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

November 29

website to calculate inflation adjustment

looking for website to calculate price adjusted for inflation. for example, S$10,000 at 1998 prices, is worth how much now after inflation adjustment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.216.172 (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This page [1] has a list of them. 213.122.68.179 (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent site. Dalliance (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The two sources cited are fine for the economies they cover, but will not help at all in gauging the real (current, inflation-adjusted) value of S$10,000. The tables in this [[2]] will allow you to work out the GDP deflator. That will show 12.83% cumulative inflation in 1999-2009, which is as good a proxy as five minutes work will yield. The answer is that S$10,000 in 1999 would be worth S$8,908 in 2009. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Saving the Euro

Who's chipping in to save the Euro? Only those countries with the Euro as currency or all EU countries? Quest09 (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Your question appears to rest on an assumption that the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and efforts such as the recent one to rescue the Irish financial system are only about saving the euro. This is certainly an important part of their purpose. However, these efforts are also made because they aim to prevent European governments and banks from defaulting on their debt. Such defaults could imperil the financial systems not only of countries that use the euro but also of the United Kingdom, which has lent a great deal of money to the euro zone. So the United Kingdom, or at least financial interests in the City of London, have a strong interest in the success of these efforts. That said, funding for the EFSF comes from debt it issues, which is backed only by countries using the euro as currency. Marco polo (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The loan to Ireland AIUI, is a combined one from the EFSF (described above) which is funded by the Eurozone members, the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism which is funded by all the EU member states, and by the International Monetary Fund which is funded by almost all the members of the United Nations. In addition, the UK has offered a seperate GBP7billion loan, because our economies are inter-dependant especially in respect of Northern Ireland. So the answer is everybody - but I suspect Germany will be paying the most, as it is the largest contributor to the first 2 funds mentioned and third largest to the IMF (after the US and Japan; the UK is fourth). Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Argentine peso

The Argentine peso is pretty unstable, so I'm not surprised that Wikipedia disagrees with itself a little bit. But I think we should get this fixed.

The article Argentine peso says the Argentine peso oro sellado (ISO 4217: ARG) was the currency in place from 1881-1969, but the article Argentine peso moneda nacional says that peso moneda nacional (ISO 4217: ARM) was the currency from 1881-1969. The strange part is I can find neither ARM or ARG in the table of codes in the Wikipedia article for ISO 4217. This leads to three questions.

• Which was the actual currency in place at that time? (I have a 1957 coin and it simply says "peso")
• What is the correct ISO 4217 code for that currency?
• Why isn't that code in the various tables on the Wikipedia article for ISO 4217?

Thank you very much for your help. JamaUtil (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The article on the Argentine peso, or at least its history section, looks quite unreliable to me. To begin with, ISO 4217 codes were not created until the 1970s, after the earlier versions of the Argentine peso had ceased to circulate. I doubt that codes would have been created for defunct currencies. I suspect that the codes in the peso article are somebody's invention. Certainly, a citation is needed. Second, oro sellado simply means "gold coin" in Spanish. It is virtually inconceivable to me that Argentina remained on the gold standard without any revaluation from 1881 to 1969, as the article states, given that stronger and more stable economies such as those of the United States, Britain, and Switzerland (!) were forced to devalue relative to gold during the 1930s. During the nearly 90-year period referenced by the article, Argentina's economy went through a number of financial crises, and it is just unimaginable that the currency retained a steady value in terms of gold. Again, citation needed. Marco polo (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, though there do appear to be some obsolete currencies from before the 70s on that ISO page, such as the Austro-Hungarian krone. Does someone here know of/can find a nice reference that I could use to improve the article? JamaUtil (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not completely implausible that there would be ISO codes for obsolete currencies, though the ISO 4217 article doesn't cite any sources. Meanwhile, our article Argentine peso moneda nacional looks much more reliable than Argentine peso, though the former is likewise lacking in sources. If you want to research this, a starting point might by The Crisis of Argentine Capitalism by Paul Lewis. Though its focus isn't monetary history, it is likely to refer to sources on that topic. Marco polo (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ten Commandments <=> Book of the Dead

Greetings! In the article Ten Commandments "The Egyptian Book of the Dead" is mentioned in the literature, however, not cited in the text. In "The Egyptian Book of the Dead" the "inverse confession" ist found (I did not..., I did not... I did not ... etc.). In the Book of the Dead no "connection" is made to the 10 commandments.

Are there recent references (books, serious papers; not Eso-Stuff) of Old Testamentarians or Egyptologysts, who proove (disprove, discuss) a "connection" or "analogy" or "parallelism" or "relevance" or "non-relevance" of the 10 Commandments and the Inverse Confession in the Book of Dead? Thanks for your time. 62.241.105.149 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There may have been serious Egyptologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries who argued for a connection between the two, but I haven't seen anything about it in recent Egyptological literature (and I've read a lot of it over the past couple of years). I tend to suspect Egyptologists don't put much stock in the idea nowadays. Jan Assmann published a book several years ago called Moses the Egyptian which examines the connections between Egypt and Judaism, and the way that people have viewed those connections over the centuries. I haven't read it, but it may say something about the Book of the Dead/Ten Commandments relationship. A. Parrot (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to read the Negative Confession (inverse confession), somebody listed the whole thing here. A. Parrot (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've read them before. I know one voice (Theol. Prof. 'Old Testament', still alive) who rejects the parallelism due to difference in context. And - as you say - Lit. from the 1920ies that draw parallels. So the question remains: Why is the Book of Dead listet in the 10 Commandment article, when it is not put in context? Greetings 62.241.105.149 (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people insert things in articles without proper context, unfortunately. But where is the mention of the Book of the Dead in that article? I don't see it. A. Parrot (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

CTRL+F on the word 'Egyptian' gave me one single hit - "Budge, E. A. Wallis (1967). The Egyptian Book of the Dead. Dover Publications." - right at the bottom, in the 'Further Reading' section, leading me to believe it is not mentioned at all in the article body. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Vatican and democracy

Considering the difficult relationship between the Catholic Church and virtually all democratic political movements before 1945, has the Vatican ever explicitly condoned democracy, or does it still consider it to be a facet of "modernism"? I know from personal experience that the church still officially bemoans the separation of church and state, but I suppose this can theoretically be reconciled with democracy. Obviously the Vatican threw in the towel on democracy after WWII, but did they ever make it official, say with an encyclical? If not, why not? It would seem to me that today many of their worst antagonists are non-democratic (the People's Republic of China, for instance), whereas in democracies the worst they have to put up with is the occasional gay kiss-in. LANTZY^TALK 23:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Vatican is actually surprisingly closely aligned with democratic ideals, especially since the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's. Inter Mirifica is essentially a defense of freedom of the press; and of the responsibility of Catholics to remain well informed, another essential democratic ideal. That document, and several others from Vatican II, also use the phrasology "the dignity of the individual", which is as core a principle to democracy as there is. Nostra Aetate is another document which presents an interesting balance between the core Christian goal of making believers of all people, and of the core democratic ideal of freedom of religion. Though I myself am no longer Catholic (but am a Christian), I have found this document to present an interesting way to consider the problem of being an evangelical Christian in a pluralistic world. The quote from Part V, "No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that leads to discrimination between man and man or people and people, so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are concerned. The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion." source. (bold mine). I'm not sure the Roman Catholic Church has come out, in the positive or negative, for any specific governmental system, but at least since Vatican II, they have been expressly supportive of western liberal ideals of liberty and freedom which are core values to most democratic systems. --Jayron32 04:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Some more relevent catholic documents' from Gaudium et Spes, source

• chapter II, item 26: "Therefore, there must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter; the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family, the right to education, to employment, to a good reputation, to respect, to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one's own conscience, to protection of privacy and rightful freedom even in matters religious." (bold mine)
• Chapter II, item 28: "Respect and love ought to be extended also to those who think or act differently than we do in social, political and even religious matters."
• Chapter II, item 29: "Human institutions, both private and public, must labor to minister to the dignity and purpose of man. At the same time let them put up a stubborn fight against any kind of slavery, whether social or political, and safeguard the basic rights of man under every political system." (again, as I noted above, respecting liberal ideals of freedom and liberty, without commitment to one political system)
• Chapter III, section 2, item 71 is in general a defense of private ownership and of western democratic economic systems, especially social democracy and capitalism to some degrees, "Private property or some ownership of external goods confers on everyone a sphere wholly necessary for the autonomy of the person and the family, and it should be regarded as an extension of human freedom."
• Chapter IV of that document is basically an attack on totalitarianism, and a demand for basic political freedoms. Without expressly defining democracy, it does a pretty good job of attacking antidemocratic systems. In light of the OP's question, this entire section is probably important, but a few choice quotes:

• from Item 73: "The protection of the rights of a person is indeed a necessary condition so that citizens, individually or collectively, can take an active part in the life and government of the state."
• later in Item 73: "However, those political systems, prevailing in some parts of the world are to be reproved which hamper civic or religious freedom, victimize large numbers through avarice and political crimes, and divert the exercise of authority from the service of the common good to the interests of one or another faction or of the rulers themselves."
• Item 74: "It is clear, therefore, that the political community and public authority are founded on human nature and hence belong to the order designed by God, even though the choice of a political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free will of citizens." There we have it. If that bolded clause is not a defense of democracy, I don't know what is.

I'll let the OP read the rest of the relevent documents. --Jayron32 04:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is also useful to remember that JPII was as zealously anti-communist as Reagan or Thatcher, if not moreso. However, he (and surely other recent popes) was not very fond of unrestrained capitalism, which is sometimes a product of democracy. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the document I cited directly above, in Chapter III, does seem to come out more on the side of Scandanavian-style social democracy rather than laissez-faire capitalism. While defending private ownership, it does note that of greater importance is economic responsibility towards the underprivileged, and again while avoiding naming any one economic system, it does make clear that responsible economics works towards socioeconomic equality. They are clearly on the side of "wealth redistribution" to some extent. --Jayron32 05:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, excellent responses! LANTZY^TALK 06:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Broad/flattering self-definition

I'm trying to determine if this is an established concept with an accepted nomenclature. Often a partisan of a particular tendency, be it political or philosophical or whatever, will choose to define that tendency very broadly and "rosily", such that it embraces, if not the entire human population, at least a much larger demographic than it actually enjoys. Some examples will illustrate what I mean: Andrew Sullivan's conception of "conservatism" includes just about everyone except for the American right-wing. Libertarians are also especially prone to this practice, frequently concluding that anyone who falls short of Stalinism is a Libertarian "without realizing it". Generally it's marginal or novel political movements that practice this strategy, but I've seen parallels in religions: Scientology comes to mind, with its one-size-fits-all personality tests. The interesting thing is that many political/religious partisans do not do this, and in fact often go the opposite way. Christians and Communists, for instance, often adopt very narrow, exclusive definitions of their respective creeds. I can think of lots of possible neologisms for this phenomenon, but I was wondering if it already had an established name. It would be convenient to have a term on hand so that when this process occurs, I can point it out. LANTZY^TALK 23:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Big tent and populism are related, though neither is exactly what you're looking for. Also related is what my peers call the "law of social proof", which we have no article on: If you see that many, many people like or dislike something, you are more likely to like or dislike it yourself, or at least, you're more likely to try it out if you see that many, many people like it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is sort of like the opposite of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Sort of "only Scotsmen do X, therefore if you do X, you are an honourary Scotsman". Using your example of the Libertarian saying everyone is a Libertarian "without realizing it", you might want to look at this page about the World's Smallest Political Quiz, a quiz used by Libertarians in outreach to convince people that they are Libertarians. (That some Libertarians then go on to complain that everyone calls themselves libertarian without really agreeing on much ought to really prompt them into discontinuing said quiz.) The articles linked that are critical of said test might throw up useful phrases to describe the phenomena you are talking about. –Tom Morris (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

First mentions in fiction

Hi. I'm looking for a list of "first mentions" in fiction. First telephone in fiction. First cell phone. First television. Automobiles, airplanes, steam engines, clocks, wristwatch, etc. Does such a list exist? Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Technology in science fiction? Also see Science in science fiction which points to articles with their own timelines, like Weapons in science fiction. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert A. Heinlein is often credited with writing about waterbeds before they existed in real life. In fact, it's not the only thing. His article has an entire section devoted to things he presaged. Dismas|^(talk) 00:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Great idea Quiddity. I think your idea is the basis of a great new article. I suspect the information you're after is scattered all over the place. Right now I'm really busy but if anyone wants to start it I will be a contributor. H G Wells and Arthur C Clarke would both be major players I reckon. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I can see this running into difficulties quite quickly, unless great care was taken in matching the 'real' and 'fictional' with consistency, and defining both. Is Leonardo da Vinci's 'helicopter' drawing 'fiction'? Is it a helicopter at all? Having said that, I'm fairly sure I've seen this subject referred to elsewhere (possibly including academic works), so it should make a good candidate. I'd suggest that those interested do some serious Googleing for books etc on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Just thought of this: The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of. Not directly on-topic, but possibly of relevance (and a brilliant title!). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And one really cannot omit Sir Francis Bacon's New Atlantis[3], first published in 1624:

We have also engine-houses, where are prepared engines and instruments for all sorts of motions. There we imitate and practise to make swifter motions than any you have, either out of your muskets or any engine that you have: and to make them and multiply them more easily, and with small force, by wheels and other means: and to make them stronger and more violent than yours are; exceeding your greatest cannons and basilisks. We represent also ordnance and instruments of war, and engines of all kinds: and likewise new mixtures and compositions of gun-powder, wild-fires burning in water, and unquenchable. Also fireworks of all variety both for pleasure and use. We imitate also flights of birds; we have some degrees of flying in the air. We have ships and boats for going under water, and brooking of seas; also swimming-girdles and supporters. We have divers curious clocks, and other like motions of return: and some perpetual motions. We imitate also motions of living creatures, by images, of men, beasts, birds, fishes, and serpents. We have also a great number of other various motions, strange for equality, fineness, and subtilty.

Michael Douglas's use of a cellphone on the beach in the original Wall Street was probably the first time most people ever saw a cellphone. Edward Bellamy's political sci-fi novel Looking Backward, published in 1888, imagines a sort of subscription radio broadcasting service, albeit connected to homes by telephone wires. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

All of you are having trouble spelling Hugo Gernsback. The Bacon reference is quite cool, but Hugo was the one who got modern SF rolling. He invented sex sometime around 1926. PhGustaf (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Er, if Hugo Gernsback (who he) invented sex in 1926, how did people reproduce beforehand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Pre-sexually, clearly. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The OP says fiction, not just science fiction, btw.

Here's a reference to "telephone" from a 1900 play:

• C. H. CHAMBERS Tyranny of Tears I. 36: (The telephone bell rings.).. There's some one on the telephone forgive me. (Goes to telephone.)

–from the OED, which I am sure will be useful for this purpose (even if its efforts in first-usage tracing are not limited to works of fiction...).

This seems like something someone would have compiled at some point... whether or not, though, yes, we certainly should, good idea! :) or, wait, no -- I forgot about that whole "WP:NOR" thing... :( WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, telephones were relatively commonplace in 1900 and feature in a lot of the fiction from the period. They weren't in private homes yet, but mayors and cops and such would be likely to have one. (IIRC, Sherlock Holmes uses one at some point.) APL (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There are two distinct ways to read this question. The first is, "when did the (existing) technology get mentioned for the first time?", the other is, "when did someone postulate a new technology that later happened to be developed?" The former can be made into a verifiable list without any ambiguity, like the telephone quote above. The latter will end up with tedious arguments about whether the whoosit featured in Amazing Adventures #85 should actually be considered an iPhone or not. (Incidentally, I tend to think the handheld computers in The Mote in God's Eye sound an awful lot like iPhones.) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The early version of the wireless telephone was mentioned in a funny 1915 song about someone having to spend a whole month's pay to call his girlfriend overseas. Jumping ahead a bit, the 1951 Superman episode called "The Evil Three" has Perry White driving a vehicle with a car phone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not really the "first mention " of a submarine, helicopter, spaceship, or radio some ancient work contains a vague and unworkable description of something that allowed one to travel under the sea, through the air, or to other planets, or to talk to someone at a distance. This sounds like a goldmine of original research, with Wikipedia editors inserting their version of the "first mention" of something they are familiar with, unless a reliable secondary source has judged that the gadget counts as the modern invention. There is a lot of room for creative reading of some description of "far seeing" as either a telescope or television, before either had been invented, or as the supposed psychic "remote viewing" ability. We might also distinguish a science fiction description without the modern name from an account in fiction after the term has been actually coined, perhaps when some inventor describes, demonstrates, or patents it. Edison (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Dick Tracy comic strip used wristwatch radios back in the 30s. I don't know if they were the first cell phone type objects, but they were early. Arthur C. Clarke pretty much invented radio satellites and the space elevator. Corvus cornix_talk 19:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Arthur Clarke thing is a common misconception. Look up Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and Hermann Noordung who were both decades ahead of him. Also, The Machine Stops is a short story from 1909 that sounds eerily like it's describing the Internet and recent social media (but this is going exactly into the direction Mr. 98 foresaw :) TomorrowTime (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Of the two things mentioned, what Clarke actually invented was the concept that geostationary satellites would be useful as comsats, and that was in a nonfiction article. He also wrote at least one story, I Remember Babylon, about possible social/political implications of satellite television (bypassing government control, you see), but I don't know if he was the first to do that.

In general this is the sort of thing that Wikipedia does very badly in comparison to media controlled by a single editor who can enforce standards, so I hope this does not become a Wikipedia article. But having said that, I can't resist throwing in a mention of Murray Leinster's story A Logic Named Joe. This was written in 1946 when the world hadn't even settled on the word for a "computer", let alone a personal computer -- that's what "a logic" in the title is. And yet it describes a network-based information-repository search architecture that is very much like the "web search engines" invented about 50 years later. Remarkable. (We know it is, because I just remarked on it.) --Anonymous, 00:00 UTC, December 1, 2010.

(Note that the Memex precedes this by a year, and the World Brain predates even that by a decade. Again, this is why this sort of science fiction thing is impossible, in my opinion, for Wikipedia, because the possibilities are pretty endless and we could be here all day debating.) --Mr.98 (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Jules Verne foresaw a lot. 92.29.114.35 (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

November 30

Cables about Chinese diplomats

Do the most recent batch of Wikileaked classified cables mention anything about Chinese diplomats? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks cables reveal China 'ready to abandon North Korea'. This is from 'leaked US Embassy cables' though, rather than Chinese diplomats. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Our article on the "diplomatic cables leak" has a "People's Republic of China" section.

