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

October 2

RCMP

Why does the Canadian police still use horses for transportation? Wouldn't motorcycles or police cars be more practical? --70.245.189.11 (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The RCMP has been driving cars for about as long as the car has existed. Ceremonially, they will ride horses when, like, riding in parades and stuff like that. But for standard law-enforcement purposes, they use cars like every other police agency. Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police#Modern_era has picture of the various cars they use. --Jayron32 01:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police#Equipment_and_vehicles is also good information. --Jayron32 01:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

When they say "Mounted", they really mean it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Clarityfiend) Even in today's day and age, a cop on a horse can be a very practical law enforcement presence. The height makes them quite visible, which both helps the officer see things around them, but also makes their presence very known to everyone about. They're frequently used in crowd control, where their large size and imposing presence are very big pluses. See Mounted police for some more information. Evidently, the United States uses them to patrol the Mexican border as well, where the terrain is not so suited for motorized vehicles. Buddy431 (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I am sure that the RCMP uses horses in law enforcement. However, they do not do so any moreso than other law enforcement agencies. Heck, the city police where I live has a mounted unit, and its not that big of a city. Buddy431 brings up a good point; lots of law enforcement agencies use horses. However, the RCMP does not use them to the exclusion of other transportation methods (which is what the OP implied) despite the word "mounted" in their name. --Jayron32 02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

While there may be other polices forces who use horses as much as or more then the RCMP, however I would be careful with general comparison to other law enforcement agencies.

While the Malaysian police (PDRM) evidentally do have mounted units, I don't know where these are used, but I don't think they are used much. There are some pictures and stuff of them on parade, but the only discussion of the PDRM mounted unit I could find in a reliable source is [1] which just mentions it briefly in the context of a wider story about the Perbadanan Putrajaya mounted unit. The story also mentions some advantages of mounted units. Although I guess you could call that a law enforcement agency of sorts (although as our article notes the term is primarily a North American one and usually refers to police forces in particular), I don't think mounted units for city council enforcement teams and the like occur much at all in most parts of Malaysia either. For example the Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur evidentally has a mounted unit as well but again I don't know what they're used for (this site [2] suggests they're primarily used as sport for the enforcement agents). Living in Malaysia for 19 or so years of my live I don't think I ever saw in action whether on the news or in person any mounted units.

Our article List of mounted police units#New Zealand mentions a mounted unit for the New Zealand police but I can't find any mention or pictures of it in a reliable source and from this discussion [3] it seems that while it once existed, it's fairly long dead (how long appears to be in dispute). From [4] it appears mounted units may be somewhat dying in the US too.

In other words, the use of mounted units depends a lot on local conditions, expectations and traditions IMHO. So while the RCMP are not unique in their use of mounted units, others don't have them at all and some of those that do use them a lot less then the RCMP and others agencies which use them a lot (relatively speaking).

(In a similar vein, the New Zealand police use motorcycles a lot less then the Malaysian police.)

P.S. It's not clear to me that the OP intended to imply the RCMP use horses to the exclusion of other modes of transpoort. They may have simply been intending to suggest that in their opinion, motorcycles and cars would always be better.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Last night I saw an old edition of the BBC comedy quiz QI. The subject of the RCMP came up and there was an extended gag about them trying to chase drug dealers up stairs while on a horse (I think they knew that most of the audience understood that the RCMP don't often use horses now). BTW, about 20 years ago in the City of London, I saw a mounted policeman and a police patrol car racing from opposite ends of the street to answer an emergency call at a bank. The car won but only just; the mounted officer won a round of applause from the bystanders. Alansplodge (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Toronto police ride horses sometimes too. I've never seen them catch anyone like that, but I have seen cars pulled over by police on bicycles. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Silver Saddles" detail, was an old NYPD term. Much photographed.--Wetman (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Where police have abandoned overt brutality, I think there's an intimidation factor about a line of horses, because no one is really responsible for what the horses do, if a line of police on horses presses against a crowd of demonstrators or vice versa. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do American businesses accept Canadian coins?

--70.245.189.11 (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Because they're (currently) close enough to the same value that it's not worth risking a sale and antagonizing a customer over a few cents. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2!! I had this response written for the original question of "Do they" and then it got changed to "Why do they"It depends. For the most part the answer is yes. If you're dealing with the owner of the store, they tend not to. If you're dealing with just some hired help, they'll just pass it off to someone else as their customer just did to them. Banks won't accept them though. Dismas|^(talk) 02:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, they only do in states near Canada. When I lived in New England, I probably got at least one Canadian coin back in my change about once a month or so. Being of nearly identical size and shape as American coins of the same denomination, they are easily confusable, so no one bothers to check. Stores in New England take them freely and give them as change freely. I now live in North Carolina, and in ten years, I haven't gotten a single Canadian coin since being here. Not one. I would have noticed by now, probably, and they really don't make it this far south. If a clerk got one, they quite possibly wouldn't accept it, simply because they wouldn't recognize it. --Jayron32 02:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Having actually made the mistake of including Canadian coins when trying to pay for something on a visit to Raleigh, I can confirm that they will just look at you funny and ask for American money. Also despite being 26 at the time, they wouldn't accept Canadian ID when I tried to buy beer! → ROUX ₪ 03:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've occasionally received Canadian pennies and quarters as change, and I live in Missouri. --70.245.189.11 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In my part of the country, I only notice a Canadian coin in change once every 5 years or so, but I did once find a Croatian(!) coin... AnonMoos (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure 99% of the time because the clerk didn't look close enough to distinguish between Lincoln and QEII. Grsz¹¹ 03:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I get them in California once in a while. Maybe more often than I notice, since I probably spend some without the other person noticing either. I notice them mostly after vending machines reject them. 64.62.206.2 (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

When I worked retail in California some years ago, we were told to try and get rid of them as quickly as possible by putting them in customer change. They couldn't be filed with the bank, and most people don't want them, so they were considered undesirable to have mixed in with other change. We were told similarly about dollar coins, which were too much of a hassle (and people also didn't want them). This was some years ago now so maybe the attitude on dollar coins has changed (I've seen a lot more of them in the last five years or so than I did before). --Mr.98 (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It works the other way too. Along the border in Canada, American money is usually accepted at par (or according to a fixed rate where one American dollar is worth some specific number of Canadian dollars - I remember they do this at the McDonald's at the border in Windsor). Throughout the rest of southern Ontario, since the border isn't too far away, it's pretty common to see American coins. I get them as change frequently. The difference in value is minuscule. One time I paid bus fare in Toronto with a handful of American quarters! American bills are usually accepted too, but I guess the farther away from the border you get, that might be rarer. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the above is bogus. I have seen Canadian cents and five cent pieces in rolls of coins which come from the bank. The bank cannot afford to pay someone to carefully examine each coin to see who minted it. Some foreign coins make it easily through US bank coin counting machines. If they are about the right diameter/thickness/weight they are accepted by the bank and sent on to someone else in a roll of coins. My bank accepts foreign currency as well, and deposits it to my account at today's exchange rate. Edison (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It works in Europe as well, from what I have seen in foreign countries, that is, within five minutes of the hotel, there are some shops that accept, or at least used to, british money, though at a slightly worse exchange rate than the banks. around the southeast coast here there are a few shops now that will accept euros, rather than sending away a potential customer simply because they have the wrong money, they can now slightly overcharge them for the inconvenience. I expect this is not the case, though, further from places with lots of tourists. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Here in southern England, I get a US quarter in place of a 10p roughly as often as I get an old shilling, and used to get a frank: that is, not very often, but often enough to recognise it. Shillings I keep, quarters I try to pass on. Franks were worth holding onto until the next trip over there. Machines don't seem to accept quarters. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

For the purely conventional aspect of coins, see Unit of account.--Wetman (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I live in The Netherlands, near both Germany and Belgium. Before the Euro, many stores in this area (in all three countries) routinely accepted Dutch Guilders, German Marks and Belgian Francs. Usually at slighty worse exchange rates, and sometimes they would only accept bills in the foreign currency, and give change in the local currency. Also people in the area often would have 2 extra wallets were they kept money in the 2 other currencies, for when they went shopping across the border (rather than making constant trips to the bank to change all foreign money). 93.95.251.162 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Martin.

cuddly gourds

I remember seeing a chenille gourd in a mail-order catalog a few years back. But I'm trying to remember which company sold chenille gourds. I can't seem to find them. Can anyone help me out, please? Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried typing those two words into Google? I just did. → ROUX ₪ 07:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I did, even the same for Dogpile. Still, nothing relevant.24.90.204.234 (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Number Plates on cars being blanked-out on TV

I started noticing a few years ago that TV news reports (in the UK at least), started to blank-out number plates when footage of celebrities' or politicians’' cars were shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaseywasey (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

While I think this is reasonable, this practice now seems to have escalated to that virtually every number plate is now obscured.

Two recent examples - an episode of "Fifth Gear" showing a test drive of a new car - and even more incredibly, I just noticed two successive videos on MTV - the first one was blocked out "professionally", the second one just had a black rectangle super-imposed on top of it?

So my question is - Has a law changed recently, or have all TV companies made a decision to "blank" number plates and secondly is this going to happen for dramas/films....surely these numbers are fictional.....but that's what confused me about this occurring in music videos? Jaseywasey (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that it's about number plate cloning - if you've just stolen a car or want to use yours for a bank robbery, you could find a similar one on TV and get some dodgey plates made up. Alansplodge (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Too complex to be true. The perps can just drive down the street and pick up the first tag that fits their purpose. Unless, of course, the car is really unique (in which case cloning makes little sense). East of Borschov 10:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

One reason is simply that it's easier to do, which means producers are more likely to do it on the chance that it's necessary. Consider:

ten years ago:

lawyer: Although I don't know of any specific case law, it'd still be better if we blanked the number plates when we show the cars

video editor person: Eek! I'd have to manually do that on thousands of frames on the Avid. It'll take me aaaages

lawyer: Don't bother then

but now:

lawyer: Although I don't know of any specific case law, it'd still be better if we blanked the number plates when we show the cars

video editor person: That's not too hard. I can have the Avid do a track matte with an automatic mosaic filter on it. It'll take me a couple of hours.

lawyer: Better safe than sorry

These days there are options (and particularly some plugins) for things like Avid and Final Cut that let an editor locate the area for a track matte in real time (the editor just watches the video and keeps their cursor over the area to be blurred). Even with a bunch of different elements to blur (these days they do faces, number plates, offensive t-shirts, and sometimes advertising and street signs) that only entails a pass through for each blur locus. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Vatican City

Are there any registered cases fo births in the Vatican City? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.195.43 (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Republics Democracies

Besides the US, what "republics" "democracies" are actually republics democracies? Most (e.g. the UK, Canada, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands) are really constitutional monarchies. --70.245.189.11 (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Map of Representative Democracies.

We have a List of republics. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On the right is a map of Representative Democracies according to [5]. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The US not a direct democracy either when it comes to voting for president. Never forget the Electoral college. The countries you list are democracies. We vote for our government. I know this has been covered many times before on these desks. 24.83.104.67 (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

But isn't Canada a constitutional monarchy rather than a democracy/republic? After all, Queen Elizabeth II appoints the members of the Senate and can veto any law passed by Parliament, or even dissolve Parliament altogether. The same is true of the UK and other Commonwealth countries, just replace "Senate" with "House of Lords". --70.245.189.11 (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confusing your terminology. Democracies and constitutional monarchies are not mutually exclusive. Canada is both, as are Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark and other countries. Technically, the Queen could do those things you say but she only acts on the advice of her Canadian Prime Minister. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

But she can fire the Canadian Prime Minister, as well as the British and Australian Prime Ministers. --70.245.189.11 (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, only the Governor-General of Australia or Canada can do that. No British monarch has thrown out a government since the English Civil War and although theoretically they have the power to do that, it would have to be followed by a free election so not really all that despotic. Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Alan's first statement is wrong; the G-G is (officially) just the monarch's representative and anything the G-G can do, the monarch can also do personally. However, if the monarch started doing things unilaterally in any of these countries, the result would simply be that there would very soon be an end to the monarchy, hopefully without the need for a civil war this time. --Anonymous, 04:57 UTC, October 3, 2010.

