sleeping together. In particular, if flat mates start having sex, they will still generally avoid describing their arrangements as living together. That will usually (but not always) be when they move in to the same room Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is odd, if you think about it. 'Rooming together' or 'being room mates' seems to imply they have the same (bed)room (+ extras), but it usually means the very opposite, they just live in the same house. 'Living together' seems to imply they simply share the same abode, nothing more - but it often means a whole lot more, including not just the same bedroom but the same bed (+ extras). Strange how we've perverted the language so. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I recently got out of a situation in which I shared an apartment with a romantic partner, but we slept in separate beds in the same bedroom and never engaged in intercourse. When we wished to refer matter-of-factly to our living arrangements without implying sexual involvement, we usually referred to ourselves as "roommates." You might be interested to know I sometimes defined our situation, to myself, as "living together but not cohabiting" - "cohabiting" having, to my mind, more of a tawdry "shacking-up" implication than merely "living together." If my sister and I got an apartment together to share expenses, we might tell people we were "living together" but we certainly wouldn't say we were cohabiting. Beyond the general assumption that an unrelated male and female living under the same roof are probably "doing it," I doubt anyone would automatically take the term "living together" to imply sexual involvement, particularly between two individuals not known to have a romantic relationship. Of course, it's definitely possible to make "living together" take on a decidedly unsavory or titillating "shacking-up" tone with the proper vocal inflections. The age at which a child would be able to correctly infer the overtones of such a reference vary based on the child's intelligence, maturity, sensitivity, and background knowledge. 71.165.40.68 (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Everywhere I've ever lived in the Southern United States, "living together" = sexual partners. Unless of course it's obvious that they aren't, as in the case of you and your sister, or perhaps a parent and adult child; though typically those situations are more often expressed as "X lives with his (relationship)Y" - depending on who owns the house, or who is financially stronger. Textorus (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"Living together" is "Cohabitation" is "an arrangement whereby two people decide to live together on a longterm or permanent basis in an emotionally and/or sexually intimate relationship. The term is most frequently applied to couples who are not married." I do not see why any child would not take this "literally." "Sleeping together" as has been said is the term that some children might at some age stop taking so "literally." That age will vary according to culture, home environment, etc. But I think "sleeping together" is the right term to use for the OP's writing purposes. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Papal Visits to Britain?

I was just wondering something about this. The media are billing this current visit as the second in history, and the first 'state visit' (meaning he was invited personally by the monarch). But England's break from Rome wasn't until 1534, and we even had a Pope ourselves before that, it surely can't be the very first in history. What with it being all over the news it's a hard thing to Google effectively at the moment. Does anyone know when the last Papal visit to Great Britain was, before John Paul II? Dan Hartas (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"State visit" means more than "invited personally by the monarch". According to interviews I've seen with Stephen Fry, a state visit is completely paid for with taxpayer funds. So, it may be the first time that the general public has paid for all air fare, hotels, food, etc... for a visit from the Pope. -- kainaw™ 14:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

'Britain' is generally used to mean The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the earlier United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; it is not generally used to mean Great Britain. So, this is the first state visit of a Pope to Britain, although it may not be the first to Great Britain. (If Stephen Fry said this state visit was completely paid for by the tax-payer, he was wrong: the tax-payer has paid for some, and Catholic parishes have paid for some. The furore a few weeks ago was because the parishes hadn't raised enough to cover all of their obligation, so the government paid the shortfall) 86.164.78.91 (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I very well could have misunderstood him. I've only seen parts of Fry's interviews on the subject. -- kainaw™ 14:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

State visit has nothing at all to do with funding. Read State visit, especially the first sentance, which describes what a state visit is. --Jayron32 14:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Popes never really travelled much; they had legates for that sort of thing, and they had better things to worry about (like remaining pope at all, especially since there were often rival claimants, and often outright war with the Holy Roman Emperor or various other states in Italy). Sometimes the popes went as far as southern France (and of course they actually lived there for awhile in the fourteenth century), but I don't think any went as far away as England, not even Adrian IV, although he was interested in what was going on up there (he gave papal blessing to the invasion of Ireland). Lots of popes were interested in England, but never went there themselves; Gregory the Great sent Augustine of Canterbury to set up the church there, and Innocent III put the whole country under interdict but send Guala Bicchieri to take care of all the details. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you need include Nicholas Brakespeare (if you wanted to minimise the number) as I don't think he ever returned to the British Isles as Pope, so there was no "papal visit". - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 18:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

So, in a nutshell, it surely can be the very first state visit by a pope to Great Britain (= the UK in this context), and just as surely is. There were no papal visits to any part of what is now the UK before John Paul II, period. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not wishing to be excessively picky, but why go with Great Britain there, which has a narrower meaning and required we to explain your non-standard use, rather than the shorter Britain, which is generally understood to mean the UK in this context? 86.164.78.91 (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

When one says "Not wishing to be excessively picky, but ...", what one means is "Not wishing to be excessively picky, but I'm going to be anyway".  :) In his question, the OP uses, in turn: Britain, England, and Great Britain. It's not completely clear whether he was aking about papal visits specifically to the island of Great Britain (which includes England, a country with which he identifies himself), or to the wider polity known as the United Kingdom (which includes Great Britain, and is sometimes known simply as Britain). The first sentence of my answer was about state visits; the second sentence was about visits of any kind by a pope. There have been 2 papal visits to the UK or any parts thereof; there is currently under way the first papal state visit to the UK or any parts thereof. What do you mean by "required we to explain"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 22:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to be excessively picky here, either, but after the word 'required' in that sentence, 86.164.78.91, you needed a direct object, not a subject, and therefore should have said 'required us to explain', not 'required we to explain'. If you have a question regarding this, feel free to visit our Language Reference Desk. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant 'required you to explain'. I don't know how that happened! By 'I don't mean to be excessively picky' I meant 'If I hadn't just explained the distinction further up this section, and (I thought) unpicked why the distinction mattered in this case, and how the OP might be confused, I wouldn't have mentioned it at all...'. Given I had just explained the distinction, your use came across as deliberate use, and quite antagonistic towards the Northern Irish (and nobody wants to antagonise the Norhern Irish). So I thought there was probably some reason you'd chosen it, perhaps some point you wished to make, or perhaps Australian usage is different and you wanted to explain that. So I was giving you a chance to make whatever point it was you wanted to make. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering the Pope isn't going to visit Northern Ireland, it's not really important now, is it? If you really want to split hairs, though, I say Jack was correct in what he said because the Pope's visit is limited to Great Britain, but is nevertheless a visit to the UK. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't making any points. I certainly wasn't wanting to antagonise any part of Ireland. I was simply summarising the answer, and putting paid to the OP's assertion that "surely this can't be" the very first papal state visit to the UK. It is indeed the very first papal state visit to the UK. I wasn't particularly focussing on your earlier post, but now that I have, I see a problem with it. You say "So, this is the first state visit of a Pope to Britain, although it may not be the first to Great Britain." Do you see the problem? If there'd previously been a papal state visit to Great Britain, then ipso facto that would count as an earlier papal state visit to Britain. But you deny, quite correctly, any earlier papal state visits to Britain, which excludes earlier papal state visits to any part of the UK. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I see, all is clear then! By saying 'it may not be the first to Great Britain', I was explaining that I cannot say for certain that it is: my knowledge of medieval history is not good enough, and the history is sketchy enough in places that I would always defer to someone more widely read in the area. However, the Pope has not had a state visit to Britain (the UK) since the UK existed, a nice closed area of time and space that we can examine exhaustively for state visits, and that is what commentators are actually saying when they say 'the first state visit to Britain'. In fact, they're especially saying 'the first state visit to England since Henry VIII split from Rome', but the state that the Pope is visiting is actually Britain, so they have to say 'Britain'. 86.164.78.91 (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

On Eagle's Wing

A.E. Southon: On Eagle's Wing. What sort of novel this? Whoever the author, this A.E. Southon? Where accessible the novel? Doncsecz^talk 15:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The only reference on Wikipedia I can find to A.E. Southon is in the article The Ten Commandments (1956 film), where he is listed as one of the screenwriters. After doing some Google seaching using the phrase "A. E. Southon On Eagle's Wings", it appears that Southon's novel was used as one of many novels which were amalgamated together to form the script for The Ten Commandments film. this Book reference indicates that to be the case. So, based on this evidence, the novel is likely about Moses at some level. If you wish to purchase a copy, Amazon.com has several versions used. It does not appear that the book is currently in print, so you may not find a new copy. See [9]. --Jayron32 15:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thus the author is an British. Thank you! Doncsecz^talk 16:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm missing something, but I don't see where you're drawing that conclusion from. All I can tell from the sources given are that he's a Reverend, and that his first name was Arthur. Rojomoke (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly Arthur Eustache [fina name :)]. What a pity, that there is no article about Southon in the wikipedia. Doncsecz^talk 17:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

