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

January 1

Bahá'í religious choice

A Bahá'í woman once told me that every Bahá'í reaching the age of 15 is called upon to choose a religion to follow thereafter, and the Bahá'í religion requires the parents to respect the choice.

I don't find this mentioned in the article titled Bahá'í Faith. Where can I find an account of it? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you unable to find anything about it in Google or perhaps on a Baha'i website? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I googled

Bahá'í "15 years old"

I found various items on other topics related to that religion. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I found this bit on Yahoo Answers. It was written by an adherent, who was asked why they chose the faith. Their answer, in part, was "My father and some of his family members became Baha'is in the 50's and 60's, so I was essentially born into it (in 1973). However, as with all Baha'is I had to specifically choose to remain a Baha'i once I reached maturity..." which seems to speak to what you're asking about. I'll see if I can dig up some more, but a quick tip: it doesn't seem to be related to 15 particularly, but rather to maturity. Matt Deres (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC) ps - Ah, maybe I was wrong. This site specifically mentions 15 as the age of choice. Sorry I can't seem to find something more authoritative. Perhaps Bugs, with his superior Google and Baha'i website searching skills, can find something for us. Matt Deres (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Not really authoritative sources, though. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks similar to the Christian practice of Confirmation in the West, which takes place at the age of reason (actually pre-adolescence, I don't know why some people call that age of reason). Quest09 (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

....No, I don't think it's comparable. A baptized Christian reaching the "age of reason" who decides to become Buddhist, Muslim, polytheist, or whatever, would probably be considered guilty of apostasy. I don't think there's an rigid rule in (most versions of) Christianity requiring the parents to respect such a decision in the same way. The Catholic church explicitly says that the mark of Christian baptism is indelible. (Although they do recognize such a thing as defection from the church.) Michael Hardy (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What actually caused me to think of this again is that I came across the German concept of "Religionsmündigkeit" — the age at which a person in Germany acquires full legal freedom of religion, so that their parents can no longer require them to attend the church of the parents' choice, etc. 14 years, I think. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The questioner is basically correct. The exact position is that, at the age of 15, children of Baha'i parents are required to reaffirm their faith, upon which they may continue to attend Baha'i gatherings. From birth until age 15 they are automatically registered as Baha'i children, and are free to go to all Baha'i functions. After that time, if they don't reaffirm, they will not be able to attend those few gatherings that are for Baha'is only, such as those concerned with administration. The age requirement does not concern all forms of membership or participation, and has nothing to do with voting in Baha'i elections, which begins at age 21. See here for more, and on the same page, the sections from 512 to 522, for a fairly complete overview. You can post any further questions on my talk page. It's been emotional (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, "it's". Michael Hardy (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

1810

Does anybody know the date or time of the year King Kaumualii of Kauai ceded his kingdom to Kamehameha the Great in the year 1810. I think it should be known since the start of the kingdom of Hawaii can be dated to May or the Spring of 1795.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote from "Shoals of Time" by Gavan Daws: "Early in 1810 his ship carried Kaumualii and his retinue to Honolulu...and after several days of celebration the diplomatic issue was broached and settled." Not very precise...--Wrongfilter (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Here it says: "At last, in 1810,..., Kaumualii consented to go to Honolulu... Kamehameha came out with a fleet of canoes to meet him at Honolulu Harbor. The time was late March or early April." --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

However, here: "Intermediary in the agreement was the American sea captain, Jonathan Windship, who in the summer of 1810 brought King Kaumualii and his court to Oahu where the compact was made and the little kingdom formally ceded...". --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Female immigrants to the US

From which country did most female immigrants to the US arrive from the 17th to the 20th centuries? My educated guess would be Ireland seeing as many unmarried Irish females came to the US on their own, especially in the 19th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

An interesting question. Mitochondrial DNA studies might tell you a little, but I'd think you'd probably do better looking at ships passenger lists etc. I'm not sure about the Irish case, as the women might have been matched by an equal (or even greater) number of unmarried Irish men. Certainly the general trend for most migrations if for the early arrivals to have a greater preponderance of males. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually what made me ask is the fact that many celebrities who are considered Italian-American, such as Liza Minelli, John Travolta, and Robert De Niro actually have maternal Irish DNA. I hate to sound weasly but I recall having once read that at some period in the 19th century, Irish female emigrants surpassed males.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think England has to be a contender. From our article: "An estimated 3.5 million English emigrated to the USA after 1776." My knowledge of English history (mostly gleaned from reading around, e.g. The Last of England (painting)) leads me to believe that by this point a large number of the emigrants were women (and children). Ireland may have sent a higher proportion of its population, but England was more populous to start with. In 1855, apparently 2% of England packed its bags and left (350 000 out of 18m). Statistics for Wales are bundled with England, for historic reasons; Scotland is separate, and sent a lot of emigrants (Highland Clearances); again, my instinct would say that a lot of these were women, but I have no hard data to back that up. Obviously, not all of them went to the USA, but a substantial wave did. -- If by 20th century you mean up until 1999, then perhaps Mexico might be in the running? BrainyBabe (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

voting

The current representative system was developed at a time when people required representation for a number of reasons such as expertise, the need of a congress to permit relatively immediate decisions, etc. Today we have the Internet so is there a system that would allow everyone to represent themselves by default and to be represented by only the person they deferred to per issue? --Inning (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's been experimented with on shows like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, which should give a sense of how well direct democracy would work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that most people don't have the time to inform themselves properly before voting on complex issues. Lets say there's a vote coming up on a trade treaty with Romania, or on funding research into a certain type of cancer, or on immigration quotas. Most people spend most of their time working and feeding themselves and their family. They may have opinions on these issues, but how informed are these opinions? How well do they know the potential consequences of voting "yea" or "nay" on a piece of legislation? Wouldn't it be better if there were someone whose full-time job it was to do this sort of thing? --Jayron32 16:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

...er ah that why I said, "...represent themselves by default and to be represented by only the person they deferred to per issue..." --Inning (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that people believe themselves to be well enough informed rather than actually being well enough informed about these issues. People are likely to make malinformed decisions rather than to give their vote by proxy, as you suggest, to an expert or representative. Someone may believe they know the optimum tarrif levels for quail eggs imported from Romania. But that they don't, but would still have an opinion on the issue, is the problem. --Jayron32 18:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree about the part where people "believe" rather than "actually" being well enough informed about public issue to vote wisely. Just take a look at the Vaccine controversy - the hard science is clear, yet the controversy remains. A default self-representation + deferral voting system will probably result in disaster. Royor (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely - and the vaccine crap is just the tip of it. Just think about how many bullshit factoids you've ever been sent by well-meaning friends who think they're well-informed because they know the truth about - hell, forget the big stuff like conspiracy theories and Obama birthers - how many of us "learned" that October 2010 was so strange for having three Fridays, three Saturdays, and three Sundays in it? I got that forwarded to me from a couple of people. If they consider themselves informed about how the calender they use every day works, I shudder to think how well they'll handle something more complicated. Matt Deres (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that particular "oddity" had been doing the email rounds (but it doesn't surprise me). My local paper published it breathlessly for the "enlightenment" of the populace - so I wrote and explained to them just how commonplace and ordinary it is. The editor at least had the grace to publish my rejoinder. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it is so rare, that it will happen again in July. Googlemeister (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Tyranny of the majority. schyler (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not practical for large groups to govern. That's why organizations' conventions, or for that matter legislatures themselves, appoint committees to look at issues in-depth and only vote on matters that have already been crafted and vetted in committee. Full legislatures in the U.S. do vote on hundreds of bills each session, but at least they can say that because legislating is their full-time job during the session, they have time and expertise to study each bill before it comes up for a vote. (In reality, that's not the case, and legislators will often vote on bills without reading them.) Most people, on the other hand, are too busy to look at dozens of highly technical pieces of legislation every day. So the logical thing to do is appoint others (legislators) to do that for us, then vote them out of office if they don't do what we want. Now there are some times when the issue is simple enough, or important enough, for people to be able to vote on the matter themselves. This is why some jurisdictions have referendums. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that representatives protect us from that, at best they substitute tyranny of the ruling class (if that ruling class happens to differ from the majority). StuRat (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"Ruling class" is a fairly vague and problematic construct. Who is the ruling class in the United States? I'm not sure there is one "ruling class" unless you take refuge in either shadowy conspiracies or gross generalizations. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

WASPs. Yes, occasionally someone outside the group gets in (like the current President), but a good 90% of the members of both houses of Congress, Supreme Court Judges, and Presidents and VPs have been WASPs, historically, even though this group may even be a minority, by numbers, these days, especially if you exclude women. StuRat (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Um... less than 55% of the 111th Congress was Protestant. Less than half of the members of Congress are WASPs. The Cabinet has its typical assortment of minority members. As far as I can tell, everyone on the Supreme Court is either Catholic, Jewish or minority. There may be a ruling class in America, but to identify it with WASPs nowadays doesn't make any sense. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are zero WASPs on the Supreme Court now; the president and the three people following him in the line of succession aren't WASPs either. Maybe the WASPs did this on purpose to distract us from their shenanigans, but more likely is that the idea of WASPs as the "ruling class" is a bit outdated. Although some would say that the Supreme Court is more "diverse" than ever, in one respect the opposite is true: every single justice is a product of Harvard or Yale, as are our last four presidents. To form a modern definition of the US "ruling class", start there. —Kevin Myers 06:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I did say "historically". Yes, the WASP ruling class is losing it's clout in the US, but not everywhere else in the world. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I still don't see a "ruling class." I see coalitions that form and reform. I see a lot of groups with more or less power depending how the issue is. I don't see anything that can be generalized into a simple ruling majority of any sort. The US is, and has been for decades, a far more complicated political environment than that. I would file "WASPs are the ruling class" as a gross generalization. (It's a gross-generalization of WASPs as well, which as a "class" contains a lot of different groups with different politics, incomes, cultures.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the Democratic Party is becoming more inclusive, but the Republican Party remains rather WASPish. During the 2008 Presidential election, the Democrats had the major minorities represented, with a black (Obama) in the lead, a woman (Hillary Clinton) in 2nd place, and also a Hispanic (Bill Richardson) in the pack. The Republicans, on the other hand, had all white men. Yes, Republicans do occasionally pull in a minority member, but it seems largely to be a token gesture, such as choosing Sarah Palin as the VP candidate. StuRat (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea that the OP is describing would basically meaning governing the USA in the same way that Wikipedia is governed. Need I say more? Looie496 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Is it your contention that the US gov is better-run than Wikipedia, or worse-run ? StuRat (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be, hmm..., interesting to see the concensus-building process for any kind of major legislation in a government run Wikipedia-style. Actually I don't think any legislation could be changed by that method unless perhaps at the local level.Sjö (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

See Consensus decision-making Nil Einne (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Crime cost effectiveness study

I'm wondering if anyone has done any crime cost effectiveness studies. Using some kind of algorithm that quantifies potential gain vs chance of detection vs chance of conviction vs potential penalty and used it to work out the most cost effective criminal activity.

For example a bank robbery has a high initial potential gain in direct cash, however the chances of being caught and convicted are probably fairly high too and the jail time is heavy. Shoplifting might only net a small amount each time but the chances of being caught are lower and the penalty is likely to be a fine.

Anyone know any studies along these lines? Exxolon (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No, but I bet that white-collar or corporate crime would have the highest cost-benefit ratio... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe copyright infringement related crimes have an even better ratio, since the cost is quite low.Quest09 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Law and economics is probably a good place to start. --GreatManTheory (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that criminals do this type of analysis, particularly in organized crime. They often try to keep "just under the radar", meaning that they try not to draw police attention, or even worse, the attention of the FBI or equivalent. So, even if this means their take is less, it worth it to avoid the increased risk that high-profile crimes bring, especially if they are in it for the long run. StuRat (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear War

Resolved

-- It was the USS Liberty incident — Fly by Night (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I remember hearing about the US president giving an order to use nuclear weapons, but then withdrew the order. I think it was in the 1960's or 1970's. If I recall, an American plane was shot down. It might have been during the Arab-Israeli war, and it could have been the Egyptians that shot down the plane. I'm not sure. Can anyone enlighten me? — Fly by Night (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cuban Missile Crisis? ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No -- it involved an Arab nation, maybe Egypt. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A U-2 spy plane, piloted by Francis Gary Powers, was shot down by the Soviet Union, but this didn't cause the same high alert status as the Cuban Missile Crisis. StuRat (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No -- it involved an Arab nation, maybe Egypt. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You may also misremembering this with the increase of DEFCON 4 to 3 during the Yom Kippur War#Soviet threat of intervention. Flamarande (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it involved a bomber, or something, being dispatched and called back following a downed US aircraft. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

World War III has a nice, short list of a few of the "greatest threats" moments. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Besides the close calls in that article, wasn't there an instance of a US general not responding per policies when someone ran a "test tape" simulating a Russian ICBM attack, and the general doubted the radar indications were real because of other factors, similar to what the Soviet general did? Edison (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There was also Ronald Reagan's famous "We begin bombing in five minutes" radio announcement in 1984: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes," which caused "the Soviet Far East Army [to be] placed on alert after word of the statement got out, and [...] the alert was not withdrawn until 30 minutes later." WikiDao ☯ 03:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it'd be in the WW3 article. It was a nuclear attack against a non-nuclear state. So it would have been more genocide than thermonuclear war. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In 1945 the US was prepared to continue attacking Japan with nuclear weapons, but President Truman called a halt the day after the second attack. (Cite: Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, page 743 in my copy, a few pages from the end of chapter 19.) --Anonymous, 07:17 UTC, January 2, 2011.