The Wikileaks site itself displays a graph of number-of-cables by each embassy-of-origin. Taiwan and Beijing are shown as the ninth and twelfth, respectively, embassies having sent the most cables (of those obtained by Wikileaks), and Tokyo is ranked fourth – so, yes, it seems likely that mention of Chinese diplomats occurs in this batch of documents. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

CBC News has an article today about China and the recent Wikileaks release, which says eg.:

"In another leaked U.S. document, China's vice-foreign minister He Yafei is quoted as saying North Korea was acting like a 'spoiled child' trying to get the attention of the adult — the United States — by carrying out missile tests in April 2009." (China frustrated with North Korea: WikiLeaks)

WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Conservative vs. Liberal states of United States of America

I was taking the Canadian politics, we learned that Canada is divided into two. The Western Canada is conservative and Eastern Canada, including the Atlantic are liberal. I want to that which states of all 50 states are liberal and which states are conservative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.248 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 30 November 2010

That's extremely simplistic for Canada; actually I could state even more strongly that it is just completely untrue. If you are expecting a similar answer for the US (like, the north is liberal, the south is conservative) it will be just as simplistic and untrue. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

For starters, see red states and blue states. As Adam says, it's an oversimplification. —Kevin Myers 03:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Kevin Meyers) As a first order approximation, look at this map. This is from the 2008 presidential election, and demarcated by county. Obviously it's a gross oversimplification to use the Obama-McCain axis as a proxy for a liberal-conservative axis (whatever that means), but it's better than nothing. It also doesn't take into account population, so that makes it harder to correlate it to number of people. Another visual representation is this map of the 2010 house of representatives results. I'm not sure what the different shades represent, but it's a decent visual representation. In extremely general terms, rural areas are more likely to vote Republican, and urban areas Democrat. Additionally, the Northeast is commonly regarded as more liberal (and indeed, more likely to vote Democrat), while the South (Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama especially) is regarded as more conservative, and indeed, are more likely to vote Republican.

In all cases, though, there are sub-regions (often cities) that vote opposite the way the rest of the immediate surrounding do. And there are also different factors that determine why someone votes Democrat vs. Republican. The Religious right (Jerry Falwell, for example) will vote for Republicans due to their conservative social platform, while proponents of Economic liberalism (like Milton Friedman) will vote for Republicans due to their (comparatively) hands off stance on the economy. Opposite stances apply to the Democrats, and many other factors come into play as well. Buddy431 (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And there are plenty of right-wing Democrats, especially at the state level. In many cases, southern Democrats are completely indistinguishable from Republicans. However, the opposite, left-wing Republicans, are vanishingly rare even in places like New England. LANTZY^TALK 03:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the Canadian thing is totally wrong. A more accurate generalization is, as in the United States, of a bicoastal liberalism bookending a right-wing interior, which is itself freckled with islands of urban liberalism (e.g. Austin, Texas). In Canada, there's also the complication of Quebec. And in the United States, there are significant cultural, religious, and political differences between the south and the inland west, although both are lumped together as right-wing. Specifically, the western United States is significantly less religious than the east, and therefore less right-wing in the "social" sense. LANTZY^TALK 03:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It isn't really accurate that the western United States is less religious than the east. For example, Utah (in the West) is much more religious than, say, Connecticut (in the East). The Northeast in general is less religious than the interior West or the Great Plains states. A more accurate statement would be that the west coast is less religious than the South or the Midwest. Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear here, in U.S. terms, Canada is mostly liberal. Even western Canadians have views that would be considered liberal or moderately liberal in the U.S. political spectrum. For example, the "conservative" Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, supports universal health care and a number of other social programs that no Republican in the United States would support. Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of you say that Canada is liberal but it is not true because the reason the person ask the question is because Alberta is most considered as conservative and Ontario is most liberal and recent mayoral elections in Calgary and Toronto made headlines across the country. Calgary is conservative and yet people decided to choose a liberal as a mayor and Toronto is the opposite. I am a Canadian and I also believe that Western Canada is conservative and Eastern Canada is liberal. I have seen that a lot Liberal Party MPs in the house of commons were elected from Eastern Canada and same thing with NDP MPs, while the Conservative Party MPs were elected from Western Canada.

I didn't say that Canada is liberal. I said that in U.S. terms, Canada is liberal. Canadian criteria for what is liberal are different (simplistically, further to the left) than those in the United States. I made this point because the person who asked the question appears to be from the United States, so I thought it made sense to put this in a U.S. perspective. Of course, I agree that from a Canadian perspective, parts of Canada are (relatively) conservative. Marco polo (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

California is considered a blue state, every single statewide office in the 2010 election went to a Democrat. But in fact, California is divided into blue counties and red counties, the blue counties being most (but not all) of the coastal counties, the red counties being most (but not all) of the inland counties. The blue counties are the largest, population-wise, which is why the Democracts dominate politics in the state. Corvus cornix_talk 22:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the result of a state-by-state poll asking people if they are conservative or liberal: [4]. The most-conservative states are Wyoming, Mississippi, Utah, South Dakota and Alabama. The most-liberal places are D.C., Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts. Generally, the "liberal belt" of America is in the heavily populated Northeast, the West Coast, and Colorado, while the "conservative belts" are the Deep South, the Mormon West and the northern plains. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Except for Minnesota, in general, which is usually liberal but is becoming increasingly conservative. Corvus cornix_talk 05:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Dave Foley once said on a talk show (either Letterman or Leno) that his native Canada "is so liberal we make Castro look like a Republican." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to be frivolous about it, I could point out that, compared to Canada, Castro is a republican. Canada is a constitutional monarchy, and Cuba is not, because Castro did not want it to be a monarchy. So Castro is a republican, when compared with Canada. 86.161.109.130 (talk) 09:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Castro is not a "Republican". He may be a "republican" in the same way Hitler and Mussolini were "elected" officials of their "republics", but he isn't any closer to George W. Bush than he is to Abraham Lincoln. There are a few other Constitutional monarchies that I'd imagine the IP is familiar with, if you're going to be frivolous about it. Shadowjams (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In any case, I'm pretty sure Cuba was a republic before Castro came along... LANTZY^TALK 20:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it useful to use blue vs. red states to describe US politic. The best book I ever read about Canadian and American politic was Nine Nations of North America [5]

'Incoming!' 'To arms!' and other such cries

I need a list of military calls - the sort of things a sentry will shout when suddenly under attack, or the perimeter is breached - US Marine or British Navy would be best, thanks. Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The General Orders for Sentries page isn't very helpful on this point. The US Marines' version is here[6]. It seems remarkably similar to the one on the UK Armed Forces website[7]. Surely a typo - "To salute all officers not cased."? In old British war films, they tend to shout "Call out the guard!" if memory serves. Alansplodge (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No typo, the "not cased" refers to colors and standards and means basically "unfurled".--Rallette (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes but it should say "all officers and colours not cased", not "officers not cased"! Alansplodge (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The cliched responce to seeing someone emerging from the fog is to shout: "Halt! Who goes there, friend or foe?" "Friend". "Advance, friend". "Fix bayonets" is another movie cliche prior to an infantry charge. 92.28.247.40 (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

[8] from the US Navy (1866) says the officer of the watch was to "inform the Commander of all suspicious movement," which might contraindicate a sentry or lookout doing a lot of general yelling, to allow more of an unexpected response to the approach of enemy boats, rather than letting the enemy know they have been spotted. An officer might issue the order "All hands on deck!". US navy: "Prepare to repel boarders!" and "Repel boarders!". This would not be up to the lookout on duty. "Boat ahoy" is listed as a look-out's hail. page 96: "Enemy" is another verbal signal if an appoaching boat fails to respond with the correct countersign when challenged."Boat ahoy?" is still listed in a US 2005 book: [9]. 1870 British army sentry challenges and responses are at [10]. Verbal signals were probably improvised by infantry in the US Indian Wars of the late 19th century, the US suppression of the Phillipine rebels in the early 20th century, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and more recent conflicts, wherein local forces often tried to infiltrate US or other major power bases or encampments to set off satchel charges or generally to kill the superpower forces, and where there were not trenches and fronts as such. A sentry seeing such an infiltrator might yell some epithet unique to the conflict to alert his comrades to the attack, like "Redskins!" "Krauts!" or "Charlie!" "Edison (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all - not quite what I'm looking for, though - I might have to do some real work - it's my fault for including military matters in my fiction when I don't know the first thing about the military Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone find a better reference?

a previous version of this question is now on the talk page

On Nov. 18 an article at Guardian.co.uk, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange wanted by Interpol over rape case, quotes Julian Assange's lawyer as saying "Both women have declared they had consensual sexual relations with our client and that they continued to instigate friendly contact well after the alleged incidents. Only after the women became aware of each other's relationship with Mr Assange did they make their allegations against him."

What I am asking for here is a better reference saying the same thing: i.e. one not from his lawyer! Does anyone have a reference to official Swedish announcement with the same effect? Or another source confirming that this is the specific charge? Thank you. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If this is about editing our article(s), then The Guardian is a good-enough source for the news story. The Guardian journalists were at liberty to consult Interpol, the Swedish court documents, and also had the interview with Assange's lawyer. If they didn't include much detail at this stage it was probably because their estimate is that this is very much an open case and could evolve in various ways over the next days or weeks. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a VERY big stretch. If the only reference anyone can dig up to the actual charge the one above by the defendant's lawyer, then so be it. I think we have some very good researchers here, however, and I think someone can find a better reference than the lawyer of the accused. I believe in you guys. 86.212.63.241 (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post back in August had more detail, but a link within it has gone dead. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Re. "I believe in you guys" – well we believe in you, too, 86.212.63.241! :)

May I suggest at this point that you read our article on this topic? I think it discusses this question fairly well, and provides many good links to sources. If you can find any better sources, though, please by all means work the information in them into the article yourself! Thanks, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

China blockade

China blocked shipments of rare earth minerals going to Japan because the country had detained one of its citizens. Considering electronics is a major industry in Japan, this could have seriously hurt their economy if it was a long term blockade. Could China do the same thing to us? I'm not just talking about rare earth material either. What could they withhold that would hurt our own economy? Outsourcing? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

By 'us', I take it you mean 'US' in capitals? You might like to take a look at this to see what is traded between the two countries. Electronics appears to be on the top of most of those lists, too. It also mentions that the US is China's top trading partner - I am not sure if the situation is mutual, though. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

China has by far the largest reserves of rare earths in the world. However, the United States has the second-largest mine at Mountain Pass, California, a facility which has been non-operational for many years. Sometime in mid-2011 it should be coming back online, which will ease supply shortages; presumably the capacity of the mine will be sufficient for both the U.S. and other countries affected by any Chinese export restriction. I don't know if there are other strategic materials that only China has. Supply shortages would drive up the price, which of course would make Molycorp Inc.'s mine more profitable when it eventually starts shipping. Antandrus (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course many consumer goods are no longer made in the United States. In a scenario of conflict with China, an export embargo on China's part would lead to shortages of certain consumer goods. For many of these, however, there are alternative suppliers, mainly in other Asian countries. More critically, China may be the sole supplier of certain critical electronic components, a lack of which could cripple a military effort on the part of the United States. I would expect that U.S. military planners are now scrambling to arrange for domestic supplies of any such components. As Antandrus has noted, security planners in the United States are now very focused on the rare-earth issue and are working to support the development of domestic and other reliable supplies. Marco polo (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this likely to be a spur to more recycling of components? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I would expect so -- particularly things like the battery in the Toyota Prius, which used 10 to 15 kg of lanthanum and 1kg of neodymium per vehicle. [11] (I think the current models have gone to a lithium-ion battery.) If the price of rare earths becomes high enough, recycled components become like a high-grade ore in that it's a lot easier, and environmentally less messy, to extract rare earths from cast-off electronics than from strip-mined rocks (where the byproducts include radioactive waste among other things). Antandrus (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

When the supply dries up, ingenuity will find a way. One example is the rubber shortage during WWII, which led to the development of artificial rubber for use in tires, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it's not actually legally a "blockade" (which is an act of war under international law). AnonMoos (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Government Grants

I have been trying to find the government grants for businesses and the purchasing of homes. When I do research on the Web I seem to be taken to sites that just want your money. I need help with finding the true source for such grants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berthanna (talk • contribs) 15:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to tell us which country/region you're asking about. Karenjc 15:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Regent Princess Isabel and the scandal of the ball

I once read a novel where I heard that the regent Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, in connection to her anti-slavery oppinions, made a scandal by dancing with a coloured man - a mulatto - on a ball. It was a way of demonstrating the idea of equality between the races. Of course, this was from a novel, but I wonder if it was taken from a true event? Does anyone know?--85.226.47.79 (talk) 17:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

According to this paper (p. 9), she "opened the ball to celebrate the Lei Aurea with a mulatto engineer". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Powerful industries suppress health advice in the US?

Is the final sentance in this excerpt from the Unsaturated fat article true? "Although unsaturated fats are healthier than saturated fats,[3] the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommendation stated that the amount of unsaturated fat consumed should not exceed 30% of one's daily caloric intake (or 67 grams given a 2000 Calorie diet). The new dietary guidelines have eliminated this recommendation at the request of the meat and dairy industries." The recommended upper limit for saturated fat is only 20 grammes per day in the UK. Thanks 92.28.247.40 (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I compared un- and saturated fat. 92.29.114.35 (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaargh, this isn't neutral. We are claiming far too much without any sources. Even the BBC health link has gone dead. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, the sentance I am asking about is "The new dietary guidelines have eliminated this recommendation at the request of the meat and dairy industries". Is that true? Thanks 92.28.247.40 (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's two questions. 1) Has the recommendation of limiting the amount of unsaturated fat gone from the dietary guidelines? 2) (If so) was that at the request of the meat and dairy industries? 1) is easier to address than 2). A new version of dietary guidelines was probably commented on in various mainstream media. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, 35 total fat minus 7 saturated fat = 28 un-saturated fat. So it looks like a bit less than that. See page 4. Remember, the FDA is financed by the companies it regulates, therefore it feels duty bound to look after their financial health, so it is unlikely to suppress it - is it.--Aspro (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean and how that relates to the question asked. 92.28.247.40 (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, nobody seems surprised, shocked, or concerned. 92.24.183.235 (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There's been substantial criticism of the FDA and other organizations in promoting unnuanced "low fat" diets that substitute sugars for the removed fat calories. A dozen wikipedia articles address that issue but I can't find the specific one that is on point. That process certainly isn't unique to the U.S. FDA. Agricultural subsidies have market distorting consequences, as do food labeling and education campaigns. That people have grown fatter under those campaigns is sadly obvious. Shadowjams (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Calgary and Toronto mayors vs. U.S. cities mayors

When was the last time that any U.S. cities (largest ones I mean) had this type of situation where a liberal city has a conservative mayor like Toronto, Ontario and where a conservative city has a liberal mayor like Calgary, Alberta? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.63 (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Check the mayoral history of New York City, for one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The mayor of New York is a conservative (by NYC standards) ex-Republican. The mayor of Houston is a lesbian Democrat. Phoenix also has a Democratic mayor, as do Fort Worth and Charlotte. Whether they are "liberals" is hard to say as most municipal issues don't fall easily into a liberal/conservative spectrum. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In Toronto the major issue was money, so to the extent the election was about conservatism vs. liberalism, it was fiscal conservatism that won. See Rob Ford#Toronto mayoral election. --Anonymous, 03:06 UTC, December 1, 2010.

Ths situation in New York City highlights the fact that comparing Republican vs. Democrat accross the country is tricky. New England and New York Republicans often come out as more liberal than Southern ( or Blue Dog) Democrats. Compare someone like William Weld, a Massachusetts Republican with Heath Schuler, a North Carolina Democrat. They served in slightly different eras, but Weld is easily more liberal on almost any measure than Schuler is. --Jayron32 03:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In the 1930's, New York's Republican Mayor Fiorello La Guardia was an ally of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, which was generally (sometimes bitterly) opposed by the Democratic Party's local organization (see for example Al Smith). If you consult New York City mayoral elections for 1933 to 1941, you'll see that The Bronx and Brooklyn, the most-Democratic (even Socialist) boroughs in other elections, both then and now, gave La Guardia his strongest support, while Queens and Staten Island, now the most Republican of boroughs, gave the strongest support to his Democratic opponents. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Another example is Richard Riordan, the former Republican Mayor of Los Angeles, a very Democratic city, for eight years (1993-2001). However (as an example of the test I mention below), he failed to win election as Governor of California in 2002. With the impending retirement of Gov. Donald Carcieri, the two highest elected Republican officials in extremely-Democratic Rhode Island will be the mayors of Warwick (Scott Avedisian) and Cranston (Allan Fung). —— Shakescene (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

¶ Municipal issues often differ from national ones. It was not unknown for Republican businessmen in the U.S. a century ago (e.g. Charles A. Coffin, the president of General Electric in Schenectady, New York whose mayor was Rev. George R. Lunn, assisted by Walter Lippman) to support a Socialist mayor because he was considered to be "clean government" progressive who made his policy one of impartial efficiency rather than political patronage. (Workingmen and their unions disliked wasteful high taxes and corrupt, inefficient, politically-biased police forces as much as anyone else. So did independent intellectuals and professionals.) As in other countries, the test comes when a successful and popular elected municipal official tries for state or national office in an electorate that's inclined to support another party. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

India conservative liberal

Like the U.S. conservative and liberal states question, which indian states are more conservative (meaning BJP) and which states are more liberal (meaning Indian Congress)?

