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 20

Worlde War 1 medals

He was a pilot and served in France for the army. I know he did receive the French legion of Honor medal.They are all mounted in shadow boxes but I will try and take pictures to forward them to you.```` My husbands father served in World War 1 and has several medals that we have no idea what they mean or why they were awarded to him. How can I go about finding out this information? Any info would be helpful```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.45.110 (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Which country? Which armed service? (Army, Navy, etc.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And are there any inscription on them? If you can post a picture of them, I am sure they can be identified by one of our extremely knowledgeable reference deskers.--Lgriot (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Epifanio Garay - English Language References

Recently I created a page on the Spanish language wiki for the Colombian painter, Epifanio Garay. Although I've found his name mentioned on several pages in the English language wiki I haven't found any English language references to use on a translated page. His named is mentioned, or his work is featured, in the following articles.

• Palacio de las Garzas
• Jorge Holguín
• Rafael_Núñez_(politician)

mrtony77 (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can translate the information into english, and it meets WP:GNG, there's nothing stopping you from writing the article in English as well. English language sources are nice where availible, but there's no prejudice against using sources from other languages. --Jayron32 02:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Multiculturalism in Quran and Hadith

By any chance does the Qur'an and hadiths ever mention anything about multiculturalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.76 (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Quran does permit a male Muslim to wed a chaste and pious woman of Jewish or Christian belief. I suspect this may be considered to be an example of multiculturalism. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Islam has a lot to say on treatment of People of the Book (mainly Jews and Christians). One example of a time when this was put into practice is the Al-Andalus betwen 711 and 1492 CE. You may also be interested in Islam and other religions. But of course the reality of how Muslims live and lived is not always what Islam specifies, as is true for all religions. Slavery was rife, and was usually between different race, as in the Arab slave trade (see especially Arab_slavery#Arabic_views_on_black_people). BrainyBabe (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

From Muhammed's final sermon:

All mankind is from Adam and Hawwāʾ, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.

Michael Hardy (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Lipstick

Do men use lipstick? --Questesns (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Has a male ever used lipstick? Indisputably. Do any use it regularly? Undoubtedly. Is it a common aspect of average, contemporary, Western, heterosexual male culture? Not in my experience. --Mr.98 (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I can't think of any "mainstream" Western cultures where they normally do. Some subgroups like Goths will. Rmhermen (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

...and actors. [Maybe that includes Goths :-) ] HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And hair metal musicians; I love Dee Snider's, in particular. Also, when you get really into the deep recesses of black metal you'll find some of that; a lot of groups have abandoned it but not quite all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally when men used makeup, it was called "Greasepaint" (no very useful Wikipedia article...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, greasepaint is a specific type of make up, very resistant to sweating off, commonly used on stage. What makes you say it was typically what man make up was called? (And it is annoying that geeasepaint redirects to foundation (cosmetics), but it does at least mention what greasepaint is in a passing sentence) 86.164.164.183 (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Because traditionally most men who wore makeup were actors. AnonMoos (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There is the Wodaabe of Niger, whose men apply black greasepaint to thier lips. We obviously need new categories for men who wear lipstick, pigs that wear lipstick, etc. --Aspro (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

By chance; for those that can receive BBC television broadcasts, a bit about the Gerewol beauty contest is showing tonight Deserts - Life in the Furnace Today, 20:00 on BBC One.--Aspro (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

British comedian Eddie Izzard has often appeared wearing lipstick. Astronaut (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

On the train a few days ago I saw this average-looking twenty-something man sitting opposite me apply something to his lips, which I assumed was lip balm although it was not very cold. I think Gene Simmons wears a discrete dab occasionally, even though he's over 60. 92.28.255.115 (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

OK... so we have established that some men do wear lipstick (usually for professional reasons) but most men don't. I think we can leave it at that. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why the OP needs to ask? Surely the answer is already well-known to everyone? 92.28.255.115 (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The question was not "Do men wear lipstick?" but "Do men use lipstick?". I'm sure even men who would never wear lipstick use it for other purposes, such as writing notes on mirrors, or smearing on their shirt collars to make their wives jealous. Pais (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Pee Wee Herman and Ronald Reagan.--Wetman (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Who has declared war lately?

Inspired by the Declaring War section above...