I would call for a halt if I was out of ammunition as well. It looks bad to threaten to do something outside your current power if you get called on it. Googlemeister (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't the reason he did it, nor was that as big a problem as is made out to be. They had another bomb scheduled for the end of August and were making preparations on Tinian to prepare for it. There was actually all sorts of discussion about whether they should drop it whenever it was ready, or group them in twos-or-threes again. Truman said, essentially, "don't drop another without me telling you to, first," as opposed to his general "drop 'em when you've got 'em" order. It wasn't related to their availability. He didn't make the "halt" command publicly, in any case, so there was no (changed) chance of losing face either way. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I remember hearing something on a history TV program. There was footage of a silver US jet fighter landing on an aircraft carrier. I'm pretty sure that the Egyptians shot down a US plane and the US president sent a bomber or something to attack the Egyptians, but called it back. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The general answer you're getting is that there are no reliable sources indicating that this ever happened. Nuclear release, even if no actual attack happens, is a very big deal (one of the biggest!) and if this were a reliably documented event then it wouldn't be hard to find something about it. It was likely speculation on the part of the TV program. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the original poster has mangled the memory a bit. The US would have had no need to use nuclear weapons against the Egyptians, for one thing. If there are Egyptians involved, I suspect the program was about Israel's nuclear arsenal during the Six-Day War or, more probably, the Yom Kippur War. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've found it! It was the attack of the USS Liberty. We have an article on the attack: USS Liberty incident. The article says that "President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson, launched nuclear-armed planes targeted against Cairo from a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. The planes were recalled only just in time..." The Americans thought that the Egyptians had made the attack when, in fact, it was an Israeli fighter and torpedo boats. However, the article goes on to say that a "source for the aircraft being nuclear-armed, James Ennes, later stated that he was probably wrong in his original book..." — Fly by Night (talk)

OK. I severely doubt they were nuclear-armed. It's no trivial thing to start a nuclear war, especially when you're trying to avoid starting one (which is why the Liberty was there in the first place). --Mr.98 (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, me too. In fact it seems they were brought back because they were able to carry nuclear weapons. I just wanted to know what was behind that piece of history program I heard and now I know. It's nice to know that I haven't misunderstood and muddled any memories as multiple posters said I had. Thanks for all your help. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Former Governor of California

1) Why is Arnold Schwarzenegger stepping down as governor of California? Is it simply that he was outvoted in an election, or some other reason?

2) From this side of the pond, it seems rather odd that actors/celebrities are thought fit to run a state or even the country. I understand that California was in a financial crisis when he took office. Did he actually manage to solve the finance problem?

3) In general did he make a good job of running California, or was it just effective public relations without much substance? Thanks 92.29.119.95 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(2) I've often heard that sort of criticism of actors/entertainers going into politics, but who might be better qualified? Is a lawyer, a corporate executive, a farmer, a civil servant, a scientist, a salesman or a sportsman necessarily any better equipped? I say no, in general. By "this side of the pond", I assume you mean the UK. Look at Glenda Jackson. Then look at the House of Lords, which remains entirely unelected despite recent reforms; its members can include actors (Olivier), composers (Britten), sportspeople (Coe) and others from every possible field of endeavour. Virtually none of them (except defeated members of the House of Commons who are kicked upstairs as compensation) have ever studied the ways of government, yet they all have the right to influence the law of the land. How "odd" is that? At least the Schwarzeneggers of the world put themselves up for election and get tested against the only criterion that ever really matters - the ballot box. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger is not "stepping down"; he's termed out. Whether he did a good job depends on whom you asked. In my opinion he did OK; I certainly preferred him to either Gray Davis or Pete Wilson. --Trovatore (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

See also List of actor-politicians. The Kaczyński twins, former President and former Prime Minister of Poland, are listed there, though they were only actors in their childhood. When Peter Sodann ran for President (not an office that runs the country), the German media did indeed compare him to Reagan and Schwarzenegger, but they didn't take him seriously. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Sluzzen) I think that Schwarzenegger is generally respected as a governor. He retained generally high poll ratings for most of his two terms, though his approval rating took a nasty slump in early 2010 [1]. He certainly was dealt a pretty awful hand, and California is regarded as being fairly ungovernable anyway (California is notoriously politically divided, and the Initiative and Referendum process makes it easy to pass laws that help certain segments of the population in the short term, but are economically unsustainable in the medium to long term. See List of California ballot propositions). California Proposition 13 (1978), for example, severely restricts how much property taxes local governments can collect to raise revenues. Schwarzenegger leaves California still in a pretty dire economic situation. He has passed some environmental legislation, which many in the environmentally conscious California approve of. He has seriously tried to address the economic issues, but in many cases been stymied by political gridlock. I would not characterize his election as a public relations stunt. I think that in general, Schwarzenegger did act in good faith, and with California's best interests in mind. I will be interested to see what he does with the rest of his life. 174.20.220.94 (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Heres an interesting, brief end of term assessment of Schwarzenegger's time as governor. 174.20.220.94 (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember that Arnold was not elected in a normal election, but rather simultaneous with the recall of Gray Davis. It was a very abbreviated campaign with 135 candidates. So there was a tremendous advantage to already having a lot of name recognition, and who had more name recognition than Arnold? Also keep in mind that elections in America are usually about individuals more than parties as in a parliamentary system. Many people take pride in voting for the person rather than the party. In that environment, name recognition is a huge advantage. A wishy-washy independent voter may be far more likely to pull the tab for the ex-quarterback whose name they recognize than some lawyer who they've never heard of. And of course, someone like Arnold is going to have a lot of money and a lot of rich friends, which is important for running for office in America. That said, while there are quite a few examples of celebrities-turned-politicians in America, most major elected officials in the U.S. got their start as lawyers or business people, and most celebrities don't run for office. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the entertainers as politicians question: There are two dentists in the House of Representatives. By your measuring stick, are dentists any more qualified than entertainers? There are some very smart people in entertainment. Dismas|^(talk) 03:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Mick Jagger would be very unsuited to being a member of parliament. 92.24.185.225 (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Jagger studied at the London School of Economics and had planned to become a politician. Why would he be insuited to political life? He's obviously very intelligent, is qualified in economics and knows how the political system works; he's got loads of charisma in addition to a knighthood. What other qualities is he lacking?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Experience in administration, management, social work, and law. Millions of people are graduates, we are two a penny. You don't want much charisma in politicians - they ought ideally to be selfless public servants who are assessed on their record of work done rather than as superficial manipulators or charmers. 92.15.22.77 (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Schwarzeneggar's ratings are in the 20% range. I don't think he is "is generally respected". Corvus cornix_talk 05:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as Jagger had studied at the LSE, with a view to becoming a politician, I presume he learned about administration, management, the law and civil service. He has been described as highly intelligent and an astute businessman, so I hardly think it would be too difficult for him to assume the role of an MP.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think he is. Liberal voters have generally been surprised that he wasn't as bad as they'd feared he might be. And although Bush sabotaged Davis (and California) by refusing to intervene in the electricity con so that they could get a Republican elected, then promptly intervened as soon as Aanold was in office, Schwarzenegger never played Republican party games, and often spoke out against them. I think he's generally seen as having the country's best interests at heart even by those who think most Republicans do not. — kwami (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

And for most of his time in office, as I already pointed out, his approval rating was quite high, at some points very high (at least by California standards). There are a lot of people who don't agree with what he did, but I think that most people think that he really was trying to help California out. California sucks to govern, and I certainly wouldn't want the job. Buddy431 (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is about right. California itself was probably going to be a muddle either way, but Arnold showed himself to be more thoughtful and more independent than his detractors had suspected he would be when he was elected. (I was one of said detractors.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Mercury News article linked to above says that when he started there was a $10.2 billion deficit, but now there is a $25.4 billion deficit. So on that, he failed. The cancellation of the increase in car tax (losing $4billion a year) seems like expensive crowd-pleasing ("bread and circuses"), so I'm inclined to think that although he was able to get the voters to see things including himself in a positive light due to his acting experience, when assessed by the figures alone he did a poor job. 92.24.185.225 (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're ignoring the little matter of the worldwide economic collapse in the mean time. Personal income tax revenues tanked. Presumably, so did property tax and sales tax. That wasn't under the Governator's control.

The best thing he did was get himself hated by the horrible union of the prison guards. I want to clarify that I'm not criticizing individual prison guards themselves; it's a terrible job that, unfortunately, someone has to do. But their union has been just appalling, daring to oppose measures that keep people out of prison in a state with an unbelievably high incarceration rate, apparently on the grounds that they would mean less work for their members. To me that's utterly inexcusable. --Trovatore (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

But politics is more than cherry-picking figures, of course. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Au contrere; politics is all about cherry-picking figures. It's real life / reality which is about more than that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

He managed to get himself hated by the nurses' union, the teachers' unions and the state employees. He got himself hated by the right, by the left who supported the unions (and voted down his long series of ridiculous propositions). I still see nobody who supports him. Corvus cornix_talk 21:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Being hated by the prison guards' union is a really big plus. --Trovatore (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2

Unusual given names of movie characters

Yesterday I watched a re-run of Parrish, a 1961 Troy Donahue/Claudette Colbert/Karl Malden movie, which I’d heard of but never seen. I’m not at all sure I’m any better off for having done so. But anyway, my question is about names of movie characters.

Dean Jagger played a man named Sala Post (Sala pronounced like a non-rhotic Sailor). The only Sala I’d ever heard of is a surname (pronounced Sah-luh). I checked and found there are three Wiki-notable people with the first name Sala, but one’s a woman, one wasn’t even born till 1976 (the film was based on a 1958 novel), and the other was hardly well-enough known to have influenced the novelist. So, we have a character with a particularly unusual given name (nothing wrong with that per se).

Now, unusual given names are things that people in real life notice and often comment on or ask questions about. There would be a point in having a character with such a name if the name itself played some role in the plot, or at least there was some acknowledgement in the movie of its oddness. But if it’s treated as if it were a perfectly normal name like Bill or Harry or Mary or Jane, then what actually is the point of going to the trouble of giving the character such a name to begin with? The title character Parrish Maclean is another case in point. Maybe in this particular case the novel went into the name issue but that explanation got lost in the translation to the screen. Nevertheless, I’ve often noticed this tendency, particularly in American movies, of characters with given names that virtually nobody has ever heard of but everyone treats them as perfectly normal and never asks how they're spelt. I could probably produce quite a long list if I had the energy.

I can see some sense in making a character stand out from the crowd by giving them an unusual attribute – but to then treat it as if it was not remotely unusual is sort of giving out a confused message.

So, what am I missing here? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not that uncommon for people to have uncommon names. "Parrish" sounds like one of those last names used as first names, like with the real-life people McGeorge Bundy, Jefferson Davis, Anderson Cooper, Jackson Browne, Turner Gill, Brooks Robinson, etc. Perhaps if you had 300 pages to discuss someone, it would make sense to explain the origin of the name, but in a 90 minute film it might be a distraction. Come to think of it, did they ever explain the origin of the title character's name in any of the 247 episodes of Murphy Brown? And The Simpsons has never given an in-universe explanation, as far as I know, for Homer and Bartholomew Simpson's unusual first names. (Fans know Homer was Matt Groening's father's name and "Bart" is an anagram of "brat."). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that Homer and Bart are uncommon names but not unusual ones, which is a bit different from the original question. They're familiar enough names so as not to require any explanation. Not so with "Sala Post", of course. Google tells me that "Sala Post" was the name of a real person in Connecticut history, where the film and novel was set, and where the author was from. Maybe the author was familiar with the name and picked it for historical reasons, or just liked the oddness of it. Maybe the novel explains the name. That said, I think movies characters are sometimes unusually named just to be offbeat and memorable. Examples abound, as Jack says. One of my favorite movies, Bottle Rocket, springs to mind. A main character is named Dignan, perhaps a first name, which is unusual. Another character is called "Future Man", with no explanation given -- or needed. Just go with it. —Kevin Myers 05:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hermione Granger stood out, but she was in a book first. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Context is pretty significant. Hermione is uncommon in middle class Britain, but it's a name I have heard a number of times in an upper class context. Equally I'd consider many given names in the US slightly unusual, given my own experiences.