Plus, even many republics aren't remotely democratic. China, anyone? 24.83.104.67 (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone got the up-to-date republic/monarchy:democracy/not democracy diagram? Do we get to blame the US education system for this recurring misunderstanding? 109.155.37.180 (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Vatican City

Was what we said last year. See this archived discussion for possibly relevant points. Have any of the countries shifted out of their boxes since then? 109.155.37.180 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to point out the obvious. "Democracy" is a 'prize' word, and many politicians in many countries are more than willing to claim it regardless of the actual political system involved. objectively, however, all you can say is this:

• There are a large number of countries that have democratic features (e.g. institutions that ostensibly give political power to the general populace to some small extent, those these are often facades)
• There is a smaller number of nations that actually grant actual (rather than ostensive) political power to the general populace (though often this is indirect power - operated through representatives - rather than direct power)
  • Many of these systems are tiered, allowing the populace more influence in local politics but curtailing their influence in national politics
• There is a small number of nations that allow the general public to influence national policies in any direct way, through national referenda of some sort
• There are no nations that are democratic in the strict definition of the term (generally speaking - and ironically - those who advocate for fully democratic systems are usually labeled anarchists or communists, with unpleasant results)

Democracy is a very difficult system to set up, and an incredibly difficult system to maintain, for reasons that Aristotle outlined thousands of years go. basically, democracy requires citizens who are ideologically committed to the democratic process and mature enough to be able to place collective interests ahead of personal interests, otherwise democracy collapses quickly into an unstable mess. --Ludwigs2 23:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the lesson here is the formal constitution of a country is not necessarily what makes it democratic or undemocratic. The British North America Act, 1967, which forms the core of Canada's constitution, clearly says that the governor general (appointed by the queen) can reject any bill passed by Parliament. But nowadays, the governor general (who is really chosen by the prime minister) always assents to the legislation passed by Parliament when the government asks him to. Canada only remains a monarchy because its people know this is the case. On the other hand, there have been some republics with completely democratic constitutions that were entirely ignored. The Soviet Constitution called for more or less free elections and human rights. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

May we assume you mean the British North America Act, 1867? --Jayron32 23:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As in Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea? Astronaut (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Baralongs - Southern African ethnic group

Just reading Baden-Powell's report on the Siege of Mafeking. In it, he makes reference to a group called Baralongs. He lists them separately from Whites and Natives in the casualty lists. Does anyone know anything about them? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

a google seach gave me this, which claims they are one of the Bechuana tribes of the great interior plain of the transvaal. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) archive.org has:

The Baralong take their name from their earliest recorded chief Morolong, under whom, according to tradition, they migrated from a country in the far north, probably the region of the lakes, about 1400 a.d. After four generations they reached the Molopo River and settled their first permanent residence somewhere near Mafeking. Here for many years the tribe enjoyed peace and increased in numbers and wealth, reaching the zenith of its prosperity in the days of the chief Tau, about the 14th in descent from Morolong. Sections of the tribe had at various times migrated eastwards and north- westwards, but their loss was made good by recruits from alien tribes such as the Batlaping and Batlaro, who had submitted to the Baralong.

...and more. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks, but why would B-P list them seperately from the Natives? DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Good question; I'll have a look in Tim Jeal's big fat biography and let you know tomorrow if I find anything. Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Right - it appears that there were two black African settlements at Mafeking; the Baralongs and the Fingoes (about 5,500 in all). Not much is said about the Fingoes, but the Baralongs were trusted by the British. "Baden-Powell knew that since the valley (to the south of the town) was full of huts, he could prevent the enemy from using it simply by providing the Baralongs with arms and ammunition" (p.229). Not only did the Baralongs repulse an attack by this route, they were active in cattle raids and other guerilla attacks on the Boers. There were also 2,000 black African refugee miners from the Transvaal mines who arrived just before the seige. Jeal lists seven ethnic groups that they come from, some from as far away as Mozambique. They were less trusted and some were badly treated by the Baralongs. B-P refers to these as "refugees" or "foreign natives" which may be your other group. I hope this helps; in any event I fully recommend Jeal's book which does much to dispel the myths (good and bad) surrounding B-P. Alansplodge (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Alan, I did read Jeal some years ago, he is rather good. Now I have to find where my copy is! DuncanHill (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The term "public subscription"

I find few instances of the term in Wikipedia or elsewhere on the web, and even fewer explanations. My interest stems from a passage in American Gods, in which a certain project in Lakeside was to be funded by the city council and any shortfall to be made up by "public subscription." Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This is basically the same as a stock or bond. Anyone has the option to purchase a subscription. The purchase money is used to pay for the project. The purchase amount (and more) is paid back over time. -- kainaw™ 23:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Another version is a pledge of a gift toward a worthy project, without any expectation of being paid back, The latter would be a "loan." Edison (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Donations from the members of the public" would be my translation.Alansplodge (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Public appeals have been a pretty common way of getting things built, particularly community resources and public memorials. Subscriber lists for such projects were generally published, so the identity of donors and the amount they donated were usually a matter of public record unless anonymity was requested. Bigger donors might get a permanent mention on a plaque on the finished school/hospital/library/whatever. Enhanced reputation for the donor, who thereby appeared generous, socially responsible and (of course) rich enough to afford to give money to good causes. Funds for the project (maximised by the public nature of the subscriber list, since stinginess or absence would be noted by your contemporaries). But Wikipedians know all this anyway, don't we? Karenjc 14:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

October 3

English Conquests

How come it was so easy for the English to conquer all the other Celtic people of the British Isles save the Scots? Why didn't any other continental power seize the opportunity in justifying an attack to aid any of these nations? Was it because most Europeans viewed the Celts as a lesser people and barbarians even though they converted to Christianity long before they did? When I say Europeans, I'm referring to the Germanic people that rule much of Europe in the Middle Ages.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't easy, and it took hundreds of years. They never really conquered Wales or Ireland either (or even Cornwall, at least in the sense that they never totally displaced the Celtic population as they did in the rest of the bit that became England). I'm not sure I understand your second question, but the Celts were generally not considered barbarians, since it was usually them who went around converting the barbarians elsewhere in Europe... Adam Bishop (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The conquest of Wales, Ireland and part of Scotland might be better described as Norman expansionism, The English didn't have a lot of say in anything after the Battle of Hastings. Various branches of the Norman aristocracy carved out an empire that extended as far as Italy. Alansplodge (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Jutes, Saxons, Danes and Normans invaded and settled too.
Sleigh (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, there were no great powers in Europe in the 12th Century except the Byzantine Empire who had their work cut-out at the time. France tried to help the Scots (see the Auld Alliance) but they had plenty of other distractions. Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A major fact is that a divided nation is easier to beat and to conquer than a united one. Neither Wales nor Ireland had a central government with a king. Wales seems to have several feuding rulers (the single exception seems to have been the rule of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn) who always conspired and fought each other. The Normans/English simply took advantage of this advantageous situation (Divide and rule). Same goes for Ireland, while Scotland, having a king and a central government, proved a harder target. Flamarande (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If we're talking about that many centuries after the original Anglo-Saxon arrival, then no one much cared what was happening to the Celts anymore; the Pope apparently thought it was a great idea for the Normans to conquer Ireland (although he was English, after all). By then most of Europe was crusading against Muslims and pagans, or they were involved in the war between the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, France did attempt to assist the Scots and considered assisting the Irish. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

They didn't just consider it. Fribbler (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It basically comes down to economics. The Celtic regions were the poorest as far as creating food was concerned, so they had to devote almost their full resources to keeping people fed, and were not able to outfit and maintain large armies. As for other countries invading to support them, that sort of thing never happened before the 20th century. Nations invariably acted to benefit themselves, not to support others. Looie496 (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Armies launched against another country as support for a third country has occurred countless times in history, if those countries had a mutual defence treaty. Not unlike similar campaigns in the 20th century. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that happened a lot. A nation may act invariably to benefit itself, but often it is in one country's best interest to protect another country from the attacks of a third. Anyway, I also wanted to point out that the 13th or 14th century, assuming that is the high point of the Middle Ages, was almost as far away as the initial Anglo-Saxon conquests as we ourselves are from the 13th century. The Anglo-Saxons existed in a semi-mythical almost prehistorical past, as far as most medieval people were concerned. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. It would be the perfect justification for a nation to attack another nation, plus you get the perfect chance to attack your enemy from behind as they are trying to attack another nation.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good plan but it didn't work out for Scotland at the Battle of Flodden. Strangely the Scottish Nationalists don't bang on about that one. Alansplodge (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Differences between performances of the same opera

Tonight, I attended a performance of Il barbiere di Siviglia by the Jacobs School of Music; while I own and have listened to recordings of many operas, I've never before seen one live, so I'm curious — besides the singers themselves, what differences could I expect to see between two different performances by two different opera companies? For example, in this performance, Don Alonso was blind; is he always blind, or could that be an interpretation by tonight's director? Please understand that the first question refers to any and all opera, not just Barbiere. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Opera performances by different companies resemble each other most when you put the CDs on. When you see them -- everything is different. The entire artistic conception of the staging, who goes where, what props, the costumes, the colors, -- and whether the staging will even be approximately like the traditional view of the historic or mythic time represented in the opera -- will change from director to director. That's one of the things that's so fun about it. I saw a brilliant performance of the Barber of Seville earlier this year in Los Angeles in which the first half was completely in black and white; and the second half gradually added color, in costumes, sets, until by the finale the stage was flooded in all the colors of the spectrum, a feast for the eyes and ears both. Usually, but not always, if the specific stage direction says that a character is blind, the director will honor it, but they may not. Antandrus (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It could be interpretation, or an attempt to appeal to the audience, or simply a matter of money and other limited resources. Some operas are just too big for even the largest opera houses (and their present-day audiences), so you see dozens of different scaled-down, simplified, shortened versions. Some began mutating from the moment they were first presented (Don Carlos). On the other end there are compact operas like Pagliacci that don't need this kind of surgery. East of Borschov 08:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's much like different productions of the same play. You can see Hamlet in period costume or in modern dress, in luxuriously or sparsely decorated stages, the full 5-hour original or some shorter version, and so on. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Did the trains really run on time?

A cliche about Fascist states was that the trains ran on time. Did they? Was there any truth in the Fascists claim that they ran things in general better than they were run in non-fascist states?

The Fascists ran WW2 badly - they made bad decisions, such as opening up two fronts, wasting human talent and having resources diverted to pursue genocide, and their disproportionate punishments, eg. shooting people for disloyalty, often alienated the local populations. 92.24.186.80 (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The trains running on time claim was Italy under Mussolini in the 1920s, while opening two fronts was Germany under Hitler in June 1941, so I'm not sure that there would be any close connection between the two... Here's one relevant URL (not by professional historians): [6] -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Both fascists, it hardly needs to be said. 92.24.186.80 (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

But frankly that's not even totally true. Italian Fascism and Nazism were not the same thing at all. They were both totalitarian, to be sure. But they differed in their ideologies, styles of governance, and economic policies considerably. And making the trains run on time, versus being successful in war, are not the same thing at all. One is about internal organization, another is taking calculated bets on international outcomes. They are really apples and oranges. Having a good metro system doesn't make you good at war; being good at war doesn't make you have a good metro system. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"And making the trains run on time, versus being successful in war, are not the same thing at all." Nobody has claimed they are. The second sentance in the Nazism article confirms that they were fascists, as I think 99.9% of people would agree. 92.24.186.80 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It says it was a "unique variety of fascism," which doesn't contradict at all the point I was trying to make. The fact that 99.9% people don't know the difference between Italian Fascism, Nazism, or Stalinism doesn't make them all the same thing. And if you aren't trying to make a comparison with running WWII and running the trains, I'm a bit befuddled as to the point of the second paragraph of your question! --Mr.98 (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hair splitting as a kind of 'divide and conquer' sophistry to save face. 92.24.189.222 (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions lists the trains thing, although it is incompletely sourced. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Italians didn't choose a second front in Italy; the allies invaded Sicily and then mainland Italy; the fascist government of Italy lasted only a fortnight after the latter invasion began. Prior to that, Italy was wilfully employed in campaigns in Africa, the Mediterranean, and the Balkans - see Military history of Italy during World War II. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Germans chose to invade Russia as far as I am aware, with Britain still fighting, the second front I was referring to. 92.24.186.80 (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Mussolini made trains run on time" - this has been clearly listed among our "List of Popular Misconceptions" article on Wikipedia.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should re-state the main question: Was there any truth in the Fascists claim that they ran things in general (including railways, wars, economies, etc) better than they were run in non-fascist states? In other words is there any evidence that fascists states were better run than other kinds of states such as capitalist states, communist states, etc? 92.24.186.80 (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As to the trains, see the Snopes link pasted above, which gives a pretty plausible answer with a reasonable set of sources. (Basic answer: not really.) In any case, it's hard to make a lot of judgments on this, given the limited sample size (a handful of "Fascist" countries, a limited time scale, not being able to re-run the same situation with a non-Fascist country and see what happens differently, the fact that the democracies were in a particularly bad economic spot during most of the time in question which might make them a bad comparison, etc.). As for wars, the "Fascist" countries did a good job when it came to overpowering nearby countries that weren't really expecting them to attack. They weren't so good at winning the long war, though. Whether that is because they were "Fascist" or not is not clear. (I don't think the "democracies" won because they were democratic. In fact, the major cause for the defeat of the Axis powers was not a democracy at all, but Communist Russia.)

I think the best broad generalization about totalitarian states in general is that they probably were able to make certain categories of decisions quicker and earlier than states that require lots of deliberation or have lots of types of checks and appeal opportunities in the system. So for example, the Nazis were able to pass really, really sweeping public health measures (some of which we today find pretty horrific, to be sure) in a matter of months after getting into power, the sorts of things that would have been totally derailed and impossible to get through in a place like the United States, where the entrenched interests would have been very powerful and the system of passing laws is purposefully slow and convoluted. That's not necessarily a good thing — it meant that a lot of bad policies were passed without any oversight along with maybe a handful of ones that we might consider reasonable from today's perspective. They got to forego a lot of "politics as usual" that is characteristic of Western democracies, but that's again not necessarily a good thing.