More information here - Arthur Eustace Southon, born London 16 February 1887, died Bristol 30 December 1964. He obviously wrote many books - I don't have a bibliography but this should be a start. And this suggests he was a minister at the Methodist Church at Froyle in Hampshire, 1915-19. Further research required! Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

and here, "..the distinguished Methodist minister and author The Reverend A.E. Southon [who] was a bible-thumping missionary in Nigeria and China..." This entry at the Portuguese Wikipedia appears to be wrong in relation to his birth details. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you the new infos. Doncsecz^talk 18:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Stub article now created. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The LOC website lists the following books for Arthur Eustace Southon:

• Southon, Arthur Eustace, 1887- Mathews, Basil, 1879-1951. Torchbearers in China, by Basil Mathews ... and Arthur E. Southon. 1924
• Southon, Arthur Eustace, 1887- Southon, Arthur Eustace, 1887- This evil generation, by Arthur E. Southon. 1939
• Southon, Arthur Eustace, 1887- Southon, Arthur Eustace, 1887- Gold Coast Methodism, by Arthur E. Southon. 1934
• Southon, Arthur Eustace, 1887- Southon, Arthur Eustace, 1887- Whispering bush; true tales of West Africa, by Arthur E. Southon ... 1924
• Southon, Arthur Eustace, 1887- Southon, Arthur Eustace, 1887- On eagles' wings, by Arthur E. Southon, with preface by Leslie D. Weatherhead ... 1937
• Southon, Arthur Eustace, 1887- Southon, Arthur Eustace, 1887- God of gold; a tale of the West African coast, 1927
• Southon, Arthur Eustace, 1887- Southon, Arthur Eustace, 1887- Yellow Napoleon, a romance of West Africa 1928

Zoonoses (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Translations of Beowulf

Not sure whether Language Desk is more appropriate, but I'll try here first.

I am looking for a discussion of the translations of Beowulf. Somewhere I remember reading a commentary to the effect that we would think very differently about this poem if the translation used words such as brigand, chieftain, loot, skirmish instead of warrior, knight, spoils of war, battle. Does anyone know the quote? BrainyBabe (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There's little inflation in Seamus Heaney's 1999 translation. And it's got the original text on the facing page, so that you can check from time to time whether he's making you "think differently". --Wetman (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have the Heaney version if there are any passages you'd care to check out. More to the point of the question, Heaney mentions in his long introduction that he specifically tried to translate "Beowulf with a prejudice in favour of forthright delivery" (page xxviii), but he doesn't really critique previous translations as far as I can see (When I read the book, I honestly did try reading the introduction, but it became interminable and I ended up just skimming it - mea culpa!). Also, he continues to use words like warrior, hero, etc. rather than the more earthy ones BB mentioned, so he apparently felt that those sorts of terms were honest translations. If I get time later, I'll post a couple of direct translations he provided (I've got some RL stuff brewing and hunting down the OE letters will be time consuming!). Matt Deres (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been a while, but I have read the whole thing in Old English (with the help of a crib), as well as a few translations. I'm fairly certain that words like "warrior, knight, spoils of war, battle" are appropriate translations. DuncanHill (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the link in our Beowulf article to Beowulf Translation What difference does it make? ? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the responses are all missing the point of the question. As I read it, the discussion BB recalls is not about the accuracy of different translations, but at a different level: not whether it would or wouldn't be accurate to write "brigand", but how the poem as a whole would strike us with such choices. It's not really about translation at all, and you can imagine doing a similar transformation on a work in Modern English: it's just that because for most of us Beowulf needs translation anyway, it's easier to contemplate doing it. Come to think of it, stage directors frequently do this sort of thing when they set Shakespeare or other classics in a completely different social milieu. I haven't an answer to the original question, though. --ColinFine (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Or in other words, would Beowulf strike us differently had it been written by Grendel's mum? DuncanHill (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

One man's freedom fighter is another man's insurgent, rebel, guerrilla, terrorist. Most of history and much of fiction is written by the victors. I think that's the point of the quote that was proposed by the questioner, although nobody seems to know where it's from.Textorus (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, though the same could be said of any battle, fictional or historical. I assumed that Beowulf was being singled out because there might be an argument that the translators were taking something that was ambiguous and putting spin on it to make it seem more heroic. The fact that Tolkein was one of the early trumpeters of the poem's significance and that he tended to shoehorn his characters into the veriest good and the veriest evil also arouses suspicion; did his influence unduly shape the words used by translators? Not only do I not know the answer to that; I also don't know if anyone else criticized him for doing so (which seems to be the literal question here) :-). So, I'm actually not being very helpful at all in answering the question, but Heaney's text is line-numbered in case anyone wants my help in doing a little OR. Matt Deres (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all. As usual, the desks are discursive, thought-provoking, and knowledgeable. The above doesn't quite answer my question, as I am looking for one particular essay or commentary that made the point about different translations and the atmosphere they cast, but nonetheless I appreciate your suggestions. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I feared as much :-/. FWIW, in searching I came across this site, which compares various translations and talks about how even simple phrases can be interpreted differently by different people. Even the very first word in the poem, "Hwæt", gets translated as four different words by four translators. Little wonder that concepts as complex as heroism would cause trouble! It's not an essay, though. Matt Deres (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Check over answers

Hello everyone. Quick question: On a test, what are some good strategies for checking over answers for mistakes? I know all the material, so many of the mistakes would probably be careless errors, which no matter how careful I am I cannot prevent all of them. If it helps we can assume we are talking about a standardized test such as the SAT or ACT. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, try using your eyes, and read the questions and your answers again. Sorry to sound flippant, but I'm really not understanding the point of your question. When I was in school, when I got to the end of a test, if time allowed I went back to the top and re-read every question and answer; what else would or could anyone do? Unless you are talking about double-checking math answers, in which case someone else here with better math aptitude might know some tricks. Textorus (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I go over answers backwards (OK, it's been many years...) to avoid the same sequence of patterns of thought. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In my experience (OR alert!), first answers are much more likely to be correct than anything being second-guessed. When I reviewed my answers, what I spent the most time on was making sure I hadn't misread the question the first time. Don't change your answer unless you're quite sure you made a mistake; if you know the material as well as you say, you're generally better off to trust your instincts. I've actually tried Googling a bit to get you a reference (the advice I gave certainly came from someone else; I didn't make that stuff up), but I'm getting drowned out by sites talking about reviewing for a test, which is completely different. Matt Deres (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

During tests, I sometimes made a small mark next to the questions that I wasn't sure of so I could go back and review those first if there wasn't enough time to go through all the answers.Sjö (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Holidays for dates

hey again. I should be studying but this thing in my history book intrigues me. Often it will say things like "And they were back before Thanksgiving" or even "On the Tuesday after Good Friday" in the text with no explanation, and these are about relatively recent events in the main prose, not events whose exact days are unknown, or in quotes. This reminds me of some primary sources when we read it will have something like "A fortnight before Michaelmas" or some holiday and in a footnote the editors say "[holiday] was the feast of [purpose] on [date]" or even "[holiday] celebrated [purpose] but its exact date is unknown/has been lost". Why do textbook writers still use holidays as benchmarks? Even for history students it is imprecise and confusing (I, a Buddhist, don't know when Good Friday is, for example), and they can't expect people in the future to understand it. thnx agn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 23:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Typically this would be taken to mean these days have significance for the characters or persons (fiction or history), and/or if it's a date no longer celebrated often also insisting in setting the ambiance. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

They use those terms because those are (or were in the historical period under discussion) major holidays that are or were used to mark time in Christian societies. Good Friday and Thanksgiving and others fall under the heading of moveable feasts, which even Christians don't know the date of in any particular year without consulting a calendar. The same is true for most other cultures, I'm sure; so instead of wondering why the world was not set up totally for your private convenience, you would do better to make yourself a short list of major Christian holidays and their approximate dates: e.g., Good Friday/Easter = March/April, Thanksgiving (U.S.) = late November, etc. Which is, in fact, how even Christians mentally think of those dates when they read them in historical works. Many times, the precise day of the year is not as important as knowing the general season; or in the case of British universities, the fact that the academic year was divided into terms named for saints' days, like Michaelmas, which started way back in the Middle Ages, long before anyone knew you had a preference about it.