ALR (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Mwalcoff's made a good distinction. There are many names that are unusual as given names, but very well known as surnames and so are not uncommon per se. For example, if I were to meet an Anderson Jones or a Smith Johnson or a Cartwright Kennedy, I'd have no doubt how to spell their names. But watching that movie yesterday, every time I heard someone say "Say-lah", I was thinking "Sailor", forgetting that they'd be pronouncing that word rhotically if it were really Sailor. But even if that had dawned on me, I'd still be wondering how to spell this "Say-la" name. It seems to me that's an unreasonable burden to place on a viewer. It's one thing to have a list of the characters and players at the end (this movie didn't do that), but for reasonably intelligent viewers to have to depend on seeing such a list to work out how characters' names were spelt seems a bit much. This movie was made decades before google. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sala is a Biblical name. Americans have always had weird Biblical names, and that was especially true in old-timey sepia tumbleweed days. Perhaps obscure Biblical names are less common in Australia, but the minute I saw the name "Sala", I thought to myself, that's gotta be some leper or shepherd or something. 90% of weird American forenames are from the Old Testament. American history is full of Gomers and Jethros and Zebulons. People must have been used to it, either from familiarity with the Bible or simply from dealing with lots of Biblically named people. LANTZY^TALK 08:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

By definition it's only weird if you are not used to it. I'm sure there are tons of names that sound normal to you and weird to me (or any of the other editors here). Ariel. (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Lantzy -- Such American naming habits were heavily influenced by those of 17th-century English puritans. At least names like "Unless-Jesus-Christ-Had-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barbon" stayed on the other side of the Atlantic... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Dickens gave his characters unusual nasmes - I wonder if that was done to reduce the chances of libel actions. 92.24.185.225 (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

JackofOz -- for many years I had great difficulty parsing the name "St. John Rivers" in Jane Eyre, and wondered whether this was some bizarre British naming practice... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "sinjən" is bizarre. But the British have a national obsession for bizarre pronunciations and rituals and traditions, so that's part of the deal. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Would the movie have been better if it had had Sallah in it instead of Sala? Matt Deres (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really, nothing could have saved it. That's the miracle of TV, though: they can take a movie that died at the box office, and bring it back to life 50 years later. (Or even 6 months later, rebadged misleadingly as "comedy smash".)  :)

I guess they couldn't have called him Shelah (one of the alternative forms of Salah (biblical figure)) - I'd be thinking "What's a bloke named Sheila doing in this movie. Johnny Cash, this is obviously where you got your idea for a A Boy Named Sue from". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

ObPedantry- A Boy Named Sue was written by Shel Silverstein; Cash just recorded it. Matt Deres (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Matt. I was just guessing anyway. (Btw, it's not pedantry to enlighten others. Any truth, no matter how trivial, is more important than any misinformation.) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"A Boy Named Sue" may have been inspired by the real-life Sue K. Hicks, named for his mother who died soon after his birth. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally English-speaking Protestants have given their children first names from the Old Testament and family surnames as first names, to avoid the names of saints.--Wetman (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? In which country and which form of protestantism? DuncanHill (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

17th-century Puritans were not too fond of non-Biblical names associated closely with traditional Catholic saints who were not considered by the Puritans to be precursors to themselves (names such as "Sebastian", "Benedict", "Ursula" etc. etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

19th century pioneers of the American Old West often had biblical names such as Zachariah, Zebidiah, Esther, Rebecca, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

How about Wednesday Addams from the Addams family? Googlemeister (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Old children's story

Resolved

I once owned a set of books called the Blue Books which were volumes of children's poems, fairy tales, and stories. They were published in the USA in the 1950s. I recall one of my favourites was a story called Little Diamond and the North Wind. Does anyone have any information regarding that lovely tale? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Could it be the same as At the Back of the North Wind? ---Sluzzelin talk 09:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That's it, Sluzzelin! The Blue Book had an abridged version of the story. Thank you. Once again, the ref desk has come through and provided the right answer.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm now curious about the blue books. Were they Blue Book (magazine), or are they perhaps not featured at all under blue book disambiguation page? ---Sluzzelin talk 11:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think they had another name. My mother always referred to them as the blue books due to their blue binding, but after Googling blue books and coming up zero, I believe they had another name. I recall there had been at least 12 volumes, with the first ones dedicated to nursery rhymes. I do remember Andersen's Snow Queen was in volume seven. The illustrations were beautiful.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Eureka! They were called My Book House and were edited by Olive Beaupre Miller. My set was published in the late 1930s, rather than 1950s. Here is the external link: [2].--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Sluzzelin talk 03:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"American" style wedding

During episode 4 of series 6 of Top Gear, Richard Hammond describes an outdoor wedding as an "American style outdoor wedding". I'm American and I wasn't aware that we had pioneered the concept of the outdoor wedding.  ;-) Seriously though, what was meant by this? What's particularly "American" about this? Dismas|^(talk) 12:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the fact that it's not performed in a church? Dunno, just guessing, but I can say that a Christian wedding that's not performed in a church is a somewhat odd concept for the part of Europe I live in. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

British weddings are almost always held indoors, whether in a church or a registry office. The idea of standing around in some garden wearing a dinner jacket to get married is usually only seen in American films, hence Hammond's remark. 87.112.177.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC).

(ec) The large majority of weddings in Britain are held indoors either in churches or registry offices. Since the passing into law of the Marriage Act 1994, approved premises may also be used (Castles, Football grounds, hotels, country houses etc) but are seen as an extravagant option. Nanonic (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Pedantry alert: the official name is Register office. There are less-extravagant alternative venues than castles etc: I recently attended a fairly low-key ceremony in a Cambridge college. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The official name may be "register office", but "registry office" has been widely used for at least a century, according to the OED:

1911 G. B. Shaw Getting Married 236 Marriages gave place to contracts at a registry office. 1931 J. S. Huxley What dare I Think? vi. 205 The marriage ceremonial among most primitive peoples‥contains a religious motive, just as much as does a Christian wedding ceremony (and just as little as does a wedding in a registry office). 87.112.177.117 (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You went to a wedding which was held at Jesus, but not in the chapel? Marnanel (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The British weather is too unpredictable to arrange weddings outdoors. I don't agree that hotels and country houses are seen as an extravagant option; they are the norm these days for people who don't want to get married in a church or registry office for whatever reason.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"This never would have happened if the wedding had been inside the church with God instead of out here in the cheap showiness of nature!" Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're a regular Top Gear watcher I hope that you have noticed that part of their approach to humour is, in effect, sending up the tendency of the British (and the people of many other countries) to condemn what those strange foreign folks do. They make fun of the French, the Australians, the Japanese, and not surprisingly, Americans. All the while they are really sending up themselves, because the "attacks" are so silly at times. In this approach Americans are usually identified as being over the top in lavishness and the size of their vehicles. Could the line in question from the show be part of this approach? HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of their joking about other countries, like when Jeremy claimed that a German sat-nav system would only give you directions to Poland or James pointing out the large seats in another car, which was designed in America, saying that the seats would have to be big to fit the large butts of overweight Americans. But in the case of the wedding, it was the fact that it was outdoors that was stressed. I'm satisfied with the answers provided above. And I think it's interesting that a government would mandate not only who performed a marriage ceremony but also where they had it take place. Thanks for the responses, all! Dismas|^(talk) 00:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Mechanical copyright

In Britain, mechanical copyright on recorded works exists for a term of 50 years from that work's creation. This means that music recorded in 1960, for example, is currently out of copyright in Britain – and therefore that the earliest recordings of the Beatles will come out of copyright in just a couple of years.

However, the entire Beatles catalogue has recently been remastered. Are these remasters a last throw of the dice by the copyright holders to maximise their revenue before the expiration date, or is it understood that the remasters count as "new recordings" under the law, thereby conveniently extending the mechanical copyright by another few decades? 87.112.177.117 (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know British copyright law. But in the US context, the originals would still be their same old copyright, and the new material (including remastering, studio work, etc.) would be copyrighted as a new recording. That means that if the former did fall into the public domain, it would truly be in the public domain, but the new versions (with whatever new art/decisions/what have you) would not be. To use a concrete example, the Mona Lisa would be in the public domain, but the moustache would not be. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Which raises the question of who the new copyright falls to in such a situation. Does that mean that the copyright on the new remasters would by held by EMI (whose engineers made the necessary decisions when remastering), rather than the Beatles themselves (who only contributed to the original, soon-to-be-public-domain versions)? 87.112.177.117 (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If the original isn't in the public domain when the work is done, then the subsequent masters are a derivative work (the engineers have some copyright credit, but the Beatles' copyright credit precedes them). No problem or surprise there. If the original works are in the public domain, then they're effectively "authorless" for the purpose of copyright law, and the copyright goes to the engineers only, no Beatles required. (Or, put with the analogy above, there is never a need to pay any money to the Di Vinci estate, whomever they are at this point.) At least in basic US copyright law, as far as I understand it. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's another possibility, which is that the engineers' creative input is adjudged insufficient to create a new copyright, and the remastering stays in the public domain. I've never gotten a good handle on just how much you have to transform the work to create a new copyright. --Trovatore (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, though the amount is (in US law) clearly "not very much." The bar is pretty low. If you claim you are doing something creative (rather than making it look identical to what it was before, which was the Bridgeman v. Corel issue), generally the courts have agreed. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it depends. Restoration work on, say, a painting or a photograph does NOT confer a new copyright for the restorer, so one may claim that a straight "remastering" is akin to restoration work. However, a remixing, like say Let It Be... Naked, where the actual songs are different from the original may have a new copyright. --Jayron32 14:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The recording has a separate copyright from that of the song. This is why recordings of classical music have a copyright. Although the piece may be in the public domain, the recording cannot be copied. While the Beatles recording may enter the public domain, the songs will not. Copying the recording will not violate the copyright of the recording, but it will violate the copyright of the song. A good example of this distinction is with the British group The Verve with their hit Bitter Sweet Symphony. While the group had acquired the rights to the recording of the Rolling Stones Song by an orchestra, they had not for the song itself. The Beastie Boys encountered the same problem with their song Pass the Mic. That group was sued for the sampled use of a recorded flute. They had secured licensing for the recording, but not the song; however, the court ruled that the three notes they used constituted de minimis copying. See Newton v. Diamond 349 F. 3d 591 (9th Cir. 2003)[3] In the complex world of licensing and division of copyrights, the expiration of that of the recordings' only eliminates one possible copyright holder. Unauthorized copying of these recordings will still be copyright infringement for at least 70 years after the death of the song writers under the copyright laws of the UK and the US as the songs are registered in both jurisdictions. Gx872op (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

While it is true that the recording and the song have separate copyrights, in the case of the Beatles, when the original recordings and the song were fixed into a tangible medium at approximately the same time in almost all cases, I don't really see why they wouldn't be expected to fall into the public domain at around the same time. It's true that in the US, anyway, sound recordings have a more complicated legal history than textual records, but my skim of the relevant terms is that they are not so dissimilar in most cases. I don't know the UK, though, of course. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

When did January 1 become a bank holiday in England?

When did January 1 become a bank holiday in England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.226.65 (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

1974 [4].--Shantavira|^{feed me} 21:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

House of Reuss

How do the males in this family refer to each other when they have family reunion when they are all named Heinrich? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably they all have personal names or nicknames which they use to distinguish each other. Maybe just numerically. You could ask the sons of George Foreman how they do it. --Jayron32 20:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

January 3

Federal reserve comic books in public domain?

I recently ordered some comic books from the Federal Reserve [5]; are these works in the public domain? I can't find any copyright information on them. Thanks! 69.207.132.170 (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

All works created by US govt employees in the performance of their duties are uncopyrightable -- so if you don't find a copyright notice, it's pretty safe to assume they are in the public domain. Looie496 (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunately much more complicated than that. See copyright status of work by the U.S. government. If the work is done by a contractor, it can be copyrighted, and almost all of this kind of work is done by contractors these days. You cannot assume it is in the public domain simply because copyright information is lacking. In this case, the ones I have seen are credited to the PR departments of the various local Feds, so they should be public domain. But you could always e-mail them and check, which is the prudent thing to do if it really matters. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's actually quite simple because the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a private bank, not a US government entity. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recognized this fact in the case Lewis v. United States 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982).[6] The comic book is mostly likely not in the public domain. Gx872op (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A ha! An important distinction. What a confusing name for a bank. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act" [emphasis mine] --Nricardo (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked (not recently!) works of which the U.S. federal government was considered the author were not subject to copyright. But the federal government can own a copyright is it buys it or receives it as a gift from someone else who is considered the author or other previous copyright owner. In cases of a "work made for hire", the employer may be considered the "author" for purposes of copyright law. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Base and superstructure, Dialectical materialism and historical materialism

Can anyone explain the theory of Base and superstructure, Dialectical materialism and historical materialism in Marxism? I have problem understanding the concepts, particularly Base and superstructure. --LibertarianWarrior (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Historical materialism and dialectical materialism are both terms for variations on Marx's broad concept of historical development - basically that historical developments are determined by the underlying modes of production. Thus primitive tribal groups might sustain themselves by gathering wild fruits and vegetables and hunting, and these forms of production of the necessities of life will dictate multiple aspects of their existence (e.g, hunting might require them to follow seasonal game, which means the group must be mobile: no permanent structures or firm land ownership). major historical changes occur when new, more efficient forms of production are developed - e.g. hunters learn to domesticate cows and sheep and then settle down into more permanent pastoral communities, changing not just how they get meat, but broad aspects of their culture. new occupations are developed, old ones disappear, power shifts from one group of people to another. Dialectical materialism tries to key off of Hegelian dialectics (different social classes with different forms of production becoming thesis and antithesis in the historical system); Historical materialism doesn't, but sticks a bit closer to what Marx actually discussed. Marx never used either term (according to our - somewhat badly written - articles on the topics).