I think on the whole the evidence is probably not very strong at all that Fascist states did much of anything decidedly "better" than non-Fascist states, but on the other hand, it really depends on what you mean by "better". If remobilizing, starting wars, and systematically pillaging and killing off various minority groups is "better", then they do that better than democratic states, to be sure. Compare, for example, the US's attempts at compulsory sterilization of the mentally ill to the Nazis'. In the US, with its complicated federal/state system, its oversight, its legal challenges, over the course of decades it only sterilized some 60,000 people against their will. The Nazis did something like 400,000 over the course of one decade. They did that "better". But that's not really a very good thing from a modern perspective. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You claimed above that the Nazis were not fascists. Make your mind up. 92.24.189.222 (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Mr.98 never said any such thing. He said that German Naziism and Italian Fascism were two different things. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Quote: "Fascism and Nazism were not the same thing at all." 92.24.189.222 (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, you want a strict definition, then you are told that there isn't one, then "fascism" and "Nazi" are used anyway, as you yourself use them, so that the answers will be understandable, and you accuse people of being dishonest. What is the point of this question? You are just wasting everyone's time. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The OP never asked for a "strict definition", and never accused people of being dishonest. I've noticed now that when a question is asked, seldom do you get a straight answer, but instead a lot of quibbling and going off on a tangent. 92.29.114.118 (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Second-Year CEGEP or Freshman University

Hello. I come from Ontario and graduated from high school. I'm studying in Quebec and it's my first time in university. Am I eligible to apply for second-year CEGEP instead of university to save on tuition? (By completing CEGEP, my four-year degree would take three years.) Do I sacrifice the quality of my education by doing so? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you are specifically eligible, but think of it as sort of equivalent to going to a college instead of a university in Ontario. The quality of education is probably not worse (and maybe it's actually better), but it will be less prestigious. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

List of -woods

I'm looking for a list of all the cinematic -woods in the world. There is this nice list here but it doesn't mention Nollywood (it mentions Nigerian cinema but I want to know all the -woods) so I'm not sure if it's complete. Jasonberger (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

All? Don't forget So-Sollywood in Shanghai.--Wetman (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is always Pinewood as well, here in England. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wilmington, North Carolina is sometimes refered to as "Hollywood East" due to the presence of EUE/Screen Gems studios, which claims to be the largest in the U.S. outside of Hollywood. --Jayron32 23:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There's also HollyŁódź in Poland (Łódź is pronounced more or less like "woodge"). — Kpalion^(talk) 07:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The existence of so many -woods must be a cause for concern, over which many governments will surely be burning the midnight oil. There must be a handy name for this major international crisis. I know: Woodgate.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've also heard of Tollywood referring both to Tamil and Telugu cinema (Tamil cinema can also be called Kollywood, after Kolkata). Gollywood can refer to Gujarati or Ghanaian cinema. Dollywood is Dolly Parton's themepark. Pollywood/Lollywood is Pakistani (from Lahore). Mollywood is Malayalam cinema or Mormon cinema. Sollywood is South African. Wollywood appears to have an adult-theatre meaning which I'm not willing to investigate further. Zollywood refers, apparently, to Zimbabwe. Chollywood is Chinese, but doesn't seem to have currency. I suspect that a number of these are only in restricted use, being understood only from context. But they all turned up from searching for different -ollywoods. Steewi (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses I look forward to exploring these -woods Jasonberger (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

WW II Hugarian History

To your knowledge was there a group of party named either Romai II or Rome II or Roman II. I read about them in a WW II memoire and would like to know if anyone has any details about such an organization.

please send your response or link to <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubscher (talk • contribs) 18:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed your email address to deter spammers; as it said when you posted your query, email addresses should not be posted here and any replies will be made here, not by off-wiki means. I also removed your first, duplicate posting of this query, which you made while signed out. If you are concerned that your IP address has been linked to your account name because of this, and you wish to have that edit hidden from public view, you can request this at WP:OVERSIGHT. Karenjc 20:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Hungary during World War II does not mention any such group. Do you have any context on the group? Like, were they a resistance group, a pro-Nazi group, a Hungarian-Nationalist group, Political Party? Any additional information you know could help us find more about them. --Jayron32 23:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the obvious suggestion is the Roma, also known as Romani, Romany, or Gypsies. They were the subject of Nazi genocide in the same way as the Jews, and there were certainly some in Hungary, although more next door in Romania. Looie496 (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Passport when out of State

I'm a college student attending college in Washington D.C. I'm originally from New York. I wanted to know whether or not I could get a US passport while I'm attending college. I would like to travel/study abroad next year and it would be nice to have the passport before then. 147.9.230.223 (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. You don't need to have specific plans to travel in order to get a passport. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Many people here in Vermont have passports just to make getting into/out of Canada easier, though they had no specific plans when they were getting the document. Dismas|^(talk) 18:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking because you are not originally in your state of origin or permanent address (which I gather from the heading), that doesn't matter at all. Your passport doesn't say where you live on it (unlike a driver's license), so it's not like putting your dorm address (or whatever) will make a difference in the long run, just where they will mail it when it is done. Here are the requirements and the forms. I took my forms to my local post office and got it all squared away not long ago. You just need to have the right forms of identification and proof of citizenship (e.g. a state driver's license or ID plus a Social Security Card or birth certificate), along with the paperwork. It takes a few weeks to process if you aren't paying extra for rush handling, so the sooner the better. Large post offices (e.g. not just "annexes") often have passport handling capabilities and cameras for the photos. If you go here and put in your zip code and select "passport application services" in the box, it'll show you which post offices nearby can handle the application (you have to do it in person the first time, since they need to check your ID documentation). Again, it's not like a driver's license where you have to go to a local DMV and etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Unknown object

unknown object

Tell me and we'll all know......
This object was found on a Lake Michigan beach years ago, near a lighthouse. The lighthouse does not have a clue what it is. It may belong to the lighthouse, or it may be just an object that fell off a boat, or something just washed up on shore. It is the size of about 8 inches across at the top points. It is lite and made of a metal, perhaps aluminum. Perhaps a part of a breast plate of a children's costume. No writing on the back side to furnish a clue of age. It looks like it may have been in the water for a long time before it finally washed ashore on the beach at the lighthouse. Any guesses?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it mostly flat? The ridges may be to help with grip while stepping on it. The stars suggest something where decoration matters. My wild guess would be the step of a coin in the slot seaside telescope. Does it have any holes in it for attaching it to something? Do you have a picture from another angle? Might be a Fire dog or Andiron. 92.24.189.222 (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't think to take other side and back pictures. It is several miles from me, so sometime in the future I'll get several pictures and ask question again (if not solved meanwhile). Does NOT have any holes in it (that I remember, and I took picture today). Something related to a seaside telescope makes sense as it is in a tourist town where there are modern coin operated telescopes. Perhaps it is off an older coin telescope. It does have what appears to be designs where it would be "attached" to something. You might be on to something here. Yes, it is mostly flat with a slight curve to the item, like it wraps onto something. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Further: The item was metal, probably aluminum. It was NOT heavy, but rather light. It seemed to be something of before the 21st century, but after the nineteenth century. Don't believe it has anything to do with fireplaces or where there is high heat. Do believe it is something where decoration matters - coin operated telescope perhaps!(?), of maybe decades ago since it has always been a tourist town for the last 100 years where this item was found.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Further again: the shape gives the impression it may have gone around a metal pole (6 inches or so), so that the object could have moved with the telescope when viewing at different angles. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Stars=stars! 92.24.189.222 (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If its aluminium, why does some of it look rusty? 92.28.244.31 (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

English idioms and proverbs game

Is there a website where I can play a game involving English idioms and proverbs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.160 (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Typing "games idioms proverbs" into Google gives this result. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Idioms and Proverbs

Is there a website where I can find proverbs and idioms in Arabic, Persian, Somali, Bengali, Hindi, Urdu, Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam, Gujarati, Marathi, Oriya, Assamese, Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashto, Baloch, Lur, Turkish, Uzbek, Tajik, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Turkmen, Azeri, Qashqai, Kurdish, and etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.160 (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Try wikiquote. there is a link to it near the bottom of the wikipedia main page. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Welsh queens/princesses

Has there ever been any wives of native Welsh kings and princes that held the title of Queen or Princess?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Eleanor de Montfort, Princess of Wales and Lady of Snowdon. Mikenorton (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Any Welsh queens from before the 1200s?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

According to our article History of Gwynedd during the High Middle Ages, Ealdgyth, daughter of Earl Ælfgar, wife of Gruffudd ap Llywelyn and then Harold Godwineson was the only woman to "to have been known as Queen of Wales and then Queen of England in turn", but sadly there is no reference given to support it. Mikenorton (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

October 4

Calculation of NBN rate of return

How is the 6-7% expected return for the Australian National Broadband Network calculated? From a Herald Sun article: The KPMG and McKinsey implementation study "finds that the fibre optic network can probably be built for much less than $43 billion, with the government contribution a maximum of $26 billion, cheaper than anticipated. The government believes this is not enough to justify fully privatising the project initially, but the project should fully return taxpayer's money than give a return of 6-7 per cent." http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/pm-warns-on-broadband-network/story-e6frfh4f-1225862954094

Is it possible to calculate the return (using information contained in the Herald Sun article, e.g expected cost of the NBN) using a simple arithmetic return formula? Or is the return simply just quoted from the KPMG and McKinsey implementation study. 124.149.25.63 (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Using the following 3 lines from the article:

It finds that the fibre optic network can probably be built for much less than $43 billion, with the government contribution a maximum of $26 billion, cheaper than anticipated.

This will return to the govermnment an eventual income stream of $40 billion over 15 years.

The government believes this is not enough to justify fully privatising the project initially, but the project should fully return taxpayer's money than give a return of 6-7 per cent.

I get a slightly lower answer assuming the $40bn is received as an annuity of $(40/15)bn at the end of each of the next 15 years in return for an investment of $26bn now. Using the formula for the PV of a fixed annuity, I get an answer of 5.94%... Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I can do a bit of maths but I don't get finance. I'm guessing you're using the formula below, with P=$26 bn (present value), R=(40/15)bn=$2.6 bn (periodic payment in an annuity), n=15 and solving for i? 124.149.25.231 (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

$P\,=\,R\left[{\frac {1-{\frac {1}{\left(1+i\right)^{n}}}}{i}}\right]$ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.25.231 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep - that's the sum I did. I used the goalseek function in Excel... Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Much appreciated.124.149.25.231 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Old World sorcery

There is a fairly abundant literature in French on scopélisme (from the Latin scopulus, meaning big stone), a practice that consisted in dumping stones in fields in the hope that it would cause farmers to stop tilling the land on which shepherds had traditionally been free to roam. This practice is said to have existed in Europe from Greek and Roman times up to the Middle Ages, when it became associated with sorcery. I haven't so far been able to find any sources in English on the subject, though I wouldn't be too surprised if it already has a Wikipedia article. Does this succint description ring any bells ? — Mu (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. In England, as I recall, the Medieval progression was more in the direction of the nobility converting their land from farming to sheepherding, as wool gradually became more and more profitable. Looie496 (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but on looking into it I came across the bizarre case of the sailing stones. And on a purely coincidental note, I'm sure, I believe scopalamine has been used by witches, sometimes, for the purpose of flying and all that sort of thing. :) Cheers, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Google results suggest it is an ancient Arabian custom (but I don't know if that is true, or just an typical occult claim about everything being "eastern"). It is also mentioned in Justinian's Digest, that's pretty interesting. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

English for French "scopélisme" just happens to be "scopelism" (same origin of course)... --Azurfrog (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Social classes

The classification of social classes based on occupation is Blue-collar worker, White-collar worker, Grey-collar worker and Gold-collar worker. Now I've problem categorizing the following occupations:

1. Fisherman, farmer, babysitter, security guard, nurse, Medical Laboratory Scientist, laboratory technicians - are these grey-collar jobs?
2. Surgeons, engineers, scientists - do they belong to white collar or gold collar? A clerk or a receptionist is considered a white-collar employee. Compared to a clerk, a scientist is highly qualified. Is it right to put a scientist and a clerk in the same category?
3. Waiter, bartender - blue or grey???
4. Stripper, actor - an actor, stripper does not perform semi-administrative work. He/she is not a manual laborer. Which category they belong to?
5. Barber, Tattoo artist, piercer - grey collar or blue collar?
6. DTP artist - grey or blue?

thx --Galactic Traveller (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article on grey-collar lists most of your first group. Also, workers in the service sector don't really fit well. These could include waiters, bartenders, strippers, barbers, tattoo artist. Grsz¹¹ 03:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Social classes (in the United States, anyhow) are largely a function of income. Those collar colors do relate to income, but they also relate to the relative component of whether you are paid for your mind or for your hands, so to speak. <— all original research. Bus stop (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Warning: "Grey-collar" and "Gold-collar" are neologisms and most people won't have any idea what you are talking about if you use these terms. You should also probably be mocked. Generally this type of categorization of jobs is binary: either it's blue-collar, or it's white-collar. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The articles on "grey-collar" and "gold-collar" worker should be considered for deletion as failed neologisms. I searched Google News Archive for uses of the various "collars' 2000 through 2010, and the results are "White collar:" 1130 instances; "Blue collar:" 3560 instances. "Gold collar:" 14 instances, and "Grey (or gray) collar:" only 6 instances. Edison (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd vote for deletion. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Google News is useful, not infallible. A google search of China Daily shows 129 uses of "gold collar", and the Straits Times had more too. It's a loan phrase from Chinese and would be widely understood in Hong Kong and Singapore English, I think. Matt's talk 17:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Pink-collar worker (see also Template:Socialclass). --Nricardo (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Trying to find a quote...