I personally can sympathize with you, though. I have no clue when Ramadan or Rosh Hashonah (sp?) are supposed to occur, for example. But I don't take it as a personal affront when I see references to them in books; I know I can always use a reference work to find out the exact dates, if it's truly important to do so. Most of the time, it's not. Textorus (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Of those mentioned so far, Ramadan is different because it's not even confined to an approximate seasonal recurrence -- it can occur at any month in the year... AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, not really, it only occurs during the month of Ramadan :) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"Why do textbook writers still use holidays as benchmarks?" What would you rather see them do, 24.92.78.167? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the OP wants to see them use day #'s, like Day 3 for January 3rd, etc, up through day 365. 84.153.216.113 (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A Buddhist unfamiliar with Christian holy days will find the article Good Friday helpful. A Christian unfamiliar with Buddhist holy days will find the article Vesākha helpful. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This page[10] gives the calender dates for Easter Sunday from 1583 to 2999 should you ever need this information. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

84.153, what? Why wouldn't they just say "January 3rd" or "May 15th" or "November 22nd" in the books? Rimush (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(Tongue firmly in cheek) While we're on the subject, why do history books about China say crazy things like "this event happened during the Ming Dynasty"? That just confuses people who aren't Chinese, how do you expect me to learn Chinese history talking like that. And why do history books have all those strange Chinese characters in them, isn't that insulting to people who can't read Chinese? And what's up with those weird names like "Kangxi Emperor" anyway? Why don't they just say Old King Snortwhistle instead? Besides, emperor is a totally outmoded concept - they should just say "CEO" and not confuse people in the future. Waaaah. Textorus (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

September 18

Open access?

A local, independently owned TV station, which airs many of the same programs as a nearby Fox station, has been airing tons of anti-abortion films and ads, among other things. Is there any law that governs such advocacy programming? Imagine Reason (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Our article on the Fairness Doctrine will probably give you some answers on this point. Textorus (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Note specifically that the Fairness Doctrine was abolished 23 years ago. — Lomn 00:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Speech in the US is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely, see this article. See here for examples of explicit support of anti-abortion violence Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no law that prohibits advocacy programming, but a TV station does have to justify the appropriateness of giving it one of a limited number of available licenses. Looie496 (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Unlicensed Driver

Although this question concerns the law, I am not requesting legal advice. This question has two parts: (1) What sort of penalty or penalties would normally be imposed upon a person in the United States for driving a car without a license? (2) In California, at least, it's illegal for an adult to permit an unlicensed minor in his care to drive in a public place. What sort of penalty or penalties might be imposed for doing so? Would it matter if the child in question was forced rather than permitted to operate the vehicle? 71.165.40.68 (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

For the last part, if the youth was forced, then it would likely result in a charge of kidnapping for the adult and there wouldn't be any repercussions for the youth. As for the first part, could you clarify? Do you mean that they have no license at all or that they simply left their license at home and don't have it on their person when pulled over by the police? Dismas|^(talk) 02:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

To answer the second part; in most states unlicensed youth are required to practice driving with a licensed adult such as their parents and/or their driver's education teacher. The penalty of driving without a license will vary depending on the particular state. The federal government does not manage traffic laws. --Jayron32 03:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Driving without a license on your person results in a fine; the amount (probably $100-$200 or more) varies from state to state, and in some states, the fine might be waived if you show up in court and produce a valid license (which you just forgot to take with you when you were driving your car the day the police stopped you). On the other hand, if you have no driver's license at all, a lot depends on why: if your license was suspended or revoked, say for drunk driving, and you continue to drive, you may be subject to jail time in addition to a hefty fine.

I'm not sure a parent "forcing" their own unlicensed minor to drive a car would be subject to kidnapping charges, though; perhaps the charge known as "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" would be more correct. Also, depending on the age, perhaps "child endangerment." And does "force" here mean a beating, or threat of bodily harm or just a verbal command? Of course, if somebody grabbed a minor off the street and forced the kid to drive a car, that would be kidnapping, a felony, and I think a federal offense: a major crime. Textorus (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I missed the "in his care" part leading to the idea that the adult would be a parent or legal guardian. Dismas|^(talk) 03:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarifications: In the first part of my question, I was referring to a person who never had a driver's license in the first place, not a person who had it suspended or revoked or who happened to leave it at home. In the second part of my question, I am indeed referring to an adult who is a parent, guardian, or employer of the minor in question, ordering a child (not a young student driver with a learner's permit) to drive. Thanks for your insights so far. 71.165.40.68 (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Both actions would certainly be illegal; the penalty - fines and possible jail time - would vary, perhaps quite a bit, depending on which state this event occurred in, and the precise circumstances. Textorus (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Your question necessarily implies legal advice. There are two legal doctrines of interest to the second part of your question: Excuse (legal) and Justification (jurisprudence). With some exceptions, the latter is available as an immunity to most crimes except murder. Shadowjams (talk) 09:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The question is clearly not a request for legal advice, it is a request for information. DuncanHill (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in my opinion asking for legal advice would tend to imply that I'm asking what action I or another person should take about a specific present circumstance, not that I'm asking for general information about the law. Wanting to know what the legal code says about a particular matter is no more soliciting legal advice than taking an academic interest in the workings of the human body constitutes a request for medical advice. I have never operated a motor vehicle without a license, nor encouraged a minor to do so, and I have no intention to do any such thing in the future or to aid and abet anyone else in doing so. I'm not even doing research for a work of fiction. I'm recalling a specific incident that happened about twenty years ago, and wondering what, in theory, might have happened IF the law had gotten involved. As I'm sure the statute of limitations has long since expired on driving violations, and even child endangerment, I would have no ability to take action in this matter even if I were so inclined, which I am not. I am asking merely to satisfy my own curiosity. How this can by ANY definition imply a request for legal advice is beyond my comprehension. Moreover, I am familiar with the concept of justification. Perhaps I should have made it more clear when I asked the question that I was referring to a person driving without a license or causing a minor to do so without ANY remotely acceptable reason WHATSOEVER, but I suppose I thought that was implied in the fact that I was asking what the POSSIBLE penalties MIGHT be. 71.165.40.68 (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We have your word that you are innocent of any ulterior motive and since that comes from an Internet address it must be true. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable, that was low, unnecessary, and bitey. DuncanHill (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was apt. OP is asking about forcing a minor to do something against the law? Being just a little snide in response is hardly uncalled-for. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and be snide. Once you've been sneered at by your father for hesitating to take sole control of the steering wheel while going sixty miles an hour on a busy freeway at the age of ten, the superior attitude of some folks on Wikipedia hardly makes a dent. 71.165.40.68 (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that was a very frightening experience. Ignore the rudeness. The current California Motor Vehicle Code can be found here, though of course many of its provisions may have changed in the last twenty years. I hope this provides the information you were looking for. Textorus (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No offense, Anon IP 71.165.40.68. We get all kinds here, though. Some have "ulterior motives" as Cuddlyable3 put it -- to cause disruption and distress on the part of old-time editors and new readers alike by asking questions on "sensitive" topics that are carefully designed to do that. As an Anon IP without an established identity here at wikipedia, it's hard for us to tell where you are coming from, or why you might be asking this question. I apologize if my own comment gave you any offense at all; now that you have provided a bit more context, further snideness on my part would not seem to be called for anymore. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you've hit a whole other kettle of fish. According to Defense of infancy, in some US states a 10 year old person has not yet reached the age of criminal responsibility. In other words, even if they stole a car and drove it, completely willingly they couldn't be held criminally responsible for anything. They may still be subject to some sort of rehabilitation (right word?) of course. Also if someone is not sitting in the driver's seat and not supervising but is order to take the wheel by the driver, I doubt that they'd be considered the driver so it's doubtful that they could be penalised whatever their age and driving license status. Nil Einne (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No hard feelings, WikiDao. Thank you all for your help. 71.165.40.68 (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Come back any time. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Real Eastern European nation

Somebody told me that a real Eastern European nation was an Orthodox Church and was ruled by Commumnism. Is this true or false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.43 (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, most of them. The orthodox church in Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, Romania, etc, all continued to exist under communist rule. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not really. Lithuania is an historically Catholic nation, and most people would consider them unambiguously part of Eastern Europe. Unless your friend was guilty of the No true Scotsman fallacy. --Jayron32 03:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think he meant "was that situation ever real", not "no true Scotsman..." Adam Bishop (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