Base and superstructure are terms from structural Marxism, which developed a bit oddly. As I recall, the structural Marxists only had translations of some of Marx' writing when they began theorizing, so there's a bit of a disconnect. at any rate, base refers to the underlying economic relations which are the 'true' relations between classes in a society. Superstructure are the overarching social and political structures that serve to maintain, obscure or defend the relations laid out in the base. so, for instance, structural Marxists would say that the base in a modern society such as the US or UK is a capitalist relation, in which the dominant capitalist class exploits the labor of lower classes for their own profit - that's the 'true' relation in the society. However, the US and UK have liberal democratic political structures, judicial systems that assert broad equality, cultural elements such as religion (promising happiness in the afterlife) or entertainment (promising distraction in this life) - all of which are designed not to promote actual equality, but to obscure and excuse class discrepancies so that people are content with the exploitive system. They would point to things like, say, the American cultural assertion that with hard, conscientious, dedicated work everyone can rise (rags to riches) to a position of wealth and power (which is self-evidently not true, but which is a marvelous incentive to continue working hard). Some of those theories got well out there. Poulantzes (I think) even argued that democratic voting itself was a superstructure mechanism for disenfranchising the populace - it gives an individual the illusion of control over the government while actually reducing his input to a negligible cipher.

Does that help any? -Ludwigs2 05:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above but would simplify it and expand it as follows: For Marxists, the "base" is the set of economic relations that, for Marxists, define a society. A society's base includes its private property relations, circumstances of work and employment, and the allocation of the surplus value generated by workers. (Surplus value, defined imprecisely, is the value that workers produce that they do not receive as wages. In most modern capitalist societies, this surplus is divided among managers—who receive it as salaries that exceed the real economic value of their own work; shareholders—who receive it as profit, part of which they may decide to reinvest, and part of which they may collect as dividends; and government—which collects a portion of the surplus value in taxes.) On the base created by these economic relations, societies construct superstructures. A superstructure is not limited to political institutions, such as those discussed by Ludwigs2, though it does include such institutions. In fact, the word superstructure for Marxists has a meaning very similar to that of the term culture for anthropologists, minus economic relations. A superstructure is everything that is supported by an economic base, including political institutions (the state) and political discourse (including ideology), gender relations and other cultural norms, religion, and high culture, including literature, music, and the visual arts. Marco polo (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

California law

Is it true that in California you can't appeal from the judgment of a small claims court? Is so, do California lawyers generally know that their state differs from others in that respect? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Half true. According to this link, defendants who lose at the trial level can appeal, but plaintiffs cannot. I wouldn't be able to comment on what California attorneys know about the legal situation in other states. --Trovatore (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

But surely California attorneys know the ins and outs of their own state peculiarities. All states have aspects of their laws which are different than others', and any savvy lawyer knows how to take advantage of them. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Statistics on Egyptian tourism

This is an editor looking for sources usable in an article. If there is a place on WP specifically to request sources, I don't know where to find it. (I did post this on the talk page for WikiProject Egypt, but given the level of activity there I don't hold out much hope.)

I am looking for information about the Egyptian tourist industry—specifically, how many people visit specific tourist sites. I've tried searching on Google and Amazon.com but haven't found what I'm looking for. A. Parrot (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

According to this paper, which lists sources of data on tourism in Egypt in an appendix, the published data on tourism in Egypt do not seem to include numbers of tourists who visit specific sites. Marco polo (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.167.170 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

regarding Rajaraja chlan

Who is the mother of Rajaraja cholan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankarkumar41 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

According to our article Raja Raja Chola I, "Rajaraja was born as the third child of Parantaka Sundara Chola and Vanavan Maha Devi". This information is not cited to any source, however. Karenjc 11:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Buying French Guiana and France's Oversea Islands

Has any country, organization or a person ever wanted to purchase French Guiana and its oversea islands from France? If it had ::happened, what was the purchase offer? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not according to History of French Guiana, such an event would have probably born mention in that article, had it happened. French Guiana, before it was actually French Guiana, changed hands several times between the French, English, Dutch, and Portuguese, but most of these exchanges were the results of conquest and/or treaty. In 1946, the area became an integral part of France itself, akin to the relationship between Hawaii and the United States. --Jayron32 20:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Would France want to sell French Guiana for a big offer today? What would France say? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. Countries don't like to sell their territory these days, whatever the price. The U.S. got a lot of good bargains in the 19th century (Alaska Purchase, Louisiana Purchase, Gadsden Purchase), but I can't think of any such transactions in the 20th. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's flip the question the other way: Why would France want to sell it? What would France gain by selling it? --Jayron32 04:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably France would gain billions of Eruos or another form of currency from selling it. They would also get to stop subsidizing French Guiana. Of course, they would lose their spaceport. Googlemeister (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Does France need those billions of Euros? Does any other county have the impetus to spend billions of Euros for the privilege of subsidizing French Guiana? --Jayron32 21:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the solidification of national identity in modern times. Napoleon didn't consider Louisiana part of France, nor was Alaska thought of as Russian. You'd be hard pressed to find any land (outside of maybe Antarctica) that meets that criterion today. Consider List of territorial disputes. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If France want to sell French Guiana, what is the process of buying it and who do you talk to? 174.114.236.41 (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The hand? France doesn't even want to give up (among other places) the Glorioso Islands, a total of five square kilometers. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

How did you know France doesn't even want to give up the Glorioso Islands and the other oversea lands? 99.245.73.51 (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Logic as basis of system

In 1966 North Vietnam claimed they would win the war because their system was based on logic and logic was superior to God. Does North Korea or any other country now-a-days claim logic to be the bases of their system, including Vietnam and if so do they include their legal system in their claim? --Inning (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you got a ref for that claim? It sounds awfully like something anti-atheist media would simply make up as a strawman argument - rarely do atheists personify Logic as an antipode of God, but theists do that a lot. In fact, when I put the first sentence of your question into google, the only hit I got that claimed this was a site that some of the regulars here will remember, and the ref for the quote on that site says nothing to the effect. In fact, you could claim that a majority (if not all) of the world's governments are based on "logic" rather than God. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Further searches led me to this refdesk question. Again, no confirmation of the statement actually ever being made. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tomorrow/Time for your response. The reason for this question is because I can find no governments which make such a claim that publish their laws in the form of a polychotomous key. Surely if logic were really the basis of any system, especially law, the expectation of obedience would depend on nothing else. --Inning (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I just read the article polychotomous key, and it probably left me more confused about this topic than I was before. Could you please elaborate your last post? --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A polychotomous key is nothing more than a dichotomous key which has node with any number of branches. For instance, a dichotomous key has two branches like and on-off switch whereas a polychotomous key can handle decisions such as yes-no-maybe. --96.252.216.102 (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I read that article and I think (if I understood it) what is meant is a key where you look through options to find a solution. For instance, like the troubleshooting charts some user manuals have - "is the cable plugged in?" "if not, is the TV set turned on?" "if not, are there batteries in your remote control?" etc. That said, I'm likewise confused as to what Inning is saying. That there are no law systems where all possible options are covered? If so, I'm not sure I agree - you can have traffic laws where all options are covered - you can either drive too fast or not. If you drive too fast, you will get fined. Simple as that. The second part of Inning's statement, I have no idea about. Obedience depends on nothing other than logic? What does that mean? I suspect we've had hard to cope with debates with Inning before BTW, here. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for the clarification regarding the polychotomous key, but my main confusion did indeed stem from the rest of Innings post, the similar points which TomorrowTime has already pointed out. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Law is not always cut and dry and leave many variables unconsidered. This is why courts exist to hear variables (conditions) which are not in the law (statutes). In many cases the intent is to keep the statute vague but is such instances the law is at risk of being violated due to lack of specificity. If you want people to obey the law then the best way is to make the law as clear and as specific as possible. This is what publication of the law in the form of a polychotomous key accomplishes. --96.252.216.102 (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The OP has been on here at length before. He/she believes that you should be able to reduce all law to an expert system that doesn't require any interpretation. It's not how the law has ever worked and there's not a lot of reason to suspect that it ever could work this way. There's not even evidence that a cut and dried legal system is what people even want — in the few instances that Congress has tried to make things black-and-white (e.g. mandatory minimum sentencing), there have been strong legal and humanitarian objections to the usurpation of the discretion of the judge and jury. The real world is more complicated than a branching tree of variables. The legal system, and lawmaking system, is generally speaking set up to acknowledge that as it is. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to make a similar comment. Googling "polychotomous key" and "law" mostly only bring up similar sounding posts as the OPs on various websites (including the ref desk archives). Does indeed seem like someone that is very insistent on something that sounds extremely implausible (to put it mildly). However we still need an elaboration about what the OP meant with the last sentence: "Surely if logic were really the basis of any system, especially law, the expectation of obedience would depend on nothing else". I can't really crack the code on that one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried googling those two together and sure enough, another hit is an extension of the link I already gave in the first answer to this post, the one that in many many words basically says: "I can imagine the existence of God, therefore He exists. Nobel prize, please!" This only serves to strengthen my belief that the "Vietnam uses logic instead of God and is therefore superior" quote is a complete fabrication. The only thing that is changed is that now I think it might be the fabrication that is published and maintained by only one person, the author of that article, who I also suspect is our OP here. Also, the example for what a polychotomous key is is a user manual chart for a printer. I feel so smart now :) TomorrowTime (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The North believed they would win because they were prepared to fight longer and harder than the U.S. The view that the Vietnam War was between "North Vietnam" and "South Vietnam" is also a bit sketchy. Throughout the war, there were always Communist forces native to and fighting in the South. The U.S. and ARVN forces probably did more fighting against the Viet Cong than against the NVA. In hindsight, the sum total of the NVA and Viet Cong, coupled with civilian sympathisers to them, may have outnumbered those loyal to South Vietnam even in South Vietnam, which is why they ended up winning the war. For most Vietnamese, the war was about overthrowing an invading force (the U.S.) and their puppet government (the South) than about defending the North against the South or anything like that. --Jayron32 18:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Though the appeal to logic versus religion, if true, is probably more along the lines of Marxist materialism than it is about a specific force assessment. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Does any country now-a-days NOT claim logic to be the bases of their system? I would be quite surprised if the answer is yes. --140.180.26.37 (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've spent ten minutes trying to parse that, since its more than a double negative. I've got it down to "I expect all countries claim logic to be the basis of their systems." 92.29.114.99 (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Logic is not the basis of any law system I can think of. Logic exists within the system to some degree. But the bases are usually more vague things, like social norms, values, shared morality, what have you. Sentencing and so forth falls to judgment of judges and/or juries. The law generally cannot be reduced to simple flowcharts. Whether a given legal term applies in a given situation (e.g. "fraud", "infringement", "premeditated") is generally a good deal of the dispute, and that often relies on pretty subjective factors. Logic plays a role! But it's not the "basis". It is not from whence the legal system is derived. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Only a few nations make explicit reference to God or a divinity in the construction of their laws - largely these would be theocratic nations (Islamic and Hindu states, and I believe Israel would qualify as well because of the close relationship between secular and religious law). most other states use some combination of common law and positive law (both being law based in established precedent with the second adding rationalized rules of evidence). common and positive law are largely deontological, but often contain core elements of religiosity, both ritually (as in swearing people in on a bible) and presumptively (in that they are secular instantiations of core cultural religious principles). A number of socialists states tried to remove religious elements entirely from their cultures - religion was seen as an impediment to the development of the true socialist state - and I think it was fairly common for such states to claim that their system was superior because it was based in scientific rationalism, but none of thse states would have made the explicitly religious statement that scientific rationalism was superior to God, any more than a physicist would claim that the chariot of Helios was affected by gravity; that would just be silly. --Ludwigs2 03:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Israel doesn't have a constitution, and religious affairs are governed by a continuation of the old Ottoman Millet system, under which each separate religious community governs its own affairs. Israeli laws outside the limited millet zone are not religiously-based in any very meaningful sense... AnonMoos (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What about the planet Vulcan? 67.122.209.190 (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

UK TV drama, about 25 years ago

Can you help me to identify a tv one-off drama from many years ago? It was a scary story about two young boys interested in football. I think they were wandering the streets of Liverpool, possibly Liverpool FC fans, but with a big interest in Manchester United player George Best. I think they were trying to get into a match between 'Pool and United. They met with a scary guy, possibly a paedophile, but the older boy was just about savvy enough to save them. I would like to see it again, but have no idea what the programme was called or how to get hold of a copy. Thanks for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.96.38 (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's Scully by Alan Bleasdale.I have the book I've had for years but no idea about the program,sorry.Hotclaws (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

January 4

Where are the true facts about the Ark?