but I can't remember the words or anything else except the general sentiment, so I come here. One of the early Church Fathers (perhaps one of the Apostolic Fathers, although I'm not sure) whose teaching on Christian soteriology included a statement that the only elements of humanity that could be saved through Christ were those elements that Christ also possessed: in other words, if Christ hadn't possessed a human body, our bodies couldn't have been saved by Christ. I seem to remember reading a nice and succinct quote (presumably a translation from the Greek; I don't think that it was a modern writer's paraphrase of the original) from this theologian that expresses this position. Any ideas (1) who this theologian was, and (2) an English translation of this quote? Nyttend (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that soteriology article really sucks...but it does point to Athanasius of Alexandria, and the succint-ish quote "the Son of God became man so that we might become God", which sort of seems like what you're saying. Maybe this is also related to divine filiation, which has similar quotes from Irenaeus and Aquinas. It's a basic tenet of any Chalcedonian sect of Christianity that Christ needed a physical body (as opposed to something like Docetism or Arianism where the body was either secondary or a complete illusion), but I'm not sure if that specifically covers what you're asking. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the correct context; the quote from St. Athanasius is the same sentiment as what I'm trying to remember, but it doesn't explicitly go as far. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

First person to declare the earth mostly ocean

Who was the first to widely assert that the earth's surface is mostly water? Shadowjams (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The ancient Greeks often speculated that the oikoumene (known world) was surrounded by an encircling ocean of indefinite extent, but not much factual was known until people started exploring the Pacific beginning in the 16th century... AnonMoos (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

OR, but surely the peoples of the Pacific islands could have been in no doubt that most of the world was water? Cultures that lived on islands a person could walk around in a few hours, or a day, or a week, knew that they lived on specks surrounded by ocean, with nearest neighbours perhaps several days' paddling away. They were at the centre of their universe, as we all are: they just happened to be correct, centuries before the European navigators caught up with their knowledge. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is whether or not we count the generalizations of this kind as being really informed. "The world is mostly water," a guy on an island in the middle of the ocean says. He's right, but he doesn't have any good reason for it, either more than the guy in the Sahara desert who says, "the world is mostly sand" would be just describing the "world" as he could see it from his local area. I take the question to be, who first realized in what we might today call a semi-accurate fashion that the world was mostly water. It seems hard to me that it would be difficult to do that before the Age of Exploration. What you need is not a few people going out and seeing what they can see (which is very limited, even for people who went very far), but the cumulative information from many people being stitched together as a world picture. A map like this (which was the earliest full-world map I saw on history of cartography) makes it pretty clear how vast the oceans are, and is really different in this way than local maps (or local knowledges). This map from 1502 by contrast, still has so many "unknowns" on it that one might not be sure. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who first said it, but the basis for saying it didn't exist until 1522, when the survivors of Magellan's crew returned to Europe. Before them, no European had crossed the Pacific, and everybody underestimated how wide it was. Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Mr. 98 said it better than I could have. That's exactly what I'm looking for. A somewhat informed opinion, or at least the time-frame where that understanding came to be accepted. Fundamentally it would have to be sometime after the entire globe had been explored, but before we take photos from space (obviously). I'm just trying to narrow down that time-frame. Shadowjams (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that there were unexplored areas of the Pacific which theoretically could have contained mid-size land-masses well into the 18th century (something which Swift took advantage of for Gulliver's Travels), but the general trend was already becoming fairly clear in the 17th-century... AnonMoos (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the question needs to be rephrased as "Who was the first white man to assert that the earth's surface is mostly water?" Polynesian navigation was ahead even of Norse navigation and can be dismissed only in phrasing the question this way.--Wetman (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

But the Polynesians knew nothing about how much land and water there was outside of the areas they traveled in... AnonMoos (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Unto You our Prayers Arise—Gustav Gottheil

(click to enlarge)

I am trying to track down this English poem by Gustav Gottheil (as in, any information about it, the book it originally appeared in, whether it appears in an abridged form here etc.) but don't seem to be having any luck. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia the same Hebrew prayer is often accompanied by a different, but remarkably similar, hymn, To Thee we Give Ourselves Today – basically, does anyone happen to know anything about this at all? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 18:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Google books comes up with lots of stuff, in particular http://books.google.com/books?id=jqbxtdy8gkIC but a general search on his name finds lots too. Ariel. (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Royal marriages

Although we have the examples of Peter the Great and Franz Josef of Austria marrying for love rather than reasons of state, it appears that the English surpassed the other nations when it came to making matrimonial alliances based on love. Four of Henry VIII's six wives were chosen by him, Edward IV married Elizabeth Woodville out of passion, and there is the 20th century example of the Duke of Windsor. Can anybody please give me their opinions why English monarchs were thus inclined?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In Germany (and some German-influenced areas) there was often a strong insistence on equality of status in royal/aristocratic marriages, and an unequal marriage was "morganatic" and could not produce heirs with a valid claim. In England, there was no morganatic marriage, and no formal requirement of equality of status in marriage, so no legal requirement that royals marry other royals -- though there was something of a policy that children of British monarchs should not marry British subjects (but rather foreigners) between James II's marriage to Anne Hyde and Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll's marriage. AnonMoos (talk) 11:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Before Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon Elizabeth Woodville was indeed the last English-born queen.--Wetman (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary of Teck was born at Kensington Palace. 216.93.213.191 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

US supreme court ties

What happens if the US Supreme court gives a 4-4 decision because a justice reccused him/herself? Googlemeister (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The lower court's decision holds. Fribbler (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. One example was the case of Free v. Abbott Laboratories Inc., in 2000. --Anonymous, 16:17 UTC, October 4, 2010; link added 08:40 UTC, October 5.

Flowers of the Forest

Following the question above "English Conquests" I was looking at our article on the Battle of Flodden. I knew, or at least I thought I did, that the "Flowers of the Forest" (an old Scottish lament) referred specifically to the archers of Ettrick Forest, who had earned that knickname after their bravery at the Battle of Falkirk (1298), but were wiped out in the last stand at Flodden. None of the pages I have linked mention this and I'm blessed if Mr Google can find a reference to it apart from a couple of CD covers[7]. I've run out of time now; can anyone else help please? Alansplodge (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Will this do? Fribbler (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well done sir!! Alansplodge (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Masterful googlery like this makes lurking at the Reference desk rewarding! Now William Home Lizars, Lizars' Scottish Tourist: A guide to the picturesque scenery, antiquities, etc., (c1847), 18th ed. 1850:264, should be edited into the relevant article.--Wetman (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Conculation

Anyone got a dictionary definition, and synonyms of 'conculation'.?94.72.245.124 (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A bit of searching came up with "conculate" appearing to mean to tread underfoot though my brain is to addled today to work out a possible Latin root. I also found it used as "conculation" with reference to law but there was insufficient context to come up with a definitive meaning. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Latin "conculcare" (note the extra C - meaning to trample or tread underfoot) comes from "calx", which is a heel or a foot (and also chalk or limestone, but apparently that is unrelated to the "heel" meaning). I don't think there is a Latin word "conculare", although if there was I suppose it would be related to "culus", which Lewis and Short modestly translate as "the fundament", the buttocks. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In a Google Books search, every example that comes up is a pretty obvious spelling error. It would be helpful to know the sentence in which the word appears. Looie496 (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Painting of Arius

Painted by whom? When?

Hi. :) Can anybody identify the artist and date of this painting? I've tried poking about a bit, but I haven't been able to come up with anything. The image was used as the cover of this book, but the "search inside" function searches a different edition with a different image. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you see this google books

quote : "Cover shows detail of Anonymous Deacon (Euplos) first half of the 13th century, Athens, Byzantine Museum"

Does this mean it's not actually Arius but St. Euplos??

Can you take it from there...Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not St. Euplius, but a place, Euplos, of which that (anonymous) guy was an archdeacon. If that's the case then the image probably comes from a bunch of frescoes in the church of St. Leontius in Strumica, in Macedonia, if our article is accurate (but I guess the frescoes are actually in the museum in Athens, according to the blurb on the back cover of the book). The painting definitely looks like Byzantine art - I was going to say it was much earlier, like 5th or 6th century, but their style never really changed much over the centuries. I was also going to guess that it either comes from somewhere sympathetic to Arius, or it's not Arius at all, because it's extremely unlikely that Chalcedonian Christians would have painted Arius as a normal person, or at all. It's pretty boggling that the cover of a book about Arius would have such a completely unrelated image, but then, the author doesn't have any say in that... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Q. Is it not totally unlikely that Arius would have a Halo (religious iconography). I'm guessing that the numerous articles that use this as an illustration of Arius need the image deleted, but won't do it, since I'm just guessing.87.102.88.253 (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Perhaps that's why they changed the image for later editions...if it's not the subject, it may not make the best book cover. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The first edition, the one you pointed to on Amazon, says the cover is a painting of Arius by Andrea di Buonaioto; we don't have an article on him but he was a painter of the Florentine School in the 14th century. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it part of the painting on the left wall profiled here (search for Arius)? Novaseminary (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that I look at things closer, especially the description here and a zoom of the poster version here, I think the di Buonaiuto painting at Sanata Maria Novella is actually the basis for the cover of the 2002 revised version of the book, not the 2001 paperback cover on which the above pasted image appeared. That leads me to believe the image pasted above is more likely a fresco at the church of St. Leontius in Macedonia. Novaseminary (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I got this book out of the Library recently, to pursue a study on Saint Athanasius. However, the study was regarding the position of Arius and his followers. The book I received was: ISBN no: 0-334-02850-7, and it was priced: £16.95. MacOfJesus (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The illustrated conventional fresco portrait from Euplos, then, is not Arius and should be removed from the Wikipedia article to Talk:Arius..--Wetman (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank for taking care of it. For the latest on the deletion of this image (and a similar image on commons), see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_September_26#File:Arius_portrait_image_for_article.jpg. Novaseminary (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record: https://byzantineattica.eie.gr/byzantineattica/view.asp?cgpk=658&xsl=detail&obpk=420&lg=en has some info. --Achim55 (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice

In your entry for Condoleezza Rice, there seems to be acontradiction regarding her father, In the section "Early Life", her father John Wesley Rice, Jr., he is described as being: "Reverend Rice was a guidance counselor at Ullman High School and minister of Westminster Presbyterian Church, which had been founded by his father."

But, in the section "Family and Personal Life", he is described as: John Wesley Rice, married Clara Bailey, to whom he remained married until his death, in December 2000, aged 77. He was a football and basketball coach throughout his life."

Which is it -- a Minister or a football and basketball coachMcgremaud (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe both, (but no mention of basketball) see http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/29/us/john-wesley-rice-jr-77-father-of-bush-adviser.html Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see [8] Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, it is not our entry, it is as much yours as it is ours. And BE BOLD and change it if you think it can be improved. --Lgriot (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How many unborn inheritors?

How many generations of unborn inheritors (unborn individual(s) may be named in a person's will? For example, if grandchildren exist and are provided for in a will, can provisions be made on the same will speculating that their unborn grandchildren be partakers of a portion of that exact same estate (inheritence)?If so, since in recent years, limits on the number of future "recipints" have been established, what is the generational extent possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.104.5 (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Surely this varies by what country and state you live in. For what it's worth, the original poster's IP address seems to geolocate to Florida. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Rule against perpetuities has some useful but rather complex details. Warofdreams talk 22:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Fork from Science desk question

I'm not sure if such intra-Desk comment-shopping is permissible – please by all means correct me if I am falsely assuming it is, or am going about it in the wrong way.
I have asked a question at the Science desk concerning the likelihood of a certain nuclear-weapons strategy having already been implemented by states with a capacity to do so. I think the technological issues are not too much in dispute there right now, and the question at this point seems to swing on policy issues about which more information might be best provided from the Social Sciences. For those of you Humanities desk regulars who might not be also attending to questions at the Science desk, but who might have useful light to shed on this question, I thought I would post this notice here with the hope that you might wish to do so. Please do not respond to this here, though, but rather there. Thanks! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

October 5

Can you end the recession by sabotaging the gold market?