Since WWII, which countries have declared war, when and on whom? And who keeps track of such things? HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends on what counts as a "declaration of war". The Iraq Resolution seems to do everything just shy of sending a postcard to Saddam Hussein saying "We'll be stopping by in March, make up the guest bed for us". Does that count? --Jayron32 06:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm of the understanding that there is such a thing as a formal declaration of war, in words somewhat like that. It certainly happened in WWII. And I've just remembered that Wikipedia is your friend and looked at Declaration of war. But my question still stands. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it may be a nice addition to have a list of formal declarations of war, or at least those attested in history. --Lgriot (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I was actually of the impression that the US formally declared war on Iraq, but I guess judging from the article that that was not the case. Which again makes me uncertain whether anyone has formally declared war since WWII. It just seems to have gone out of fashion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Falklands War, there was no declaration of war from either side, but there was a declaration of a ceasefire. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Falklands War was referred to by HMG as a "conflict" at the time - it seems to have become a war after it was over. What was likely to happen to anyone who got in the way of the Task Force was spelled out in no uncertain terms. The Argentinians arrived unannounced however; described by Rex Hunt as "An Ungentlemanly Act". Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The lack of formal declarations of war in the modern world indicates a changing attitude towards wars. Prior to the modern era, in the Western world, wars were considered a normal, even acceptable means, towards resolving disputes between countries. Wars were usually highly regulated by convention; concepts which came to fruition during the 19th century (but which clearly existed before that) include the idea of Balance of Power, which informed the alliance system that led to World War I, the Concert of Europe, which was the system of congresses that attempted to provide a structure to resolve disputes and set "rules" for when warfare became necessary. A much older concept was casus belli, which was the list of reasons which would justify going to war with another country. Since war before the 20th century was a) limited, b) honorable, and c) an acceptable means of dispute resolution, it makes sense for a formal declaration between nations. The 20th century introduced the concept of total, expansive, world wars. The age of small-scale wars was gone as the death tolls skyrocketed from the thousands or tens of thousands into the millions, and as a result war became a less honorable venture. As a result, the UN charter specifically forbids almost all wars except wars for defending oneself against a prior act of aggression. If another country invades yours, its kinda pointless to declare war. Many of the post WWII wars are civil wars, with foreign participation on one side or both, such wars also don't often feature the need to formally declare war. Finally, given the speed at which war can be conducted, it makes little strategic sense to declare war. It just lets your enemy know you are coming. --Jayron32 13:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Even before the United Nations were formed, the Kellogg-Briand Pact, adopted in 1928 by almost all the major powers of the day, prohibited the use of war as an instrument of national policy. It was useless in preventing World War II, but it reflected a significant shift in thinking about war. --Xuxl (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

can someone explain this joke?

What does the joke "physics is to math is what sex is to masturbation" mean? I really want to understand this science joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.9.100 (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a terribly funny joke (to me, at least) - it means that physics and math are basically the same but physics is inherently superior because math is self-centered, does nothing productive and has no connection to the real world. -- Ferkelparade π 13:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Physics is productive, while mathematics isn't. Physics applies the principles of mathematics to produce workable theories about how the world operates. Math, in isolation, doesn't produce anything practical in that way. Masturbation, while fun, is useless in a similar manner, as sex makes babies, while masturbation just makes dirty towels. That is at least the sentiment behind the joke. (To halt the coming criticism; yes, I know that is probably a gross misrepresentation of the importance of math, but that misrepresentation is inherant in the joke, so must be explained as such). --Jayron32 13:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

At the same time, physics would get nowhere without a solid grounding in maths. Being all in the mind, new mathematical insights are rare, but when they come they can solve otherwise intractable problems in physics.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And I daresay few people have ever had sex that didn't already have a solid grounding in masturbation. The joke is a form of rebuttal against the so-called "purity" of math (pure of course because it's unsullied by reality...) as explained neatly in this xkcd. Matt Deres (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC) edit: For people unfamiliar with xkcd, hover your pointer over the cartoon to get the other half of the joke. Matt Deres (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of the exchange between a phonetician and a phonologist. The phonetician said, "Phonology is to phonetics as astrology is to astronomy." The phonologist replied, "Phonetics is to phonology as numismatics is to economics." Pais (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