Hi n' thanx for your time. I'm not too computor literate when it comes to searches.. that's why I'm here. I read about 30 years ago that the translation of the "books" of the Bible were mis-translated, more specifically the the description concerning the "Ark of the Covenent". I remember reading it's make up of gold and silver caused electrical surges to strike anyone close by. So what I'm asking you is where I can read the original (in english please) description and measurements Moses was given. Again Thanx for your time. terry Sr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTsr (talk • contribs) 06:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well one record is in Exodus 25 (verses 10 to 13) (repeated at the start of Exodus 37)

"And they shall make an ark of shittim wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof. And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a crown of gold round about. And thou shalt cast four rings of gold for it, and put them in the four corners thereof; and two rings shall be in the one side of it, and two rings in the other side of it. And thou shalt make staves of shittim wood, and overlay them with gold."

I have never heard the theory about electrical surges, I thought the gold was just for decoration, and expensive carrying-handles. I don't know whether there are other records. Dbfirs 09:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Online articles like this one exist, but they are very highly unlikely to be "true". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There's also this one. Again, caveats about the reliablity of this self-published article apply. I vaguely recall a Fortean Times piece on the subject of the Ark of the Covenant and electricity some years ago, although it doesn't appear in their online archive. Proponents of this theory cite the Baghdad Battery as evidence in support of early electrical experimentation. Karenjc 10:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Not specifically electricity, but some stories of the ark's destructive power are:

• 1 Sam 5, where the ark is captured by Israel's enemies and ends up diseasing every town it goes to until they decide to give it back.
• 1 Sam 6 (the next chapter), where the ark arrives back in Israel's territory and kills 70 people who look into it
• 2 Sam 6, the ark is being carried by oxen who stumble and an Hebrew puts out his hand to prevent the ark from falling, and dies from touching it

The Ark seems to put out a lot of electricity in Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, but as far as I know this is not recognized as canon by any mainstream Christian or Jewish group. Staecker (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Num 4, which gives specific instructions on how the ark should be handled and moved. It can only be handled by the Levites (including the sons of Aaron and the Kohathites), who cover it with cloth and leather, and put the poles in place for carrying it. Verse 15: After Aaron and his sons have finished covering the holy furnishings and all the holy articles, and when the camp is ready to move, only then are the Kohathites to come and do the carrying. But they must not touch the holy things or they will die. Staecker (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally find it believable that the Ark of the Covenant could have been a rather weak battery, capable of making a visible spark, but nothing more. This would have still been impressive, when viewed in the dark, by those unaccustomed to such sights, and thus serve to convince doubters that the Jews had the power of God on their side. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

How was it a battery? Does gold alone, or gold touching wood, cloth or leather produce any electrochemical potential? No voltage, no sparks. Edison (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a battery. Its a capacitor, the two layers of gold, inside and out, are seperated by the wood of the ark; which acts as the dielectric. So it does not generate potential like a battery, but it will store charge. You would, of course, have to have a means of "charging it up", but there is no reason to suspect they didn't use something like this to do it. There are considerable "blanks" left in the biblical record about what went on in certain ceremonies. No one is really sure what the Urim and Thummim were, for example (maybe the some sort of battery? Who knows?) No one is really sure what the priests were doing back in the holy of holies, excepting that they needed a rope tied around their chest to yank them out, incase the ark went haywire. This is all speculative, but the story goes that the ark was a capacitor by its described construction, not a battery. --Jayron32 21:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Check out http://ancientskyscraper.com/118901.html and http://einhornpress.com/arcark.aspx for much more information on the electrical nature of the Ark or Arc of the Covenant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.15.233.58 (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

For it to be a capacitor, the material between the two sheets of gold would have to be a superb insulator. Wood fails miserably in that respect, a fact which was learned by 18th century electrical experimenters such as Stephen Gray. Wooden parts were considered conductors in high voltage static electric experiments. The charge would drain off too quickly for some sort of static generator to build up a charge which persisted more than momentarily. Mica would be fine. A thin sheet of glass or glass would work fine. Quite a small glass bottle can store enough charge to stun a person, when it is lined inside and out with metal, or even when it is filled with water and held in the hand. But glassblowing only originated in the first century BC. Perhaps a fired porcelain jug, if thin enough, would work. Beeswax, rosin, shellac, or sulfur would work fine electrically, but would not be as mechanically strong as a wood box. A metal clad wood box could be lined with a thin coating of mica, wax, shellac, or sulfur, the thickness required to be determined by the desired voltage. The inside of the (somewhat conductive) wood would be one plate of the capacitor. Inside that would be another layer of gold. The inside metal layer would be brought out to the top through an insulating bushing made of any of the substances noted, with a metal discharge terminal. The outside would be at ground potential, and the inside (and a terminal on top) could be charged to thousands of volts by 18th century means, basically friction against an insulator producing a static charge, which gets inductively or by corona discharge transferred to the terminal. Then anyone standing on the ground and touching the terminal would receive a stunning or fatal shock. A thicker dielectric would allow a higher voltage (without being punctured by a discharge) but would decrease the capacitance and thus the amount of electric charge which it could store at a given voltage. If 18 inches is used for the "cubit", a back of the envelope calc says that with a 1/10 inch (2.5 mm) layer of beeswax, assuming dielectric constant of 3 and 5100 square inch area, it would have a capacitance of .034 microfarads. The breakdown strength of waxed paper is given as 30 to 60 megavolts per meter, so the 2.5 mm layer of wax might break down at 75 kv, allowing a 95 Joule discharge. If it were charged to half the breakdown voltage the charge would be about 24 Joule. (Please excuse any math error.) [7] says a 1 J static discharge is painful to any recipient. A Taser is said to discharge about 0.3 Joule. Merckmanual says that a defibrillator runs 120 to 360 Joule. Edison (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Fashionable colours of clothing in 12th century England

I am curious as to which colours would have been fashionable for the clothing worn by the royals and Anglo-Norman nobility in 12th century England? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea whether this blog is based on reliable sources or not, but it suggests "green and gold, orange and green and burgundy, blue and red and orange and green, and many versions thereof." However, one of our articles here suggests that blue was not introduced until after 1200. This site states: "The meaning of colours also played an important part in the Middle Ages. Green, for instance, stood for love, grey for sorrow, yellow for hostility. Blue, partly because of its connection with the Virgin Mary, became the colour of fidelity, and was allowed to be worn by everyone from the 13th century. In the Low Countries, however, this was the colour for adulterous wives. Red, on the other hand, was strongly connected to the nobility. It is notable that black and grey, colours of lower status people in the Early Middle Ages, in the 15th century were worn by the high aristocracy and royal personnages." Hope that helps a little. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It does. Thank you, Ghmyrtle. I have also read that blue dye was not invented until the 13th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

They were using vegetable dyes and didn't have the same choice of colours that we have today. Some dyestuffs were more difficult to obtain, more expensive than others. Mordants too might have to be imported. Woad is indigenous to Europe, so they did have a blue dye. As trade expanded, the Europeans had access to imported indigo. Red was from madder. Browns and yellows from easily obtained items like onion peel or blackberry leaves. Can't remember re green, but apparently poppy flowers, with the right mordant produce a very vivid turquoise colour. I thought I would try it once, but lost heart at the idea of picking a kilo of poppy petals. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

To some degree, the quality and richness of the dye was more important than the color. Brighter tones of color were harder to create with medieval dying techniques than "muddier" tones, and thus more expensive. Textiles were also important... the nobility and royalty could afford imported fabrics like cotton and silk, the peasantry had to make do with wool and more wool. And cotton and silk hold dyes differently than wool. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Illuminated manuscripts show kings and nobles: they give you contemporary snapshots.--Wetman (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

They show a lot of blue. There's some speculation that blue was not used as a dye until after 1200. I find that hard to believe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Especially since our article on woad mentions that an archeological excavation of dye shop in York dating to the 10th century found both woad (blue) and madder (red). Googlemeister (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You may also want to check out sumptuary laws. Corvus cornix_talk 05:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Just found something by John H. Munro in: Medieval Colthing and Textiles, Volume 3, by Robin Netherton, Gale R. Owen-Crocker on Google Books, which looks good. There is also something called Cambridge History of Western Textiles. (2003) Also: http://www.alquennas.com/bibliography.html (a bit chaotic, but there are some interesting sources towards the end of the page)--Radh (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Confused Aspie guy here

Like most Aspies, I have my obsessions, such as computers. Unlike most Aspies, I have a few close, genuine friendships. Only one of my close friends is female. How can I tell whether my feelings for her are romantic, close platonic or close platonic plus Aspie obsession? Can people even be a valid Aspie obsession? --218.186.8.254 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's an autistic spectrum, not an either/or status. You're allowed to have feelings and still define yourself as Aspie. And intimacy is a spectrum too. Do you want to be physically, intimately close to your friend? If you do, it's romantic. Best of luck with the relationship, however it develops. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Human emotions and relationships can be confusing to many people, not only those with named medical conditions. I would point out that sexual and romantic relationships, while often conflated, are not the same thing. It is perfectly possible to enjoy long dinners, exchange little gifts, and read poetry with one person, and be aroused by (and acting on that arousal with) another. As long as communication is clear, things have a good chance of going well. Why not ask your close female friend how she feels? If it's appropriate, tell her that you have trouble understanding emotional cues and reading between the lines, and that you'd appreciate directness from her. Good luck. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to add that this sort of thing is difficult even for "neurotypical" people to parse out most of the time. There's no "one size fits all" solution even for those of us who supposedly have more understanding of our emotional states. Numerous 19th century British novels have been written on this very subject... --Mr.98 (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I like physical contact with her, such as hugging. I sometimes want to hug my guy friends too, maybe because I have difficulty expressing how much I care, but I learnt guys hugging is considered gay. I would never want to do anything sexual with her. I think a lot about her, more than I think about my guy friends. I suspect she may be an Aspie obsession because I sometimes secretly gather information on her, but not to harm her.