See, I read it to mean that only Orthodox/Communist nations could be "real" Eastern European nations; which would exclude Orthodox/Non-communist nations (like Greece) or Catholic/Communist nations (Like Poland or Lithuania) or countries that were neither (Finland?) from being part of "Eastern Europe". While most of these lie on the fringes of Eastern Europe, at least in the case of Lithuania, it is unambiguously both Catholic and formerly Communist. It is true that most of the Orthodox/Communist nations are the core of what is usually thought of as Eastern Europe, some were not. --Jayron32 04:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whether the question is about the historical situation in Eastern Europe, or about today? Textorus (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe its a reference to the post-soviet communist gov't in Moldova? --Soman (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "real Eastern European nation". "Eastern European" is a term of abuse today and nobody wants to be called that. Really, it's offensive. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, then exactly what would you call those European countries that lie east of Germany, Austria, and Italy? We're talking geographic areas here, not personal insults based on country of origin. Some people from the northern parts of my country use "Southern" as a derogatory word, but that doesn't mean the South doesn't exist. Textorus (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd call them European countries. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that Western Europeans, Northern Europeans and Southern Europeans prefer to be called that in preference to (respectively) West Europeans, North Europeans and South Europeans. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd consider everything roughly east of the Rhine or a bit further east, north of the Alps, south of the Baltic, and west of the former USSR border to be Central Europe - it's still quite a long way to the Urals... -- 83.104.44.241 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Any statement that says 'no one wants to be called that' or otherwise make blanket statements about a large number of humans is nearly always wrong Nil Einne (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyway the original question is too difficult for us to understand or answer properly. Could the original enquirer explain his or her meaning further? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Does Eastern Europe help answer your question? 86.165.21.74 (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Croatia and Slovenia are largely Catholic as well, and Bosnia-Herzegovina is largely Muslim. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

But then, those aren't Eastern European countries by most definitions, as you can see in the article linked right above your reply. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

$20 in Taxi Driver

Just out of curiosity.... I'm wondering about the interpretation of the $20 bill, and what Robert DeNiro's character does with it, in the film Taxi Driver. For anyone who's seen the film but needs a refresher... at one point Jodie Foster's character (the underage prostitute) gets into DeNiro's cab and wants him to take her away, but the pimp who's in charge of her comes and drags her back out, and tosses DeNiro a 20. DeNiro leaves it sitting on the seat for the rest of the night, and when he gets off work he hesitantly takes it and sticks it with his jacket (whereas the rest of the money goes in the official box or whatever). Then, later in the film when he first meets Foster's character in the brothel, as he's leaving he apparently gives that same bill to the bouncer and says "this is yours" or something along those lines. I can't figure out what that gesture might be supposed to mean...can anyone offer any speculation, or perhaps the names of articles that discuss that? Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's transparent, isn't it? The $20 is a bribe from the community of pimps, papasans, etc. Essentially, it's an invitation to become a part of that world. Bickle is uncomfortable to be given that money, but doesn't know how he can refuse it. Later, having conceived his bloody plan (or having begun to conceive it), he feels that he's found a way to reject that bribe and assert his independence. So he gives the money back. Anyway, that's how I would read it. LANTZY^TALK 09:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's the pretty overt message. He gets "hush money," he later throws it back in their face. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks! rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

To say the same thing again (just to make sure it's dead;): taking the money was wrong, rescuing the girl was right. It's at the center of the whole film, actually: that's the event that set him forth on the right crusade. Interesting question, I hadn't picked up on that before. I haven't seen the film in years. I'll look around for some sourced discussion on this, though. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Taxi Driver#Interpretations of the ending: "Travis 'is not cured by the movie's end,' and that, 'he's not going to be a hero next time.'" Doesn't directly address your question, but at least suggests that this guy was out looking for any violent crusade to give his life meaning; he just happened to stumble into one this time (at the moment of the bribe) that the viewer can agree is a "good" crusade, violent as it may be. Assassinating politicians, though... usually not a good idea, even if it's for Jodie Foster. ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why no German empire?

Germany had a bigger population than Great Britain, yet even before it lost what little overseas territory it had after WW1 and WW2, it did not have much of an empire during the 19th. century. Why not? 92.15.24.80 (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It did - a land empire. The Pre-WWI German Empire controlled considerable swaths of land containing subject people, particularly Poles. Germany was not a maritime power like Britain or France (or, earlier, Spain and Portugal), particularly before 1871 when Prussia absorbed the western part of Germany into the German Empire. By then, much of the overseas easy pickings had been claimed. Herostratus (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Short of finding some reliable sources, I think'll you can draw three strong points. Firstly, German unification only happened in 1871, leaving little time; before this, continental politics (the Franco-Prussian War, Austro-Prussian War for examples, there are many others). Secondly, the number of Poles (and to a lesser extent) Slavs already made Germany a somewhat multiculturist state, and it was similarly weakened by religious differences; thirdly, historians have debated the willingness of the German establishment for an overseas empire. Typically, the failure of the Prussian East India Company and similar ventures and the introduction of dreadnoughts being the start of a significant Germany Navy will be noted. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 17:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how the fact that Germany had already had ethnic minorities at home could be a reason why they didn't build a great empire overseas. Britain had their own, often similarly oppressed, minorities (Scots, Irish, etc.) at home too, yet it didn't stop them from creating the British Empire. The first reason Jarry1250 mention above seems more plausible: Germany, like the U.S. and Japan, was a relative newcomer on the stage of global emperialist politics and most of the pie had been already carved up. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Britain opressed the Irish granted, but the Scots? They were pretty hot on the empire building front themselves. Alansplodge (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not from the UK, so I can't say for certain, but this is the first time in my life I've ever heard the Scots called an "oppressed" people. The Irish, yeah, but the Scots? Really? Textorus (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

See Highland Clearances, although some of it was oppression of the poor by the Scottish rich, rather than the English.
Rojomoke (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've read about the clearances, which were very tragic but limited I think to poor people in a remote part of Scotland, no? The phrase "oppressed people" to my mind would suggest a definite, deliberate discriminatory policy of a ruling government against all members of a certain ethnic/religious/etc. group - which I don't think applies to Scots in general, though I'm willing to be educated on this point if there's something I've overlooked in reading British history. Textorus (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

They did begin a colonial empire by the 1870's, with possessions in Africa and the Pacific, but WW1 cut it short and they lost it all. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Namibia, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Botswana, Cameroon, German New Guinea, the Bismarck Archipelago, the German Solomon Islands, the Carolines, Palau, the Marianas, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, German Samoa, Tsing Tao and more; not a bad effort for little more than 30 years' work[11]. See German colonial empire (which sadly fails to mention which actual colonies it is talking about, apart from a map with no writing on it). Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Botswana does not belong on that list; it was a British protectorate up until independence and was never German. --John (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

However, Togoland (as any reasonably assiduous schoolboy stamp-collector could tell you) would be on that list. Germany's mainland African colonies were Togo, Kamerun, German East Africa and German South-West Africa. After World War I, both Togoland and the Cameroons were divided into British and French mandates under the League of Nations. Part of the British Cameroons joined French Cameroun on independence, and part joined Nigeria. The British mandate of Togoland voted (with the north far more in favour than the south) to join the Gold Coast in forming Ghana in 1957. German East Africa was divided into the British mandate of Tanganyika (which merged after independence with Zanzibar into the United Republic of Tanzania) and the Belgian one of Ruanda-Urundi (which became Rwanda and Burundi upon independence in 1960). Southwest Africa was a mandate of the Union of South Africa, which challenged the United Nations' authority to revert the mandate/trusteeship.—— Shakescene (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, apologies for the mistakes - it was done in a bit of a hurry; I couldn't find a full list anywhere. The Botswana error came from the site that I referenced; "Germany’s colonial empire grew quickly to encompass territories in Africa (Deutsch-Ostafrika, Deutsch-Westafrika, Deutsch-Südwestafrika, and Botswana)...". I thought of Togoland just now but you beat me to it. Are there any more I missed? Alansplodge (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

My own apologies: instead of showing off, I should have looked to see if I could find such a list on Wikipedia; one does in fact exist (it just needs a far better indicator on the German colonial empire page; any volunteers?) See List of former German colonies and the navigation box below, Template:Former German colonies. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Shakescene; according to that list, part of Botswana was in German hands before 1918 and was called Südrand des Caprivi-Zipfels. Alansplodge (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I was going to mention that (that Botswana wasn't a completely wrong answer) but didn't for some reason. See the rather short article on the Caprivi Strip, which connects the Rhodesias (Zambia and Zimbabwe) to Southwest Afica at the cost of separating Botswana (the Bechuanaland Protectorate) from Angola ("Portuguese West"). —— Shakescene (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

German colonization of the Americas discusses some earlier and unsuccessful coloniers. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Prince von Bismarck thought them a waste of imperial efforts, so as long as he was in office as Imperial Chancellor, Germany sought no colonies. Once Wilhelm II took power and forced out Bismarck, he was attempting to increase the glory of the Empire, and one of those things was colonies to enable Germany to have coaling stations for its increased navy. Nyttend (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

where can I listen to just this basic melody?