Kerala and West Bengal have communist-led governments... --Wrongfilter (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The terms conservative and liberal in the American sense are not apt to describe Indian politics. Three states, Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura, have governments led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist). The BJP can be described as a more rightwing party, but is not really like the US Republicans. States like Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh are BJP strongholds. Congress is not, by any means, a liberal party. Congress is pretty much strong in most states, but did lose a lot of ground in states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar in recent years. --Soman (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Soman, someone who would in the UK be in the Labour Party would be drawn to which party in Indian politics? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Difficult question. In theory there is a plethora of parties representing a democratic socialist outlook (virtually all off-shoots of Janata Dal), but in reality that is a label that really doesn't mean anything (rather these parties tend to be to centred around individual leaders, willing to seek coalition with anyone willing to give them ministerial posts and relying of caste-based clientelism for political support). The Socialist Party tradition pretty much died out through the merger into Janata Party. In West Bengal, such a person (or at least a person who would be a soft leftist inside the UK Labour Party) might find the Democratic Socialist Party (Prabodh Chandra) interesting, it has a more direct connection to the old Socialist Party legacy than say the Samajwadi Party. There is also the Samajwadi Jan Parishad, which very small on the national level though. There was, not sure if it still exists, a platform inside the Congress party with a social democratic orientation and which sought contacts with the international social democracy. At some point, that would have been a natural referent for a UK Labour politician. --Soman (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It does seem complex indeed. The individual-leader groupings like those you mention used to be common in French politics of the centre and right, but have over many years resolved themselves into ideologically-based parties. From what you say, India seems to have gone in the opposite direction. Of course, one should expect there to be differences in the political cultures of different Indian states. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The French and Indian development have gone in opposite directions (although not 100%, there are some complexities in both cases). In India, political parties have mushroomed over the years. In the first post-Independence election, Congress (representing the broad national mainstream) was dominant, and its main challengers consisted of ideologically profiled political parties with national agendas (Communists, Socialists, Hindu Rightists). After the Janata Party experiment and the decay of the Congress in the 1980s and 1990s (a process that was only superficially blocked by the assassinations of Indira and Rajiv Gandhi), new political parties mushroomed in India, generally based on one or a few charismatic leaders, caste equations and regional interests. These parties have no real ideological backbone, they can align with the left one day, BJP the next and Congress the day after. Most of the parties in the Indian parliament today fall in this category. --Soman (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the person who ask the above question was trying to find out either which states or region are liberal of conservative. I think in my opinion I think Southern India is liberal due to the fact that it is the only region of the country that has significant Christian population. I agree with the West Bengal being liberal because not a single West Bengali government was BJP. Gujarat being a conservative, hmmm, maybe but it is the home of Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru Ji. I amazed that none of you said about Mahashtra. I see it as a conservative due to the fact the killer of Mahatma Gandhi was a Marathi and the party Shiv Sena is a Marathi. I agree about Uttar pradesh being stronghold of BJP because it is religious. I am also amazed that none of you said anything about the Eastern India.

Again, what does 'liberal' and 'conservative' mean? And secondly, what are the criteria for analysis? Gujarat is the birthplace of Gandhi, but that doesn't really have any impact on politics today. Gujarat is, in my view, the most clearly right-wing region in India today: 1. Stronghold of BJP, and stronghold of rightist faction inside BJP as well, 2. weak leftist tradition, the left is largely absent from Gujarati politics (with exceptions in some enclaves), 3. a more market/trade oriented society, Gujaratis are often traders outside Gujarat as well, 4. rampant communal divisions.

(and btw, no South India is not the only region that has significant numbers of Christians. Goa and the North-East have larger, by percentage, Christian populations. Nor are Indian Christians necessarily the most progressive section in the country)

--Soman (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Soman, you said that Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh are BJP stronghold. Are there other states of India that are BJP stronghold and what about other states? Which states are Congress stronghold?

Congress doesn't really have a distinct stronghold, its either the largest or second largest party in most states. It does have a few weak points though, like Sikkim. BJP is also quite strong in Himachal Pradesh. Other states of importance for the party are Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Andaman & Nicobars, Delhi, Assam, Chattisgarh, etc.. Recently it made breakthrough in Karnataka, and has grown in influence in Orissa. --Soman (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sales Tax

Should a business impose a sales atx on the rental of a GYM locker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.216.58 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sales tax laws vary significantly from state to state. You would have to consult the laws for that particular state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your IP address appears to locate to North Carolina. According to that state's Department of Revenue, North Carolina's sales tax applies to the lease or rental of property. So a North Carolina business is legally required to impose a sales tax on rentals. Marco polo (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd caution that the above analysis from Marco polo lacks the subtlety you'd get from an attorney. For example, it may be possible to argue that the locker itself is not being rented, but the use of the locker, or the space that lies within the physical boundaries of the walls of the locker but not the physical material of the locker itself (similar to the way many condominium associations own the walls of the condos but none of the space inside). One of these approaches may not qualify as "property", thus qualifying as a loophole, avoiding the need for a sales tax collection. If you have a serious question about this, contact an attorney who's familiar with this area of North Carolina law. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The tone of the question suggests the OP thinks he's getting ripped off. But it's not quite the right question: "Should a business impose a sales tax..." As Marco indicates, it is the state that imposes the sales tax, and the businesses merely collect it and turn it over to the state. And you're right that the OP should consult a lawyer, on the off chance that the business is charging a "sales tax" that they might be pocketing. I doubt it, but it's better to ask the experts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

December 1

Prince Michael of Kent – Royal cypher

I am interested in the crowned 'm' cypher seen here and here – does anyone know anything about its history and significance? Anyone know where I could find an enlarged or vector version? Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 22:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

From this site[12]... "Each member of the Royal Family has his or her own cypher, a type of logo, such as the Queen’s EIIR, made from their initials in a tradition dating back to Tudor times. The two young Princes have been using their W and H cyphers, which were designed by the College of Arms and approved by the Queen...". Alansplodge (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Religion of Oscar Wilde

How did Oscar Wilde actually define himself religiously before his final conversion to Roman Catholicism the day before his death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.46.226 (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not in any simple way. Page numbers are from my 1988 Penguin reprint of Richard Ellmann’s biography Oscar Wilde. Wilde was baptised and raised a Protestant and nominally remained so, although he exhibited an interest in Catholicism throughout his adult life. (A Catholic priest, Father Fox, claimed to have instructed the four-year-old Wilde and his brother, and baptised them in the Catholic Church, during a summer holiday in Glencree, County Wicklow, at the request of Wilde's mother Jane.)(18) Wilde expressed an interest in Catholicism during his time at Trinity College Dublin, although his father threatened to disinherit him if he converted.(32) At Oxford he admired Henry Edward Manning and John Henry Newman, and was urged to convert by his friend David Hunter Blair, an enthusiastic recent convert, but his father’s disapproval still prevented him. “By June 1875” Ellman writes, “Wilde’s interest in Catholicism was ostentatious enough to astonish his visitors”(51-52) and in 1878 “he came as close ... to becoming Catholic as he ever would until his deathbed” under the influence of Rev. Sebastian Bowden of the Brompton Oratory . Wilde actually arranged to be received into the Church, but on the appointed day he sent a bunch of apologetic lilies in his place.(90-91) Throughout his life he grasped opportunities for spiritual and theological debate, and seems to have held differing opinions at different times. Ellmann quotes him saying, on the day of his release from prison, "I look on all the different religions as colleges in a great university. Roman Catholicism is the greatest and most romantic of them."(495). However, he also said: "The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners alone. For respectable people the Anglican church will do", and told his friend and lover Robbie Ross that Catholicism "isn't true".(495) - Karenjc 18:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Why did america invent the submarine during the rev. war?

Why was it invented! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 02:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

To try to sink an enemy ship. See Submarine#First_military_submarines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, To sink ships. Actually, I'm not sure you could say it was invented' then anyway. According to the Wikipedia article Submarine, "The first submersible with reliable information on its construction was built in 1620 by Cornelius Jacobszoon Drebbel, a Dutchman in the service of James I of England.". The Turtle, built in 1775, seems to be the first military submersible, and was intended to sink ships of the Royal Navy, though it was unsuccessful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(There is nothing more pointless or arbitrary than trying to say when something was specifically "invented" for the first time, so please let's just jettison that aspect of the question...)

A better way to answer the question is to consider what the forces were that would lead to such a machine becoming seen by both sides as a legitimate instrument of war, rather than just a curiosity. The Confederates fielded many submarines, which is interesting because really nobody else had invested as much in them previously. The military reason is rather simple: the Union had clear "conventional" naval superiority and the ability to blockade Southern ports (see Union blockade). The response by the Confederacy (Union_blockade#Confederate_response) was to develop a number of boats which would try to balance this in their favor — boats that would be somewhat "asymmetrical" in their ability to sink enemy ships of the type the Union was deploying, without trying to balance the Union force ship-for-ship. They had only limited success, but that's the obvious impetus for looking into submarines. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The 1775 craft was also targeting a blockade. Submarines are inherently dangerous, but in warfare the risk is thought to be worth it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think this generalization ("in warfare," etc.) misses out on the specific contingencies here. Specific technologies are pursued because they are thought to give specific benefits. The context of why submarines get used when is crucial to whether or not the risk is considered "worth it" or not. Saying that the goal was to sink ships does not illuminate the reasons why that particular means of trying to sink ships was pursued at that particular time. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. In the case of submarines, stealthiness is the key. One technology drives another, so the stealth advantage has been compromised over time, but it can still be an effective weapon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the articles the first known working submarine was built in 1620 in England by a Dutch gentleman. See History of submarines. 92.29.116.196 (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

A US TV network commissioned the building of an undersea rowboat such as the Dutch gentleman might have had the technology to build. It was possible for a wooden hulled boat, with modified oars operated through leather covered ports, to submerge and row a short distance underwater. The problem of leakage through the greased leather was very severe, and there was quickly a buildup of carbon dioxide. The Turtle sub used by Bushnell in the American Revolution has also been re-created, and its rotary propellers were a much better idea than oars. The carbon dioxide buildup was a problem, depth maintenance was a problem, and it could not go very far or very fast, but with some development it might have been able to attach a bomb to a ship as was intended and get safely away before the clockwork detonated it. Was the ability of a chemical such as lithium hydroxide to absorb carbon dioxide not known by the 1770's? The LIOH article does not give the chronology of its development. Did "natural philosophers" by 1776 know that air had a "life supporting" minority portion as well as a large inert portions and the small harmful product of respiration, CO₂? A human operating a submarine would be knocked out by the CO₂ buildup long before the oxygen became too depleted to support life. Wasn't compressed air in a tank attached to the sub technologically feasible by the end of the Revolutionary War? It could have extended the mission, provided bouyancy, and allowed quicker blowing of the ballast from the sump than the handpump used by Bushnell. It is a bit surprising that by the time of the US Civil War, the Hunley's builders had not introduced chemical CO₂ scrubbing or compressed air tanks for the crew to be able to breath underwater for an extended period. Pressure vessels, pressure regulators , gauges and valves and compressors were by then old technology used in steam engines, and compressed air had been tried in subs by that time. Edison (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that propellors were unknown in 1620, but by 150 years later the available technology had advanced. 92.15.5.182 (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Kalmar Union

I heard that people are debating the possiblity for an Iberian Union, but is it possible for Sweden, Norway and Denmark to form back into the Kalmar Union by either the abolition of all three Scandinavian monarchy or the union of the three crowns.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would they want to? Within the European Union, the general drift is away from centralism to localism: devolution.--Wetman (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There were a very particular set of accidents that led to the Kalmar Union, that are unlikely to be repeated today. You might also want to read Norwegian romantic nationalism to see why they wouldn't be particularly keen on it. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

To what end? Even if the crowns were dynastically united, it would likely have little to no effect; the monarchy doesn't set domestic or foreign policy for any of those countries; at best a modern Kalmar Union would be no different than the Commonwealth of Nations; independent countries with independent governments that share a common monarch... --Jayron32 06:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

See also Scandinavism. It had some force in the 1800s. Now, it is hardly the tradition for countries to unite anymore, especially not when things go well (and they have not been separated by international politics, like North/South Yemen or Korea) Jørgen (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been some recent discussion in the Nordic countries about the possibility of union: see [a brief article from the Economist] or the [Nordic Council site]. Nobody thinks it is a realistic near-term goal, but the idea isn't completely dismissed, either. 130.188.8.12 (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a real possibility for some sort of Nordic unionism in the immediate backdrop of WWII. However, the Cold War pretty much killed that possibility. Norway and Denmark joined NATO, Sweden and Finland positioned themselves as neutral (and the latter had a very complex relationship with the Soviet Union). The final nail in the coffin was when Denmark joined the EEC. --Soman (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow it's interesting. Why would this guy choose Queen Margarethe II over King Harald V and King Carl XVI Gustaf? Is she the most popular monarch?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that since Margrethe I of Denmark was the first monarch of the original Kalmar Union, it would be fitting with Margrethe II of Denmark as the inaugural queen of the new Kalmar Union... Gabbe (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Borders of U.S states

Why are the borders of U.S states straight? 222.252.102.226 (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Only some of them are. Start with U.S. state and then go to each individual state and you'll likely find out how their individual borders were determined. In general, the western states tend to be large with straight edges simply because they were sparsely populated and there were few natural borders such as rivers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Each state's history of its borders is somewhat unique, the book How The States Got Their Shapes particularly useful in answering your question. Look it up at your local library. The Wikipedia article Territorial evolution of the United States also give a good overview. A gross oversimplification would be to say that the Western states, which tend to be large and blocky, were established during the era of the railroad, when rivers and coastlines stopped being as important for transportation and when people could travel farther in a day. Eastern states tended to form borders along rivers and/or mountain ranges, and all of the Eastern states, save perhaps Vermont, had their borders drawn so that they would have access to either the Atlantic Ocean, the Great Lakes, or the Mississippi River Basin (often via the Ohio River). Thus, in the east, every state had deep-water access to the Atlantic via some route. It also explains the little panhandles in states like New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. In the age of railroads, when goods could be transported more efficiently over land, such water access was less important, and mountain ranges posed less of a problem; with water transport portage was a real issue; but trains could transport goods over mountains somewhat easier, making them less important as border delineators. In the west, lacking the need to make borders so states could either a) reach waterways or b) avoid having land on two sides of mountain ranges meant that the states could be set up big and squareish, as many of them are. --Jayron32 07:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have found the book American Boundaries: the Nation, the States, the Rectangular Survey, by Bill Hubbard, Jr. (2009), better in general than How the States got their Shapes. Both address the question of why so many US states have straight line borders (and river borders too), mostly those carved out of the federal "public domain" (whose borders were largely determined by Congress). But I feel compelled to point out that How the States got their Shapes contains several mistakes and some misinformation, and does not cite sources. Its most persistent mistake, from my reading, is its repeated claim that borders along the 42nd parallel north date to the British-Spanish Nootka Convention of 1792. This is wrong—they date to the US-Spanish Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819. The Nootka Convention did not result in any specific boundary line being created or even suggested—which was a point Spain insisted on and received, despite the larger overall diplomatic defeat the conventions represented. The book also makes a number of claims about why Congress made certain decisions about the size and borders of states (especially something about aiming for a certain number of degrees latitude by degrees longitude, if I recall), but because it does not cite any sources it is very difficult or impossible to verify these claims. For some of them I tried to verify (the point about degrees most of all)—and even searched and browsed through way too much of the Congressional Record—to no avail. So, take its pronouncements with a grain of salt.

The short (well, shortish) answer, as I understand, is that Congress was generally more concerned with the "big picture" of how territories would eventually become states and the political ramifications (seats in Congress, mostly), then they were about creating states with some kind of cultural unity or "natural borders". That new states would add two senators and any number of representatives to Congress was an extremely politicized matter in the decades leading up to the Civil War. In some cases, according to Hubbard, Congress essentially forced new states to accept a smaller size than the state desired, in order to leave open the possibility of creating more free, or slave states in the future. Also, Hubbard, in American Boundaries, argues that Congress deliberately established a tradition of creating states that did not conform to natural boundaries (large rectangular states enclosing very different kinds of landscapes) in order to create a degree of "disunity"—a method dating to James Madison, especially his view about "factions" and republics as described in Federalist No. 10. I found this a particular interesting point. Of course, the notion of straight-line state borders goes back beyond Madison, at least to Thomas Jefferson and his somewhat strange proposal for new states. Hubbard argues that Madison disagreed with Jefferson on how new states should be made, and Madison's vision became the one Congress followed. However, both Madison and Jefferson espoused straight lines—and few others at the time were as interested and politically active in the borders and shapes of future new states. In short, the tradition of using straight lines for new states dates back to the pre-railroad era of the very first decades of the United States under the Constitution—and arguably back to colonial times, at least for parts of the US where straight line boundary surveys for everything from states/colonies to city blocks, was "fashionable" and "modern". There are a number of additional points made in Hubbard's book about why straight lines were preferred. Pfly (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

A good read about how some of these lines were drawn is The Fabric of America: How Our Borders and Boundaries Shaped the Country and Forged Our National Identity (2007) by Andro Linklater. —Kevin Myers 13:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The impression is also somewhat incorrect. I only see three states that do not have at least a section of irregular border following a river or mountain range: Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And many of the eastern states have an east-west straight line somewhere (or north-south in a few cases), vaguely perpendicular to the nearest large body of water. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Every single state, save Hawaii, has a straight line in some part of its border. Pfly (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What might help here is to explain how and why borders in the United States are different from those in many parts of Europe and Asia. Let's start with Europe and Asia. In those regions, borders developed over many hundreds of years, as feudal overlords defined their territories, often using natural features or traditional boundaries established between village lands. As centralized states developed, they accumulated a collection of these ancient territories, forming irregular borders with neighboring states. The process of drawing borders in the United States (and in Canada, Australia, Africa, and to a lesser extent Latin America) was very different. In these regions, colonial officials drew straight lines on maps to demarcate administrative subdivisions because this was often more convenient than using natural features, which in many cases were not yet known or anyway not yet surveyed. After the United States (and Canada) gained independence, their officials continued to draw straight lines on maps to demarcate territories that had not yet been settled or were only thinly settled by people of European origin. They did this for administrative convenience and because they did not care very much about the territorial traditions of the indigenous people who were living in these territories. Marco polo (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I recall a French film in which a Marxist university professor ridiculed the straightness of US internal borders (in comparison with Soviet borders). Can't remember the name though. --Soman (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

So to heck with him. Edison (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright question

An image is needed for an article on a man who died in 1998. I have obtained an image of him from a BBC site which I've downloaded onto my PC. Would this image be considered fair-use seeing as the subject is dead, and future images are an impossibility? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The reference desk is not supposed to provide legal advice. And in any case, it depends on what kind of article this is (private use? newspaper of general circulation?) and what jurisdiction you are asking about. Since you mention the BBC, then assuming you are talking about English law (or Australian or Canadian law), the applicable concept is "fair dealing", not fair use. "Fair dealing" applies to distinct categories of dealings. Under English law, your dealing would have to fall within categories such as research and study, review and criticism, news reporting, etc. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I need it for a Wikipedia article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions . Itsmejudith (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I have since posted my question there.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Did Arnold Böcklin paint a picture called "The Return"?

Böcklin Die Heimkehr "The Homecomming" 1887

First, read this diff.

Now, according to my sources that I outlined here, and to which I also alluded here, the name of the Arnold Böcklin painting in question is very clearly "The Return".

To settle this, I've had a good look around Googlopolis but I cannot find any painting by Böcklin called "The Return" or anything even vaguely like that.