I want to know more about the intimacy spectrum and is it possible for a person to be a valid Aspie obsession? Thanks for the advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.254 (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. While I haven't been diagnosed, I am almost certainly an Aspie, too. I think that the idea of "Aspie obsessions" is kind of unfair and insulting to Aspie people. We have interests, not obsessions. Sometimes these interests are very intense. People can be fascinating to me, but I think that people can be fascinating to neurotypical people, too. So I don't think there is anything particularly Aspie about that. The word "romantic", as far as I can tell, is really synonymous for "sexual", when it is applied to relationships, at least these days. So, you can tell whether your feelings for a person are romantic by whether or not you feel sexual arousal or at least a desire to do sexual things in this person's presence. If you don't feel that, then it isn't "romantic", as people usually use that term. I would point out that when I was younger, in my teens and 20s, I had a fascination, maybe like the one you describe, with a woman on some occasions. It later turned out that I am gay, so this kind of fascination does not have to be about sex. However, I would not try to collect information on anyone secretly. That could cause them to feel "spied on", which would make them fear and distrust you. You don't really want that. Better to ask the person anything you want to know, though people like to keep some things private, for example details about their bodies or their innermost feelings. Asking about those could threaten a relationship. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

One more thing. I agree with Brainy Babe that it might be good to talk with your friend about your feelings and her feelings. This can be very tricky. If you don't have romantic/sexual feelings, I would recommend starting with saying positive things that you do feel toward her, like "I think you are a wonderful person and I really value you as a friend." Then ask her how she feels about your friendship. As soon as you say, "friend", she will get the message that your feelings aren't romantic. This is important. Pretty much all of the women that fascinated me when I was younger thought that I had a romantic interest in them, when in fact my interest was platonic. When they eventually discovered that I had no romantic interest, they were very hurt and felt rejected, even though I never rejected them. As a result, the friendships ended. I think the earlier you address this issue the better your chances of saving a friendship, because you may be able to prevent your friend from developing feelings and expectations that could get in the way of a friendship. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Intimacy spectrum" is one way of understanding what intimacy is. Use it if you find it helpful. A relationship is never a fixed thing. It changes through time. As you get to know someone, you can get to trust them more and more. You feel that you can share more things with them. Sharing "things" could mean sharing ideas, talking together, hanging out together. Or it could mean sharing cuddles and hugs, kisses, sexual experiences. With most of the people we know, we only share a few things, there is not much intimacy, but it is really nice to have plenty of acquaintances like that. But if you have a special person you want to share your whole life with, then your intimate relationship will get deeper and deeper over the decades. That takes a very long time. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

My... I never realized that Wikipedia had an advice for the love-lorn column. For a second I thought we were debating whether "Dear Abby" was a reliable source or something. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We ought to have a template for that, perhaps something along the same lines as {{homework}}. I'm sure the responders here gave good advice (though TLDR myself), but still, we should probably avoid this sort of thing at the reference desks... WikiDao ☯ 01:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And it verges on a request for medical advice (concerning Asperger's syndrome). WikiDao ☯ 01:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Gun control

Which countries completely ban gun ownership for civilians? --J4\/4 <talk> 15:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

China and East Timor are two that I know of. In general, totalitarian states ban gun ownership. Obviously, there is a fear of being overthrown by the populous. So, I haven't checked, but I strongly suspect North Korea to ban gun ownership as well. -- kainaw™ 15:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You likely meant "populace" instead of "populous," which reminds me of a fun Robert Frost poem:

But outer Space,

At least this far,

For all the fuss

Of the populace

Stays more popular

Than populous. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 16:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Japan? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Japan just has strict requirements that they are required for sport shooting only. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Do hunting rifles count? A couple of years before the break up of Yugoslavia, when it was obvious things were brewing, there was a total recall of hunting rifles in Slovenia - for the reason kainaw mentioned. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

See Gun law. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the socialist states ban private gun ownership less because they are afraid of popular uprising (which is not going to be easy even if you do allow handgun or sports gun ownership, for example), but more because they want a monopoly on violence. There is a difference in thinking nobody should have guns because you want them to always rely on the police for arbitrating crime, and because you are afraid they could use said guns to wage revolution. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe its because they don't want people to be killed? Never think of that? 92.15.22.77 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

See Gun_control#Worldwide_politics_and_legislation for a nice breakdown, although it is missing a number of important countries. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

On a similar note... what are the rules for Antarctica? Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Our article on gun politics in the United Kingdom notes a description of British legislation as some of the strictest firearms legislation in the world. Possibly this may be relevant to your question, despite the UK not having a blanket ban on civilian ownership of firearms: getting hold of them legally is made very difficult (allegedly also illegally). The UK does not ban, for example, certain types of rifles, which you may own with a licence, and certain types of pistol, to obtain a licence for which you must give a "good reason" to the police (which in practice means that you need it for work or for a sport), as well as two character references who will be interviewed, a letter from your doctor, and other things. As an example of the result of this legislation, the UK Olympic pistol shooting team trains in Switzerland because it would be illegal to practice in the UK. Marnanel (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the question on Antarctica, the National Science Foundation, which operates all U.S. bases in Antarctica and provides law-enforcement services for other bases, prohibits lethal weapons in Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty System prohibits any military presence on the continent. However, bases operated by nations other than the United States, particularly within a territory claimed by the nation operating the base, regulations conceivably might permit the presence of firearms, though almost certainly not for individual use, but rather only for a security force meant to protect the base. Someone would need to do further research into the regulations of every nation operating a base in Antarctica to confirm whether any of them allows firearms for any purpose. Marco polo (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Protect their base against whom? Snowmen? 92.15.22.77 (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a need for guns in Antarctica to protect themselves from animals. They don't have polar bears, and penguins aren't much of a threat. Perhaps large seals/sea lions could pose a threat at bases near the coast, especially during breeding season. StuRat (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I was once pecked by a penguin I was trying to untangle from some fishing line. Didn't need a gun to ward it off though. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I could see a need for flare guns, and would imagine that those are present in Antarctica, but those would be of limited use in self-defense if the angry leopard seal was intent on mauling you. I suspect that flare guns are less likely to have restrictions then conventional firearms, but never having tried to purchase one, I am not sure. Googlemeister (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect firearms in Antarctica might be a bad idea because they don't mix well with cabin fever. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The nice thing about seals and sea lions is that, over distances greater than a couple of meters, they move much more slowly on land than people. Presumably people visiting Antarctica know not to get within a few meters of a pinniped. Marco polo (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I found this diary of life at a British Antarctic Survey station. They have biologists researching the large mammals, and I expect they are properly equipped to shoot tranquillising darts. My impression is from the diaries that the scientists are not expecting to defend themselves from human or animal attackers on a day to day basis. But By Jingo, if those Argies come too near the Falklands, we have Gunboats. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What is so unusual about not having a gun? Why does it need so much discussion? In my country, only the nutters have guns or have any interest in having one. 92.15.22.77 (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have shocking news for you. Not every country is the same as yours. Marco polo (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess if anyone is well suited to break that news, it's Marco Polo! 82.153.211.251 (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

92, your IP geolocates to the Netherlands. According to this there are 30,000 registered hunters in your country. That's not trivial for such a small and densely populated region. APL (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In some countries hunters are seen as nutters by many. HiLo48 (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone interested in having a gun ought to be thereby regarded as being unfit to have one, a Catch 22. 92.28.242.164 (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You might think so because you come from such a densely urban area. In rural areas firearms are useful tools. Perhaps not strictly necessary, but useful, and not really more dangerous than many other tools often found in rural settings. (Those chainsaws on the end of long sticks come to mind, those things are terrifying.)

In some very remote parts of the world firearms are a must-have for protection from wild animals. I've read that small pilots flying over Alaska are required to carry a weapon in their survival kit for this reason.

(To be clear, I am in favor of strong gun control and do not own a firearm myself.) APL (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The chances of anyone needing to kill a wild bear in self-defence in for example New York are practically zero. 92.15.1.103 (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That happened in Detroit (I think; maybe it was Lansing) once, actually; a rabid bear went staggering around for hours in the city and almost killed a couple of people. It was during the 2000 election counting, and it badly disrupted the city's ability to do said counting because everyone had to be evacuated from the building. So it's not as improbable as you might think. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Were the police having a day off? Why didnt they deal with it? In any case the chances of being attacked by a bear in a city or elsewhere must be tiny compared with accidental gun deaths, let alone the intentional ones. 92.29.121.37 (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting the chance is particularly large, I'm just pointing out that weird things can happen. I'm an American, and I'm not a huge fan of people running around with guns myself. As to your other question; the reason it took so long is that rabid animals are hard to subdue, and bears especially so. It's not like the movies where the tranquilizer dart takes effect 1 second after the animal is hit; it takes a long time, especially with an animal that big. Even regular bears usually take several shots to kill, and rabid animals are very dangerous, so it's extremely difficult. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Kainaw, China does not totally ban fire arms. There are hunters who use them, as well as recreational shooting clubs. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Find a reference for that and update our article on gun control which currently reads: "Gun ownership in the People's Republic of China outside of the military, police, and paramilitary is forbidden. Possession or sale of firearms results in a minimum punishment of 3 years in prison, with the maximum being the death penalty." -- kainaw™ 11:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

How did that statement get in there in the first place? A statement like that is ridiculous, and anyone with any familiarity with contemporary China would realise that it cannot possibly be true.

Here is the text of the Hunting Firearms, Ammunition and Equipment Administration Regulations of the People's Republic of China. As you can no doubt see, it provides fairly detailed rules for how hunting firearms (and other equipment) is to be manufactured, sold and used.

For example, see Article 15. A literal translation for those who cannot read Chinese: Those who need to purchase hunting firearms, ammunition and equipment for hunting needs, should bear special hunting permits or hunting permits, and personal identification documents, and make an application to the local city or county People's Government's wild animal administration authority, and complete the purchase request form. After this wild animal administration authority approves the application, and the public security authority of the same level has reviewed and consented, the public security authority will issue a hunting firearm, ammunition and equipment purchase permit.

And, as DOR (HK) has said, firearms for hunting use are not rare (though mainly found in the outlying provinces) - and recreational gun clubs are common. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The article oversimplifies the facts on the ground (no surprise, given that the claim is based on a citation to the state-controlled China Daily newspaper, a wholly unreliable source which Wikipedia should never use). The prevailing law is the Law of the People's Republic of China on Control of Guns - article 6 of which describes circumstances under which civilian ownership of guns is permitted (mostly for hunting, wild animal control, and sporting purposes) and later parts of Chapter I of that law describe the issuance of licences by the state to "units" (by which it means "organisations") for various purposes. While the practical implementation of the licencing scheme is very restrictive, licences are by no means never issued. Aaron Karp's paper "Completing the Count: Civilian firearms" (published in Small Arms Survey by Cambridge University Press in 2007) says the number of licenced, legally held civilian firearms in China is 680,000. In practice ownership by individuals is illegal (because the security authorities almost never grant individuals a licence) - this Reuters story describes the effects of the limited availability of firearms on a private game-shooting business; and this Wall Street Journal notes that while private ownership is forbidden, the government does sanction organisations like shooting clubs. Note incidentally that China is the largest manufacturer of small arms in the world, and these haemorrhage illegally into the civilian sphere - Karp estimates there are around 40 million illegally held firearms in the country (60 times the legal number). -- 87.115.79.246 (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

North Korea??? --Neptune 123 (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Related question

Which industrialized, democratic country has the strictest gun control laws? --J4\/4 <talk> 13:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably the Democratic Republic of Somewhereistan. In other words, define "democratic". Britain and Germany have fairly strict laws. So has Switzerland, although within their strict limits most of the adult male population is required to have one or more government-issued combat firearms. However, carrying and using them is quite carefully regulated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

India. --Neptune 123 (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You'd probably need to define industrialised too. Nil Einne (talk)

You may want to reword your question to be the strictest enforcement of gun control laws. The United States has strict gun control laws. Most of the laws are not enforced. The result is the impression that anyone can walk around the U.S. with a gun whenever they like. Similarly, a totalitarian state can have no gun control laws of any kind, but enforce punishment for gun ownership even when no law is broken. -- kainaw™ 15:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide any source about your assertion that the US has strict gun control but poor law enforcement? I always thought both were different in each state. Quest09 (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It wildly varies from state to state; our article on it actually does a fairly good job of explaining it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know exactly where it stands in comparison with others, but Australia has quite restrictive gun laws. There was a major tightening up following the shooting spree by Martin Bryant in Tasmania in 1996. he managed to kill 35 people and injure 21 others in one afternoon. I think it's still a world record. Things like that tend to have an impact. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Bookkeeping transactions

1) You pay a tradesman some money for work done, but a third party will (or should) pay the money back to you. 2) Someone is suppossed to pay you a hire charge every week, but they sometimes skip payments, so there is a debt building up.

How are these generally handled in traditional bookkeeping records (especially in the days of paper records)? Not a homework question, but I use my own home-made bookeeping software and I'm wondering how best to deal with these situations. Thanks 92.15.22.77 (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

My guesses, awaiting better answers from others: 1) You pay the tradesman out of accounts payable, and you charge the third party out of accounts receivable. Treat them as two seperate transactions; in other words a seperate debit and credit. 2) It's outstanding credit in your accounts receivable. Eventually, you'll need a record if you take him to tort over the missed payments. --Jayron32 21:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

With situation number 2), I was wondering how you deal with what should be paid, not just what has been paid. The debt is obsviously the difference between what should be and what has been paid. To calculate the debt, you need therefore to generate some record of what should be paid. 92.15.22.77 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I would do it like this: Initially you bill the entire amount into "Long term debts". Then each week you record a transfer from Long term debts into Accounts Receivable. When you receive a payment you also record it in Accounts Receivable. This lets you see at a glance what payments are due (Accounts Receivable), but it also lets you know how much you are owed altogether (Accounts Receivable + Long term debts). Ariel. (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood 2 (or I have). It's a weekly charge, not a loan. If you are using double-entry bookkeeping then each week there should be a credit entry added to accounts receivable and to income. Then when they pay you debit accounts receivable and credit your bank account. If they don't pay, you don't do that second bit and it just stays in accounts receivable. The total on accounts receivable is the outstanding debt. --Tango (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

January 5

Enlgihtenment

Which statement reflects an argument of Enlightenment philosophers against the belief in the divine right of kings?