File:Faeries-aire.gif

Score

where can I listen to just the basic, fast melody here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx02KOGhjes without all that extra crap underneath it (for example, the machine gun rattle, and the Mario-like power up sounds. Just the nice, catchy melody... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.13.140 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We actually have an article, Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz, that describes the piece. You can use the info there to find other performances -- but I'm afraid you might not find one of the sort you want. Looie496 (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty obviously not the same piece at all. The Faerie's Aire is literally unplayable: much of the symbols and notes don't have any musical meaning. The youtube is just a very fast, technically detailed piece being played by a computer. Buddy431 (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the comments, there seem to be a considerable number of people saying it's a version of "U.N. Owen was her" [12], which is in turn somehow related to "McRoll'd" [13]. I pass no judgement on the matter, other than saying that we live in a great age when we can spend time and computing power creating such things. Buddy431 (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"U.N. Owen was her" is a song created by ZUN for the Touhou Project, being target of inumerous remixes, it is related to "McRoll'd" as much as it is related to any other thing, see [14] 200.144.37.3 (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Piano music

What is the most difficult ca. classical era piano piece to play (or what are some notoriously difficult pieces)? On an unrelated note (no pun intended :) I know that certain keys (many of the minor and diminished, for example) sound "sad". Are any especially or "most" sad? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Piano Concerto No. 3 (Rachmaninoff) is usually cited as one of the hardest to play. --Viennese Waltz 09:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

From the classical era, try Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 29 (that page cites his Diabelli Variations as another hard'un). Ericoides (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

So Rachmaninov isn't from the classical era, then? So what era is he from, and what period does the classical era cover? --Viennese Waltz 10:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

See our Classical period (music), where it's classed as 1750–1820. I'd call Rach a late Romantic, but others will have their own opinions. Ericoides (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Post Romantic is another opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That article looks like b****cks to me, calling Brahms a Post-Romantic when he was the non plus ultra of Romanticism. Ericoides (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I myself wouldn't call Brahms Post-Romantic because I'd prefer to reserve that term for composers (like Rach) who wrote in a more or less Romantic style after the Romantic era ended, while Brahms lived right in the middle of it. But I wouldn't call him the nec plus ultra of Romanticism either, because his sense of form is very classical, very Beethoven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Liszt? Scriabin?--Wetman (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are the names of composers, who wrote abominably tricky pieces but also some easier ones. One piece that's near the top of the "hardest" lists is Maurice Ravel's Gaspard de la nuit, particularly the section called "Scarbo". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If we're not talking classical in the strict sense, can I suggest Kaikhosru Sorabji?

That's also the name of a composer, not a particular piece of music. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the question on keys, there are various answers claimed here, but note that unless you have perfect pitch you can probably not distinguish different keys by sound anyway. Personal anecdote: when I came to try playing Cesar Franck's Prelude, Fugue and Variations for organ, my conviction that it was in one key got in the way, because it was actually in an unrelated key (Bm vs Gm, but I don't recall which was which). That is the only time I can recall having a strong belief as to the key of a piece I hadn't seen. --ColinFine (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking for identity of Poet and Poem circa 1920s

I read a poem recently, and can't remember the title or the poet's name, and haven't had any luck googling it. I read a little about the poet, who was quite well regarded at (I think) Cambridge or Oxford university in the 1920s, and started up a poetry group. He was sickly, diabetic, very pale, and died young. The poem was quite short and about someone having to be different, and in doing this, finding that he was the same as everyone else. Any ideas, please? Snorgle (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Googling "diabetic poet oxford 1920" gives Clere Parsons, is that the one? Sounds like his poem, "Different" [15] Textorus (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

He's been anthologised in OUP's Anthology of Twentieth-Century British and Irish Poetry, and Penguin's Poetry of the Thirties. DuncanHill (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Some more about him here. DuncanHill (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And a little more here. Also, he was mentioned in an article in the TES in 2009, Different was recommended alongside Benjamin Zephaniah for use in "Who do we think we are" discussions with pupils, here. DuncanHill (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've made a very stubby stub at Clere Parsons, any and all help in improving and expanding it would be very welcome. DuncanHill (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the one - thanks for the help! Snorgle (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking, and thank you Textorus for identifying him - I shall be looking out for his work. DuncanHill (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, glad you could make an addition to the encyclopedia here. Sad story, though; and since our insulin article says it was being mass-produced from 1922 onwards, and he died in 1931, I wonder what the cause of death was? Textorus (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I just read the stub you wrote. Duh. Textorus (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

September 19

Musical question

Should Tritonic (1) redirect to Tritone (2) redirect to Musical scale, or (3) remain a dab page with these two entries? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I would try to expand it. schyler (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the unlinked band gets no ghits to speak of. Based on what you've added, I'm going with (2). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to identify a film

I have only seen a small part of it and the sound wasn't working well, but I believe it is English language. Judging by the clothing and furnishings it was set some time in the 19th century, and appeared to revolve around a boy of about 13-15 and a younger girl (8-10) who may have been his sister.

One scene involves the boy being spanked in an ornate sitting room in front of a group of people (family members?). A priest or monk seems to be orchestrating the punishment, and a rough looking man actually physically restrains the boy on a sofa. Several of the witnesses appear to be upset by this, while others look a bit smug, as if they dislike the kid and are glad to see him being punished. Afterwards the little girl talks to him in a dimly lit bedroom and she seems to be trying to console him.

It's definitely not Fanny and Alexander, although the bits that I saw were strongly reminiscent of it. Can anyone help me identify it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Little radiolarian (talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Trogia Gazzela

Does anybody know anything about her? She was the mistress later wife of Alfonso II of Naples. I can't seem to find out anything about her what her background was, when they married, and when she died?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Italian Wikipedia doesn't have anything on her either. Women's lives in the Middle Ages were often not as well documented as men's, even if they were queens, so there may not be much anyone can know about her at this late date. Though it's interesting to see that she was the mother-in-law of Lucrezia Borgia and remotely possibly the stepmother of the model for the Mona Lisa.

You can't find her on any of the other language wikipedia or on google (except for some useless genealogical pages)!--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't discount the genealogical pages out of hand. I know from researching my own family tree that most serious genealogists are intrepid researchers, and some have tracked down the vital statistics of the most obscure kinds of people. Along the way, they may also turn up historical details too. Textorus (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not like I didn't read them. All they say basically is that she married Alfonso II of Naples and had two sons with him, and that's pretty much it.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What's this supposed to mean ?

"...In 1941, before independence, the mummies were killing the Indian Medical Council, in order to introduce a uniform standard of medical education, abolished substandard schools, and raised many others to a university..." (italics mine) on this page  Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It was an old piece of vandalism, which has now been removed. DuncanHill (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It was added in this edit. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to find the edit that introduced something to an article? I remember something—I think it was called "Wiki-blame," but I couldn't figure out how to use it. Any other ways? Or just slow slogging through the edit history? Bus stop (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiblame can do it (ages since I've used it though), otherwise it's the slog - but popups do help with that. DuncanHill (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Popups? What are popups? Is that like Pop-Ems? Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. I somehow don't think I'll be trying fat-free, vegan, little brown jobs :( DuncanHill (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The editor who introduced the weird text says "I just recreated it after it was wrongly moved. Did not actually read every piece since I was only moving it. It seems that the history somehow got deleted." (see User talk:Rzafar#Dow University of Health Sciences. The previous history was lost. Is there a way to find and reattach the lost history, since otherwise the intellectual property rights of earlier editors appear to be violated? Edison (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Balliols and the Infanta Alicia

It is say that Infanta Alicia, Dowager Duchess of Calabria is the heir general of John of Scotland. But I don't think the Balliols left any descendants, so who were the heirs of Balliols after Edward Balliol's death?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a really good question, since John apparently had only one child, a son who died without issue. But the statement about John in Infanta Alicia's article is without a citation; so maybe that information is incorrect. I see that one of the reference links says this, which is a different claim: she is "senior representative of Edward the Confessor, King of England, David I, King of Scotland, and the ancient Kings of Navarre." Beyond that point I can go no further; those convoluted European royal genealogies make me dizzy, and I've already been driven to the point of madness wondering about Freddie's overbite. Textorus (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

nina simone vs. jihad

I've come across this in an article I read:

For sure, there aren’t many members of the new media who would post a video of Nina Simone singing “Love Me or Leave Me” on the same day (July 23) she (i.e. Pamela Geller) posted a picture of kaffiyeh-wearing youth holding up a swastika under the blog title “ ‘Palestinian’ Jihad Flag to Fly at the UN.”

and I can't figure out the Nina Simone vs. Jihad reference. What is it supposed to mean? Why would it be something unthinkable, as the author seems to imply? Any ideas? TomorrowTime (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know for sure. Perhaps a reference to Nina SImone's civil rights activism in the 1960s, along with many Muslim Americans. She also had a friendly (albeit short and boring) encounter with Louis Farrakhan[16]. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Lest I be misunderstood: It's not a Nina Simone vs. Jihad connection. It's the contrasting juxtaposition of Nina Simone who believed in and stood up for civil rights and tolerance, and the polemic act of posting that picture to support a cause which goes against the principles of civil rights and tolerance. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As she said, "please don't let me be misunderstood". Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I wasn't exactly being exact in the naming of this question, but not because I'd be sloppy, I just wanted to give the title a little extra something. The reason I posted this question in the first place is because the way the author just sort of throws that particular factoid into the article made me suspect maybe this was one of those pop-cultural things that are blatantly apparent to an American, but less so to an outsider - something that would result in a reaction of "well, that's just terrible, for obvious reasons" - wherein the reasons aren't obvious to me. Incidentally, I dug up the blog reference as well, if that's any help: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/07/page/2/ - it's right there in the second and forth entry on that page. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Tischreden online?

I've not had any luck finding an online version of Picker's edition of Hitler's Table Talk (in German). Does one exist or is it still under copyright? Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Per German law, it is still under copyright until 2015 (70 years after the death of the author). When Hitler died his entire estate went to the state of Bavaria, which has since refused to allow new German editions of Mein Kampf; they probably also try to prevent publication of his other works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll probably be able to get one from some of the white supremacist organisations, in English at least. For a German language version you may have to try one of the larger German libraries. AllanHainey (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

How is the African union funded?

I looked at the article but it doesn't say. Does each member state contribute some money like the EU?--178.167.195.246 (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This press release states that "The budget is expected to be financed from membership contributions and assistance from development partners." There is a 2006 report on emerging options for funding the organisation here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Who are "development partners"?-178.167.195.246 (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Presumably, all the international organisations, governments, banks and so on who either invest in, or give aid to, Africa - there is unlikely to be a single list of them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

...and corporations.--Wetman (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church List of Banned Books

I just read that up until 1832 Galileo's books still appeared on the Roman Catholic Church's list of books which Catholics are forbidden to read. Is such a list still in force, if so can someone direct me to it? AllanHainey (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Index Librorum Prohibitorum meltBanana 13:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

In the article, it sates that it was abolished in 1966, so no, it is not in force. Aaronite (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Japanese Invasion of Alaska in World War 2

The Pacific Ocean was a wide area for the Japanese army to cross in World War 2. Did the Japanese ever try to cross into Alaska to invade Canada & the U.S.? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

They captured Attu and Kiska in the Aleutians. The Alaska Highway was built at least in part to counter a perceived invasion threat, but it never actually happened. Antandrus (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They sure seemed to want to for a while. Our article Aleutian Islands Campaign has some further information about that attempt, including that they did in fact occupy some outlying Alaskan islands for a brief time. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A minor side note of interest -- it's fun to look at Kiska in Google Earth. They've got the former harbor and airfield at high-resolution, and you can quite clearly see where things used to be. The bomb and shell craters are rather spectacular, as in that part of the world they don't erode away or overgrow quickly. For example, see [51° 57.128'N, 177° 33.032'E]. Antandrus (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read that the Alaska campaign was a feint to divert American forces away from Japan's main offensives further south (just as the Allies spent considerable efforts to persuade the Germans that they'd attack elsewhere than Sicily and later Normandy, e.g. Greece or Scandinavia). The Japanese also sent some incendiary balloons into the forests of the Northwestern United States, which might be just an interesting curiosity had not a few people died from the successfully-set fires. Dashiell Hammett (author of The Maltese Falcon) and some enterprising but very lonely, bored and isolated troops in one of the farther U.S. outposts (I think Adak) exploited its excellent geographical position for intercepting radio communications to put out a regular bulletin of current world events—or so I read in an article in The Nation years ago. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A pregnant mother and five children were killed by a Japanese balloon bomb in Oregon in 1945, the only lethal incident of that kind, according to the wikiarticle. See also Battle of Los Angeles for a false alarm that resulted in six deaths.

No Kings

All countries like India, Japan, Germany, England, France etc. have so many, indeed uncountable number of kings in the history. USA seems to be the only exception. Why is that ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Ascton (talk • contribs)

The modern country of the US is a new country founded only 234 years ago, whereas countries with uncountable numbers of kings in their history have existed in some form for many hundreds or thousands of years. Back then, having kings was the most common form of government, so any country that was around would have had a king. I should point out that the land that now makes up the US had kings from 1534 to 1776, and before that it was divided by the aboriginals into many small regional governments, so there was no unified area to be king of. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the thing about 1534 to 1776, what exactly do you mean ?{{subst:unsigned|Jon Ascton}

King of France and its overseas departments, King of England and all it colonies, etc.--Aspro (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Before the 1534, the area that now makes up the US was ruled by many small local governments. Starting in 1534, different parts of the US were ruled by the kings of Spain, France, and Britain (and to a lesser extent, Netherlands, Sweden, and Russia). In 1776, the part ruled by the British king declared independence from those kings and has had a president as head of state ever since. Eventually the rest of the US joined the independent part to form the country you have today. You can go to Colonial history of the United States to read more about this time in US history. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(more edit conflict) I don't know about 1534 (Cartier claimed "Canada" for France - maybe that included some parts now in the US?), but back to the original question: Very many states have no Kings in their past. Japan, from your list, did not have any king I'm aware of. Finland has not had a king since its independence. Neither has (modern) Israel, or Albania, or Luxembourg, or the Czech Republic, or Turkey, or South Africa, or Argentina, or Mexico (which had an emperor, though, just like Japan), or Peru... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I depends on what you call part of a country's history. The modern country of France is the French Fifth Republic, which was founded in 1958, but it would be silly to say that there has never been a king of France. The same could be said of all of the countries on your list. As for my 1534 year, I don't know when New France expanded deep into the US, but in 1534 it included the shores of the St. Lawrence, which I would guess includes upstate New York. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indeed, it's just confirmation bias, as well as fuzzy accounting for when the history of a "country" begins, and what it means to "have a king". There are many (usually fairly young) countries that have never had a monarchy. Peru and Chile are in some ways similar to the United States and, since independence, haven't had a king. You claim Germany has had many kings, but I disagree. The area where Germany now is has had kings rule portions of it, but the modern state of Germany has not. The current France has never had a king. Why do we count monarchist France as being the same country as modern France, but aren't willing to consider colonial North America to be the same as the modern United States of America? Canada has a Queen, but she doesn't live there and probably couldn't care less about how the country is run. Buddy431 (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Dumping on the poor old Queen again, who has made 20 visits to Canada during her reign and repeatedly expressed her enduring interest in and affection and admiration for Canadians. Whether Canadians themselves reciprocate the feeling is a different question, but the sincere interest of the lady herself is beyond question. Personally, I would have retired to Tahiti long ago and told all my ungrateful subjects to bugger off, but that just shows what a sweetheart the old girl is, still hard at work anyway. Textorus (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't meen to question her majesty's sincerity, but I think that's kind of a silly argument. Most countries have their head of state visit more often than once every 2.5 years. In fact, many even have their heads of state live in the country. Saying that she has visited 20 times in 57 years isn't really saying a lot. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