Is it perhaps better known by another name? Or did the source get the name of the painter wrong? Rachmaninoff definitely knew and loved Böcklin's work, as he was inspired to compose Isle of the Dead by the Böcklin painting of the same name. But that does not necessarily mean it was Böcklin who also painted "The Return" which supposedly inspired the Prelude in B minor. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled over a reference to a German book Arnold Böcklin, Die Gemälde (published in 1977, ISBN-10: 3724504047 / ISBN-13: 978-3724504047, 582 pp) which is supposed to list all of his oevre including photos. Maybe the Victorian state library has a copy. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This book has a description so I think it must be "The Homecomming" meltBanana 19:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, MeltBanana, that is definitely the one. I shall pass that information on. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What is a scorching bicyclist?

Resolved

 – –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Prohibitionist in the Mikado

In Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado the song "As some day it may happen" contains the line, in one version "And that singular anomaly, the prohibitionist" (replaced in another version by "the lady novelist"). What was a prohibitionist and what was he/she seeking to prohibit in 1885? --rossb (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The OED gives "A person who advocates or favours the introduction of a prohibition, esp. one restricting the manufacture, sale, or transport of alcoholic drinks", with English newspaper quotes from 1842 and 1866 which are rather ambiguous, but probably referring to alcohol in some way. Algebraist 00:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Every recording I've heard of that song says "the lady novelist". Was "prohibitionist" in an early version, or was that added some time later? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be a reference to the Lord Chamberlain, who banned The Mikado for a time (ref Hansard 10 June 1907). Our article for another G&S comic opera, Utopia, Limited says "Gilbert also throws some barbs at the Lord Chamberlain's office, as he loved to do." -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 01:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This[13] article is pretty good. The "lady novelist" line is original, put different performances have used different lyrics over the years. It's not unusual for G&S lyrics, especially topical to be tweaked to be more relevant to modern audiences. PhGustaf (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooo, tasty Hansard link. Any idea what the play poking fun at the Kaiser was? 86.178.229.168 (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"The complete annotated Gilbert and Sullivan" says that "the lady novelist" was the original wording and that it was changed by the author to "the critic dramatist" or "the scorching bicyclist" or "the scorching motorist" in Edwardian revivals - and Sir Henry Litton later changed it in the 1920's and 30's to "the prohibitionist" and in 1942 to "the clothing rationist" - so evidently, the intent is to change the target of this acrimony to whoever was the more hated figure of the times. "The wall street banker" might be appropriate for 2010. SteveBaker (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Though it really doesn't matter who you put upon the list, for they'd none of 'em be missed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Of that there is no manner of doubt; no probable, possible shadow of doubt; no possible doubt whatever.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Who says wikipedia ain't got no culture? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Even to this day, if you hear the D'Oyly Carte perform the piece, they will change those particular lyrics. I heard them in 1992-ish where the list included the big-toe fetishist. Marnanel (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That was Sir Henry Lytton, SteveBaker. --ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've been meaning to ask this for a while and an archive search turned up this neat conversation. I've known G&S lyrics to change and on the recording I have, Ko-Ko sings "scorching bicyclist". The examples listed above make sense (contextually with the times), but what on earth is a scorching bicyclist? I can't find anything on search results, image or otherwise. I always imagine, simply, a bicyclist who has lit herself (the gender remains the same) on fire. Any other ideas? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 12:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps metaphorically "burning up the road", i.e. racing or just going too fast in the opinion of whoever came up with that phrase? Kind of a lame complaint, though. But during the late Victorian era, there was kind of a public mania about bicycle racing (at least in the US), so that might have inspired the comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

'Scorch' was 1980's adolescent lingo for anything really fast, cool, hot, edgy, or trendy. --Ludwigs2 17:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary, to scorch, v. 4. (intransitive) To move at high speed (so as to leave scorch marks on the ground) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, this source[14] which might or might not be a wiki; but "scorch" and "burn" are both used in the metaphorical sense, i.e. to be going so fast that you might leave a trail of fire on the pavement. There are many pop culture images that playfully render that metaphor literally. One obvious case would be the DeLorean in the first Back to the Future, whose tires left burning trails as the car sped off from 1955 to 1985. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Scorching bicyclist seems to have been a bit of a meme way back in them olden days. "Lady cyclists", in particular, were frowned upon as travelling at higher speeds would unduly increase the vibration and friction between the saddle and the "private" parts of the cyclistesse. The guardians of morale in them days clearly had little else to do but to speculate on the utterly despicable possibility of such a debased personage experiencing a pedalling orgasm. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember my mother telling me that when she was a schoolgirl in the early 1930s, she and her friends would giggle at the line "Sunbeams scorching all the day" from the hymn Forty Days and Forty Nights, with its apparent reference to speeding cars. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It is quite common - almost tradional - for "little list" to be updated to include topical entries. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Racism and mixed-race individuals

Racism, and race-based hate groups, always seem to be centered around supporting or opposing one of the traditional ethnicities - Caucasian, African, Hispanic, South Asian, East Asian, etc. Suppose you were half East Asian, half (black) African. And suppose you discriminated against full black Africans and full East Asians. You'd still be "a racist", right? Are there any document hate groups that support mixed ethnicity and denigrate more "pure" (though that's clearly a poor choice of wording) ethnicities? I'm wondering if there are any pan-racial supremacists, essentially! The Masked Booby (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite the same thing, but see Paper Bag Party. An instance of mixed race being held as superior over the less mixed, by members of the same race. But that's an assimilation of the mindset of the larger racist society. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Racism is an illogical attitude that can affect any of us. However, to a certain extent, prolonged social contact on equal terms with people in the "other" group protects you. When the mixed-race person you talk about was a child, as soon as he uttered something prejudiced about black Africans his mother would have said "hang on, you're talking about me and Granny". As soon as he said something silly about East Asians his father would have said "is that how you feel about Auntie, and about me?". But it's possible that the whole family would harbour mistaken views about Native Americans, especially if they had never met any. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

TMB -- I don't know of any ideology that specially favors mixed-race individuals above both or all of the sources of their mixture, but the reverse has been true: In a number of historical contexts there has been special contempt for "half-breeds". who are "neither one nor the other". In late 19th century Texas, some whites professed to admire "pure-blooded" Indians (Native Americans) as noble savages, but were contemptuous of mestizo Mexicans as half-breeds. In Haiti ca. 1800, mulattos as a group were greatly mistrusted by whites and blacks alike... AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In Mexico today, there is discrimination against pure blood Indians by those who are of "mixed-blood", Latinos. But they don't discriminate against Spanish people. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The basis of any kind of bigotry typically boils down to "us vs. them". I recall being startled the time I was at a basketball game and the dark-skinned hispanic (who had brought his young, impressionable son) who was sitting next to me kept yelling the "N-word" at a particular player. It occurred to me that the irony had been lost on the guy, regarding whatever bigotry he himself might have suffered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Those classified as "coloured" in Apartheid South Africa suffered a different level of discrimination from that levelled at "'pure-bred' black Africans"; you could argue that the system favoured mixed-race people over black people in some respects. See Apartheid#Coloured classification. I doubt those affected were particularly impressed by the difference, whatever official label they were forced to wear. Karenjc 16:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan liberal conservative

Like the U.S. liberal conservative question, which provinces of Pakistan are considered liberal (meaning Pakistan Peoples Party) and which provinces are conservative (meaning Pakistan Muslim League) or is it different from U.S. politics?

Again, PPP is not 'liberal' in the way that is defined in the US, PML is not strictly 'conservative' in the same way as US conservatives. PPP has its stronghold in Sindh, PML factions in Punjab. --Soman (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The identification of liberal or conservative often includes the degree of adherence to a laundry list of issues that are considered to be key. I would be interested to see some of the differences in position on key issues, between those two parties, if the OP or someone can provide it. It would give some perspective as to "relative" liberalism or conservatism. For example, it's been said that by today's standards, Abraham Lincoln was a racist; but by standards of his day, he was a liberal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The United States uses the terms liberal and conservative differently from most of the rest of the world. So it is difficult to compare political parties in other countries with those in the United States using these terms. Marco polo (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that used to be the case. American extremists have kind of co-opted those terms, but if you look closely, American liberals often aren't very "liberal" (modern, free-thinking) and American conservatives often aren't very "conservative" (old-fashioned, thrifty). Instead, it has to do with adherence to a specific list of "litmus test" bullet points. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is getting silly. Trying to use 'liberal' vs 'conservative' to define politics worldwide is nonsensical. In the secular 'West', a more reasonable general division would probably be 'left' vs 'right', with the proviso that one needs to add 'libertarian' vs 'authoritarian' into the mix. In Pakistan, the division is more oriented around (relatively) 'secular' vs 'fundamentalist Islam', though it is worth noting there are considerable regional and ethnic divisions. It makes no more sense to describe Pakistan's politics in US terms than it would to describe the US's in Pakistan's. (though come to think of it... - sorry, had POV moment there). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Left and right are also pretty meaningless outside of a specified milieu. In China, is a hardcore supporter of the authority of the Communist Party, "left" or "right"? Was Oliver Cromwell "left" or "right"? The questions are almost obviously nonsensical. --Trovatore (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Which is why we should remove 'political position' from Template:Infobox political party. 'Far-left' is repeatedly added as the 'position' of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which really doesn't make sense. --Soman (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Basically, we have to acknowledge that political parties (both in US and Pakistan) are somewhat complex entities. The Democrats are not strictly liberal, the Republicans are not strictly conservative. The PPP is a party which, simultaneously, is built around defense of feudal landowning interests as well as being a secular, democratic and to some extent socialist party. How is this possible? An one-dimensional understanding of politics cannot grasp such a dialectic relationship. --Soman (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Another good example would be Teddy Roosevelt, a strong believer in the "manifest destiny" of America, which would typically fall into the "conservative" stereotype, as well as being a strong supporter of many "progressive" causes, decades before his distant cousin Franklin was able to put them into practice. Yet modern "conservatives" think much more highly of TR than of FDR. Go figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so Soman, you mentioned that Punjab is PML stronghold and Sindh is PPP stronghold. what do you know about Northwest Frontier and Balochistan? which political parties stronghold are they?

NWFP (now renamed Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) is stronghold, to some extent, of the Awami National Party (Pashtoon nationalism, moderate left-of-centre) and islamists (MMA). --Soman (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of liberalism, the MQM has recently sought to rebrand itself as a liberal party (a move that doesn't mean much, its essentially an ethnic chauvinist entity). Its stronghold is Karachi. --Soman (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Rev James Blair, 1656 - 1743, Williamburg VA

RE: The Heritage portion of the article on Rev James Blair, Colonial Williamsburg, VA does not mention the small street off the main Duke of Glouser St, Blair St as being named for James Blair. Is it named for him? No hurry, just curious and it isn't memtioned in any of the articles; and the Williamsburg guides didn't know. Thank you - and thank you to all your great contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.43.120 (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably, and certainly named for the family. The John Blair House (named for James' grandson, 1st USSC Justice John Blair) is right there, so it's possible it was named for him. --Sean 18:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Does fiction - novels and films - make us better persons?

Or is it just entertainment? Of course, many works of fiction contain a message, but wouldn't it be infinitely easier to write down the message than to extract it from a story? Quest09 (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

To answer with a parallel, the commercial world has concluded in all-but-universal consensus that modern advertising -- "corporate fiction", as it were, with storylines and rhetorical fluff and such -- is more effective than broadcasting "give us your money". While it's undoubtedly easier (note: not "infinitely") to write down the message, that's not the same as saying that the easy delivery will be more effective. — Lomn 17:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Works of both fact and fiction can make us think about things that we might not have otherwise, which can make us "better" or "worse" depending on which message we take home. And the entertainment part, as suggested by Lomn, makes the message more interesting. Aesop's fables all had a moral lesson, but without the background story they're not very interesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you would like to consider "better" or take to be a "message". Do you mean to say that "messages" make us "better"? Why do you think that would be? How does the means or form of communication affect the message? Are some messages only encodable or conveyable by means of eg. allegory?

Our Narrative article points out that:

"Stories are an important aspect of culture. Many works of art and most works of literature tell stories; indeed, most of the humanities involve stories. Owen Flanagan of Duke University, a leading consciousness researcher, writes that “Evidence strongly suggests that humans in all cultures come to cast their own identity in some sort of narrative form. We are inveterate storytellers” (Consciousness Reconsidered 198)."

Humans are not simple computational machines. A complex emotional state, for example, cannot be conveyed by simply naming it in a "message". Some communication can only occur in the form of "direct experience"...

Interesting question! – sorry for disorganization of answer :S – WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The Jungle Book taught me eye contact was important. That made me better at being a normal person. So... 86.161.108.241 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That is what I used to think in my youth. I read depressing classics like Jude The Obscure, which probably contributed to my gloom of that time. I now think that fiction does not improve you, that you'd be better off spending the time chatting with friends or just going for a walk, and that the idea that they improve you is just put forward by the book industry as a way of selling books. On the other hand reading literature is probably better than watching tv. 92.24.183.235 (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It really depends on what you read. Garbage in, garbage out. I've certainly had my worldview expanded by various works of fiction. Some have just been entertainment. Some have been truly important. Knowing which those will be for any given person is pretty hard, but there certainly are some "classics" which seem to affect just about everyone who reads them one way or another, if they have two brain cells to run together and haven't decided ahead of time not to be affected by anything. Plenty of people will attest that they have read a book that has "changed their life." It's a lot more than just "the message" that matters. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The interesting question reminds me of a passage in The Mote in God's Eye which I found online here, in which humans visiting an alien planet found that all of the aliens' artworks seemed to have been created specifically to convey or illustrate some message. "In the [human] Empire there are paintings that are just supposed to be pretty. Here, no ... How about [an artwork's message simply being] 'Mountains are pretty'?" An alien shrugged, not seeing the value. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to add again that reading "the message" and experiencing "the message" are two very different things. Fiction often tries to get you to do the latter. So it's the difference between saying, for example, "a surveillance state would be pretty unpleasant to live in," or reading Orwell. Now maybe there are some people who can read "the message" and say, "oh, I get all of the implications of that, and find that either compelling or not." Some people are indeed clever and imaginative enough to do that without any cultural "help." But most of us get a lot out of "living" in that imagined world for a bit, see how it appears. We might not agree with the message or the world, in the end. But it's a different type of understanding that comes with reading (good) fiction. You could, of course, write extensive non-fiction about the same topic. For some topics, you'll certainly get more information across in the least amount of time. And in the hands of some authors, the end result can be as vivid as fiction. This isn't an argument for the supremacy of fiction, but it is an argument against degrading it before non-fiction. (I say this as a writer of non-fiction.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

One might as well ask, what is the purpose of art? And are paintings of "real" (non-fiction) or "imagined" (fiction) scenes of different intrinsic value—whatever "value" is? I would argue it's irrelevant whether or not a work is fictional. Creativity, insight, and richness of expression regardless of the medium of choice: language, the brush, the crayon, the musical note; are the yardsticks for deeming worth. I have read compelling non-fiction and fiction as well as works of both genres which are neither informative nor stimulating. Creativity—whether as author or audience—surely enriches the human experience. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem like the hero of À rebours. 92.24.186.163 (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What is this "just entertainment" idea? Fiction is certainly entertainment. Attempts to make fiction didactic will usually produce weak stories. Its purpose is to entertain, and the more thoroughly and completely entertaining it is, the better, but what do you mean by "just entertainment"? What's with the implication that entertainment doesn't improve us? I think you underestimate the breadth of creative thought and our capacity to learn from even the trashiest entertainment (and note that "trashy" does not necessarily equate to "most entertaining"). Does being taught improve us, if we're bored by the lesson? 81.131.9.41 (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Monetary exchange rate for US dollar circa 1900

Where can I find exchange rates between the US Dollar and Chinese currency around 1900? I am trying to find out how much $0.25 American would be worth. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is by far the best site I'm aware of for currency history, but it only goes back to 1952 for US-China. Dalliance (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

According to our article Yuan, which addresses the history of the Chinese currency, the yuan in 1900 was equal to one Mexican peso, which according to our article on the peso at that time was defined as equal to 24.441 grams of fine silver. According to this source, a troy ounce of gold in 1900 was equal to 26.49 troy ounces, or 823.9311 grams, of silver. Now, a troy ounce of gold was defined in 1900 to be worth USD 20.67 (see U.S. dollar), since the United States had adopted the gold standard (whereas Mexico and China were on a silver standard). Doing the math, that means that the yuan in 1900 was worth USD 0.6131 (61.31 cents). USD 0.25 would therefore be worth 0.4078 yuan, that is, not quite 41 Chinese cents or fen. Marco polo (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the U.S. coined trade dollars a few years earlier specifically for U.S.-China trade... AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Baptism-how many days after birth

Normally how soon did European parents baptise their children after they were born? I am especially interested in France and England. The time frame comprises the medieval period up to the 19th century. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You have chosen to large a timespan to find a normally. You are going from the period where children were baptised within days because of the high rate of infant mortality to the period where people might wait a couple weeks so the mother was capable of being present and of hosting a party. And throwing in the complication of the Baptists (and related churches) after the Reformation who only accepted adults for baptism. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