well, just to give the counter-view, Plato would have said that it takes a mathematician to truly understand a horse, and a physicist to figure out how to yoke it to a plow. --Ludwigs2 18:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The joke is normally credited to Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman, who may have been a bit biased. Right, but biased. 90.217.64.202 (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The point of the joke is that all of truths of mathematics are such that they can be discovered while sitting by oneself on the couch. To discover the truths of physics you actually need to get out in the real world and get your hands dirty.Greg Bard (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno. Stephen Hawking seems to do alright. (But I'd agree with your statement in general.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Masturbation means getting your hands "dirty" too. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've inadvertently made a poorly mixed metaphor. It's not about getting hands dirty, however a scientist may need to "romance" the equipment in order to make the experiment work.Greg Bard (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Math is the building blocks of physics; masturbation is the building blocks of sex. It is absurd. That, I guess, is funny. Bus stop (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, no. It's not absurd at all, from a certain point of view, and I think that's the point. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Daily online cartoon?

What daily online cartoon or cartoon strip would people recommend? I've already tried searching on Google. I'm looking for cartoons that make me laugh or are witty or clever. Thanks 92.28.255.115 (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. You will find a variety of things to check out at Category:Webcomics, but you have to do the judging and choosing yourself. –Henning Makholm (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Structurally the question is no different to asking people to recommend literary books to read, which has often been asked here without quibble. 92.29.123.151 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to be more specific than that - we can't possibly know what you think is funny or witty or clever. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

My two favorites are xkcd and Dinosaur Comics, but you probably have different tastes from me. Pais (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.comics.com Has alot of nice daily comics. xkcd and Cyanide and Happiness are also very nice (although not daily) comics. 216.120.192.143 (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Dilbert.com is also a good choice. Quest09 (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it doesn't qualify as a daily cartoon, actually it's discontinued, and you can probably get through the archives in one decent sitting, but IMHO it qualifies as witty, clever and funny, perry bible fellowship. Vespine (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to drop non-daily titles, here's one I cannot recommend enough: subnormality, a let's-say-sort-of-weekly-shall-we? wall of text comic - most of the time it's more insightful than witty or funny, and sure, most of them would take half a workday to read, and most people would just go tl;dr, but I find it very good. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I find the thrice-weekly Basic Instructions (comic) very funny. (direct link) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Who are Haddanites?

In a genealogical essay, I found this sentence: “Marriage between close kin of various types is permitted in Jewish law, and such alliances are still common in groups like the Haddanites, of Israel, whose first-cousin marriage rate was recently determined to be fifty-six per cent.” However, I cannot find a single mention online of a group known as the Haddanites (except for another copy of the same essay). Does anyone know who these are? And if they do not exist, why does the author of the essay think they do, and how does he know their first-cousin marriage rate? (By the way, if there is an endogamous ethnic group small enough not to be found on Google, I should be surprised if they can avoid inter-sibling marriages, let alone marriage between cousins.) Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Typo or spelling mistake, or mistransliteration? c (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Had-Dani in Hebrew means "the Danite", i.e. the descendant of the Tribe of Dan, one of the Ten Lost Tribes (cf. Eldad Hadani). According to our article on the tribe, the Ethiopian Beta Israel claim to be descended from Dan, so maybe that article is using "Haddanites" to refer to Ethiopian Jews living in Israel??? There's also an Arabic name Haddani, as in the Moroccan songwriter Ali Haddani. Pais (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe the guy in the essay is just pulling numbers and names out of his ass. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've resolved it myself - BrainyBabe is right, it's a typo, it should say Habbanites, and it refers to Habbani Jews, whose first-cousin intermarriage rate is indeed 56% according to this article. Many thanks! Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"Shield of arms" for surnames?

Am I correct in thinking that there are no coat of arms for surnames, in the same way that there are no tartans for surnames? That coat of arms only apply to the descendents of someone who had a coat of arms granted by the College of Arms?