She does have a lot more countries to visit than any other head of state. Just about the one thing you'll find politicians, political commentators etc of all hues all agree on is her deep commitment to the Commonwealth and particularly to her Commonwealth Realms. DuncanHill (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Arctic Gnome, you are confusing two entirely different issues, as I specified in my comment. Nobody but an ignoramus can doubt, based on tons of reliable sources, that the Queen has a genuine interest in Canada as well as all her 15 other Commonwealth realms. And as a Canadian yourself, you know perfectly well that she is represented, personally, by a Governor-General for all the day-to-day tasks required of the Canadian monarchy; so it's not like you folks have been simply ignored for years at a time, as I understand it from this side of the border. Now - as to whether this system of a shared or divided crown - which Elizabeth II didn't dream up on her own, it was that way when she got the job - is a workable or even advisable system, well, that is of course for you and your compatriots to decide. Frankly, I have a strong suspicion that the whole system will come loose at the seams after the demise of the current monarch, whom God preserve. But I admire Her Majesty very much for her tireless devotion to duty, whether her own subjects appreciate that or not. She could have been painting her toenails on the beach at Cannes all these years, you know; but as a person who has made the best of a truly rotten job, she's quite a remarkable woman I think, who won't be fully appreciated until its far too late to tell her so. Textorus (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no question that she takes her job seriously, has respect for her realms, and is a competent and intelligent person. Furthermore, the idea of a foreign and hereditary head of state does seem to work well enough, as we've gone this long without descending into political anarchy or dictatorship. The question comes down to a matter of political philosophy and how one views the relationship between the people and their monarch. Does the job of personifying the state need to be done full time, or can it be designated to governors general? Can one rule with consent of the masses by virtue of them not campaigning to change the system, or does consent need to be renewed via term limits or elections? Will someone perform better at a job if they are born into it or if they win a competition for the job? Good arguments could be made for both sides, and I don't think that you can label either side as right or wrong. I will say, however, that if a general referendum ever showed a clear majority opposed to the status quo after an educated debate, we would have to change it, because she really can't rule without at least having implicit consent of her subjects. This is probably only a matter of time, because as primarily British-descended people become a smaller percent of the population, some prime minister will eventually figure that he can gain political capital by holding a referendum, and her support level has always been a bit shaky here given the francophone population. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No doubt it will come to that in most or all Commonwealth realms, eventually. Certainly the experience of my own country has amply proven these 200+ years that the monarchy is not essential, and perhaps your country will decide the same thing one day. Which is your privilege, of course, as it was ours: We the people, and all that. I do hope it won't be during the lifetime of this Queen, though, because from all I've read, upholding and promoting the Commonwealth has been one of her guiding interests all along; and I suspect future historians will discover she has been a quiet influence for peace, tolerance, and goodwill behind the scenes in many ways not now generally recognized. A great lady, and a classy dame; they don't make them like that anymore. Textorus (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. By the way, a country can stay in the Commonwealth of Nations even after getting their own head of state. India and the African countries did. It's now like a club for democratic English-speaking countries, (similar to the Spanish-speaking Hispanidad and French-speaking Francophonie). I think even if every member state got its own head of state, people would be happy keeping the British monarch as head of the organization for tradition's sake. Your country should think about joining, it has its own athletic and cultural events and whatnot. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the invitation. Joining the Commonwealth, what a marvelous idea. And it would be totally appropriate, for all the reasons you mentioned; now why didn't I think of that before? No doubt Her Majesty would give us a warm family welcome, too. Only thing is, sigh, it would probably just be seen here as another devilish attempt by our allegedly atheist-muslim-fascist-communist President to deliver the country into the hands of the Forces of Darkness, and that would cause no end of a screaming row. But I love the idea, though; makes perfect sense. Textorus (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Australia has never had a king. Nor New Zealand, unless you go back to the Maoris. Nor South Africa, unless you count kings of individual tribes. In fact there are lots of exceptions. Looie496 (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless you count the people in our List of Australian monarchs or List of New Zealand monarchs. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a List of South African monarchs? It should include Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II. DuncanHill (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

India has never had a King. Ireland has never had a king, etc.--178.167.195.246 (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

India had a King from 15th August 1947 to 25th January 1950, when it became a republic, see King_of_India#King_of_India_and_Pakistan. Ireland had a King from the establishment of the free State until 1949 when it became a republic. See Monarchy in the Irish Free State. DuncanHill (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ireland had kings well before the free state; Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid was crowned King of Ireland more than one thousand years earlier. India, likewise, has had hundres of maharajas in its history, which is a king-level position. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thus always to tyrants.

• The United States of America came into existence as a constitutional republic and has been one ever since. (The State I am in right now, Virginia, has as it's official motto: Sic semper tyrannis – "thus always to tyrants"). Did you really not know this, Jon? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You do realize that "Virginia" was named by Queen Elizabeth I and Sir Walter Raleigh, and the region was settled as a British Tobacco colony, right? 1776 marked the point of revolution - same people, same territory, different name. --Ludwigs2 20:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Different country. A new one. Please see our Declaration of Independence. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
      • lol - that's either ridiculous or unnecessarily parochial. or both. By that logic, we'd have to say that France has never had a king either, since they had an equivalent revolution in the late 18th century and became a new nation. and, of course, China has never had an emperor (because of the Maoist revolution) - the forbidden palace belonged to some unknown people who existed before the modern state of China came into being. And neither Cuba nor Mexico has any relation to Monarchy either. Sorry, but you can't mix and match your definitions of 'state' to satisfy your personal preconceptions. --Ludwigs2 21:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
      • The Virginia General Assembly repeatedly calls itself "the oldest continuous law-making body in the New World" given that it was established in 1619 (for example, here). So they seem to think that the British colony and the US state are a continuation of the same political entity. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Good solid points, Ludwigs and Gnome. (And "Louisiana" had an Emperor before Napoleon sold it, too.) France went through some administrative changes, but remained France in the same sense that an adult used to be an adolescent used to be a child. The US "budded" off the British Empire as a de novo national entity with the key feature of royal-sovereignlessness. That's the way I see it, and I'm the one who gets to say. Me and my army. :) Foggetaboutit. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• I find it kind of funny that you can simultaneously quote a document that discusses self-evident and inalienable political truths while also suggesting that truth is determined by military strength :P. Nevertheless, I agree that there is some validity to the argument that the federal union of the United States did not exist until the states actually joined together. Maybe we should say that the federation never had a king, but the individual states did. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• I find it funny that the above statement about Louisiana's emperor is wrong - the Louisiana purchase was in 1803, with formal transfer of ownership on March 10, 1804. Napoleon crowned himself emperor on May 18, 1804. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)brilliant point steven :) Before they became States of the Union, sure. But that event was more "discontinuous" than the sorts of transitions many nations have been through. The US became a new independent national entity by due legislative process and was made fact (despite objections) by declaration on July 4, 1776 -- it did not exist before that date. It did not come from nowhere, either -- all the various component sub-entities of it each had their own previous histories, of course. And note that the declaration itself hardly seemed to matter at the time and was mostly ignored: it was the the army and navy that made it happen, and it wouldn't have happened otherwise no matter how self-determined or legislatively self-evident it may have claimed its new existence to be. ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

aaaaah, yeah. Jingoism at its best. Please keep in mind that all nations (from the lowest to the highest) maintain armies; there's nothing special about that at all. and you can certianly engage in historical revisionism to paint whatever picture of the US you so desire - that was a major pastime in the 19th century, when every one idealized the US as being somehow free of European history. As I said, that perspective is either silly or parochial. --Ludwigs2 04:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• "The United States of America came into existence as a constitutional republic and has been one ever since." I am not sure what you find silly or parochial about that statement. Enough, Ludwigs. I see no substantial disagreement here. :) Cheers, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• • The parochiality and silliness lie in the dual assumptions that (a) the US congealed out of thin air, with no relation to the previous forms of governance that ruled Europeans in the continental US (all of which were monarchical - remember that the Boston tea party was a revolt against taxes levied by a king), and (b) the assumption that this in some way makes the US special. as I said, and will extend here, if you want to take this kind of blindered definition, then it is equally true of Cuba, Mexico, and in fact of most of the central and south American nations (almost all of which came into existence by revolting against European powers), and also most of the African states, possibly India (which I think went straight to a republican form after relieving itself of Britain) and most of the south-east asian nations. In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an ex-colonial nation that wasn't 'invented' as a non-monarchical system after breaking free form the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, or what you will, because most of those nations were built by colonials steeped in Enlightenment-era Liberalism who encouraged such constitutional ideals. Maybe Japan and China, but then Japan was never as thoroughly colonized as African or South American nations, and China went fairly quickly to communism after they claimed independence from the colonial system (12 years or so between the boxer rebellion and the establishment of the Chinese republic). Your claim has no historical scope. --Ludwigs2 06:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All this in response to a question from your ol' friend Jon, Ludwigs2...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