E. A. Wrigley and R. S. Schofield, in The Population History of England, 1541-1871 (1989) p. 289, say that baptism in the 16th century almost always happened "shortly after birth", which I take to mean a few days after, and that the interval later lengthened in some parts of England but not in others. They gave median figures of 8 days in the late 17th century and 30 days in 1800. --Antiquary (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason I ask is because Elizabeth I was baptised three days after her birth (1533), Catherine Willoughby four days after her birth (1519). This appeared to have been standard practise in the 16th century; whereas Madame de Montespan (1641) and Madame Du Barry (1743) were recorded as having been baptised the same day they were born.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If the goal was to baptize as quickly as feasible (as seems to have been the case before modern times due to the high risk of infant mortality), then presumably royalty would have been baptized more quickly than commoners. Royalty, after all, had fawning priests at their beck and call, whereas peasants had to wait until it was convenient for the local pastor to conduct the rite. Marco polo (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare was baptized on April 26 and his birthdate is conventionally assumed to be April 23, on the theory that baptisms typically were three days after birth in 16th century England, although our article on Shakespeare's life says this was not always the case. John M Baker (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course in an emergency baptism can be administered by the midwife, or by anyone else who happens to be present. I suspect that might have been Madame du Barry's case. As Marco Polo suggests, a priest would almost certainly have been within call at the birth of Elizabeth I and very likely at those of Catherine Willoughby and Madame de Montespan. --Antiquary (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Name-day could be a clue to this. Until fairly recently, the rural population here in Slovenia (not sure about other countries, but I assume it might be similar) took the name-day to be more important than the actual birthday. My grandfather would only celebrate his name-day. This could be of use here because names were given (in a baptism, of course) according to the patron saint of the particular name-day, and name-days were never more than a couple days away from actual birthdays. My grandfather's birthday and name-day were three days apart, confirming what has been said above. TomorrowTime (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not 1 minute after birth, by the parent? Why wait on church and great ceremony if an "Angry God" might punish unbaptized infants?Edison (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I tell you of my experience, Jeanne. In my family of origin, baptisms were conducted after Mass on the first Sunday the mother was able to attend after the birth, which usually meant the first or second Sunday afterwards. It was conducted in a simple 5-minute ceremony attended only by the priest, the parents, any older children, and 2 witnesses standing in for the godparents, who as often as not lived in a different place and were not expected to travel for such a short event. No other trappings or outward festivities. Then the family would go home and Mum would cook the usual Sunday roast for just the family. End of story. But when I got myself married, to a woman of Russian cultural background, things were very different when it came to our son's baptism. Three months after the birth there was a baptism and a big party afterwards, to both of which many family members and friends were invited. The party went into the small hours of the next morning. There were gifts, cards, speeches, and general merrymaking and wassail. Some members of my family of origin felt the whole thing was inappropriate and refused to attend. So, European tradition can vary enormously. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Some information here[15], and a discussion here[16]. This pdf file[17] - part of an examination of 18th Century human remains from Spitalfields in east London - shows a table of birth and baptism dates (page 2/4); "the range is from two to 170 days, the average being 25 days." Alansplodge (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Bangladesh Awami league Bangladeshi nationalist party

which divisions of Bangladesh are Awami League stronghold and which divisions are BNP stronghold? and also which divisions are Jamaat e Islami stronghold? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.112 (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Tombstone orientation

a representation

I was told by a cemetery caretaker that my grandparents headstone was placed at the foot (apparently by mistake) when installed in 1941. My father was buried next to them in 1990. His tombstone was of the same orientation (some 49 years later). He said that the "foundation" and headstones must be moved before my mother can be buried in the same grave Lot, which has 5 grave spaces. Then he says my mother's headstone would be correct with my grandparents and my father (her husband). He wants me to pick up the expense of moving these tombstones, which sounds expensive to me. Now my questions are:

• How come the tombstones were placed at the foot (apparently a mistake) - twice??
• How does one know that in fact they were placed at the foot? Maybe they are at the head, which would be correct!
• Since the original large tombstone (for my grandparents) was placed there in 1941, then what is the objection and why does someone care now AFTER all this time?
• Why couldn't my mother's headstone then just be placed next to my father's and my grandparents with the same orientation (directly adjacent).
• My father was cremated. My mother will be also. Can BOTH be laid then in the same grave space.
• My grandparents use spaces #2 & 3. My father is in space # 4. Numbers 5 and 1 are available. The lot has already been paid for by my grandfather when he bought the Lot originally in the 1920s.

Picture is just a representation of what my grandparents tombstone looks like

My grandfather died in 1941 and that is when the large tombstone was installed.

My mother has arranged a pre-paid funeral with cremation.

--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In order to know what is *really* within the power of the caretaker to insist upon, you would need to consult the grave plot deed and a lawyer, and probably the cemetery regulations. The only time a burial site generates income for the cemetery after the purchase is when someone is buried there, and caretakers may sometimes overstate what is required in order to increase the costs. Probably will hit you up for "perpetual" care as well, which always seems to fall somewhat short of perpetual. With regard to your specific questions, the orientation of a body within the grave (head/foot) is usually noted in cemetery records kept by the sexton or caretaker; and certainly there's no reason that two cremated bodies could not be buried within the space of a grave that could hold one non-cremated body. But getting done what you want to have done may require a cooperative caretaker, and it sounds like you don't have one, or he'd simply call the headstones footstones. - Nunh-huh 23:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought that Christians were buried facing east, which would imply the headstone should be at the west end. I don't know if the facing east thing is either true or universal. 92.28.255.105 (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Christians are buried facing in all directions. Christian churches were generally but not universally oriented (since the Middle Ages) with an east-west long axis, with the altar on the east side so the celebrants faced east during services. - Nunh-huh 00:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not about the graves (I didn't think it mattered in Christianity) but re the churches, I have this theory that they faced east so that the sun had the biggest impact shining through the stained glass windows on Sunday mornings. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The orientation of churches pre-dates stained glass by a long chalk. See this[18] archeological report from Colchester of a Roman church and associated graves (320 AD) all pointing east-west. Alansplodge (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have at least one pair of relatives where the husband died first and was conventionally buried, and when the wife died, the remains were cremated and placed in the same grave. Whether that could be done in this case might depend in part on state laws regarding burials and cremations and such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thinking back on cemeteries I've been to, it does seem that they tend to orient (literally) the graves in an east-west direction, but that's not always the case. The grave of Adlai Stevenson, for example, runs north and south. They might often be oriented east-west for the same reason that HiLo has in mind, i.e. to be able to read them more easily, since they'll be in sunlight at least half the day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, I don't follow the logic there, Bugs. A South-facing headstone (in the northern hemisphere) would get a lot more light. I'm fairly sure that in western Europe at least, Christian burials are specifically oriented in the same way that churches are: to the east. As for why, the 'official' reason is probably 'in the direction of Jerusalem', but I think this may not be the whole story - one can find careful alignments on a north-south or east-west axis in varying cultural contexts, from pre-Columbian Mesoamerica to ancient Egypt and beyond. Maybe we line people up in neat rows when they are dead because it is so darned difficult to do this when they are living? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

On the "Great Getting Up Morning" some believe that in the resurrection folks will pop up from their graves like a mailbox flag. If their feet are to the East, then (depending on their location) they would face Jerusalem, which might provide the best view of the proceedings. Edison (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I am missing something, but ashes have no head or foot so there is no impediment regarding orientation. If the cemetery buried your prior family members incorrectly (as monuments are typically in rows and all face the same direction as a group) that's their problem to fix, not yours, if you insist on reorienting the caskets. If the tombstone was placed out of orientation with all the others around it, well, it's a bit late to be noticing that. If the company that placed the memorial is still in business, then it would be their problem to fix, again, not yours. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Reorienting assumes a steel or concrete outer casket that is still intact and movable. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Local to me in the UK, ashes could be scattered in a cemetery garden (along with lots of other people), and/or they could be scattered anywhere you like within reason. If I were you I would just scatter your mother's ashes on top of your father's grave with possibly some withheld to scatter in any other favourite spots she had. The position of the headstones is not very important. The pre-paid burial service - won't they just tell you to come and collect the urn a day or two after the service is over? Then you can do whatever you like with it. If this was in the UK I would suspect the caretaker was hoping to make a fast buck, but perhaps practice is different in your country. 92.24.186.163 (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(NB: I run a cemetery, but it's both very old and not very busy) In theory, headstones should be placed at the head of each grave, unless there is a compelling reason not to. This creates uniform rows of headstones, meaning that a gravedigger who has to go past your graves can do so without disturbing the stones. A stone in the middle of the grave (and, thus, the middle of the row) might have to be moved if someone nearby needs to be buried. Even if the grave is opened by hand, most vaults are placed using a small hoist based on a cart, and that needs room to move within the cemetery. If there are graves one row further to the east (so that their heads are next to your grandparents' feet), then the headstone of your grandparents (at the foot of their grave) might be right next to the headstone of the people next door (at the head of their grave), so you have two headstones front-to-back, and no one can read yours - and it looks hinky, besides.

I don't know that they can compel you to move the headstone, or to pay for it - but IANAL - you'll want to look at the original deeds and purchase documents to confirm, as well as any fee they charged for the concrete the first time around. You might track down the headstone company - many of these, at least in the US, have been around for centuries, and this one might still be in operation. They may have some insight, or might - if you're lucky - have records that could show that the cemetery screwed it up. If you decline, and they really need it moved for their own purposes (access, etc), they'll just move it themselves and eat the cost.

Now, moving the headstone does NOT mean you need to open the grave to move the remains. Unless you have a strong religious or philosophical need to know with certainty which way your relatives are facing, there isn't a good reason to go through the heartbreaking task of digging them up. Adding to that is the concern that, depending on the container used in 1941, there might not be enough left to move. Even a metal container will show some deterioration. Finally, in many places in the US, you require a court order to disinter remains, even if temporarily for a purpose such as this. Not worth the trouble, I imagine. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for your GREAT answers. I now have enough information to work from accordingly.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2

Santa Clauses

How many men play Santa Claus publicly each year in the United States of America?
—Wavelength (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you can find the number of enclosed shopping malls in America, that might well give you a minimum figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have found Category:Shopping malls in the United States.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Then you have the ones that appear in parades, the ones that might appear as greeters or as Salvation Army kettle bell ringers (although that's less common than it used to be) and who knows what all. Have you tried googling this subject to see what turns up, if anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have done Google searches for how many santa claus, how many santa clauses, how many play santa claus, number how many play santa claus, santa claus school, santa claus training, santa claus course, santa claus students, santa claus graduate, and santa claus recruit, in that order. (I copied those 10 sets of terms from my Google searches in my browsing history.)

—Wavelength (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have done additional Google searches for santa claus count, santa claus census, santa claus survey, and santa claus statistics, in that order, without finding the answer. (However, I found http://www.christmasnewswire.com/2010/11/16/88-percent-of-adults-believe-in-santa-claus/ and http://www.directhit.com/ansres/Santa-Claus-Statistics.html, which I found to be particularly interesting.)

—Wavelength (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Tragically, even the long form of the recent Census inexplicably neglected to include any question about whether respondents had dressed up as Santa Claus within the previous year. Looie496 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Technically, that is a travesty if at all. Tragedies are when someone dies. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. Tragedies don't necessarily involve death. It was a tragedy that T E Lawrence lost his manuscript of Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and a triumph that he was able to rewrite it from memory. There's an overlap between travesties and tragedies, and Looie's example may well be a case of both. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, The Amalgamated Order of Real Bearded Santas Inc. claims a membership of several hundred. Neutrality^talk 21:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

5-page phd thesis

[19] is that for real? How often does that happen? tx. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Did he get the doctorate? I heard a (possibly apocryphal) story about a Philosophy student who in answer to the question "What is bravery?", answered "This is." AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how "for real" this is. If you Google this guy and a lot of very odd looking, non-peer reviewed stuff comes up, 90% of which seems to involve stringing together references to major works combined with digressions and casual observations by the author. It looks like nonsense to me, but what do I know. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"stringing together references to major works combined with digressions and casual observations by the author..." Aw man, that sounds like my thesis! Adam Bishop (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not an academic site and "dissertation" can apply to anything, if it were a real dissertation it would indicate candidacy for doctorate and applicable faculty, not just student and university. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It does appear Matt is a Ph.D. candidate—but dissertation is not the document here. Matt appears to be on a quest to accumulate an impressive hodgepodge of letters and dots after his name. But what do I know. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that "dissertation", while most commonly used in the context of a Ph.D. thesis, isn't restricted to that meaning. Wikt:dissertation for example, defines it as "A formal exposition of a subject" or "A lengthy lecture on a subject; a treatise; a discourse; a sermon." Merriam-Webster had "an extended usually written treatment of a subject". The chance that he's using the term "dissertation" to mean something different than "Ph.D. thesis" is increased by the fact that he is probably not a native English speaker (note the uni-muenchen.de domain). -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This is one of these things that (at least sometimes) changes meaning as you go across the Pond. In the States, probably most universities have PhD "dissertations", and "PhD thesis" is certainly understood but considered informal. You write a "thesis" for a Master's degree. (There are certainly exceptions; some US universities do officially have PhD "theses".)

In the UK, on the other hand, "thesis" is the usual word for a doctoral work, and "dissertation" generally sounds like a discourse requiring less effort rather than more.

In the instant case, though, the word is definitely being used in the sense of "PhD dissertation", as you can see on the title page. --Trovatore (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There's lots of legends about short doctoral theses, including physicist Louis de Broglie (for his thesis on electron waves) and mathematician John A. Rhodes, but most are incredibly exaggerated.

Some sources whose reliability I'm not sure of say that physicist Tathagat Avatar Tulsi holds the record for shortest doctoral thesis at a more credible 33 pages.[20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colapeninsula (talk • contribs) 13:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Back in grad school days, one heard of some very short doctoral dissertations in mathematics. In most fields, an extensive literature review is customary, besides the particular research project. A certain number of pages is needed to have a sufficiently thick binding to adequately display the dissertation title and author's name on the spine when it is bound for display in the author's library. Edison (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

John Rhodes' MIT thesis was actually large, 600 pages or something like that. Its unusual feature was that it was co-written with Kenneth Krohn, a grad student at Harvard (a mile or so away). Both turned in identical dissertations, about what became known as Krohn-Rhodes theory. It was important enough research that they got away with it. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no such thing as legal insurance? How the HELL do poor people pay for lawyers?

It can be argued that lawyers are on the same socioeconomic strata as doctors, but why can't there be legal insurance if there can be medical insurance? What's so wrong about having legal insurance exist in the first place?

How do poor clients pay for lawyers without any way for an insurance to pay for them? --70.179.178.5 (talk) 04:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Er, where? This is Wikipedia, a global cooperative effort, and such questions can hardly be answered without context? From your question, I'd suspect you are asking about the US system, in which case I'd suggest that the answer depends on many factors, not least on what the lawyer is needed for. I'd try to be a little more specific (though don't ask for legal advice, because we can't give it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny that you mention doctors because they DO have what you call "legal insurance". It is called "malpractice insurance", which is used to cover legal issues and penalties involved in malpractice lawsuits. -- kainaw™ 04:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In the U.S., if you need a lawyer and genuinely cannot afford to pay one, you can get one for free. The Public defender is availible for criminal cases, and Legal aid for civil cases or for other things lawyers do, like reviewing paperwork or preparing a will. If you get charged with a crime, the government is required to give you a lawyer; that's what a public defender does. If you get sued, or wish to sue someone else, or need a lawyer for some other reason, that's what legal aid does. --Jayron32 04:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) We have an article that discusses pro bono legal counsel (free legal service) in the US and the UK. In the US, it is common for people who need legal representation but cannot afford it to be granted a court-appointed attorney. Legal insurance seems like a good idea, though, and may be obtainable in some places. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There's legal insurance -- see legal expenses insurance. It can be either "before event" or "after event". It comes with a lot of company benefits packages (we have it where I work). Antandrus (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) So first of all, you understand that it's not the basic idea behind insurance to make things affordable for poor people, at least per se? Insurance is a way of making your costs predictable, not so much of reducing them. For example, if your chance of having a fire that destroys your home is one in a thousand per year, then the annual cost of your fire insurance will be somewhat more than a thousandth of the value of your home (with the simplifying assumptions that the insurance would cover the entire value, and that your home is either completely destroyed or untouched).

If you could be a homeowner for ten thousand years, and if you had the discipline to put that money away in a special-purpose account for the ten times your home is destroyed by fire, you could do it more cheaply that way than by buying insurance.

The reason that it's worthwhile to have fire insurance, in spite of its negative expected value, is that you can afford the insurance, but you can't afford to lose your home and not be reimbursed.

All that said, there is such a thing as insurance to cover legal costs. I know, for example, of a company called MetLaw. --Trovatore (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal insurance is usually just called "insurance". Car insurance, by far one of the most visible forms of insurance, almost everywhere in the U.S. contracts that the insurer will provide and pay for an attorney for the insured party. Malpractice insurance (whether for lawyers, doctors, or other professionals) is the same thing. In fact the duty to defend is pretty common in many insurance contracts. Shadowjams (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Common law instructs that the pleadings of the self-represented be interpreted broadly. How much due process offsets the conflicts of interest brought about by paid representation? Are there analogous problems with paid editing? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this point relates to this question, but the liberal pleading standard is a product (in the U.S.) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under the common law in say Blackstone's time, most litigation began with a writ, not a pleading (I could be wrong, but I think that a "pleading" is a modern creation) and writs were anything but liberally construed. You might be interested also in Roscoe Pound, one of the intellectual fathers of the FRCP. Shadowjams (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

An interesting and related practice is legal financing. There have been a number of stories in the New York Times lately about this practice, which has been controversial for centuries. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

While this doesn't necessarily help the poor, many companies offer their employees Employee assistance programs which can include some coverage of legal fees. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Were Adam and Eve Muslims?

A few days ago we discussed whether, within Judaism, Adam and Eve are considered Jews. The general consensus was that no, Abraham was the first Jew, and everyone before him was an uncircumcised sheygetz. However, the question of who is a Muslim is radically different than who is a Jew. I recall reading somewhere that certain prophets like Jesus, John the Baptist, and so forth are accorded the status of Muslims because, although they preceded the revelations of Muhammad, they adhered to the "correct path" by the mere grace of God. So what about Adam and Eve? Obviously their whole significance in Christianity is that they didn't adhere to the correct path, but maybe Muslims see things differently.

My curiosity extends beyond Eden. What about relative goody-goodies like Abraham, Moses, Job, Pinhas, etc? Are there any other pre-Islamic (or extra-Islamic) figures that are sometimes considered Muslims-by-grace, perhaps by a particular sect but not by another? Would it be conceivable for an Egyptian to uphold Akhenaten as a Muslim, or for a Persian to uphold Zarathustra as a Muslim, on the basis of their monotheism? Or would this kind of revisionism be universally regarded as heretical? LANTZY^TALK 07:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Adam (and Noah, Moses, Jesus, etc) are Prophets of Islam, for which we have a convenient article. There is also an article on the Islamic view of Adam (and of Noah and of Abraham and whoever else you would like to compare). Islam is supposed to have existed for all eternity, but it was imperfectly revealed until the time of Muhammad, so while Adam and the rest are considered prophets, and the Qur'an does refer to them as "Muslims", they did not live in an age where everyone was capable of understanding the revelation. (In reference to pre-Islamic Mecca this "time of ignorance" is called jahiliyya, but I don't know if that extends to every other pre-Islamic period of history.) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and for Akhenaten, it's certainly possible for modern Muslims to consider him an early Muslim, just as he is sometimes seen as a predecessor of Christians and Jews, but that wouldn't be an official doctrine of any of the modern monotheistic religions. He wasn't really a monotheist (his god was still the god of the sun), and he was long forgotten by the time of Muhammad. He's not mentioned in any Jewish or Christian writings, so he doesn't show up in Islam either (early Muslim stories are often poorly-told or poorly-remembered versions of Jewish/Christian ones, as in their version of Alexander - or, if you prefer, Allah simply didn't reveal anything about Akhenaten to Muhammad). Zoroastrians on the other hand were generally tolerated as "people of the book". That wasn't exactly a monotheistic religion either, but it was close enough, and Zoroaster is sometimes considered a Prophet (he is mentioned briefly in the aforementioned Prophets of Islam article). Adam Bishop (talk) 08:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

All people were, have been, and will continue to be superstitious to the extent that they believe false myths. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

So they should be more selective and only believe the true ones? Blakk and ekka 13:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Does that have any reference at all to the matter at hand? I don't see it. Marnanel (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence for created initial humans, only for humans evolved from apes. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase a Myron Cohen item:

"Do all apes wear those little caps?"