I was reading that gold is still going up, past $1300 per ounce now, and it brings a question to mind: if so many investors have money tied up in gold (prices), then what happens if you abruptly sabotage the market, say, by announcing a large new find of gold ores or a relaxation of environmental restrictions on mining? Do the investors turn around, take their money out of gold in a great rush, buy bonds and IPOs and otherwise invest in productive enterprise, leading to a sudden kickstart of the economy? With people like Soros saying the price is already a "bubble", I'd think that even some rudimentary rumor-mongering in the public interest by a group like Anonymous (group) might be enough to do the job. Wnt (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The recession isn't caused by a single thing, like gold investing. While gold investment is traditionally a hedge against poor stock prices because they traditionally move in opposite directions, that doesn't mean that artificially depressing the gold market would force people into stocks. They may be forced into low-yield/low-risk investments like, say, a savings account or CDs or government bonds. That would actually cause a worsening of the recession, since a big problem right now is that companies are sitting on HUGE cash reserves (basicly in straight savings accounts) and they are a) not investing it in stocks and b) not paying dividends and c) not hiring more employees with it. If you killed the gold market, you could possibly drive investors into THAT position, which could have a greater adverse effect. --Jayron32 01:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Fed could easily crash the price of gold by dumping its 10,000+ tons of gold reserves on the market, but the squealing would be so loud that they wouldn't dare. But in any case I doubt it would solve the problem -- there is already plenty of cash in circulation; the problem is that corporations are satisfied to sit on it because the inflation rate is so low. The most efficient way to mobilize that money is by jacking up inflation prospects -- currently the Fed is trying to do that by jawboning, but it isn't clear that it will work. Looie496 (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons why sabotaging the gold market would not end the recession (putting aside the technical point that the recession ended last year, meaning that the period of economic contraction ended then, although we are not yet in a situation of normal economic growth). First, investment in gold was not a cause of the recession and, as Jayron32 says, there is no reason to think that lower gold prices would necessary improve economic conditions. Second, the gold market is no longer a very big part of the economy, so changes in the market would be unlikely to have a big effect of any kind. Third, high risk and volatility in any market is bad for the economy, so a collapse of the gold market would have a negative economic effect (mitigated by the gold market's relatively small size, as already mentioned). John M Baker (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a fallacy here. Let's say the market capitalization of the gold market is $1 trillion. Now let's say overnight, the price of gold drops 90%. That doesn't mean there's $900 billion suddenly available to invest in other things. Rather, that $900 billion simply disappears. If lots of people rush to sell their gold, and there's not an equal number of people clamoring to buy gold, the price the gold owners will get for their holdings will be a lot less than the market price the day before. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And there is yet another fallacy. The $1 trillion isn't taken out of the economy and converted to gold, it's paid to people who sell gold, and use the money to spend on other things, like factories, cars, and Rolex watches. I would expect a fairly small portion of the money to be used to dig up more gold. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

And when the price of gold crashed, you would get some unemployed gold miners too, and it is hard to see how more unemployed people would help the situation. Googlemeister (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

... and investors would buy platinum instead. People invest in precious metals when they don't trust conventional investments and currencies. The price will fall naturally to the true market value when normal investment is perceived as safe again. Dbfirs 15:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, isn't there a fallacy in the fallacy? If the government prints lots of money, it doesn't mean that everyone gets richer — and if $900 billion suddenly disappears, it doesn't mean that the population as a whole gets poorer either. Rather it means that those who own other assets gain in purchasing power, right? Wnt (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's important to differentiate between "cash value" and "utility value". As in, if the government mails everyone ten crisp hundred-dollar bills we're all $1000 richer, in cash terms, but in utility value terms, those thousand dollars would not allow you to buy anything you couldn't previously because prices would have increased correspondingly (assuming enough time, prices not being too sticky, etc). Crashing the gold market would destroy some of the cash value of gold investors, and it would also probably decrease the utility value of even more people, because of the drastic increase in market volatility. (Capital markets are like angry bears -- it's important to avoid sudden movement.) It's difficult to conceive of a scenario where that crash is beneficial. As pointed out above, the $900 billion (or whatever) is just gone; maybe folks about to invest in gold would invest elsewhere, but more likely they would invest even more in gold, as it's suddenly become undervalued. 71.120.202.130 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Prison in Sweeden

I am reading The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo which is set in Sweden.

In the book the main protagonist is sentenced to 180 days in prison for libel against an individual (which seems to be a criminal offence).

However, once convicted and sentenced, he does not go to prison straight away. In fact he is left on his own and moves house to another city/county. When he feels he wants to go to prison, several months down the line, he calls up the authorities and organises a time at his own convenience. He is surprised by how "easy" it is to get in to prison. He also suggest that once in prison he gets out early partially because he didn't use his "leave entitlement".

Now my question is, is this how it works in Sweden and to what extent? In what circumstances are you permitted not to go to prison straight away? Is it just because this is a non-violent offence?

In the UK, I think (but am not sure), that sometimes if you appealing a conviction you sometimes can stay out of prison even if you are convicted and sentenced. But only till you appeal. This does not seem to be the case in the book.

Thanks (this question is not asking for legal advice) 195.102.147.48 (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This also fascinated me when I read the book. You may be interested to read this excellent summary of the workings of the Swedish prison system here, although unfortunately it doesn't address the question of a convicted person choosing the date of imprisonment. The entire system appears to be based on the idea of reform and prevention of reoffending, however, with great emphasis laid on helping offenders to maintain their personal and working lives despite their conviction, so the choice of incarceration date thing would not surprise me. The document does confirm the right of (well-behaved) prisoners to a certain number of days' home leave, so that aspect of the story seems true. I was very surprised recently when a German friend mentioned she'd been given a driving ban of several weeks for a motoring offence, and had been able to choose when the ban started in order to fit around work and personal commitments. I'm in the UK and our system does not offer options of this kind, but it does appear that they exist elsewhere. Karenjc 08:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to be the first to point out that "main protagonist" is a tautology. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Literally, yes. But following your link to Protagonist, you find, for example: "When the work contains subplots, these may have different protagonists from the main plot." One might therefore refer to the protagonist of the main plotline as the "main protagonist" without provoking too loud a howl of anguish, even from a pedant like me :) Karenjc 18:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I had a similar reaction to the entire description of the Swedish prison system in the Larsson book, which made it sound like a nice hotel. I'm sure that's only because it was the least dangerous of the prisons, but still, in the US you are so often told that all prison is an unending cycle of violence and rape, even the less serious ones. Granted this assessment is one part Hollywood mixed with one part extremely corrupted prison system, but still. It's hard to see how unnecessary that is without alternatives being presented.

Another odd arrangement that I (an American) could hardly conceive of was the idea of a prison furlough, which I saw depicted in an Israeli film. A vacation from prison! And then you go back again, when you're done with your vacation. What? I guess we do have them in the US in some limited circumstances, but they seem rather rare. Clearly a different set of expectations about the justice system, though I have to say that for non-violent or very minimal offenses it sounds awfully humane. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The U.S. has prison furloughs as well as house arrest and other less stringent prison arrangements. Two famous furloughed American prisoners were Mark Henderson and Willie Horton. While Mr. Horton's furlough resulted some unfortunate further crimes commited, Mr. Henderson's furlough was entirely on the up-and-up (unless you are a Miami Dolphins fan). See also Work release, which has been a part of practice in the U.S. since 1913. --Jayron32 05:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Justice Center Leoben, an Austrian prison, was making the rounds in papers and e-mails a couple of years ago. Be sure to read the Jim Lewis article linked in there, the first couple of paragraphs pretty much sum up all the stupid responses I heard and all the answers I used when discussing this place. Because, let's face it, even when gild of gold and rubies, a prison is still a prison. TomorrowTime (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Poetry ref. in the film "The Good Sheperd" (by de Niro, 2006)

Hello, can you tell me

1/ what Pr Fredericks hints at when, going meekly to his death, he ties up Wilson's shoelace & says "bootmakers to the kings" : I think you answered previously to that by : "he speaks about humble people being the weary soles of the powerfull..." ; but I rather think it is a quotation. But where from ? Gospell ? Shakespeare ?

2/ what is the poem he tries to make Wilson believe to be his own creation ? It speaks of ebullient spring on earth, while the cockoo sings "not yet, not yet..." .

Thanks a lot beforehand Arapaima (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

According to this the poem is by Trumbull Stickney. DuncanHill (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Metapoints for metafilter! :) That's a good discussion of part 2) of this question they had over there. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, though maybe some metapointers went too far in their speculations : I think the prof. simply wanted to seduce the student by impressing him, but it did not work... Anyway, thanks a lot folks (& now Trumbull Stickney has a small article on WP fr, rightly since he worked in our Sorbonne around 1900 & even won there a doctorat ès lettres...) Arapaima (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Most Controversial Bills in American History

An article that documents some of the most controversial bills in the history of American Congress.

A lot of bills and legislation that we view as fundamental to our livelihood and seem that if they were up for vote again then they would be passed inevitably, were, at one time, extremely controversial in their day of reckoning. Some examples off the top of the head (unfortunately, these are not sourced, more on this later) are:

• Pure Food and Drug Act (businessmen everywhere were aghast at how they thought prices would rise in order to meet the "ridiculous" demand of sending materials and ingredients to the government for testing, and if their product was found unclean, they would be taken off shelves... before this Act, cocaine could be served as a "hangover cure" and couldn't be regulated).
• Sherman Anti-Trust Act, instrumental in eventually breaking monopolies and competition-stifling corporations.
• 13th and 14th Amendments, as some where aghast at the fact that slaves weren't going to be slaves anymore.

These bills are viewed as pretty much a "done deal" and debate over them is somewhat immutable. No one could feasibly overturn the Pure F&D Act or the 13th and 14th amendments.

My request comes at a time when it seems every big bill in congress completely envelops the public in debate. Debate in classrooms, schools, workplaces, and, of course, congress. Bills like the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" (the bank, GM, and economy bail-out bill ~$700 billion) and the recent healthcare act are extremely controversial and would be included. But the article would be more than informative if we record the public outrage and/or debate, and document it for future generations. When universal healthcare is taken for granted in the future, we can show that at one time, it was very up in the air.

To clarify, of course every bill generates debate, especially because we have a two party system that both obstruct each other, but bills that also generate intense and enormous debate in the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.56.85 (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a specific question, or are you requesting an article be created? Fribbler (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like both. But an article mainly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.85.248.241 (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We have a page for article requests: Wikipedia:Requested articles. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

---

The most momentously controversial bill in U.S. history would have to be the Kansas–Nebraska Act -- it destroyed the Whig party, created the Republican party, and set the stage for the coming of the Civil War. And a lot of people (both at the time, and subsequent historians) have had a hard time figuring out what Stephen A. Douglas was even trying to accomplish by pushing the bill through -- if he was trying to prepare the way for a mid-latitude transcontinental railway route, or advance his presidential prospects for 1856 or 1860, then it really backfired quite spectacularly. What it did do was abruptly revive the slavery issue in American politics (somewhat quiescent since the previous compromise of 1850), and persuade a lot of Northerners that there was an aggressive expansionistic "Slave Power" which wouldn't keep to any bargains or agreements, but was relentlessly malevolent in always seeking additional power for itself, and to crush all opposition. Douglas seemed to have a curious blind spot, in that he was completely and utterly unable to understand how a reasonable person of good-will in practical politics who was not a "fanatical" immediatist abolitionist could have legitimate moral and other concerns about the existence and (especially) the spread of slavery... AnonMoos (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Digital Millennium Copyright Act --70.245.189.11 (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The DMCA was not controversial amongst Congress, I don't think, which is what the OP is asking about. From what I can tell it passed without any trouble. It was only some time later that people started to complain about "unexpected consequences" and etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was pretty controversial; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was as well. In general though the opposition was limited to a small, hard-core group of Southern Congressmen who tried their best to derail voting on them by means of filibuster. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Any short list of controversial acts of Congress would include the Sedition Act of 1798, the Embargo Act of 1807, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and the Patriot Act. —Kevin Myers 14:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Though again we might want to make the distinction between controversial within Congress and controversial outside of Congress or afterwards. The Patriot Act, for example, was extremely controversial outside of Congress and after it was passed, but within Congress it shuffled through committees and votes without much controversy (and passed both the House and Senate with overwhelming majorities thanks to post-9/11 jitters). --Mr.98 (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I’d go with Smoot-Hawley as (a) one of the root causes of the Great Depression; and (b) one of the root causes of the backlash, which was a system of rules, institutions and procedures that resulted in the greatest prosperity for the most people in all of human history.DOR (HK) (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Is deflation evil?