In which case, the section that describes the "shield of arms" in the Portillo (surname) article should be deleted. 92.15.24.22 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The College of Arms has relevance only to the British Isles or parts thereof. They cannot dictate to people from other countries what arms they may or may not have. Portillo may be a well-known name in the UK these days, but it's of foreign origin, and who knows what rules apply in its country of origin in relation to coats of arms? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the article it has jurisdiction (sp?) over all the Commonwealth except Canada and South Africa. And over any coat of arms that are purported to originate in Britain, unless you are just some foriegn-based con-artiste ripping off Americans. 92.29.123.151 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Did Scotland leave the Commonwealth since I last checked? –Henning Makholm (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There are several companies in the UK and Ireland that will "research" the "family coat of arms" of credulous Americans. (Don't have one? No problem, we will create one for you and include it in our "register"). The fact is, anyone can create a coat of arms for themselves. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

But the OPs perception was not incorrect. A coat of arms belonged to a noble family, and was only bestowed to members of that particular family, not everyone that happened to share the same surname as that family. But there does seem to be a number of companies, that makes their money by not taking that fact very seriously. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

However, you could run foul of the Law of Arms and be hauled up before the Court of Chivalry - a bit unlikely though, since it doesn't seem to have convened since 1954. Alansplodge (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the offending, unsourced, section from Portillo (surname). If anybody can source a way in which it makes sense for a surname to have a coat of arms, feel free to reinstate it from the article history. –Henning Makholm (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

A few brief points.

(1) As Henning Makholm alludes, heraldic jurisdiction in Scotland lies with the Lyon Court, which (unlike the England/Wales/Northern Ireland College of Arms whose Court of Chivalry is indeed defunct) still exercises legal powers within Scotland and can, for example, confiscate objects bearing Scottish arms incorrectly and fine the usurper (who is perpetrating a form of identity theft). Scots or descendents of Scots living outside the UK can choose to apply for arms to the Lyon Court rather than the College of Arms.

(2) Contrary to Saddhiyama's belief, arms in Britain have for many centuries not been restricted to 'noble families.' Anyone in 'good standing', which now broadly means without a criminal record or similarly murky associations, can apply for and be granted arms from the College or Court as appropriate (as can Corporations, Companies and other non-human legal entities).

(3) Arms (in the UK) are granted not to a family (still less to all families with the same name), but to an individual, and are inherited by the grantee's heir on death: until recently a UK arms holder's descendents during his/her lifetime were supposed to use 'differenced' versions of those arms (see Cadence) provided that they "matriculated" them with the granting body, who would rule on what the differences should be. When the current holder died, all the differences changed according to the cadency system being used and should have been re-matriculated: fees were due for the administration of all this. It appears that the College of Arms has recently relaxed these rules, but the Lyon Court (which also uses a different form of cadency) still applies them. Some European continental heraldic jurisdictions, however, have always operated differently and allowed all living male members of a family to use the same arms. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that it is and was not only noble families that could purchase a coat of arms, I admit I misused the term "noble". But the main point of my answer still stands (and I am speaking as a "continental" here, and I guess that would also apply to the rules concerning the "Portillo"-family of Spain, which I doubt is under the jurisdiction of the UK rules): the coat of arms of the family is only for the family for which it was made, not for everyone that just happens to share the same surname. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If the Court of Chivalry really is defunct and not just having a very long tea break, could someone find a reference and add it to the article please? Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

How are Spanish coat of arms organised? 92.15.25.92 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

From left to right. Oh, wait... you mean... nevermind. :>) Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

January 21

Impromptu speaking

Hey all. I'm pretty good with public speaking when I have something written down or when I have beforehand preparation. However if I'm asked to speak impromptu, as in give a speech about something without organizing my ideas first, I'm worse than King George VI in the King's Speech (which was a very good film, I highly recommend it if you haven't seen it ;). How can I improve my impromptu speaking? THanks. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Practice. A Google search for impromptu speaking yields dozens of relevant hits (and, of course, our article on the topic. There are few things that don't improve with repeated practice. Matt Deres (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

One trick is to have a three sentence prepared speech with which you respond to every situation where an impromptu speech is required. Classically it can refer to your fear of making impromptu speeches. Get that out of the way, and your mind will have had time to get into speaking mode and subconsciously prepare for the actual topic. (Obviously it doesn't have to be exactly three sentences, but I'm sure you get my drift.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Public speaking includes "Toastmasters International".