"No, only the Orthodox."

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I repeat my question: does that have any relevance to the matter at hand? The question is whether, in Islam, two characters have a certain attribute. The matter of whether these two characters existed in the real world is utterly irrelevant to the question. Your response appears to be a petty attempt at point-scoring. Marnanel (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If anyone had anything to gain by opposing superstitions, we'd all be rich. Perhaps I have been spending too much time at the science reference desk, but the question was about human origins, and to perpetuate falsehoods that many people believe as truth is more certainly a sin than deriving laws from mistakes inferred from superstitious falsehoods. I wish we all tried to disabuse each other of shared falsehoods and superstition more often. Because I believe doing so is helpful, I intended my answer as friendly help for a question particular to the origin of humans and therefore on topic for the desk and the question.

Specific examples include the harm that superstitious origin myths do to the ability to teach both biochemistry and radiochemistry, both of which involve substantial facts contrary to the young age of the Earth inherent in those superstitions. Because genetic biochemistry is necessary for the development of vaccines and other medicine, inhibiting the education of biochemistry, including by perpetuation of false origin myths, is an attack on health. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The question was in no way about human origins. I have to wonder whether you even read it, or whether you saw the words "Adam" and "Eve" and jumped on your hobby-horse. Marnanel (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the question was about Muslim beliefs, so a response of "Muslim beliefs are dangerously false superstitions without scientific basis" is simply the wrong answer, Ginger. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ginger, for the record, I have a rare cognitive disorder that allows me to entertain ideas without believing them. LANTZY^TALK 02:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Mormans baptize every known human after the fact, Adam and Eve were therefore Morman, obviously :> The most likely scenario to be historically accurate is that there was no "first human couple," or even "first human." The people "Adam" and "Eve" were based on, probably lived among other humans. The reason we have singled these people out is that at some point someone asked who was my father's father's father, etc and at the time "Adam" was the further back anyone could go. At that point, the name took on importance, and was preserved for history. If they had any religious beliefs, they are lost to (accurate) history. 184.32.33.102 (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't heard that "Mormons baptize every known human after the fact" before, but I found this claim by The Catholics:

• "Mormons believe that their church has missionaries in the 'spirit world' who are busy spreading the Mormon gospel to dead people who have not yet received it. [...] Temple Mormons hope, in time, to have all of the dead of previous generations baptized posthumously into the Mormon church."

I knew vaguely that they practiced something called "baptism of the dead" but had no idea it was that extensive! Is that really the declared goal of the LDS Church...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is why they have the genealogy project. They are endeavoring to find and identify every human who ever lived and posthumously baptize them into Mormanism. I had not heard about having missionaries in the 'sprit world' though. That is a new one on me. Greg Bard (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've heard about that Mormon necrobaptism thing and here's my question: Who cares? Why is Mormon voodoo a source of concern to those who place no stock in Mormonism to begin with? It's like an atheist taking offense when a Christian says, "I'm praying for you." In fact, that's precisely what it's like. If Christopher Hitchens has to put up with being prayed for, why shouldn't Catholics have to put up with being posthumously Mormonized? LANTZY^TALK 08:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say you've hit the nail on the head. Who cares what religions claim who as members? It's all an attempt to revise history so as to favor their own religion. No "Adam" wasn't Morman, Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. It's a very silly question. Greg Bard (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"Adam" and "Eve" mean "mankind" and "source of life" respectively. In fact, the first book of Genesis only talks about mankind in general being created, as the last step in the creation process, which coincidentally roughly parallels scientific concepts about the evolution of the earth. A couple of lines into Genesis 2, a second story is tacked on, in which man is created first, followed by most everything else, and that's where trouble begins. Man and woman are in harmony with and obedient to God (Islam means "submission to God"), but then they disobey Him, and the struggle between good and evil commences. So it's easy to see how Muslims could claim that Adam and Eve (or early mankind, if you will) were submissive to God ("Islamic"), and then went astray. This squares with traditional Judeo-Christian teachings that mankind "fell from grace", so while the creation stories (especially the second one) may be poppycock from a factual standpoint, the metaphors are still good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a good distillation. And based on this article, it looks like Adam would indeed be considered a Muslim, and a prophet to boot. He even went on the hajj. LANTZY^TALK 08:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Economics/statistics/policy question: Tendency for a scoring metric to be increasingly uncorrelated with a variable as that metric is emphasized by policy?

I've been going bonkers attempting to remember this rule, law, or theory (in the loosest of senses). I'm not sure if it's more in the policy realm, or the economic realm, but I have read it attributed to someone in particular, and I thought I had once found an article on it here on Wikipedia. I also think the article might have included someone's name, as in "John Doe's Law." Many searches didn't find it, of course. The concept is in the title, but I'll try to explain it another way: the basic idea is that even if a metric is well correlated with some underlying variable or collection of variables (what we actually want to improve) at first, as the metric is emphasized in policy or research, it will be of less and less use--it will be less and less correlated with what we actually want to improve. For example, a test score might be correlated with performance in some area, but as that score increasingly becomes the focus of policy attention, the score will be increasingly less correlated with actual performance. Anyone have any leads? Papers, scholars, etc? --76.115.3.200 (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"You get what you measure"?

67.117.130.143 (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That may help, but I still haven't found it. Thanks. --76.115.3.200 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Policy changes frequently change the various causal relationships of policy, yes. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 10:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Leave your snark at home. --76.115.3.200 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Median value of reminders

What is the median economic value for a person to:

(1) remind others to brush their teeth;

(2) remind others to floss their teeth;

(3) remind others to apply net present value accounting to economic extrapolations; and

(4) remind others to get enough exercise? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe we can calculate this. Quest09 (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course we can. USD44.2568. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the median value is that high. The median economic value for me to remind others of doing something is probably 0, unless I can get some value back from people who got my advice. Quest09 (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the median value for not believing this 'median value' humbug from the pseudoscience of 'economics'? There is no evidence whatsoever that economic theory can be used to accurately describe human behaviour. (And BTW, 'money', which is what you are probably trying to measure 'value' in, is yet another of these social constructs that only exist in that people think that they ought to...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is such a thing, then it would be negative. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that for reminding the people you know in person, or reminding the people you know in person and online both? I imagine there's a greater value for the local people, because of the greater impact on the local cost of health care. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Francophobia

As someone who is of partial French ancestry and bears an obvious French first name, I have experienced some Francophobia on occasion. I am baffled by this bizarre Francophobia that people in the US and Europe display towards France and French people. Can anyone shed light on this matter? Does it go back to the megalomania of Napoleon or possibly even further, to the Hundred Years War? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there is francophobia in all European countries. In Austria and Spain I'm sure you won't encounter additional problems. In the UK and Germany, it could be a bit different, but you are far from being beaten up in the street. It is much more sporadic disgusting encounter with disgusting people making disgusting comments. Quest09 (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, there's a certain phenomenon in Europe of the people of a country tending to hate the immediately neighboring countries (with which they're likely to be in direct competition), but liking countries which are one removed. So the Poles traditionally hated the Russians and Germans, but were fond of the French, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, there are many obvious historical conflicts, partly arising from the fact that they're neighboring countries. It wasn't until 1904 that the UK and France started to be in somewhat consistent long-term quasi-alignment. For the U.S., there's the XYZ Affair and Quasi-War in old history, and the French refusal of U.S. overflight rights for the 1980s raid on Libya in recent history. Probably more important is that the French are considered to assume haughty attitudes of disdainful superiority which aren't considered justified by the facts. Americans are certainly slightly mystified by the fact that the French complain loud and long over American "hegemonic cultural imperialism" and "Coca-colonization", and vocally proclaim the superiority of French culture to that of the despised anglo-saxons, but then give the Legion of Honor to Jerry Lewis... By the way, British and U.S. soldiers who fought on the front-lines in the trench warfare of WWI often emerged with more anti-French attitudes than anti-German attitudes. AnonMoos (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You got a citation for that last claim? --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

From reading certain books such as Goodbye to All That, the lyrics to Mademoiselle from Armentieres, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The song doesn't seem to contain any anti-French sentiment as such. From the article on the book it seems Robert Graves mostly criticises European civilisation in general as well as English civilisation specifically. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

'Anti-French feeling among most ex-soldiers amounted almost to an obsession. Edmund, shaking with nerves, used to say at this time [c. 1920]: "No more wars for me at any price! Except against the French. If there's ever a war with them, I'll go like a shot." Pro-German feeling had been increasing. With the war over and the German armies beaten, we could give the German soldier credit for being the most efficient fighting-man in Europe...Some undergraduates even insisted that we had been fighting on the wrong side: our natural enemies were the French.' (Goodbye to All That (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1960) p. 240). --Antiquary (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be wary of taking Robert Graves as representative of the average Tommy. Notice how Graves takes his examples from a friend and university undergraduates. Hardly representative of most soldiers.--Britannicus (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. See 112 Gripes About the French... AnonMoos (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with the French is that they can't stand being foreign. When they manage to get over it I'm sure they'll become much more likeable. DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mark Twain had some fairly salty things to say about the French, which probably helped fuel our kind of love-hate relationship with the French. About some scandal or another: "That is un-English! It is un-American!! It is French!!!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure General Lafayette is turning over in his grave.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In somewhat more recent times, the perceived arrogance of Charles DeGaulle and some of his successors has helped to fuel this situation also. However, I think there's an underlying cultural divide between Northern European and Latin European that figures into this; somewhat like what Americans of Northern European descent feel about the "invasion" of Hispanic culture. Nordic types are considered more serious, while Latin types are considered more gregarious. I used to work with a Brit who, although he actually liked the French in general, said, "The only thing the French know how to organize is a party." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Although French is a Romance language, one cannot consider the French to be Latin, such as the Italians and Spanish. Most of the French immigrants to North America came from Northern France. People from Gascony, the Languedoc, and Provençe would be Latin, but not Bretons, Normans, Picards, Lorrainers, or Parisians.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• You are defending the exact point of view that makes many people dislike the French. They consider themselves to be different. You can also consider a part of the Spanish to be Bask or Celt or whatever (nobody knows for sure) to be non-Latin. However, as a matter of fact all these three countries are product of the same Latin culture and speak a modern version of Latin. Mr.K. (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on Anti-French sentiment in the United States which discusses the issue and its history in some detail. It says that this sentiment "returned to the fore in the wake of France's refusal to support U.S. proposals in the UN Security Council for military action to invade Iraq" and goes on to describe other factors of its development from that point. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes think of French-speakers and English-speakers as being like brothers who don't get along very well: they constantly bicker and quarrel about all manner of things, but when an enemy arises, they will defend each other. The current anti-French sentiment has much to do with a feeling of betrayal of that understanding. However, as George Will once said, nations don't have "friends", they have "interests", and those interests don't necessarily coincide all the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

TVtropes is quite good on this ([21]). Certainly the kneejerk anti-French reaction in the UK tends to centre around their perceived lack of will to fight, particularly in World War II, although (OR alert) I have often found such people remarkably ignorant of European military history, and the practical and political issues that brought France to defeat in 1940. There is also, I believe, a certain unspoken resentment of a nation that has great food and wine and the international language of seduction, whose women possess the ability to look effortlessly chic even when clad in a dustbin liner and flip-flops, and whose city centres feature more of an adult cafe culture, and fewer gangs of teenagers on alco-pops). Karenjc 17:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Dialogue from Doogie Howser, M.D., from memory. Doogie is talking to his friend Vinnie about an email message he plans to send to a girl. "I'll write it in French." — "French?" — "The language of love." — "I thought Italian was the language of love!" --Anonymous, 01:17 UTC, December 3, 2010.

"...all these three countries are product of the same Latin culture and speak a modern version of Latin." Even if true, which can be disputed, that's not quite the point. In France, the homogeneity of language is largely the product of an aggressive policy, from the French Revolution through to the late 20th century, of seeking to stamp out all regional and minority languages. Breton is not even a Romance language, and its speakers are down from 1.3 million in 1930 to about 200,000 now, most of them old. The French are probably no more Latin than the English are Germanic, and that's another discussion to be had. Moonraker2 (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well, the case of the Bretons is also the case of some Spanish minorities like the Bask. And Spain also pushed heavily towards linguistic unity in the past. That doesn't make France less Latin than Spain. It makes both similar. Quest09 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, Francophobia in the US (and I imagine in Britain as well) has its roots in Anglo-puritanicalism. The French have a (historically well-deserved) reputation for being sexually liberal, and particularly for female sexual independence (start with joan of arc and work your way through the post French-revolution licentiousness to the common-place nudity on the modern French riviera); in the old US west bordellos were always modeled on French themes, and much of the modern sexual vocabulary in the US has french roots (from French kissing to French ticklers to French-maid costumes to liaisons, frottage, and menage-a trois). Upright (uptight) people in the US have historically viewed anything 'French' as sketchy and/or distasteful, and that prudishness always resurfaces whenever there's some other (more prosaic) reason to be irritated at the French.--Ludwigs2 17:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with your assumptions, and even if that's the perception in the US I don't think it is in the UK, which has few Puritans and is as liberal about sexuality as the French, or more so. Moonraker2 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

My mother's dad was always called a Frenchman and many of his neighbours considered him to have been different from themselves. There is something sexually-threatening about the French; this sentiment was expressed in the film the Scarlet Letter. Anne Boleyn's appeal partially derived from the fact that she was educated in France and spent her formative years there.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

James Joyce had a lovely quote about the attitude of the Anglo-Saxons towards the French: "Our civilization, bequeathed to us by fierce adventurers, eaters of meat and hunters, is so full of hurry and combat, so busy about many things which perhaps are of no importance, that it cannot but see something feeble in a civilization which smiles as it refuses to make the battlefield the test of excellence." And there's a great moment in Fer de Lance where Nero Wolfe advises his assistant: "To pronounce French properly you must have within you a deep antipathy, not to say scorn, for some of the most sacred of the Anglo-Saxon prejudices." LANTZY^TALK 19:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Joyce obviously did not realise that the Normans who invaded England and spawned a long line of fierce warrior kings came from France, Joan of Arc was French, the armies of Louis XIV and Napoleon were French. Author Michael Ennis described the French Army prior to the Second World War as having been the most vaunted military force in the world. Listen to the words of their national anthem : "To arms citizens, to arms...."--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexis de Tocqueville had an interesting observation, in "Voyage en Angleterre et en Irlande": The French want no-one to be their superior. The English want inferiors. The Frenchman constantly raises his eyes above him with anxiety. The Englishman lowers his beneath him with satisfaction. On either side it is pride, but understood in a different way. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Everybody wants to rule the world....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Some people are Francophiles, and probably some Francophiles are Basques (especially French Basques). Also, the article "Tourism in France" (permanent link here) refers to France as "the most popular tourist destination in the world".

—Wavelength (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a complex issue. In my experience, I would say there is an anti-France sentiment in the United States more than an anti-French sentiment. In some parts of America, especially in the past, there may have been discrimination against people of French background. First-generation French Canadians had a particularly rough time in New England especially in the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th century; however this is much more likely a symptom of being a recent imigrant group rather than being French per se. As someone of nearly 100% French ancestry myself, who grew up in New England, I never felt any sort of negative attention for my Frenchness. France is somewhat derided, probably dating to their withdrawal from NATO and their refusal to support U.S. wars in Iraq and Afganistan. But this derision, in my experience, hasn't really extended towards people with French last names or French ancestry in the U.S. today. --Jayron32 04:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A notable exception to US Francophobia occurred in the early 1960s when the press capitalised on Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy's French ancestry (1/8th), and totally ignored her Irish and Scottish lines. Her father-in-law, Joe Kennedy, according to one of her biographers, reportedly liked to emphasise Jackie's French descent, claiming that the French names "gave her class".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Another notable exception to U.S. Francophobia is when U.S. and British forces (among others) stormed the beaches at Normandy and depossessed the Nazi's of France's native territory. Shadowjams (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Being a little less glib, I think that there's no real U.S. bias against the French (the French were pivitol in securing U.S. independence, and the U.S. has never invaded France's European territory... something that can't be said for a number of other European powers), and it certainly isn't anymore distinct than a French bias against the U.S. Humans tend to fall victim to the fundamental attribution error, which may explain some of the concern.

Maybe the more interesting point is that France had substantially less emigration to America than other European nations, particularly when you consider population. I have no idea why that is, but if one were so inclined you could spin it however you wanted. Shadowjams (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Shadowjams (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The bulk of French emigrants went to Canada, where they have a strong voice in government, etc; whereas relatively fewer ended up in the US (apart from Louisiana), and their descendants were largely assimilated into the mainstream Anglo population. Apart from the Cajun community in southern Louisiana, there is no French cultural centre in the USA.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

So they went to a territory of a sworn enemy. They probably weren't great supporters of the King. France also had its flirt with execution. Shadowjams (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you on about? Is this about France, or just basic high-school US jingoism?