The computer hardware industry seems to live in a perpetual state of deflation. If one year ago, for $20, you would only get a 4GB pen-drive, today you get the 8GB version. Is deflation so bad?--Quest09 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Moore's law? I can remember when only governments or very large companies could afford a computer. Now I have two! I consider this to be "a good thing"! Dbfirs 16:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

When isolated to a particular segment of the economy, deflation can be a positive force for innovation, as those who fail to innovate get left behind: computing, mobile phone technology and the like are good examples. On a broader scale, it can be very bad. In a moderately inflationary economic environment, money becomes less valuable over time, creating an incentive to invest the money in order to keep up with or exceed inflation. In a deflationary environment, money, left alone, becomes more valuable, creating a disincentive for investment, leading to stifled innovation and stopping investment in the future, and leading to the so-called "deflationary spiral." Acroterion _(talk) 16:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the crucial issue, with respect to the OP, is distinction between scales, and in the case of computer equipment, the convergence of rapid innovation with falling prices. There is an argument to be made that the "deflation" seen in computrer equipment is just a reflection of an intensely competitive and innovative environment, rather than true deflation, as Kainaw observes below; but Comet Tuttle's point is that this produces much the same behavior. Were enough people to keep their money in their pocket and wait for the next product cycle, a deflationary spiral would occur in this market too, but there are presently enough consumers who want the latest thing pumping in money for the spiral to be avoided. Acroterion _(talk) 17:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

True economic deflation is bad. If the value of a dollar continues to rise, you will be able to purchase more with your dollar next week than you can today. There is no reason to invest your money in anything because simply sticking a dollar in your pocket will increase your net worth. What this question is referring to is not deflation. The supply of 8GB pen-drives has increased. Therefore, the cost of 8GB pen-drives has decreased. The decrease in price of a specific item is not considered deflation of the economy. Overall, the purchasing power of the dollar has continued to decrease over time. In the tech industry, supply and demand still influence the price of specific items. When a new product hits the market, supply is low and demand is high. Then, the item is mass-produced while people continue to purchase the item. So, supply increases and demand falls. It is the standard supply and demand economic model. -- kainaw™ 16:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I view Quest09's description more charitably. Definitely the same sort of behavior is incentivized — I'll leave my $1000 in the bank, thank you, because I am 100% certain that I can buy a better computer at the same price if I wait for 4 months, despite today's rate of general monetary inflation. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Currency deflation (as mentioned by Acroterion) is being experienced in Japan at present and is indeed a serious problem there as it encourages people to just leave money under the mattress where it increases in real value. Reductions in the price of computers, however, just mean that more people are able to buy them, and that they replace them more regularly. It is true, as Comet Tuttle says, that many people delay buying (I did so for ten years, during which time the cost reduced by over 90%), but others are keen to purchase the latest fastest model, so older used computers are now sometimes available at zero cost. This encourages those who would not have spent money in this way to get on the first rung of the ladder, and many subsequently go on to buy a newer, faster machine. In this way, the price reduction expands the market, so is of benefit to the economy. Dbfirs 17:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Deflation is a problem in a consumption-driven economy. It is less of an issue in an investment-driven economy, provided that the rate of return from investments is greater than the rate of inflation. This was the case during the period from about 1870 to 1900. Although there were a series of recessions during that period (including the Long Depression) and this period was largely one of economic stagnation in the UK, it was a period of dramatic growth in most other Western nations, including the United States and Germany. This growth occurred against a backdrop of price deflation. Marco polo (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Deflation in the computer hardware industry is potentially evil. If it caused prices to fall so fast that nobody was buying anything because everybody was waiting for prices to fall further, it would cause very serious problems. However, the hardware makers work pretty hard to make it attractive to buy things now rather than waiting. They don't always succeed, of course, but they seem to do well enough to stay in business. Looie496 (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This language is somewhat overblown. Evil is a quality of individuals. One might say that the act of an evil person is an evil act. If it were possible for a single person to create deflation within an entire worldwide industry, and that person were evil (not sure how we determine this, but ...) then I suppose we could describe that deflation as evil. But normally, it wouldn't get any worse than undesirable. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Jack, I think Planned obsolescence may be of interest to you an the OP, in the case that "Evil is a quality of individuals." 20:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Planned obsolescence may also be undesirable, even highly so, depending on where one sits in the food chain. But evil? That's a whole different ball game. (Jack) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Electronics is different from most things. A lot of people have a desire to get the latest technology, even if they have to pay more for it. Witness the people who line up for the latest iPhone when it comes out. Therefore, deflation in electronics doesn't usually lead to a downward spiral of price cuts and people waiting for more price cuts. Clothing, housing and the like are different. People are usually happy to wait a little while to buy a house if they think house prices are going to continue to fall. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

as the user above mentioned It's more a case of supply and demand as soon as something new comes out fewer people want the older versions/models etc.. so more of the older models lay around in retail shops taking up valuable space. And the way most succesful companies stage new product launches is after the predecessor has already paid for it's costs and made a profit meaning they don't really care if it sells or not and the cycle begins anew with the new product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a sidetrack from the original poster's question, but I disagree with 209's claim, "they don't really care if it sells or not". This will vary by country and by product, I'm sure, but most types of products sold in the US at the major retailers are, surprisingly, a consignment business. There is the initial "sell-in", in which the retailer agrees to buy 10,000 units from the supplier at the price of, say, US$100; and then when the sales drop significantly after, say, 6,000 of the units have "sold through" to consumers over a period of 3 months, then the retailer demands, and the supplier gives, a "price protection" credit, in which the retailer is credited, say, US$10 per unit still on the shelf; the retailer then drops the price of the item by, say, US$15, goosing sales of another 2,000 units at the reduced price. Then when sales slow again, there's another round of price protection, and this continues until all the items have sold through. If some units never sell through then the retailer can actually return the unsold items to the supplier for a refund. There are exceptions; mom-and-pop stores that buy from distributors probably have less ability to return product; and some entire categories of products are truly sold to retailers with a "no returns" policy, and there's no price protection, so the retailers assume all the risk; but I believe most products in the US are returnable. So, suppliers care very much whether their products sell through to consumers. Some companies and divisions of companies have been known to "stuff the channel" with an amount of goods that they know for sure will not sell; depending on the accounting used by the company, this may make the quarterly revenue number look really good, but the managers know that a lot of that product is coming back next quarter, which will produce an accounting loss. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Trying to remember a science fiction novel from the 60's

Hi There, I'm trying to remember a science fiction novel I read a long time ago. I'm thinking it was written in the 60's, a long novel, divided into 4 parts or books, that ends with a character floating in space at the end of the universe. He is about to fall into a sigularity or some such thing and his body will affect a new universe that is about to be born. He had a female partner, maybe there were four humans at the end, and each of them will also fall into the singularity and form there own universes. i remember a point in the story, again at the end I think where he hears a pinging noise that is the sound of hydrogen atoms coming into existence. I can't remember if the characters are the same throughout the story as it was a long book covering a long span of time, but there is always a way to keep characters. I think it was written by a respected author but it was not Asimov or Heinlein. any of this sound familiar? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.66.156.170 (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it A Clash of Cymbals, the last volume of Cities in Flight by James Blish? --ColinFine (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) or indeed that whole series. Rojomoke (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactley! Thanks so much, you folks rock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.66.156.170 (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Roman Emperor Julian II

Why is Emperor Julian the Apostate known as Julian II, when there were no other emperors named Julian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davegerbil (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not certain, but my guess is that Julian I would be Didius Julianus, who reigned for three months in the year 193. Looie496 (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Our article Julian suggests Sabinus Iulianus as Julian I. DuncanHill (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles of Confederation

Hey all! I'm writing a paper on the problems of the Articles of Confederation and how they were solved by the constitution. Were there any problems that were not solved by the constitution? It's not really covered much in my text or lecture notes. THanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Articles of Confederation? Does it help? (That is assuming that you are talking about the particular one that that articles relates to, out of the many countries in the world). --ColinFine (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

After you're done reading the Articles of Confederation article go read the actual Articles. They're short and an interesting read.

You could probably take any contemporary (or older) constitutional issue of debate and say it wasn't fixed by the Constitution. Slavery might be a big one, but it wasn't for a lack of trying. There were conscious reasons at the time they didn't address certain issues. Shadowjams (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

A good thing to do, also, is to read the Federalist Papers, or at least some of the key ones. They were basically a defense of the Constitution as it was eventually written, and much of the problems they claim the Constitution is designed to fix were problems under the Articles of Confederation. --Jayron32 02:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all (although this may seem condescending or patronising), your question assumes that there were problems with the Articles of Confederation that were mitigated or solved by the Constitution. This is now an overwhelming consensus among historians, but it was not the view of the Anti-Federalists at the time, and it has never been a universal or unanimous view. Have you come to that conclusion yourself, or can you approach the question afresh as something like: how effective were the Articles of Confederation, what were their successes and failures, and in what ways (if any) did the Constitution improve upon them or make things worse?

I've never been able to read all the way through the Federalist Papers, which are of course the classic statement of the Federalist case, although some of them are quite readable and enlightening. But I was enthralled by reading James Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (available free on line), where Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton debated some very hard philosophical and practical issues with Anti-Federalists like George Mason of Virginia. (Hamilton, Madison and John Jay were co-authors of the Federalist Papers; Madison was secretary to the Constitutional Convention). There are some popular paperback collections of anti-Federalist works, as well as a two-volume collection in the Library of America, although out of the historical context of give-and-take they can be as unappealing to a general reader as the pro-Federalist polemics that they were answering or provoking.

A modern statement of the anti-Federalist position can be found in two very readable books by Merrill Jensen, The Articles of Confederaton: An Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution, 1774-1781 (1940) and The New Nation: A History of the United States during the Confederation, 1781-1789 (1950). They were strongly rebutted by a solid book by Richard B. Morris in the New American Nation series, The Forging of the Union, 1781–1789 (Harper 1987), which is easily readable although not so gracefully written as Jensen's books. All of these have been published in paperback, although I think they're all now out of print. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to endorse reading the Anti-federalists. Ratification of the United States Constitution was not an overwhelming done deal. Many patriots of the American Revolution opposed the proposed Constitution on liberty grounds. This area is a personal interest of mine. A volume is available from Liberty Books or someother conservative group.My volume is packed away. Also, the actual Constitution and Bill of Rights were sketchy in many areas because of political deals. It was assumed George Washington would be president. Many themes we consider constitutional were left to the daily push and pull of politics in the first administration. Sadly, little is known about these Americans. The response to their views is as important as Hamilton, Jay and Madison in The Federalist Papers.75Janice (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)75Janice

safety on the floors and grounds

Rosie the Riveter

I had a feeling many "Rosies" wore work boots in the shipyards and defense plants during WWII. So I went to Payless ShoeSource. There I looked at work boots. The soles were oil resistant. I then went to Foot Locker to find the same thing. A sales associate tried to help me as best as possible. Some work boots had oil resistant soles, and some had skid resistant soles. I'm trying to find work boots with soles that are both oil and skid resistant. What's a good place to look? Plus, did any oil drop on the floors and grounds of shipyards and defense plants during the war?24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Oil drops on the ground of manufacturing facilities every day, some more than others of course. Dismas|^(talk) 02:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There are several styles, both oil- and slip- (skid) resistant here. Googling "oil-resistant, skid-resistant work boots",(without the quotation marks) gave me pages of results. Bielle (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I just had a flash: is your mention of "Rosies" because you want work boots for women with those characteristics? If so, here's one. Just add "for women" to the search string noted in the preceding paragraph. Bielle (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I found what I was looking for. Now all I need is to find is a patriotically decorated hard hat.24.90.204.234 (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Easy-peasy: "[9]Show your patriotism with this V-Gard ® patriotic hard hat with Fas-Trac ™ ratchet suspension. Attractive full-color graphics won't chip, fade or peel... Patriotic hard hat is compatible with face shields, earmuffs or welding helmets." Only $25.75. Alansplodge (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Or if that's too subdued, subtle or nuanced, how about showing the true thoughts within your pretty little head with this external protection for its contents? —— Shakescene (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Pretty little head"? Bielle (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a hardhat sticker in the right vein: [10]. Bielle (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

October 6

Writing games with video game characters

Since childhood, I dreamed up fantasies, uniting the characters (well, mostly enemies) in video games/ movies into one world. they were part of this world, and the enemies were combined in an army, in a world ruled by a character of my creation. I'm thinking of putting my ideas onto paper, and possibly publishing. I won't take the video game characters name for name and detail for detail, but I'll give them different names. But, the description of the looks characters in the book will make me think of those in the video game. Other than that, that's where the similarities end. Is this a good idea? This seems like a motivation to keep me going forward, but is this legally and "politically" a good idea? thx --LastLived 02:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You may want to look at Archetype and Intellectual property. Many video-games have a hero that has some details that are original, but are based on, say, Beowulf or any Savior. If you create an orginal story with characters who have a not-so-original personality, then it is your intellectual property. It sounds like a fine idea to me; it may turn out well for you :) schyler (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is very misleading. Beowulf is in the public domain. Video game characters are not. That is a crucial difference. Writing something based on copyrighted characters means your work is a derivative work. Whether that is infringement or not depends on a lot of other factors. But it is not the same thing as basing your general story on something in the public domain. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think he meant that both Beowulf and Christ have also been video game characters, as have Robin Hood, Peter Pan, etc. Not that it helps. The question asker is clearly asking about characters that are primarily game characters, not free characters that have also been in games. APL (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I read it as saying, "everything is derivative to some degree, don't worry about it too much," which is probably true from a cultural/artistic standpoint, but not at all from a legal one. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You may also want to look at fan fiction, which describes the gist (not exactly, but close) of what you are working on. --Jayron32 02:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

See also Legal issues with fan fiction. If you are doing this just for fun and learning and not sharing it with anybody other than a close personal friend or two, knock yourself out. That's clearly allowed in the same way that you're allowed to draw your own pictures of Mario and post them on the refrigerator. If you are going to be posting it on the internet in a fan fiction forum, probably nobody will care, but the copyright owners could probably get it taken down if they wanted to. If you are going to try and monetize it and publish it as a book or something, you will run into legal issues. This is not legal advice, just a rough overview of how this has usually happened in the past, and where the legal issues come into play. The actual resolution of the legal problem would depend on a more fine-grained understanding of exactly what you were writing, a broader legal background, and your jurisdiction (something which is itself complicated if you plan to publish online, which makes you liable in basically all jurisdictions). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Be warned that there have been some high-profile fan games that, despite a tremendous amount of work that went into them, were forced to disappear. The late, lamented, Chrono Resurrection comes to mind. (I was going to give The Silver Lining (video game) as another example, but I see now that that story has a happy ending!) APL (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that within fanfiction communities, changing a work of fanfiction to disguise it as original fiction is known as filing off the serial numbers. It is considered far less ethical (within these communities) than simply writing fanfiction, because it is pretending to be original, and hence plagiarism. It is, in effect, failing to cite your sources. Straight-up fanfiction at least acknowledges where it came from, and does not claim to own the borrowed characters or universe. It should also be noted that there are some published authors whose work is widely considered to be fanfiction with the serial numbers filed off, and people hold them in some contempt. Selling any fanfiction, disguised or otherwise, will put you in a legally vulnerable position. And finally, if the story you are telling needs these characters in this setting, it will not work properly with different characters in a different setting: filing off the serial numbers will spoil the story. If it will work with different characters in a different setting, then write this original work with these different characters and setting, not using anything from the other work.