—Wavelength (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've found experience/practice really makes a huge difference. I started having to do talks of this sort about 5 years ago and was awful. But after having taught for a number of years, and being forced to give little lectures and explanations off the cuff for that time, my speaking skills have greatly improved. Part of it is just confidence (it doesn't make me nervous), but I think most of it is that I have a better sense of what kinds of things one should say, and a better sense of how long it takes to communicate ideas (I can "budget" 15 minutes without really trying, and hit all the points I want to hit). I do not think I am exceptionally talented in this regard (I am no great orator) — it seems like something probably most people can learn. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I recall there exist many checklists, some from classical times, that you can memorise and use to generate verbage about any topic. Sorry I cannot be more specific 92.15.25.92 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Good speaking habits can come more easily if you maximize your exposure to good speaking and if you minimize your exposure to habits of speaking that are not so good. This can involve any of the following.

• correct grammar (http://www.confusing-words.com/; http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/index.html)
• correct pronunciation (http://www.forvo.com/; http://www.howjsay.com/)
• avoidance of profanity
• avoidance of filler words

Also, practicing good speaking habits at leisure is helpful. You and a friend might agree to catch each other's mistakes.

—Wavelength (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered joining a public speaking organisation such as Toastmasters or the English Speaking Union? BrainyBabe (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

BrainyBabe, the indentation of your message indicates that it is addressed to me. If it is, then the answer is "Yes".

—Wavelength (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Wavelength, I meant those suggestions for the OP. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Loss of citizenship

Normally, denaturalization is a long, drawn out process. Yet, Solomon Adler and Lauchlin Currie lost their U.S. citizenship simply by being out of the country and not being allowed to renew their passports. How does this work? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Both the men were accused of working with the Soviets. I am pretty sure, under such allegations, it works exactly as the government wants it to. They were personas-non-grata, conveniently out of the country, and doubly convieniently not born in the U.S. The U.S. in the 1950's was a much different place, and the government was known for doing things of "questionable legality" regarding how it treated perceived "enemies of the state", and such actions often went unchallenged in the courts, or even supported by them. It worked because the Government got away with it. Lots of things work that way. --Jayron32 04:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, ..... OK I haven't studied Latin. But I'd have guessed the term would be personae non gratae. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

...That's confirmed by the article titled persona non grata. I win! Michael Hardy (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Comment 1: Much more recent US governments have been accused of "doing things of questionable legality regarding how it treated perceived enemies of the state".

Comment 2: The plural of persona non grata is personae non gratae. Not many people know that. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

1: Entirely true, and irrelevent to the time period in question. Abuses by governments that occured chronologically later than the people in question lived cannot, even by the greatest stretches of the imagination, be credibly said to have an effect on their situation.

2: I can barely spell English words correctly, and its the only language I have any fluency in. I apologize for my butchering of the Latin tongue. --Jayron32 13:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't underestimate yourself, Jayron. The expression is not only Latin, but is now considered part of the English language by some (see wiktionary:personas_non_grata), so an English plural form is permissible. This is frowned upon by Latin pedants. Dbfirs 17:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, it is quite impossible for me to underestimate myself. I am constantly surprised by my ability to be wrong on a daily basis. I have become quite adept at it. --Jayron32 19:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

...which would imply you are underestimating your ability to be wrong. Therefore your statement above that "it is quite impossible for me to underestimate myself" is incorrect. :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that was perfectly correct. I am so wrong, it is impossible for me to be even right about how wrong I am. --Jayron32 00:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

My guess is the legal justification is based on allegations of obtaining citizenship by fraud. If it was based on fraud, the the naturalization could be regarded as void from the beginning. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Bicycle races, brakes

Is it standard practice that in indoor bicycle races, bicycles lack manually operated brakes (and maybe have brakes operated by pedals, or lack brakes)? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

According to our Velodrome article: "Bicycles for velodromes have no brakes." Dismas|^(talk) 07:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly, this is a safety feature. There is extremely rarely a reason to stop during an indoor race. On the other hand, someone braking will provoke back-enders in the confined situation of such a race. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The bikes are also (AIUI) fixed-wheel; ie you can't stop pedalling! Alansplodge (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet people have to cross over the track to the infield in many cases, with the bikers yelling they have no brakes, to which I reply "GET SOME!!" during the interminable warmups. Edison (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. My question was prompted by this video. About half-way through, Nena, who fired the starting pistol, comments that the bicycles have no brakes. But I don't find that mentioned in the German counterpart of the velodrome article (but I've only glanced at it so far). Michael Hardy (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Track bikes are usually fixies with no freewheel. If you want to slow down, just stop pedalling. The pedals will push up against your feet, and resisting them with your muscles makes the bike slow down. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, "67.122.209.190". Michael Hardy (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Manunda