The French forces that assisted the colonists were subjects of a king themselves, for one thing. And not everyone in France suddenly became a fully paid-up supporter of republicanism come 1789, not least because the French revolution proved extremely unpleasant for many. Many French emigrants were fleeing the atrocities of the Committee of Public Safety, so the fact that Canada had a king wasn't exactly uppermost in their minds. Not everything revolves around the precious American War of Independence. 87.114.101.69 (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Garlic. Their farmers or rather hobby-smallholders get lots of free income from the EU to subsidise inefficient uncommercial tiny farms that ought to go out of business. They work short hours and retire early. Food snobs and wine-drinkers. They do or recently did drive 2CVs made out of tin cans and beach chairs. They don't like speaking english or including or adopting english words into French. There's still a memory of them riding around on bicycles in England selling onions. In short they seem work-shy yet they indulge in epicure foods, and (sterotypically) live in a bucolic sunny pastoral bliss that we envy. And during WW2, they appeared to give up without much of a fight. 92.29.114.35 (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There weren't many nations in 1940 that were able to withstand the mechanised juggernaut of the German Army as it rumbled inexorably across Europe. Had the French not surrendered, Paris and major French cities would have likely been obliterated from the face of the earth. The French made a huge mistake in allowing the Germans to occupy the Rhineland when the latter was vastly outnumbered by the former. A political/military error does not make the jewel of civilisation that is France a nation of cowards or defeatists.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Vichy France collaborated with the Germans rather than fighting. The Germans didnt even have to invade it. 92.29.114.35 (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really true - the Vichy regime was a result of the Armistice which was concluded when a significant part of France had been occupied and the rest was indefencible. The British Army and Royal Air Force had already (very sensibly as it turned out) shown a clean pair of heels. Alansplodge (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It requires a lot of effort to fit your spin to the facts. 92.15.20.70 (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't want to thread this, but its a response to a comment above by Jeanne Boleyn... Louisianna gets better press for its French-ancestry, but the Frenchest state in the country is New Hampshire, with over 1/4th of the population self-identifying as of French ancestry. See French American. Most of the "Welcome to New Hampshire" signs on the highway say "Bienvenue". The town I grew up in on the Massachuetts border had one. (see [22]) Its fading, but as recently as 50-60 years ago there were large French Canadian pockets in many parts of New England; my dad grew up in a French-speaking community near the Massachusetts/Rhode Island/Connecticut border areas; my mom in a French-speaking community in Lowell, Massachusetts (same area that produced Jack Kerouac a generation before her). In much of Northern New Hampshire and Vermont and New York, especially the Northeast Kingdom and the area around Littleton, New Hampshire have areas where the signs are bilingual,(see this sign from Plattsburgh New York) or occasionally French-only. Louisianna has a better press agent, aparently, but most of the French-ancestry people in the U.S. are from New England. --Jayron32 05:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it I have a friend from Massachusetts and she told me there is a large French community in New England; her own stepfather and many of her friends are originally French. I had forgotten this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the fact that the English and (at least part of) the French crowns were joined for a large period of the two countries history: it was only during the reign of Queen Mary I that England finally lost its grip on France. I think this is quite probably a major cause of the animosity which exists between the two countries. Us Brits have never forgiven Willy the Conk for what he did to us, you know! --TammyMoet (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Harold Godwinson was hardly St. Francis of Assisi. He ordered his two cousins' eyes to be put out so he could usurp the throne himself. And William paid him back in his own coin, courtesy of a Breton arrow. Poetic justice, no?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Online trending site

I'm looking for a website that shows trending in retail business. Specifically, I want to see an up-to-date list of things people are purchasing online. Google used to do that with their cart system, but don't anymore. eBay has a tiny trending thing that is updated once a day. Searching for anything like this keeps hitting dead ends. -- kainaw™ 15:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This is commercially valuable information you seek. Why should Google et.al. give it away to you for free?--Aspro (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are commercially valuable too. Why would anyone provide an encyclopedia for free?
Does Google trends help at all? Shadowjams (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've tried using Google Trends. They used to have a shopping section on it, but that comes up "page not found" now. I found popular.ebay.com, which is providing some help. -- kainaw™ 12:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

See http://search.twitter.com/search?q=bought+online. You can use various search terms.

—Wavelength (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Buddhist iconography and Chinese fictional literature

There is a motif in Buddhist iconography where the celestial bird Garuda sits above the Buddha's throne. The theme was obviously known in China as the Chinese folk biography The Story of Yue Fei (1684) mentions Garuda being demoted from this position after killing the embodiment of a star constellation and subsequently being reborn on earth as Yue Fei. The earlier fantasy novel Journey to the West (1592) gives a folk origin for how Garuda, called a Golden Peng Bird in the novel, came to hold such a rank in the Buddhist hierarchy. When did this iconographic motif make its way into China and do other works of Chinese fiction mention it? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The Garuda article discusses what I think you are asking somewhat:

In the Qing Dynasty fiction The Story of Yue Fei (1684), Garuda sits at the head of the Buddha's throne. But when a celestial bat (an embodiment of the Aquarius constellation) farts during the Buddha’s expounding of the Lotus Sutra, Garuda kills her and is exiled from paradise. He is later reborn as Song Dynasty General Yue Fei. The bat is reborn as Lady Wang, wife of the traitor Prime Minister Qin Hui, and is instrumental in formulating the "Eastern Window" plot that leads to Yue's eventual political execution. It is interesting to note The Story of Yue Fei plays on the legendary animosity between Garuda and the Nagas when the celestial bird-born Yue Fei defeats a magic serpent who transforms into the unearthly spear he uses throughout his military career. Literary critic C.T. Hsia explains the reason why Qian Cai, the book's author, linked Yue with Garuda is because of the homology in their Chinese names. Yue Fei's style name is Pengju (鵬舉). A Peng (鵬) is a giant mythological bird likened to the Middle Eastern Roc. Garuda's Chinese name is Golden-Winged Illumination King Great Peng (大鵬金翅明王).

(Is that business about farting for real...?) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess so, per you, GE, way back in 2008! So I take it you know all that already... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the bit about farting is real. I just need to know when the Garuda motif first appeared in Chinese Buddhism and if it appears in other works of fiction beyond the two I listed. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Muslim belt in Toronto?

Somebody told me that the Muslim belt of Toronto consists of neighbourhoods Don Valley Village, Henry Farm, Parkswoods-Donalda, Victoria Village, Flemingdon Park, O'Connor-Parkview, Thorncliffe Park, and Crescent Town. Is this true? But I think he (the who told me) said that it is because of they are from Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.217 (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! --Sean 19:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This product from Statistics Canada contains the information you seek. Marco polo (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Gay king

Hypothesize a gay king. Ferdinand the Fabulous. Baudoin the Bear. Of Spain or the Netherlands or Sweden or something, it doesn't matter. All those countries recognize same-sex marriage, so there would be no legal impediment to his marrying another man. But how would it square with the rules and customs of the monarchy? (Naturally, this will differ from one country to another.) Would the husband be treated like a man who had married (ahem) a queen regnant? (Like the Duke of Edinburgh, in other words.) Would he be informally accorded some sort of lesser ennoblement, so as to avoid either changing the rules or appearing homophobic? Or would he be ignored altogether, and be, from the perspective of the crown, a mere "good friend"? Considering the marked tolerance of Europe's monarchies towards gay people, I wonder if this contingency has ever been contemplated, perhaps by the royal families themselves. It seems like it would put them in quite a bind: On the one hand they're desperate to remain in the people's good graces, but on the other hand their rituals and procedures are frequently tied closely to churches, which are usually homophobic. (The only exception would seem to be in Scandinavia.) LANTZY^TALK 20:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

It's funny to contemplate that, no matter whether it's a king and his husband or a queen and her wife, the outcome is still two queens. :)

It seems unthinkable, but so did an ambassador presenting his credentials to a monarch, accompanied by his gay partner - until it happened. Your scenario would truly be the last bastion, Lantzy. (Until, that is, the Roman Catholic Church permits married clergy, and also approves of same-sex relationships. Is it too much to dream that one day we might see a Pope blessing the crowds, with his husband by his side?) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, he hasn't put a ring on it, but Ratzi has this guy! LANTZY^TALK 02:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The first obligation of the monarch is to produce his/her successor, and that might be the fly in the ointment. It's been said that if Wallis Simpson had been content to be merely a mistress of Edward, it would have been tolerable. Likewise, I suspect that a gay king would nonetheless be expected to marry a woman and produce children, albeit perhaps by artificial insemination, while his "true love", another man, would have to be relegated to the status of "mistress", as it were. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. Let us therefore postulate a lesbian queen, Victoria the Quite-Good-at-Bowling. If she's the queen regnant, then her offspring will be in line for the throne, correct? Now suppose that she and her consort, Alberta, inseminate themselves with the royal turkey baster. Or, to twist the tale further, suppose that Alberta's fertilized eggs were implanted in the queen, such that the child born to the queen was not biologically her own! (This is not an uncommon arrangement among lesbian mothers.) Anyway, my point is that a lesbian queen could easily fulfill the procreation requirement. Of course, it might be that the offspring would be considered illegitimate, and therefore unable to succeed. This question could also be relevant to heterosexual queens: if her consort proves impotent, for instance, and the queen must resort to imported man-seed, will the resulting child be considered legitimate or not? LANTZY^TALK 02:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lantzy -- that happened in the case of Isabella II of Spain -- few of the people around her thought that her children were fathered by her husband, but she was a queen-regnant, so the royal legitimacy came through her, not through her husband. Juan Carlos is descended from her... AnonMoos (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A child born to a married woman is assumed in British law to be the legitimate offspring of her husband. Such an assumption can be challenged only by that husband. Legitimacy doesn't depend on whether the husband is the biological father unless the husband chooses to make it an issue (before, perhaps, he is poisoned by a helpful household member to preclude the possibility of such a challenge). Of course, whether the assumption would be extended to the female spouse of a woman is thus far untested and I think doubtful, especially in the case of a monarch. - Nunh-huh 03:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

But why doubtful? I mean, I concede that it might be doubtful right now, with the civil union malarkey that's currently in place, but if the UK were to establish true marriage equality, which is virtually sure to happen, what legal asymmetry would then remain? If Her Sapphic Majesty were sufficiently uxorious and implacable, and with public opinion on her side, what obstacle (apart from sound and fury) would stand between her child and the throne? LANTZY^TALK 08:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be doubtful that the child of a woman would be legally assumed to have been sired by her wife? I think that when the situation arises, a law will be passed rather than rely on that assumption. It's true that biological impossibility has heretofore been no obstacle to the assumption (father impotent, or not near the mother for a year or more), but I think parthenogenesis would stretch the assumption to the breaking point. - Nunh-huh 08:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The monarchy and the lawmakers have been remarkably resilient at coming up with ways to keep the royal line of succession going, and I'm sure they would do likewise in these "gay" scenarios. And even if they didn't have "legitimate" kids, or any kids at all for that matter, there is a long list of others in the line of succession. I sometimes wonder what William the Conquerer would think if he knew his progeny were still running the country almost a thousand years later. Maybe the Old French equivalent of "Shazam!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. When the need for improvisation arises, Parliament is well up to the task. - Nunh-huh 03:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, there's still the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which might give some pause for thought, although the Buggery Act 1533 and similar provisions were repealed in 1967. All the same, under the Statute of Westminster all of the Commonwealth realms need to agree to changing the descent of the Crown, and in some of them (I think perhaps Antigua and Barbuda may be one?) there are still laws against male homosexuality which would get in the way of such agreement. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If those islands wouldn't cooperate, perhaps the British could sell them to highest bidder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting angle that I hadn't considered. An openly gay British monarch might well engender a wave of republican sentiment in places like Jamaica. That might dissuade a potential gay king from advertising his orientation, or might lead him to yield the throne to a hetero younger brother or something. That would be a pity. Of course, no other European monarchs would have that problem. LANTZY^TALK 07:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It bears stating that there have been kings widely suspected of being gay, see Henry III of France, who was at least bisexual. Edward II of England had a much publicised relationship with Piers Gaveston. In many cases, it's hard to prove such relationships, as they are almost universally reported by the enemies of said kings; so it is often suspected that those reporting it have motivations to embelish. It should also be noted that it is possible, maybe even likely, that America had a gay President. --Jayron32 04:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Or two. LANTZY^TALK 07:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln wasn't gay. That's somebody's wishful thinking. Buchanan might have been, though. Although that potential issue is overshadowed by what a lousy President he was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

[23]. We'll probably never know what his true sexual preferences were. Buddy431 (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Besides Edward II, other English kings reputed to have been gay or bisexual include: Richard I, James I, Richard II, Charles I--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention William II (Oh, I just did). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite the same, but there's some speculation that Eleanor Roosevelt may have been a lesbian. There's no hard evidence, but was sufficient to merit a mention from Doris Kearns Goodwin. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Queen Christina of Sweden was repotedly a lesbian; Marie Antoinette and two of her sisters were likely bisexual based on evidence of their relationships with other women.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Eric Idle's 1970 satirical novel Hello Sailor was about a UK Prime Minister who had a "secret" that's relevant to this topic (although you'd never know it from our article - how terribly coy we are sometimes; it's not as if the nature of the secret was kept from readers till almost the last page and we need to avoid having a spoiler about it; from my memory, the male PM's sexual preference for other men was clearly spelled out very early in the novel). I wonder if Idle was thinking about Edward Heath, who became PM that year, and about whose sexual orientation speculation continues to this day. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Which Scottish King died from a red hot poker up his bum as a reward for suspected buggery? Did he have theoretical progeny? Edison (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to English king Edward II who was allegedly murdered in this fashion in September 1327 by Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March's hired assassins with the full complicity of Queen Isabella. And yes he did father four children including his successor Edward III of England whose paternity was never questioned nor doubted.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

December 3

A few questions about 1000 push-ups (press-ups)

About doing 1,000 push-ups non-stop. Please put whether it's been verified or not.

1. Other than Jack Lalanne, are there any famous people who have been able to do 1000 pushups? Possibly martial artists like Bruce Lee or Jet Li? I know Herchel Walker and Bo Jackson did lots of push-ups, but don't know how many they could do consecutive.

2. What's the youngest anybody has been able to do 1,000 pushups? Oldest?

3. When was the earliest (reasonably believeable) claim of being able to do 1000 pushups?

4. Have any women been able to do 1000 pushups? What's the record for consecutive pushups for a woman?

5. Are there any rough estimates of how many people can do 1000 pushups? Even a ballpark figure... dozens? Hundreds? 1 in a million? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.22.79.251 (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

According to this list of records, Minoru Yoshida did 10,507 non-stop. Various other entries on the list suggest it's not all that hard (for some guys) to exceed 1000. It also claims that one woman did 190 in 3 minutes, while another female managed 450 in 10 minutes. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Four-year-old boy, 40 minutes: 1482 pushups. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Lalanne may be the first to verifiably do 1000; according to his article, he set a record with 1033 on TV in 23 minutes in 1956. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

what is this "Jewish-only roads" in Israel thing?