1. god has chosen all government rulers
2. independence is built by military might
3. a capitalist economic system is necessary for democracy
4. the power of the government is derived from the governed
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankie1218 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see the information at the top of this page-- the reference desk will not do your homework for you. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. WikiDao ☯ 01:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

See Divine Right of Kings and Thomas Hobbes#Opponents. schyler (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Heavens to betsy, kid, the answer is obvious if you use a smidgen of reason. look at the choices given, and think! You can get by in life if you rely on other people to give you information, but if you rely on other people to think for you, you're just going to be everybody's patsy. --Ludwigs2 02:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, you should be able to get that Q right even if all you know about The Enlightenment is how to spell it. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link for you: Age of Enlightenment. StuRat (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Mariner's Mirror 1926

Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but I'm attempting to transcribe a few articles from Google Books Snippet View, and having apparently run out of bits of text that I can get, I was wondering if anyone might happen to have the journal in question on paper, or in some other form that would enable me to get the missing words. What I have can be found at User:Roscelese/Mariner's Mirror.

The first and third sections are complete; I'm looking to fill the lacuna in the second section (at the beginning before "frigate").

I'll re-state here, as I state there, that this is a temporary project, so that I can use the complete articles as references to expand/improve Action of 8 December 1669 - unless I find out that the articles are public domain, I do not intend to put them in article namespace.

Thanks much!

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot help, but I wanted to note that if you do not get an answer here you might try Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. I have sometimes had luck there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely a journal from 1926 is in the public domain! Why do Google restrict it to snippet view as if to protect the rights of a copyright holder? Marnanel (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case, copyright in the UK lasts 70 years from the death of the author. It's easy to believe someone writing in 1926 was alive in 1940. Absent knowledge of the fate of the authors, it is safe to assume it is in copyright. Which means, incidentally, that scraping it from google onto wikipedia, even within User: space, is a copyright violation. It's one thing to scrape it for your personal use; another entirely to scrape it and republish it on a public forum. I cannot see that standing a fair use test. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A crime even if committed unknowingly and with innocent intent?

On this page http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/leaders_issues/ttl3/860/ it says "Civil fines may be imposed even if the violation was committed unknowingly and with innocent intent".

Are there other countries where you can be fined or worse for things done unknowingly and unintentionally, or is it just an American thing? How can that be justified as being fair, I wonder? Thanks 92.28.242.164 (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

BBC News runs a lot of stories about being fined for something that a toddler has done, and the person fined either didn't know it was an offence or was unaware it happened. So, count the UK in. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Similar story from the Daily Mail. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There has long been divide between mens rea and actus reus--that is, the intent and the action. Our articles on mens rea and Strict liability (criminal) may make interesting reading. I am far more familiar with U.S. law than that of other nations, but I believe that civil and criminal fines for unintended offenses may not be that rare. The latter article points out the position of several other countries; to add to the above cases in the UK, the article mentions a case where a pharmacist was penalized for accepting a forged prescription even though he did not know the prescription was forged, Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain (1986) 2 ALL ER 635. It also points out that in 2008 a 15 year old boy was prosecuted for statutory rape in England even though he believed his partner was his age. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the age of consent in the UK is 16, wouldn't he have committed statutory rape even if she had been his age? Pais (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the key thing here is he was guilty of statutory rape of a child under 13 which I guess is a more serious offence. From [8] there's no defence if the child is under 13. On the other hand from that and [9] it seems they both would have been guilty if they were over 13 but under 16 and believed each other to be in that age range. (In fact I think technically the girl was probably also guilty of statutory rape albeit not of under 13.) However if either one genuinely believed the person to be over 16 even if they were not (but were over 13) then that person would not have committed an offence. Nil Einne (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

At least partially relevant : Ignorantia juris non excusat. APL (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really, the question isn't whether someone commits an action of their own volition without knowing the law; its the other way around: Whether if you don't know the results of your actions, even if you do know the law. The threshold I believe is whether or not a "reasonable person" would understand that the consequences would be forthcoming. It makes a difference between, say, "accidental death" and "negligent homicide". There is also Willful blindness and things like that to consider. If someone sneaks onto a shooting range during a training exercise, and you accidentally shoot them without seeing them, it may be considered different than if you were to fire your gun randomly into the air, and have the returning bullet accidentally hit some one. But, then again, IANAL. --Jayron32 15:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The question involves two issues: ignorance of the regulation, and ignorance of dealing with a prohibited person, good, service, or entity. The article criticises the 3000 + entities with prohibited dealings, this is a problem for businesses because they will be held liable under the principle of ignoratia legis non excusat. The article also criticises the strict liability standard of the regulations because mistake of fact concerning the nature of the dealing or the entity so engaged is no defense to these regulations. Ignoratia legis non excusat is in fact very relevant here. What is not relevant is either of the doctrines of the reasonable (prudent) person or willful blindness. The first involves criminal negligence, which is a mens rea culpability requirement and is irrelevant for strict liability offenses. The second, willful blindness, involves the doctrine of mistake of fact, which is not a defense in strict liability crimes under any circumstances and is not a defense in negligence crimes where the willful blindness would make the defendant unaware of substantial and unjustifiable risk. The willful blindness article makes a glaring mistake in that it gives a synonym as "mistake of law" yet defines it as being unaware of facts. The law makes a distinction between mistake of law and mistake of fact: being unaware of a law, and being unaware of a material fact. The strict liabilty article contains even more mistakes and I would advise not reading any of them for more information on the subject. Gx872op (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In the US we also have the opposite problem, where someone who periodically disembowels others with a meat hook can be found "innocent" by reason of insanity (meaning he didn't know he was committing a crime, he thought he was attacking the devil), and be released from the mental institution as soon as those who run the place declare him sane, to ease overcrowding. But don't worry, they won't send him out unprepared for the world, they will first give him enough money to buy a shiny new meat hook. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a common characterization, but I am not aware of that happening all that often. Do you have any actual of someone who was involuntarily committed to a mental instution following a successful insanity defense, who was later released? And more to the point, of going on to commit crimes again? The common assumption is that the insanity defense is a "get out of jail free card", but my understanding is that it isn't all that successful, and even when it is, it results in an open-ended, ultimately indefinite and likely life-long internment in a mental institution, rather than a jail sentance of fixed term. I'd like to see some actual, you know, cases where what you claim to happen actually happens, at least, often enough to justify the characterization you give as a widespread "problem"... --Jayron32 21:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The best known case around here is that of Dan White -- although he actually served his two years in prison rather than a mental hospital. I don't think this happens very often, but that one case all by itself gave rise to a lot of anger. Looie496 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

White's lenient sentence (at least, lenient on an overt level) was based on the diminished capacity defense, rather than full-blown legal insanity. Since then, the pendulum in California has swung quite far in the other direction. If I'm not mistaken, diminished capacity no longer exists at all as a defense in California law, and the insanity defense is rarely tried and rarely successful when it is attempted.

Note by the way that, at the time, the maximum plausible sentence for White on the basis of the overt facts was execution by lethal gas. He didn't wait long, after he got out, to make his own gas chamber for himself. --Trovatore (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotes are not the same as data... It is kinda hard to base the characterization of a legal system which sees many thousands of cases every year on a single case... If its a "problem" with the entire system, you'd think it would be, you know, rampant rather than singular. --Jayron32 02:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, my point was that if there was such a problem at some point, it has been corrected, and probably over-corrected. I think Bugs is fighting the last war. --Trovatore (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

To me there's so acceptable level at which people who have committed serious crimes should be released because they "didn't know it was wrong". Even one is unacceptable. If they committed the crime, they should do the time, regardless of what's wrong with their brain. Apparently most people think it's cruel and unusual punishment to incarcerate the insane, retarded, etc.; but I disagree. StuRat (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There was a case of strict liability 2010 in UK re a soldier finding a gun and handing it to the police the next day. Don't know what the outcome was. [10] - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Un-freaking-believable. That law needs to be changed immediately and retroactively. --Trovatore (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Guilty. 1 year suspended 1 year. [11] - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad he doesn't have to go to jail, but that law is utterly unacceptable in a liberal country. --Trovatore (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. He was well aware that the possession of firearms requires a licence. He carried, on his person, without a licence, a loaded sawn-off shotgun through a busy town in order to take it to the police station. Nobody but a fool would imagine that walking into a police station while in the process of committing a crime would not get you into hot water. His action was not an evil action, but it was the action of a fool. Marnanel (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The state should not be able to put people in jail for actions that aren't evil. --Trovatore (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Beatriz Galindo; which years?

Between which years was Beatriz Galindo a professor? The article doesn't say. Thank you in advance--Aciram (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Accepted in to high society in the 18th-and 19th-century

I have the impression, that an informall sign that you where truly accepted as a new member of the upper class in the 18th- and 19th-century, was the fact that you could meet and socialize with the female members of the upper class. I have the impression, that male members of the upperclass really could meet anyone; buisness men, prostitutes, new rich people, criminals and so forth, and this had no affect on which class you where classified in whatsoever. A Victorian gentleman could, for example, introduce his kept mistress for his male upper class friends, but never, ever, for his female relatives and upper class aquaintances? I have the impression, that a person was not officially a member of the upper class social life, untill they had been introduced to the female members oft he upper class, be it the nobility or the merchant upper class. I understand this is an informall thing and therefore may be hard to answer, but could this be a correct impression?--85.226.44.97 (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In England, part of the excitement of the Ridotto or Vauxhall Gardens was the mixture of middle and upper classes: in those settings a lady might have a pleasant social encounter with a man she'd never meet otherwise. Bath and Tunbridge Wells were also quite open social arenas: if a man had the appearance of a gentleman, he could go anywhere, even though to pay a call at home, he'd need a letter of introduction. On the Continent, the freedom of Englishwomen in this regard was remarked on.--Wetman (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And Wetman's answer incidentally points out that it depends very much on where you are talking about. --ColinFine (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this answer made mer realise I have to specify my question. For a person (be it male or female) to be accepted as a member of the formall upper class social life, and be classified as a member of high society, it was never enough to have met male upper class-members; a male member of the upper class could receive a guest in his home without that guest being accepted at all as a member of high society. To be accepted, one must have been introduced to female members. A person may have met every single person of the male nobility in their homes, they may have spent the night as a guest in the nobleman's home, but if he/she hed never been introduced to the noblewomen, it ment nothing; he/she was not "accepted". To be accepted on equal social terms, a guest had to be introduced to female family members. I hope I was a little clearer? --85.226.44.97 (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It was certainly much easier for men to move in multiple social circles than it was for women to do so, if that is what you mean. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not think this is true. It is never described in Jane Austin's novels as far as I'm aware, for example. I can imagine that male members of the aristocracy may sometimes have explored low-life or sometimes even consorted with prostitutes, but that is not the same thing. 92.29.123.173 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

---

One distinction was when some men were invited to genteel social events more because of their expertise than because of their social standing -- they would meet and socialize with the female relatives of their host and fellow-guests, but their own wives would not be invited... AnonMoos (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't it considered gauche for anyone to speak to anyone else without having been introduced by a common acquaintance? Corvus cornix_talk 05:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it was only seen a presumptive to talk to anyone as an equal without being introduced. It was entirely appropriate to talk to 'inferiors' without introduction, and one would expect them to do the same - as long as they accepted your superior social standing, 'introduction' was not only unnecessary, it would be meaningless: it would make no more sense to introduce the Duke of Westminster to a scullery-maid than it would to introduce him to a lamp-post. Introduction was only necessary when status might possibly be in doubt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true, but a middle class man would not walk up to someone who appeared to be his social equal and talk to him, nor would an upper class man talk to an upper class man without an introduction. I'm not sure if an upper class man would talk to a middle class man without an introduction, but if the middle class man were in "tradfe", and they were conducting business, then it would be likely. Corvus cornix_talk 06:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In Vanity fair, social climber Becky Sharp (character) was introduced to and socialized with noblemen such as lord Steyne, but for her to get accepted in to the nobility, the act of being introduced to lord Steyenes female relatives is portrayed as crucial; it was not enough to be aquaintained with the male nobility. --85.226.44.97 (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not anything distinctive to high society or to those times, but is more universal and still applies today. Although you might have many acquaintances, only close friends get to meet your other friends and relations (which includes people of the opposite gender). Anyone in business or managing an estate will have to deal with workmen and people of different backrounds than themselves. 92.29.121.37 (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

James Bond Advert Soundtrack

The soundtrack on this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yyob0YofvvA was originally used for advertising Quantum of Solace (or at least, I am unaware of any prior use) and I quite like it but do not know what it's called and it's not on the QoS soundtrack. Does anyone know? Thank you. asyndeton talk 18:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, am I missing something? I looked through that, and the only music I could hear is a variation on the standard same old James Bond theme. Or are you asking what that particular variation is called? TomorrowTime (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I mean this particular variation. I recognise the bit from later on but the beginning I can't remember hearing before (not that I am a massive JB fan to begin with). asyndeton talk 18:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I could make out, the first part is just a slow build up to the main theme. I don't know how much it helps but the article I linked to has the composers for different arrangements of the theme for different movies. It's quite common in other pop-cultural areas as well, though, so the list there may not include the particular arrangement we're talking about here. For instance, here's a version I used to like quite a lot when I first found it on a CD. Maybe a bona fide JB fan (not really one myself, either :) will come along and shed more light on this. TomorrowTime (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

January 6

Action of 8 December? 18 December? 28 December?