no. all this in response to misinformation. I have nothing against Jon except that he's a bit childish; he'll grow out of that in time. but if we're going to answer one of his questions we should at least do it accurately. --Ludwigs2 07:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, even the opening question itself is mistaken, as, other than the European emperors of colonial times, the USA itself also had a king. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Le Roi est Mort: "[o]n the reeking pavement, in the darkness of a moon-less night under the dripping rain..., Norton I, by the grace of God, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico, departed this life". lolz :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This highlights a hidden truth. San Francisco is the only city in the US that has a decent sense of humor. --Ludwigs2 21:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Many countries which "had lots of kings" are now the combination of several smaller countries. This is true of Germany and of the UK. Parts of the UK had separate kings back in the day. Parts of Germany had separate rulers back in the day. In the land constituting the present US, there were indeed once numerous local native kings or rulers such as Chief Powhatan, who was considered a "King" rather than just an "Indian Chief" by the Europeans of his day [17], as in this writing from 1612:[18]. Edison (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• To sum up (I think): India, Japan, Germany, England, and France have all at one time or another been ruled at least nominally by a monarch as those countries (I'm counting Victoria for India in a way that George was not to the Colonies -- debatable, I know). USA has never been ruled by a monarch as the USA. That seems to be the only real difference specifically in regard to your question. Beyond that, it breaks down into a lot of points-of-view so there's not really any one answer to try to give you. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In the case of federal countries, it's pretty much a matter of whether you count the union as a different entity from the sum of its parts. A similar question would be: if your ancestors moved to Boston in 1710, can you say that your family has lived in the US for three hundred years, or have they only been living in the US since 1776? I would argue the former, but the later is technically true. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, the Federal Republic of Germany never had a king, either. Nor the Confœderatio Helvetica. You are applying diffent definitions - why is the FRG "Germany", but the US not "America"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hence: no one real answer to this question. And given that Jon's the one asking it, that may have been the point... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the anger above comes from a failure (perhaps convenient) to define terms. The States of the U.S. never had a King as they exist today, but they did as colonies of Britain. I don't know how much of a war you need before Virginia the state is no longer a colony... and that goes for other nations too.. but I think that one met the test. France would be a good example of another example. If you want to talk geographical regions, then North America had hundreds of sovereign nations (as they continue to be recognized by the U.S. government) prior to widespread western settlement. But that goes on ad infinitum until the first homo sapiens set foot on a piece of ground and declared it his own, or maybe until the first one laid up with an ankle sprain envisioned government. Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Every Man a King" (Huey P. Long) or "Monarch of all he surveys" (William Cowper on Alexander Selkirk, the model for Robinson Crusoe) —— Shakescene (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Wartime (?) Song

Does anyone know the name of the song in the background of this video? Cheers --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's "Тёмная ночь" ("Dark Night"). Music by Nikita Bogoslavsky, lyrics by A. Fatyanov and V. Agatov. English words by Hal David). Here are lyrics and translation. It gets mentioned in these WP articles. It was composed for the movie Two Soldiers (1943), directed by Leonid Lukov. You can watch and listen to Mark Bernes singing it in one of the original scenes here. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Cheers! You're a star! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Medieval Paleographic “Identifont”

I'm looking for a page that helps to differentiate between a diversity of medieval fonts. (Preferably more differentiated than “insular” vs. “humanist” vs. “Textualis”.)

I found a page like that some days ago, with a lot of questions to answer (each answer was a page-intern anchor link) and some three example images for most questions (and a red backgroud, I think, if that helps...), unfortunately I didn't bookmark it and can't find it again.

Thanks in advance if someone can give me a hint where I found it or where I might find something similar :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalkühl (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"Font" is a term usually applied to printed text. For hand-written text, the term used for a style of writing is usually "Hand" (e.g. Chancery hand or Court hand) or "Script". We have a Category:Medieval scripts, but that doesn't appear to be quite what you remember. -- 174.21.233.249 (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to start with the penmanship article - it has a lot of links that might take you where you want to go. Also the calligraphy article. --Ludwigs2 07:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Corporate personhood in Canada

What rights to corporate persons not have in Canada? I'm assuming that they cannot vote or have custody of a child. Are there any others? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.161.203.6 (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the articles Corporation and Legal personality? Those as well as the linked references should give you some idea of the limitations on corporate rights generally in Anglo-American law, which would include Canada; though of course particular details may vary from one country, state, or province to another. Textorus (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

September 20

Marx's ecclesiastic friend?

Did he have one? A book says he had one by the name of Thomas Munser who was German and who organised peasants in very large numbers. Reactionaries plotted and killed him and Marx broke into tears hearing the news of his death. My guess is that the guy who wrote the book (who is a priest) mistook Thomas Müntzer for a friend of Marx and used his imagination copiously. Or, am I wrong in my guess and there really was a priest friend? The book in question is the autobiography of Father Vadakkan and is in Malayalam --117.204.89.132 (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a specific answer to your question (I don't think anyone ever kept a list of Marx's personal friends), but Marx himself was nowhere near as anti-religious as later Marxists, and there was a fairly significant Marxist movement among certain Catholic orders at one point (particularly in Germany and Latin America). It's not at all impossible for Marx to have had a religious friend who was butchered by reactionaries, since a lot of people that Marx liked ended up being butchered by reactionaries. --Ludwigs2 05:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems very unlikely that anybody would have been organizing large numbers of peasants in Germany during Marx's era. Given that the communists wrote extensively about Thomas Müntzer, it seems pretty clear that he's the person in question. Looie496 (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

However, it seems unlikely that Marx would shed tears (except possibly metaphorically) over the death of someone 400 years or so before him. And I wasn't talking about revolutionary organizing; Marxist catholics were much more into the 'brotherhood of man' aspect of marxism, and developed small enclaves and organizations dedicated to communist-style social organization. all very non-threatening, though it didn't stop a few of them from getting axed. --Ludwigs2 06:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Plainclothes nuns

Are there any Catholic nuns who don't wear some sort of habit? What about monks? LANTZY^TALK 04:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Garments for monks and nuns are determined by their particular order, and vary. Most orders have "formal" garb for religious purposes, some have obligatory garb that ought to be worn at all times, others allow the sisters and brothers to dress as they like outside of official events or jobs. Generally speaking, anyone who joins a monastic order is likely to want to display the fact when doing anything related to the order's purpose, so you are more likely to see habits and robes when you encounter one in a religious setting than if you encountered one on the street. Priests tend always to wear the collar in public, nuns from conservative orders usually wear some abbreviated version of the habit in public, otherwise all bets are off. --Ludwigs2 04:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, a note on regional variations. Here in Texas and across the Deep South, I haven't seen anyone of any denomination wearing a clerical collar outside of church services, or an identifiable habit, for at least the last 30 years. All that is as gone with the wind as fedoras and beehive hairdos down here, as far as I can tell. Had one college professor, a nun, in the mid-1970s who wore conservative pink and yellow pantsuits with a cross necklace; can't remember anything visible like that since then, although I'm sure there are nuns in Texas. Somewhere. Textorus (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All I know is that this is a broad and complicated question, whose answer differs between the different orders. Vatican II (the Second Vatican Council of the early 1960's under Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI) encouraged or permitted many monks and nuns (including enclosed ones) to engage more closely with outside society; this included adopting dress that separated them less from the lay world and that hindered them less in performing their works of mercy. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Christians

I wish to know more about how Chinese Christians practise and integrate their two cultures. --59.189.217.187 (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on Christianity in China, if that's any help. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What's the smallest element copyrightable/trademarkable?

A single letter? One note? 76.27.175.80 (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

First, copyright and trademark are totally different. You can trademark a single note. You can trademark a single letter. You can trademark a color. You can trademark totally common words. (Apple, for example.) Etcetera. Trademark just means, "I am using this logo/name/noise/brand in a commercial context." It doesn't require any creativity at all. It just requires you to associate it with commercial activity and be the only one doing it. So if your company's commercials always have a clarinet playing C-flat at the end, you can trademark that, no problem. If your company is named "X", that's fine, as long as no one else has the active trademark in your domain. If you stop using the trademark, you lose it. You can search the US Patent and Trademark Office trademark database and find all sorts of one-letter trademarks. The company Orange in the UK has trademarked the color orange for the purposes of telecommunications advertising, for example. That doesn't mean no one else in the world can ever use the color orange, it just means that if you are running a telecommunications company, your logo cannot be made to be confusing with their logo.

As for copyright, in US copyright law, you need to be able to make an argument that there is artistic creativity in the work in question. That's going to be hard to do with something that is extremely short, if you are copyrighting the text itself and not the presentation. There's no hard-and-fast "lower-end" but a haiku could probably be copyrightable, and that's a pretty minimal length, although as you can see that it is still long enough to allow a near-infinite amount of variation. We discussed this a few months ago, too. Of note is the USPTO's guideline that says that you cannot copyright "Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents."[19] --Mr.98 (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your intelligent answer, Mr98. As a side note to what you were saying above, it seems like Vonage would clash with Orange as Vonage is a telecom company and they use a lot of orange in their commercials and packaging. 76.27.175.80 (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)