I also strongly recommend that you find a nice bit of the online fandom and start exploring it: you will find that you are not alone in your behaviour, and will probably enjoy yourself. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Origin of "Going to the john"

John Harington has been credited as having invented the flush toilet in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Could this fact be the origin of the slang phrase Going to the john? Back in medieval times the word for latrines was the jakes, hence Harington naming his toilet Ajax. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

etymonline.com says: John, "toilet," 1932, probably from jack, jakes, used for "toilet" since 16c. (see Jack). 24.16.154.46 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The folk etymology of the "john" being named for a guy named John who invented an Elizabethan flush toilet is as amusing as the "crapper" being named for Thomas Crapper who was a Victorian plumber and fixture manufacturer. Edison (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Or of Otto Titzling having invented the brassiere. --Jayron32 19:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Gift man

A hypothetical scenario: An adult person, perhaps an artist or poet or "spiritual advisor" or something, lives entirely off the non-monetary largesse of a benefactor (or a community of benefactors). Although he lives comfortably, even opulently, he doesn't really have any "income" in the sense of money. He may not even have a bank account. My question is this: Assuming he and his benefactors are in all other respects model citizens, what sort of relationship will he have with the taxman? I understand that if a contest-winner "wins" something like a massive yacht, he often can't assume ownership of it because he can't afford the taxes on it. But if our hypothetical man receives only quiet, casual gifts, it seems unlikely that he would have to pay tax on any given item, even if they collectively amount to a luxurious existence. (My interest isn't confined to U.S. tax law. Any perspective would be interesting.) Oh, and this isn't legal advice. LANTZY^TALK 19:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

All gifts are technically taxable. In order to avoid taxing small gifts (birthday party, etc), in the US, the first X dollars of value from each person is not taxable. This is a lifetime limit, not per year. Ariel. (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Citations, please; this is a reference desk. Here is the IRS's FAQ on gift taxes, with the helpful comment that "The laws on Estate and Gift Taxes are considered to be some of the most complicated in the Internal Revenue Code." The most familiar rule is the annual exclusion; as an individual, you can give someone up to US$13,000 per year, tax-free; but amounts above that are taxable. Subject, as mentioned above, to some of the most complicated tax laws in the US. In your example, the gifts are not monetary; but they are assessed at fair-market value as though they were. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

In Canada, on the other hand, most gifts are not taxable. As far as I can tell, in the scenario described income tax would be payable only if it was decided that the artist was conducting a de facto business and was in effect being paid for his work. (In which case, the fact that the payment was non-monetary would not save him). --Anonymous, 20:55 UTC, October 6, 2010.

In the UK the main implication of gifts is for inheritance tax. One may give up to £3000 away in any tax year (plus various allowances for smaller gifts) without a problem; above this limit a gift is a "potentially exempt transfer", and if the donor dies within seven years of making it there will be tax implications for their estate, and potentially for the recipient. However, regular gifts made out of surplus income, that do not diminish the value of an estate, are exempt from this rule. Theoretically therefore, your artist or guru could do very nicely out of a group of benefactors giving him £3000 a year each, or one multimillionaire keeping him in luxury with the spare change from his back pocket. However, the taxman is not stupid, and has the power to audit your affairs and examine your means of support. If you are awash with donated cash but declaring no income, and you are not a registered charity or other approved gift recipient, he might look closely at what your donors are receiving in return for their gifts. If, for example, they receive spiritual guidance or nice paintings, he is within his rights to attempt to reclassify your relationship as a business one and the "gifts" as payment for goods or services, no matter how you argued otherwise. He would also look at what state benefits you are claiming. Since these are mostly means-tested, and would take account of your gifted income in any calculations, it is likely that an artist or spiritual advisor supported by benefactors would avoid claiming state benefits in order to escape accusations of benefit fraud, which is a serious offence. The taxman would almost certainly regard a failure to claim unemployment benefits, coupled with your lack of any assets that would generate an investment income (which would be taxable), as supporting evidence that gifts from your admirers could be taxed as income. Karenjc 21:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the guy is not an artist who produces anything tangible or measurable, but a freelance guru whose contribution to his benefactors is invisible, unquantifiable, arguably illusory, but (as far as the benefactors are concerned) indispensable. He and his benefactors would certainly bristle at the suggestion that he is a businessman peddling a trade. Also for the sake of argument, let's assume that his teachings are innocuous and his police record nonexistent. I imagine that such cases must arise from time to time. In certain immigrant communities, for instance, a religious official may be imported from the metropole and supported essentially by charity. My uninformed intuition is that such a person would be accorded some special tax status, since he closely resembles a dependant, except that he's an able-bodied adult not necessarily related by blood to his benefactors. I wonder, could a wealthy man adopt his priest/rabbi/swami as a dependent? LANTZY^TALK 04:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking for sci-fi novel set on the moon in a socialist society

I've been racking my brain for the title of sci-fi book I read in the 80s, which I think was pretty old then, going by the state of the book, so I would guess that it was maybe from the 1960s. It was set on the Moon, where a number of people had left Earth to set up a socialist society. The main character was born there, in a sort of kibbutz, and was raised with a group of children, only occasionally seeing his father and never his mother, until he was an adult. He grew up to be a mathematician, and there was a famine, but because they needed him to be able to work, he got more food than other people, which made him feel terribly guilty. He eventually travelled to Earth, but was disgusted by their profligacy and waste. Any ideas? Snorgle (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I've read this novel too, but cannot remember the title. However, it does sound like something Robert A. Heinlein might have written, perhaps The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress or Stranger in a Strange Land. Alternatively, this page may provide you with additional hints. Astronaut (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be thinking of Ursula K. Le Guin's award-winning 1974 novel The Dispossessed. She gave it the subtitle "An Ambiguous Utopia" -- it is often categorised as anarchist, but I can see why you might think it socialist. The main character, Shevek, is a physicist, who travels from his moon Anarres to the mother planet Urres, divided in a Cold War-like situation between a hedonistic, materialistic "West" and a dour, authoritarian "USSR"-substitute. There is a famine, you remember correctly, and he has to allocate workers to tasks, making him feel responsible for their deaths. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure you're right -- the description definitely sounds like The Dispossessed, one of the few sci-fi books I've ever read (and therefore not one I'd forget). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you've got it, but on the off chance that that isn't it, Michael Swanwick's excellent Vacuum Flowers features a socialist Mars, which this review entertainingly describes as "People's Mars, an unappealing collectivist state based on classical Sparta". But that's much later than your timeframe. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 01:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thirteen Original Colonies

Okay, I've got a question...

I have to find the order in which the 13 colonies were founded, their founder, the date they were founded, their first town, why it was settled (either religion or profit), and the nationality (like dutch, english, etc.).

So, I'm stuck on the order and the dates. You find the dates, you find the order, right?

Well, I've been to so many different websites and so many different books (yes, oh my god someone still reads books) but all of them have different dates! I've even looked here, but it says Massachusetts was founded in 1691, and thissays it was founded in 1620, and my history book says it was founded sometime between 1620 and 1630! And whenever I try to find the specific founder, like for Virginia, I get John Smith, John Rolfe, or London Company.

I haven't even tried searching for first towns yet, or anything else...

Can anybody tell me WHERE I can find ACCURATE answers for this?! I'm going insane! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokegeek42 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there may not be a single answer. If you look at our article Massachusetts, you find:

• "The first English settlers in Massachusetts, the Pilgrims, established their settlement at Plymouth in 1620"
• " ... Puritans who established the Massachusetts Bay Colony at present-day Boston in 1630"
• "In 1691, Massachusetts became a single colony, combining Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony (along with present-day Maine)"

So which is the date of foundation, 1620, 1630 or 1691? --ColinFine (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's all in how you define "founded." For example, was a given city founded when it was first settled, when it incorporated as a village or when it attained city status? Massachusetts celebrated its "Tercentenary" in 1930, so that indicates they chose to use 1630 as their year of birth. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your teacher is making something of a mistake. The number of English colonies in North America, or even on the east coast of North America, varied over time as colonies were founded, merged, and divided. The case of Massachusetts is a perfect illustration of this. It started out as at least two colonies, Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony. (Before Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded, there were the earlier colonies of the Dorchester Company.) Likewise, what later became Connecticut was originally three separate colonies: Saybrook Colony, New Haven Colony, and Connecticut Colony. On the other hand, Delaware started as part of the colony of Pennsylvania and only formally separated during the 1700s. However, the area that became Delaware was settled by Europeans (before it was Delaware) much earlier, in fact by Swedish colonists. However, that Swedish colony had little or no relation as a continuous entity to the much later colony of Delaware. So, it doesn't make sense to ask when each of the 13 colonies that subscribed to the Articles of Confederation in the 1770s was founded, as if each of them had a united and unbroken history from the time of their first settlement or the first founding of an English colony on their 1770s soil. (Incidentally, those "original" 13 colonies were not the only English colonies in eastern North America in the 1770s. Quebec, Florida, and Nova Scotia were all English colonies at the time. Nova Scotia in particular was no different in status other English colonies in North America as of, say, 1770, so it is a mistake to refer to "the 13 colonies" at any date earlier than about 1775.) Marco polo (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually Florida was two colonies at the time, East and West Florida. Nova Scotia, on the other hand, then included what was later the separate colony (and now Canadian province) of New Brunswick. As Marco said, merging and dividing. Incidentally, if you look at the Articles of Association (1774), you will see that Delaware is called "the three lower counties of Newcastle, Kent and Sussex on Delaware". That terminology is a relic of its separation from Pennsylvania earlier the same century: see Delaware#Colonial Delaware. --Anonymous, 08:15 UTC, October 7, 2010.

I'd also object to the requirement to classify colonies as founded for "either religion or profit". Certainly, the people who founded Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay colony were motivated in large part by the desire for religious freedom. However, why didn't they confine themselves to the eastern coast of New England? Why did they go on to found the three colonies that came to be Connecticut? They had already attained religious freedom in Massachusetts. Although Connecticut is often classified as a "religious" colony because it was founded by Puritans, in fact a major motivation of the colonists who moved there from Massachusetts was to gain access to the lucrative trade in furs along the Connecticut River. Likewise, Maryland was founded by Cecilius Calvert, 2nd Baron Baltimore both as a haven for Catholics and as a commercial venture. North Carolina, another of the supposedly commercial colonies, was also a refuge for people fleeing religious persecution in Europe. Marco polo (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no definitive way to answer these questions, so just pick whatever founding event you like best. There are many reasonable choices to choose from. Some of the colonies' origins are a bit tricky, with several reasonable "founding events" over long time periods. In particular, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, and New Hampshire could reasonably be said have been founded in many different ways.

I couldn't help but write an off-the-cuff list of founding dates/events, and first towns. It could be done in many other ways though.

• Virginia: founded 1607 (Jamestown established); first town Jamestown.

• New York: founded 1614 (as New Netherland); first town Fort Nassau (1614) (now Albany).

• Massachusetts: founded November 11, 1620 (Mayflower Compact signed); first town Plymouth.

• Maryland: founded June 20, 1632 (charter granted); first town St. Mary's City (1634).

• Rhode Island: founded 1636 (Roger Williams establishes Providence); first town Providence.

• Delaware: founded 1638 (as New Sweden); first town Fort Christina (now Wilmington).

• Connecticut: founded January 24, 1639 (Fundamental Orders of Connecticut adopted); first town Windsor (1633). [alternatively, Fort Huys de Goede Hoop, founded 1623]

• South Carolina: founded as Province of Carolina in 1663 (Lords Proprietors receive charter); first town Albemarle Settlements [alternatively, Charleston, 1670, first in what is now South Carolina--earlier settlements were in what's now North Carolina].

• New Jersey: founded 1664 (Duke of York's grant to Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret); first town Pavonia/Communipaw (about 1630-1634) (now Jersey City).

• Pennsylvania: founded March 4, 1681 (charter granted); first town Philadelphia.

• New Hampshire: founded May 14, 1692 (Charter of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay inaugurated); first town Dover (1623). [alternately, founded 1629 (Council for New England grant to John Mason)]

• North Carolina: founded 1729 (Lord Proprietors bought out by The Crown, royal colony established); first town Albemarle Settlements.