WP:NOTFORUM

why do people say there are Jewish-only roads in Israel? Is it true? 82.234.207.120 (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC) There are no "jewish-only roads in Israel". You probably refer to some roads on the occupied West Bank, off limits to the Palestinian population. See http://www.btselem.org/english/publications/summaries/200408_forbidden_roads.asp . --Soman (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC) In other words, Jewish-only roads. In effect. LANTZYTALK 11:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Er—no. Anybody who is not a Palestinian citizen is entitled to use them. So that would include Israel's Muslim citizens, Israel's Christian citizens, Israel's athiest citizens, foreign Muslim tourists, foreign Christian tourists etc. Don't say such stupid things. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 13:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Pretty funny. Like claiming that folks with other than African ancestry who were dark skinned were welcome to sit in "White only" seating areas of the old segregated US South, so all was hunky dory and freedom and equality reigned. "Palestinians stay off our road" is as appalling as "Irish and dogs not admitted" or "Nigger don't let the sun set on you", however you parse it and justify it.Edison (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC) The question is if Christians, Muslims and whoever, living in Israel, are able to use these roads. From the link above, it seems it's the case, so they are not "Jewish-only". People might prefer the expression "Jewish-only" because it sounds like "white only" which makes Israel look like the Apartheid. Mr.K. (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC) If the shoe fits, wear it. Edison (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC) It's easier to call them what they are: roads that Palestinians are excluded from. That's accurate and characterizes the situation more accurately. Incidentally I do think there is an apartheid-like system going on in Israel with regards to the Palestinians, but that is clear enough from being truthful, rather than being misleading. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Some people are eager to compare Israel with South Africa, perhaps because most people dislike South Africa's old system. However, Israel is a different system, even if you consider it unfair, or even violent, its form of being unfair or violent is different from the old South Africa. Mr.K. (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Drawing broad similarities between unfair systems that are unfair for similar reasons is common enough. Saying "Israel is not literally the same thing as South Africa" misses the point. Whether the comparison is apt is a separate question, but I think "apartheid-like" (the term I used) is a worthwhile comparison. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Is this possibly related to a rumour I heard about muslim-only roads in Saudi Arabia? There's a photo of a road sign at Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia#Restrictions on religious freedom, but it's a road to Mecca, which makes it seem marginally more reasonable. 213.122.16.186 (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC) A Google search for "Christian bypass Saudi" turns up plenty of results... AnonMoos (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC) If your policy is to be on par with Saudi Arabia on treatment of religious minorities, you do set your standards quite low.... --Soman (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC) And yet some Saudis are among those screaming the loudest about alleged Israeli "bigotry" -- with no particular observable sense of irony or consciously-embraced hypocrisy on their part... AnonMoos (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC) In public yes, in reality the Saudis do nothing (or at least microscoptically little) to help the Palestinian cause. Oil from the Gulf is exported to Israel. If the Saudis put their money where their mouth is, that would not occur. And moreover, what's the point of the Saudi analogy? The KCNA can sometimes rightly criticize violations of civil and political rights abroad, does that mean that we have to set the standard for press freedom with that of North Korea? --Soman (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC) It's rather unfortunate that in the political/international spheres a large number of Arabs seem to consistently feel that moral standards and ethical requirements only apply to their opponents and enemies, but can never be relevant to how their own side acts. I'm sure that on the individual and personal level, many of these people are gentle souls who treat their spouses and children etc. kindly -- but when their political opinions are aggregated to form the consensus of the so-called "Arab street", the collective personality of the "Arab street" is pretty much that of an obnoxious hypocrite. AnonMoos (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I reject the notion of "a colletive personality". The truth is that Arabs are human beings just like any other, and are not remote-controlled by an alien mother ship. The hold different views on politics, religion and society. As per the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Arabs generally know the conflict and its history more in detail that most Europeans and Americans. Furthermore, Arab media tend not to airbrush the realities of life under occupation the way Western media does. If Europeans or Americans knew the situation in Palestine better, their views on the conflict would not be much different from the general Arab opinion. --Soman (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I'm sure they have their strongly marked individual particularities, but in every country with an even semi-functioning political system, there's a process which averages out personalistic characteristics to form an overall general "climate of public opinion" -- and it's a rather notable feature of Arab political culture that the process of forming a "climate of public opinion" (usually called "the street" in Arab countries) seems to bring out the worst in people — on some issues, at least — as compared with the climates of public opinion in many other parts of the world. As for your last sentence, it's the main thesis of the group If Americans Knew, which does not seem to have achieved anything very tangible as a result... AnonMoos (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC) AnonMoo's is a reasonable observation, though, that may apply just as well to some among the Zionist camp, too. There's plenty of mud to sling around this issue. The truth, the reality as it exists today, is less than praise-worthy on all sides. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I for one find AnonMoos' comment deeply racist and offensive. It seems to be built primarily from prejudices. Perhaps AnonMoos likes to dehumanise or alienate certain groups of people who are different to him or her. The reference desk is not the appropriate place to espouse such hateful views. I will focus on the trivial. AnonMoos seems to believe that certain countries that meet his approval have a "climate of public opinion" whereas "Arab countries" have "the street". I would like to see a cite that 1) this is a term actually used in "Arab countries" and 2) it is not used elsewhere. Having experienced a few different communities around the world (but no "Arab countries"), the only place where "the street" (or rather, "the Street") is used to mean the "climate" of local public opinion is amongst the investment banking community in New York. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Racism is the belief that people have immutable biological characteristics which make them inherently inferior, not pointing out that certain countries have a somewhat dysfunctional political culture which does not seem to lead to the constructive resolution of issues -- if that's "racist", then the United Nations is "racist", since it pointed out pretty much the same thing... AnonMoos (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Note: "Arab street" is a common and "neutral" expression. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC) That may be the case, but I don't think a wiktionary entry, using a neo-neocon blog as a source is any evidence for the claim Nil Einne (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Found some better sources [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] although I note several of those sources suggest the Arab street is largely a dead phenomenon. Nil Einne (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC) There are, incidentally, some roads in Israel which the more strictly conservative/orthodox Jews are effectively 'barred' from (and are signposted as such), insamuch as the said roads cross old burial grounds and their beliefs preclude crossing over grave sites. I can't recall the relevant name for this circumstance (which I read about in, I think, Haaretz online when following up an archaeological story), or think of an appropriate search term - does anybody else have a cite? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC) I'm reposting a comment of RolandR from Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid/Archive 30: "For instance at the Adumim/Az-Zaim crossing at 31°46'59"N 35°15'50"E in the occupied West Bank, between Jerusalem and the illegal settlement of Ma'ale Adumim. There is an article with a photo in Haaretz of the sign at this crossing. The words on the sign translate as "Welcome to the Az-Za'ayyem / Adumim crossing-point. The crossing-point is intended for use by Israelis only. It is prohibited for a non-Israeli person to cross or to be transported across this crossing-point!! “Israeli” – a resident of Israel, whose place of residence is in the region and is an Israeli citizen, or a person who is entitled to immigrate to Israel pursuant to the Law of Return – 1950 as it is applied in Israel, or a person who is not a resident of the region but holds a valid entry permit to Israel.” That is, reading beyond the legalistic verbiage, the crossing point is for Israeli citizens, for Jews, and for tourists to Israel -- and most definitely not for the inhabitants of the area, who have lost their land to the encroaching settlements, the apartheid wall, the roads and the military checkpoints, and who live unbder military occupation. They are neither Israelis, nor Jews, nor tourists. They simply live where they were born and brought up, and are barred from the roads. RolandR (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)" --Soman (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC) That's still a far cry from the Apartheid. I am not saying that the above settlement might be legal (which indeed, is disputed by many). But simply treating people differently doesn't make you an Apartheid-like state. Specially if you do not differentiate between citizens who might be Muslims, Christians or Jews. In the example above, you just have a bypass road, build for security purposes, not to exclude any non-Israeli Palestinian. In other countries, when crossing a border, you also get different treatment. You'll see a passport control for citizens and other for foreigners. Is that also Apartheid? 80.58.205.34 (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC) The issue here is that there is a road in to which your access is based on ethnicity/religion (the reference is made to the Law of Return). That is pretty close to having special toilets for whites and non-whites. --Soman (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC) The issue here is that some people want to compare Israel with the old Apartheid system at any price. The access is not based on ethnicity or religion. You can be entitle to go to Israel under the Law of Return, but there are many others circumstances which will allow you to reside in Israel and drive this road. Any citizen of Israel or visitor to Israel may drive through this road. Israeli Arabs, Israeli Christians are allowed to use this road, which is there for security reasons, not to discriminate against non-citizens. Non-whites were not allowed to use services for whites, no matter what.80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Turning Palestinians into 'non-Citizens' in their own land is pretty apartheidish. But I'd say that there are people who wish to avoid seeing the similarities with Apartheid rule in South Africa at any price. --Soman (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Inhabitants of east Jerusalem were offered the chance to become Israeli citizens over 40 years ago, but hardly any accepted (whereas I never heard of the South African government offering an opportunity to blacks to be accepted as white). AnonMoos (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Good job neither of those two hypothetical kinds of people are present, isn't it! 81.131.6.177 (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Actually, the SA gov't also did try to create divisions between people in SA, by differentiating between Blacks and Coloureds. The offer of citizenship to E Jerusalem residents was a ploy to create division between Palestinians, by treating a section of them more favourably. Classical colonial tactics. The reasonable demand would be to demand equal citizenship rights for all inhabitants. Or that Israel leaves the occupied territories once and for all. You can't have the cake and eat, so to speak. --Soman (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC) The reason these roads exist is because Israeli drivers have been attacked and killed on the old roads. It's a safety measure. I'm sure the Israelis would rather not have to spend millions of dollars building expensive bypass roads and tunnels to avoid the Palestinian areas, just as I'm sure they'd rather not have to spend all that money building the separation barrier. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Nevertheless Israel certainly has gone out of its way to extent its borders into Palestinian territory, both in actual military conquests as well as ongoing "settlements". No part in this conflict is free from the responsibility of the current situation. Hypothetically though, it would be interesting to see how many expensive secured roads would be necessary if Israel withdrew its military and settlements to the 1948 borders. But I guess it is too late for that now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

i look for notable/famous examples of parents doing child abuse

where the child had physical disabled or special needs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.38 (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

can be they neglect or abandon the child —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.38 (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

List of orphans and foundlings. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Junior Kings

What is the term for a junior co-monarch that ruled alongside a sole monarch? Examples Henry the Young King, Hugh Magnus of France, or Haakon Haakonsson the Young. It's suppose to be a Latin term. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In Norwegian the term appears to be samkonge, and this seems to be quite a common term. In Swedish the term is medkung, and in German Mitkönig or Mitregent, terms frequently encountered in discussions of the Holy Roman Empire. In fact, in this particular context, Mitkönig it is sometimes used in English as well. If you're looking for a non-hyphenated English word, I'd suggest coregent, which seems to be particularly popular in discussions of Ancient Egyptian rulers. However, none of these terms necessarily specifies a junior, subordinate king. A good, self-explanatory neologism would be "underking", but that appears to already be a term particular to fantasy role-playing games. LANTZY^TALK 11:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OED has "under-king, a prince or ruler subordinate to a chief king", with citations back to AD950, so it's hardly a neologism! DuncanHill (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The situation was very common among the Emperors of the East Roman (Byzantine) Empire. The two co-emperors are often described in the literature as the "junior co-emperor" and the "senior co-emperor". According to the Autokrator article, it seems that the senior emperor could be described in Greek as the basileus kai autokrator ("emperor and autocrat"), and the junior, as the symbasileus ("co-emperor"). It looks like at least occasionally, the term "caesar" was used for the junior co-emperor as well, although generally there was a semantic distinction. -- Vmenkov (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay I think it is rex fillius, but I can't find any sources that actually call this European junior kings by that. So I'm not to sure. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ten Commandments in Islam

Does Islam also have the ten commandments, as Christianity does? Thanks 92.29.114.35 (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, already answered at Ten_Commandments#Islam. 92.29.114.35 (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Moral equivalents of the commandments are found, but Islam does not treat any Jewish or Christian scriptures as authoritative... AnonMoos (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's more complicated than that. See Islamic view of the Bible. Buddy431 (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It can be a little complicated, but not in any way which really affects the validity of my original statement. A common Muslim view is that Jewish and Christian scriptures can be interesting supplemental reading, but everything necessary to be a good Muslim is contained in Islamic writings, and Jewish and Christian scriptures do not create any obligations for Muslims beyond those already imposed by Islamic teachings -- and if Jewish or Christian scriptures contradict the Qur'an in any possible way (including the most trivial and inessential details) then such Jewish or Christian scriptures are necessarily ipso facto "corrupted" (a firmly-held belief which is usually not up for any meaningful debate or revision). AnonMoos (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Do not be arrogant in one's claims or beliefs: And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning). (17:36) Nor walk on the earth with insolence: for thou canst not rend the earth asunder, nor reach the mountains in height. (17:35)"

I'd not seen this before. A sensible suggestion, even for an infidel like me. Should probably quoted at the top of every Wikipedia edit page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It also means that you shouldnt take a risk, strive, innovate, or show enterprise - perhaps that's why we have more technology and a higher standard of living in the West despite Islam scholars being further ahead in the past. 92.15.20.70 (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that's getting into a very long, very speculative discussion. I will only say this; a substantial number of these Muslim scholars, notably Ibn Rushd (commonly known as Averroes), lived in Spain, so they had a very direct influence on Europe because they were, well, living in it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

...And of course nobody could possibly accuse the West of 'walking on the earth with insolence'? Wise words (and unwise ones) can be found anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Calling the kettle black inevitably leads to the other party being reminded that they are, in fact, a pot. Always. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Old flag

[30]Does anyone knows what is that 2nd flag from left? I have seen it couple times but I don't know what is it... Some American revolution-flag?-Henswick (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

See Confederate flag#The Confederate Flag. --Viennese Waltz 14:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

How terribly upsetting - someone wants to kill me! DuncanHill (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's Macbeth. And it seems more likely to be about a a mass-murdering sex offender. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has to do with Joseph Edward Duncan III. What that has to do with White Power is anybody's guess. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's just another example of how ignorant people's sense of reality and priorities are distorted by what they happen to see on TV and what they happen to have heard at the dinner table from their equally ignorant family members. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the convict in this case looks like the kind of guy whose garage that could be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, I have to add that the first flag on the right is also a historical American flag. See Gadsden_flag for that. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the black thing on the wall on the left - is it a high letterbox or a gun port? 92.15.20.70 (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect a vent of some kind... AnonMoos (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Having a Confederate flag next to a Union flag in the same garage is an interesting political statement. Maybe what he's really saying is "We should celebrate the unity and diversity of the United States!" --Jayron32 05:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Ed.: or maybe not. --Jayron32 05:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I know a few people who have Confederate flags (I'm in New England), and they aren't at all racist, so by itself it doesn't mean much. However, this particular case is pretty obvious. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The licence plate indicates this is in Idaho (example), which is not typically where there's a ton of nostalgia for the confederate south. It is likely, therefore, that the confederate flag is being used as a general anti-federal government or pro-state rights emblem (especially when coupled with the Gadsden flag). Given the Stormfront (website) flag, it's possible that the Confederate flag is conveying an overt racist message, though in my experience, it's becoming less common to use it in that manner. I wish I could make out the bumper stickers on the car. The no-trespassing sign, flags, and the fact that this is Idaho certainly feeds the stereotype of this being a member of some sort of Militia movement. Buddy431 (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe; there's always the chance that it's some southerner who ended up moving out there, too. But sometimes, you just can't explain things rationally; after once seeing Ukrainian Nazi sympathizers, I can't completely close my mind to the possibility that it's just some random racist and/or anti-government crazy. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Foreign language

I'm in high school and beginning to look at colleges. Most "good" colleges and colleges that emphasizes globalism and language (those that I'm interested in) require or "strongly recommend" (in Harvard's case) at least three or four years of the same language in high school. Unfortunately for me I took French for 9th and 10th grade, and planned to take it through senior year, but due to budget cuts my school cut the entire French program and made me take Spanish for the remaining two years. Will this limit my choices of college? How can I communicate this circumstance to colleges when on their application forms they only have short lines to indicate what languages you've had and how much? Thanks 169.227.254.124 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

When I applied to college, both for undergraduate and graduate acceptance, I had to write a letter. I do not see how it would be difficult to include that information in a letter. -- kainaw™ 18:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You could also take French lessons outside your school and include that in your letter. That will make even a better impression than complaining about your school cutting costs. 80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion. That is exactly what I did. My high school didn't have fancy things like calculus or computers. So, I took trigonometry and calculus outside of high school. I didn't take computer classes because I was already working as a programmer. I explained that in my letter for undergrad and I was accepted on the condition that I pass a trigonometry and a computer programming test before classes began. Similarly, when I applied for my PhD, I tried to skip over the master's program. I was accepted on the condition that I take and make an A in three specific courses in the first year - otherwise I would have to complete the master's program. So, putting effort into your own education and writing a good letter should be a priority. -- kainaw™ 18:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Application letters or essays are very tricky things, and they can play a key role in an acceptance decision at the most selective universities. I do not recommend using any part of your letter or essay to make excuses for your failure to meet requirements. As 80.58... said, the best thing you could do would be to enroll ASAP in a French class outside of your school, perhaps at a local community college or Alliance française. Then in your letter or essay, you can make the much more positive and impressive statement that, despite your school's budget cuts, your commitment to globalism and multilingualism impelled you to continue your study of French privately. Marco polo (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If memory serves, Harvard in particular requires that prospective undergraduates schedule an interview with a Harvard alumnus. If you make it to that stage, explain the circumstances of your education to your interviewer; and explain how you overcame the challenges you faced. If you intend to succeed at a school like Harvard, you will need to demonstrate considerable resourcefulness, self-motivation, and ability to overcome adversity on your own; "excelling at the things your school taught you" is a necessary, but insufficient, criterion for these top-tier schools. Nimur (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

When I applied for university, I applied to do Chinese and Japanese. I had not studied either of these languages at school (there simply wasn't a demand for either - available languages were French, Spanish and German, and supposedly Latin, but the teacher was absent for almost a year) and studied in my own time at home. When it came to applying for university, we were asked to go for an interview - during the interview I displayed my knowledge of Chinese (the guy interviewing me was a professor in Chinese) and I was given an unconditional. Maybe you'll have an interview, too. Alternatively, you could just get in contact with the teachers there, show them what you can do. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

who are some people with disengeniuous careers? (having admitted it)

who are some people with disingenuous careers who have come clean about it? I mean, where they became famous riling people up, but did it just for the he'll of doing just that (like an Internet troll) and afterwards come clean about it. (or were caught boasting about just that.). I've phrased my question this time to be quite neutral, specific, and refernce-oriented, so hopefully you won't remove it this time. Please note that I do not condone the activity I am asking about, on or off the computer screen! 82.234.207.120 (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think probably many comedians started out like that, for example Trigger Happy TV or Candid Camera which are all about riling people up for laughs. Many celebrities have admitted to doing prank calls, too many people to list. You might also find Usenet celebrity interesting which lists some famous "trolls" 82.44.55.25 (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused by this question. It mentions "careers", then talks about Internet trolling. I didn't think that was a career, but if I can be paid for it, bring it on! I reckon I'd be really good at it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the word career can simply refer to something one does with their life, regardless of whether they get paid for it or not. 82.44.55.25 (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's my comment from the thread that got deleted: :Buck Henry and the Society for Indecency to Naked Animals? -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with AnonMoos) List of hoaxes, although many of those were not people deliberately trying to rile people up. I find parodies like Landover Baptist Church [31] particularly funny. It's obvious (to me) that they're just trolling, but some people seem to think that they're genuine nuts (read some of the hate mail they get: [32]). Buddy431 (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A recent This American Life show discussed Jim Greer, chairman of the Republican Party in Florida. Greer had been the person who expressed outrage over President Obama addressing the nation's students over a TV link; Greer was indignant that Obama was going to be spreading a message of socialism to the nation's children. This meme spread around conservative TV, radio, and the Drudge Report like wildfire. After Greer was convicted of several felonies and saw his political career was over, he admitted that the outrage was fabricated, he knew his claims were false when he made them, and that he was falsely raising hell to pander to the right wing of the party. It is very unusual in politics to hear an admission or an apology for having knowingly made false claims. Granted, the admission was about an episode rather than a career. Second related topic is of course Sacha Baron Cohen. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks has gotten pretty outrageous lately, so one could say Julian Assange has made a "career" out of troublemaking (motivated by the noblest principles and according to the highest standards of integrity, I'm sure, but still...;). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that Assange is just doing this to piss people off. Yes, he is tweaking his nose a bit at the U.S. but it seems that he really does believe that he's doing a service to people. A Troll (Internet) is characterized by primarily being motivated in getting an emotional reaction out of people. Assange doesn't fit this, unless he's being a pretty good actor about it. It's interesting to consider someone like Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. Ostensibly, they are trying to get people to repent and find God. However, many of their tactics include doing things for little reason other than getting an emotional response out of people (and they tend to be quite good at it: see Snyder v. Phelps, and all the associated fallout). Mr. Phelps may not see himself as a real life troll, but he engages in what is in many ways very trollish behavior. Buddy431 (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

There was was a time when people thought wrestling was real. That's a whole mess of actors/stuntmen/dancers/whatever-they-are with fake careers. Which intersects with Andy Kaufman, who deserves special mention here. 67.162.90.113 (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes wrestling is real. Rasslin' usually, however, isn't. --Jayron32 07:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I encountered some very stubborn folks who think pro-wrestling is real here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

December 4

Taxation in the United Kingdom

Could someone please edit the format of the page such that this file is shown large enough, with the key facts and figures visible for the Taxation in the United Kingdom page. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

OK then. (It now has |350px| in the file tag.) 81.131.39.230 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC).

Thank you. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

coroners court transcripts in england

Is there anywhere l can find coroners court transcripts for 1903 in england - specifically Longton in Staffordshire. Many thanks Ann Hale

(email redacted) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.128.188 (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Ann, I've removed your email address so you don't get troubled by spammers. Longton is now part of Stoke-on-Trent, and your first port of call would be here. Coroners records are embargoed for 75 years, but it is up to the individual coroners office as to what is done with the records after that time. Some coroners destroy these invaluable items! You may also get a lot of help from these people: there are a lot of voluntary experts who help out there and an email should get you some more advice. Best of luck with your searches!--TammyMoet (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Extradition

I have heard that South American countries do not extradite people. Is that true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.63.234 (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As it says at extradition, extradition is governed by treaties, so in general any particular country may extradite people to whichever countries they happen to have an extradition treaty with, under the terms of that treaty. For example, there was a time when Ronnie Biggs could have been extradited from Brazil to the UK except that the treaty did not allow extradition of the parent of a Brazilian minor child. At another time he was in Barbados and could not be extradited to the UK because there was no extradition treaty. --Anonymous, 11:27 UTC, December 4, 2010.