Sorry, it's me again. Having rescued Action of 8 December 1669 from proposed deletion and being about to substantially expand it...I can't figure out what date it was really on. I originally moved it from Action of 18 December 1669 because it appeared to me from the sources I had that 18 December was the New Style date and, England being on Old Style at the time, 8 December was the correct date. That was also the date that most of the sources seemed to use. However, I've been finding more sources, some of which (including one eyewitness account) give a date even later in December, and now I have absolutely no idea what is right. Any help would be most welcome.

Alternately, would you suggest another rename to a title that excludes the date, and I could include a section in the article that explains how there's apparently confusion over OS/NS as well as discrepancy in the sources even accounting for that?

Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Call it what reliable sources call it. As it doesn't cite any reliable sources, it's difficult to help you beyond that. 87.115.79.246 (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What sources do you have, and why doesn't the article cite any?

It should be called what it is most commonly referred to as in the sources. If there is another name for the engagement, the article might best be called that with redirect(s) for the "Action of..." date(s), for example "Action of June 28, 1776" is a redirect to Battle of Sullivan's Island. WikiDao ☯ 01:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Einstein! Gosh, if only I'd thought to look in reliable sources. It's almost as if I didn't explain in my request that I looked in sources, and then I looked in more sources, and that there is no consensus that I can find.

Sorry that I'm short-tempered, but I've been reading through documents on Google Snippet View for hours and hours on end in preparation for sourcing and expanding this article, and it's a little frustrating to be told "just go with what the sources say!" when the reason I asked was because the sources say different things.

(Also, it doesn't appear to have a formal common name, and "Captain John Kempthorne's fight against seven Algerines" isn't much of a title.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Just leave out the date, and do Action of December 1669, make a note in the article that the exact date is unknown. Ariel. (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That works. Thank you. (I still hope someday to be able to put in the article what date the battle actually took place on, but at least it doesn't have a potentially inaccurate title now.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you see Kempthorne's entry in the Dictionary of National Biography? It relates the recapture of an English vessel on the 8th, and the action with six warships of Algiers on the 29th.—eric

Yup, I have that, and also a later edition of the DNB (the online one) which says the action was on the 18th, oy. This one looks like it might just be due to OS/NS confusion, though (they arrived in Cadiz on the 30th just after a battle on the 18th, according to Hollar, who was there). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Logical publication of the law

Whether or not the basis of any legal system are there any legal systems which publish statutes or cases in the form of a polychotomous key? --Inning (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I could think of even close to that is Mandatory sentencing guidelines, whereby "crime X gets sentence Y" is a formula that courts are bound to follow. But that's a stretch. --Jayron32 02:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayron. I have also heard that some juries are required to respond to questionnaires which represent only the circumstances they have found to be true with the complete key not provided until that case summary by the court. Thanks. --Inning (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, already! --Mr.98 (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Shall I liken this and prior comments from you and your compadres to a Wikipedia reference desk street gang that likes to mug visitors or anyone not from the neighborhood or under your control? --Inning (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you can call yourself a visitor or not from the neigbourhood when you've asked the same question multiple times over the past few years and used multiple aliases many of which have been banned. I thought you yourself were supposed to be making these wonderful keys for us which will destroy lawyers etc, whatever happened to that? In any case it's a bit rich to complain about people ganging up on you when you keep asking the same questions and you've been given multiple chances but usually ended up getting yourself banned not because of what you've done in the past but because you wear out the communities patience yet again. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What he said. It gets tiring to answer the same question ten thousand times. Nobody does what you suggest. Nobody is going to do it anytime soon. If you want to do it, more power to you. But don't ask us about it endlessly. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I also remember having seen this question before. Actually, it sounds logical that it should be like that, but it isn't. Furthermore, you would still have to formalize real world facts to apply any logically structured law upon them. 83.40.250.126 (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This is exactly it. We mug everyone who asks about Polychotomous keys. Now hand over your wallet ... over the internet ... somehow. How is this mugging supposed to work, anyway? APL (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, Inning, your pattern seem to be the following: you post a question based on some wild assumptions, and then fail to substantiate those assumptions or answer follow up questions (for instance, in the discussion above, I expressed some IMO reasonable doubt regarding the veracity of the statement in your first question, and then several of the editors asked you to clarify the second post you made. You glossed over both of these). Then, a couple of days later, you reword the question and post it again, without addressing the issues raised in your previous question(s). If we are going to compare behaviors to criminal acts, there is a word for what you do (i.e., post questions and never come back to address follow up comments or questions on them) - it's called drive-by editing. Drive-by editing is considered impolite on Internet forums (we tolerate it here, though), and doing it repeatedly like you do is close to trolling, which is not welcome here.

Now then, having said that, you have a choice. You can address the follow-up questions - the source of your quote in the first question, the meaning of your second post above, the meaning of the phrase "polychotomous key" as you use it (as you can see, there is some uncertainty as to what exactly you mean) etc., or you can be considered a troll. And if people consider you a troll, don't be surprised if you get some brusque comments. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In a sense, yes, the laws of the United States are published by private sources which is indeed polychotomous. It isn't readily apparent to one who has had no formal legal training, but if you made a trip to your local law library, you would see several examples of this. The statutes and opinions themselves are not published in a polychotomous fashion, but annotated statutes and opinions are. The publishers Lexis and West place headnotes[12] above each opinion. From the foregoing link, you can see on page 173 an example of a case headnote which organizes the legal topic in the opinion according to the broad category, in this case insurance law, followed by a unique key number which is arbitrarily assigned by the private publishing company. This Key Number is similar to the Dewey Decimal system in that each digit has independent significance, where the broad topic of evidence may be 200, hearsay evidence may be 220 and the business records exception to the hearsay rule for financial records may be 225.20(4). These Key Numbers are cross-referenced in a number of ways. One can pick up a Shepard's Citations Service or Key Number Citations Service and get a list of cases which all involve that particular point of law. This is how attorneys determine if a point of law in a case is still good, or whether it has been overruled by a subsequent opinion. Shepard's Citations Services are updated weekly in a law library, but most attorneys check online for any updates at lexis.com or westlaw.com. This is a paid service. Additionally, annotated statutes will take these headnotes from cases, and organize them under the relevant statutes. For instance, a statute involving the carrying of mandatory auto insurance may have a reference to the insurance case headnote in the above example. Lastly, a legal encyclopedia will typically organize itself in volumes according to the same Key Number reference system. Legal encyclopedias, statutes, regulations, cases, Shepard's Citation Services, practice manuals, treatises, surveys of the law, will all be interconnected through the Key Number system. The web of connections between these sources of the law is complex and presents the American attorney with a number of choices in how to persue his legal problem within the materials of legal research he has available to him. In American law schools, students take several classes in legal research so as to better understand the system and learn to identify the quickest route to finding the necessary information to render a legal opinion. Often in these legal research classes, the law librarians have constructed a flow chart very similar to the ones developed by computer scientists for common troubleshooting problems. The American lawyer can find any aspect of the law quickly through a polychotomous key known as the Key Number or Westlaw number citation. Those unfamiliar with the process and without a good understanding of the design of how research is organized can find themselves in an infinite loop as any first year law student could attest to. The answer to your question is yes, except such publication is by private entity and not strictly by the legislature or court who first published the material. Gx872op (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

brachy-brown

What is "brachy-brown"? I encounter it here. Bus stop (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Possibly related to brachycephalic? Can you give a context? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It occurs a few times in this book. I think you a right about what it means. It has something to do with head shape theories. Strange. Bus stop (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Strange indeed. The shape of people's heads (see Cephalic index) has sometimes been used as a pseudoscientific 'measure' of 'race', and been used to 'rank' people accordingly. Personally, I think anyone who believes this nonsense needs their head examined. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a classification of race from the 19th century. It seems brachy-brown would be Iranian, based on the cranial index and hair color and style.

A. H. Keane Ethnology p.168

Broca.

I. Straight-haired: 1. dolicho, Eskimo; 2. brachy, (a) red, Prairie Indians ; (b) olivaster, Mexican, Peruvian ; (c) yellow, Guarani, Samoyede, Mongol, Malay.

II. Wavy or Curly-haired : 1. dolicho, (a) blonde, Cimmerian, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon ; (b) brown, Mediterranean (Basque, Corsican, Berber) ; Semite ; (c) black, Australian, Indo-Abyssinian; (d) red, Fulah, Red Barabra (Nubian); 2. brachy, blonde, Finn ; chestnut, Kelt, Slav ; brown, Iranian, Galcha.

III. Woolly-haired : 1. dolicho, (a) yellowish, Bushman, (b) black, Oceanic, Papuan; Africa, Kafir; 2. brachy, Negrito.

That work lists Broca's classification of only one of many. To call this pseudoscience seems wrong as it was the forefront of science at the time in the emerging area of anthropology, the fact that it has been superseded and has been used to support the most morally repugnant of causes does not mean it wasn't an honest attempt to classify the human species. meltBanana 13:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It was only sometimes an honest attempt. Stephen Jay Gould's book, The Mismeasure of Man, is a great overview of the practice, including numerous instances where the results were fudged to fit the researcher's preconceptions. One of my favourites was an illustration that showed the gorilla head shape as being intermediate between the "Caucasian" and "Negro" ones. (Our article cites a number of criticisms of the book, but they're mostly about his later chapters, not the early ones on phrenology.) Matt Deres (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. That clarifies it. There is a legitimate even if imperfect basis for what seemed to me at first glance a weird reference. Bus stop (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

From the context, it's worth noting that most 19th century racial theories like Grants (and presumably Lapouge's, though I don't know his work) have at least three different "tiers" — the total savages (e.g. the Africans or Asians or whomever else looks different and you don't like), the people-who-look-white-but-are-also-savages (e.g. the Irish or the Italians or Slavs or whomever looks "white" but you really think is actually inferior), and the true-white-people (e.g. the Nordics or the English or the Aryans or whomever is "truly" white and superior). (Categorizing the Jews in this scheme has often varied; usually they fall in somewhere between the latter two categories, but are also paradoxically intelligent.) Anyway, the passage seems to indicate that Lapouge believed that the Jews were able to convince the people in the middle category of all sorts of untruths that were counter to the real truth of the "top" category. Like Grant and others from that period, he probably didn't worry too much about the opinion of the "savage" category, since they couldn't really do much damage anyway at that point, they were so marginalized from European (and American) politics and life. It's only around World War I or so that you get the really strictly bi-racial theories of race (less Madison Grant, more Lothrop Stoddard) that see the world as really black-and-white, coincident with the rise of non-whites as political entities, and a decline in interest in dividing up whites into subgroups. Hitler's racism was more along the Grant lines than the Stoddard lines, and was one of the forces which really discredited it. The Stoddard approach lived one for many decades after WWII. Anyway, just some background. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Offspring of mixed Muslim-Christian Marriages: Muslim or Christian

Hi there, I'd love to know if it's true that the offspring of mixed Muslim-Christian Marriages (at least in the past, e.g. in Spain under íslamic rule) had to become muslim - are there any sources for this claim? Yours --88.67.189.230 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The mixed offspring was termed mozárabe. Apparently, they could convert (and many did), but they could also be educated as Christian. Mixed marriages were very frequent, but most of them were composed by a Christian wife and a Muslim husband. I wanted to quote here another article, but Wikipedia blocked it as a possible site related to spam. Pallida  Mors 20:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I cann't figure it out

Who by the name of "Frank" was famous around 1880?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Many people, no doubt. Can you give us anything else to go on ? First name or last ? Famous in what field ? StuRat (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this list doesn't suggest many possibilities around that date. Frank James would have been one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

That list doesn't include Frank Harris, who admittedly didn't really become famous until some way into the 1880s. --Antiquary (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I am suspicious my grandfather Frank was named after somebody famous of the time. He was born in 1882. The Frank James of above seems to fit the bill.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 00:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Frank" was often short for Franklin. Franklin Pierce was President from 1853-1857. Lots of Civil War generals had Franklin as a first or last name. Edison (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The original inspiration was probably Benjamin Franklin. LANTZY^TALK 00:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Where can I find old comparative population figures for Australia?

I have this view in my head that at one stage Melbourne was the biggest city in Australia (by population), rather than Sydney. And also, that within Victoria, Geelong may have been bigger than Melbourne. Where do I look to confirm or refute my unsourced memories? HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where to find those details, HiLo48, but I can confirm that "The economic boom of the Victorian gold rush peaked during the 1880s and Melbourne had become the richest city in the world and the largest city after London in the British Empire". Never heard about the Geelong claim, though; it seems unlikely. (Jack of Oz) -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)