• Georgia: founded June 1732 (charter granted); first town Savannah.

I realize this list is rather a hodge-podge, sometimes citing charters and sometimes settlements as founding events, among other things. It might be more sensible to use the dates the colonies were founded as English/British colonies, ignoring New Netherland and New Sweden. After all, there's quite a difference between New Sweden and the English colony of Delaware. Also, some of my "first towns" are more trading posts or forts than towns. There's definitely no single correct list (and don't trust my list anyway--I probably made some mistakes). As for where to find information, I don't know of a single source. Wikipedia's various pages on the subject are of mixed quality. This website has a lot of useful colonial charters and grants. The question about whether founded for "either religion or profit" is way to black-and-white for me to even want to think about. I'd want to say "some of both" for all 13 colonies. Pfly (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

SAT essay revisited

Hey, it's me again (again). I kind of tagged this on my last question (thnx for the responses btw) but I didn't really get a satisfactory answer, so I'll clarify. What if I am confronted with a question which is really boring and I cannot think of good examples to support either viewpoint? Also, would it be to my advantage to "lie" in the essay, i.e., fabricate personal experiences and books to create "ideal" examples supporting my argument, seeing as SAT essays are not graded on content. Thanks again. 23:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)24.92.78.167 (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Fake anecdotes are kind of pointless. They won't convince anyone, no reader would be dumb enough to care if they were real, and fake sounds fake. Personally I would wonder how effective a personal anecdote would be for arguing anything of that sort, even if it were real. Despite the predilection of modern educational systems to teach high schoolers that the entire world is interested in their "emoting", it really is not very interesting to read, because obviously most high schoolers have pretty uninteresting experiences at this point in their lives. (And if you don't actually have the experience of having saved everyone's life on your plane which crashed in the Andes, don't pretend that you did. Your faking it will just look silly.)

As for boring, it's as boring as you make it. You want it to be exciting? Push it to the extremes. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Boring? No way! What happens if you push it all the way as far as it'll go? "There are people in the world who like to be stepped on by women in high heels. Should those people step on others with high heels?" Generally speaking, not connected with the SAT, the trick in writing anything that is going to show strong reasoning ability is to push the logic as far as it'll go. Find the total boundaries of sense without going over them. Especially if it takes you into awkward territory, like concluding that the Golden Rule is ridiculous and a bad idea anyway, after all these years. The entire trick of the essays is for you to be able to see and find and argue the interesting point in what is probably a boring question. That's what separates you from the crowd. Try to always be arguing for something controversial. If the straightforward answer is obvious, see if you can push it entirely in the other direction. "Nuclear proliferation is a good idea, because..." At the very least, it won't be boring. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think what you write about really matters that much. Remember, the essay is to test how well you right, not really how much you know about history, or whatever. I read an article (when the essays were first introduced) that said that the length of the essays correlated very well with the score. They also made the point that you should include "facts" to back up your points; it shows that you know how to form an argument. The article made a point of saying that whether the facts were true or not did not affect the essay's score; it's to test how well you write, not to see how much you know about whatever the prompt is. Buddy431 (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree too much with either of the two comments already made. But if you are going to try to argue for the SAT that the Golden Rule sucks or that "nuclear proliferation is a good idea"... well, you had better present your argument extremely well in such cases as those. But if you can take a boring question and develop it in an interesting or unusual way, and do so well, without crossing any boundaries that you shouldn't be in the context of taking that test, then that is certainly what you should try to do. Do you have an example of a "boring" SAT essay question, and can you say specifically in terms of that example what approach you think you would try to take with it at this point? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

English noble families

It seem like almost all the noble families of England who held peers and land were of Norman French origin. Did any of the old Anglo-Saxon families or Danish families from the Viking Age survived pass the Norman conquest?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Norman conquest of England article certainly makes it sound as if few, if any, did. (Whether any pre-conquest aristocratic line continued in any way at all in the aristocracy past that time seems possible, but would be for someone more knowledgeable about it than I to say). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No doubt some of the families survived. However, William I dispossessed nearly all of the Anglo-Saxon nobility and awarded their lands to his Norman fighters. So those dispossessed families would have survived, if they were lucky, as yeoman farmers, or else as bonded serfs. Marco polo (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Who were they? I never actually heard of any Anglo-Saxon noble familys besides the Godwins.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That's because they lacked surnames. Their descendants would have been commoners who adopted surnames later in the Middle Ages. Marco polo (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You'd want to do some research into such anglosaxon titles/concepts as Ealdorman (originally equivalent to a Dux (duke), but later evolved into the title Earl (count)) and Thegn (the anglosaxon middle nobility, probably roughly equivalent to Barons). We even have a categories titled Category:Anglo-Saxon ealdormen and Category:Anglo-Saxon thegns which would give you some start into your research. --Jayron32 01:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so unrelated to the original question - I saw "Ealdor" there and thought of Merlin (TV series). D'you think that's where the name of Merlin's homevillage came from? 184.97.159.46 (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Some Anglo-Saxon nobles who survived the battle were Edwin, Earl of Mercia and Morcar of Northumbria. There was also Edgar Atheling, pretty much the only member of the royal family left after the battle. There was resistance in the north from people like Hereward the Wake, but whether or not he was noble is hard to say. William's Harrowing of the North certainly reduced the number of families who could have held land. So, the short answer is basically yes, all the landowners were Normans because the Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Danish ones were all killed or exiled. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a tradition that the Howards of Norfolk descend from a Saxon named Hereward; although the Howards didn't become the dukes of Norfolk until John Howard in the 15th century and by then had already intermarried with the Anglo-Norman aristocracy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

This document prepared for a college-level course seems to give a good overview of what happened to the Anglo-Saxons after the conquest. It makes specific references to Gospatric, Earl of Northumbria, his successor Waltheof, Earl of Northumbria - described in our article as "last of the Anglo-Saxon earls" - as well as Edwin, Earl of Mercia and his brother Morcar as already mentioned. It also makes the point that many of the Saxon noblemen left for exile, some to join the Varangian Guard in Constantinople. Edgar the Ætheling, proclaimed as king by the English immediately after the Battle of Hastings, survived into old age under William and his successors, and his sister Margaret became queen of Scotland. Her daughter Matilda in turn married William the Conqueror's son, who became Henry I of England. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

October 7

FLOSSIE

Resolved

(This is one of those tip-of-my-brain things). What is the actual name of the insurgent/resistance/militant group that I'm misremembering as "FLOSSIE"? Part of me thinks it's somehow French, or French-African, and I know it's not FiFI or FAF; I think it's phonetically "flossy", or something very like that. Sorry I can't be of more help (if I could, I'm confident I'd have remembered it by now). Would that we had a List of insurgent groups with harmless-sounding names article (FRELIMO sounds like a circus clown, and Sendero Luminoso sound much nicer than they really were, I fear). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 00:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it (Front for the Liberation of Occupied South Yemen - FLOSY). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 00:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Which country is the best to live in?

--70.245.189.11 (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That, uh, kinda depends on what you're looking for. → ROUX ₪ 00:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Quality-of-life index lists the Republic of Ireland (as of 2005; given Ireland's recent travails I doubt that this is still valid
• Satisfaction with Life Index lists Denmark
• Nonlinear quality of life index lists Luxembourg
• List of countries by Human Development Index lists Norway

Nordic countries in general fare well in many of these indices. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 01:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

However, those same countries tend to fall low on the "Lack of blistering cold and paralyzing snowstorms" scale. --Jayron32 01:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It really depends on what you're looking for, the human development indexes make several value assumptions. A billionaire and a unemployed person are going to be looking for different kind of government services. A libertarian and a traditionalist muslim are going to be looking for different kinds of social norms. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You might want to think in terms of cities rather than countries, in which case Vienna regularly comes out on top, see the results of this survey. --Viennese Waltz 07:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Geneaology

Does the fact that a Chinese person have the same surname mean they all originate from the first who held that surname? I know it isn't the case for the more popular names but out of all the people with the surname Liu how many were descendants of the Emperors of the Han Dynasty?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That is not true. Ignoring those who take on a family name through adoption or marriage, there are many examples of a person changing his or her family name, such as Sun Tzu/Sun Wu. Further, family names used to be allowed only by the rich and powerful. Commoners only had a given name. If a surname was required, it was the lord of the land in which the commoner lived. A western similarity would be slaves that took on their master's last name. For a lot more detail, see Chinese surname. -- kainaw™ 01:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Famous Santorini (?) painting

Dear Wikipedians:

I remember seeing a famous painting of Santorini (?: I am not sure if the locale of the painting points exactly to Santorini) in one of the poster sales at my university a few years ago.

The poster is divided roughly into three parts -- a blue sky stretches across the top, a bunch of white adobe dome houses with some of them having arched entry way (without the blue tops of typical Santorini churches) to the bottom left, and an endless stretch of blue mediterranean sea to the bottom right. The time seems to be a lazy afternoon. There seems to be a series of broad terrace steps leading down and around the white adobe dome houses, the terrace steps take a turn around the white adobe dome houses and disappears around the far end of the houses.

I am having real trouble finding this painting on the Internet. I think it should be a very famous painting, made perhaps by a 19th or 20th century impressionist/modern art painter. However, all the Santorini paintings I have Googled either have the houses on the wrong side (right side), too few/no/blue adobe domes, rocky lands visible beyond the sea, no blue sky, or missing the terrace.

Could anyone kindly help point me to the right painting?

Thanks,

174.88.242.103 (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Santorini is a popular place to paint. Could it be a Behrens, perhaps? (Mediteranean; "neo-Impressionist"; popular in "poster" form). Like [11], or maybe [12]...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

SCOTUS rulings.

So the Supreme Court (U.S.) heard oral arguments in Phelps v. Snyder today. When will the ruling be issued (I mean in a typical case, obviously no one here has a working crystal ball)? Are the rulings released at the end of the term, or as soon as they're done? How long does it typically take to finalize a ruling? Buddy431 (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

On the court's web site (supremecourt.gov), the "Visitor's Guide to Oral Argument" page says "No one knows exactly when a decision will be handed down by the Court in an argued case, nor is there a set time period in which the Justices must reach a decision. However, all cases argued during a term of Court are decided before the summer recess begins, usually by the end of June." The "Visitor's Guide to the Supreme Court" document on the same site is a bit more specific: it says "In mid-May, after the oral argument portion of the Term has concluded, the Court takes the Bench Mondays at 10 a.m. for the release of orders and opinions. This practice continues until all the cases heard during the Term are decided, usually the last week in June." --Anonymous, 08:37 UTC, October 7, 2010.

Life Insurance claims India

How do they pay life insurance claims in India, given the amount of potential fraudulent claims, non disclosure at the time of application, the inabililty to confirm date of birth, death or even identity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneelr (talk • contribs) 07:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Legality of Prescription medicine purchases in Canada by Americans

Is it illegal for Americans to drive to Canada, purchase a car load of prescription medicine and return to the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneelr (talk • contribs) 07:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, The Reference Desk does not ansewer legal questions please see the rules at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

However, I think it would be safe to point out that it would not be possible to legitimately "purchase a carload of prescription medicine" unless you had a carload of prescriptions with you. --Anon, 08:40 UTC, October 7, 2010.

Oh no, that doesn't sound right. Medicines typically come in small boxes or bottles, but the prescriptions are only paper-thin and take up far less volume. You might need only a few shoe boxes full of scripts to get enough medicine to fill a car. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Infringement of persona -- astronaut sues singer

Does Wikipedia have an article discussing infringement of persona? Regarding Bruce McCandless II#Personal, I don't understand what case could be made against someone for using a government photo of an astronaut doing his job, particularly when, as in this case, no features of the astronaut are visible through the helmet's visor. Might Wikipedia be restricted from using certain "work of U.S. government, and thus copyright free" images for fear of infringing a subject's persona? -- 115.67.106.121 (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of copyright, it's personality rights. In looking at this album cover, someone might (that's the claim of the lawsuit, at least) believe that McCandless was involved with the album, had some control over its content, endorsed it, or was getting paid from its proceeds. Wikipedia is on pretty solid ground using a photo of a living person in their own article. If we did something pretty obviously crazy, like we sold "Wikipedia Brand Chocolate Biscuits" and put photos of Brad Pitt on the packet, that would be the kind of thing we'd get sued over. But if we did something like make a Wikibook of famous actors, which had a montage of their photos on the front, that very likely would be fine. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"bootmakers to the kings" in the film The Good Shepherd (by R.De Niro, 2006)

Hello, can you tell me what Pr Fredericks hints at when, going meekly to his death, he ties up Wilson's shoelace & says "bootmakers to the kings" . Somebody here answered previously to that by (could'nt find again the archive, sorry) : "it's an allusion about humble people being the weary soles of the powerfull..." Don't you think it rather looks like a quotation ? But where from ? The Bible ? Shakespeare ?. Thanks +++ beforehand Arapaima (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You asked exactly the same question (slightly differently worded) just a day or so ago; see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Poetry ref. in the film "The Good Sheperd" (by de Niro, 2006). Whatever answers we can provide will be given there. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking for plays that...

...start off with an exchange between two or so minor characters that foreshadow what will happen ahead. Hamlet's a good example. Thanks!  ?EVAUNIT^{神になった人間} 12:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)