Is this the same ship as Manunda?. The image is part of the donation from the Queensland state library. The ship is identified as "Mununda" but i believe it is spelled wrong and is indeed Manunda. Can someone familiar with ship structures confirm this?--Sodabottle (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that name in the actual photo starts with MAN?N?A not sure about the last A and the others are not clear as it is covered with ropes. MilborneOne (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; it looks like the Manunda. Compare it with this photo and this - apart from the paintwork it seems to be identical. Additionally, about the only result Google brings up for "Mununda" is a bakery in Queensland (and that's probably a typo too) or a village in the Congo! Alansplodge (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I have updated the name and cat in the image.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The specific term for a legal clause

Hello.

I am looking for the specific term used to describe a legal clause that gives an investor priority to recover his stake in a company over other shareholders (particularly the management) in the event the company is sold or otherwise transferred.

Thank you a lot.--62.161.107.212 (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a legal clause, it is a specific type of financial instrument called preferred stock. Preferred stock is a hybrid between common stock and bonds and as such it is usually dealt with after bonds, but before other types of stock, when a company is liquidated. Preferred stock usually also carries no voting rights. IIRC, this was the type of stock the U.S. Treasury Department purchased during the bailout of GM; that gives the U.S. Government the first rights to recover its investment in the case of bankruptcy or liquidation of GM, but it also gives the U.S. government no voting rights in shareholder meetings. --Jayron32 14:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Right of first refusal? --Sean 14:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The legal term you are looking for is "liquidation preference."[1][2] The clause in the contract or articles of incorporation will usually be identified as the "liquidation preference clause." The wikipedia article on liquidity preference (venture capital) needs some expanding. This term and right is not limited to preferred stock although generally all preferred stock has a liquidation preference over common stock. A corporation may have multiple classes of stock all with different liquidation preferences. It is possible for individual investors to be granted a liquidation preference superior to all other investors independent of the class of stock such an entity or individual may own. Gx872op (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

On the bond side, there is senior debt, which indicates bonds that have priority over more "junior" bonds when it comes to paying bondholders in the event of a bankruptcy. Like Jayron32's example of preferred stock, this isn't a legal clause; it's just a type of bond. You mention priority over the management — theoretically, a bankruptcy can suspend any arrangement a firm has with its managers, including golden parachute contractual terms. Presumably, though, every manager in a near-bankruptcy situation fights tooth and nail to try to get his parachute paid before the bondholders or stockholders have a chance to recover any money from the firm. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Safest country to live in

A) Which country in the world is the safest country to live in: ie where you have the least chance of being killed or assulted etc? B) Similarly, which is the safest english-speasking country? Thanks 2.97.212.158 (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

List of countries by intentional homicide rate suggests Liechtenstein and Iceland as good candidates for A), and Singapore and Ireland as good candidates for B) (or New Hampshire if you also want to go into subnational divisions). Note, however, that I) there are more to crime than murder (as you say in your question), and that II) dictatorships or countries with dubious human rights often have lower crime rates, as they keep their citizens more "reined in"; you might want to take other "freedoms" into account when you pick your definition of whether a country is "safe" (for example, the murder rate in China is less than half that of the US). Jørgen (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Side question:: According to the list above, the DC area is much more dangerous than any other region of the US (even Puerto Rico)? Why?Quest09 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs)

Partly because D.C. is a city and only a city, unlike any state... AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see. The absence of peaceful rural folks skews the statistics towards one side. Quest09 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's also the case the DC does have a legitimately high crime rate, much higher than most other places in the US. It is a big city with a huge amount of poverty, despite (or because of?) its being the center of the federal government. I go there pretty often and consider it to be a pretty dodgy place once you are outside of the tourist spots. There are huge income disparities there. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to call on number II) there. What evidence is there that people murder and rob and rape less in countries with oppressive regimes than in those which allow basic freedoms and human rights? I am not aware of any reliable study which claims that it is safer to live under an oppresive dictatorship than a free society. I mean, Ireland is generally free, and it is much safer than China. --Jayron32 21:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I would guess that it is a problem getting exact crime figures from any dictatorial state. And that if you get them one can't be sure they haven't be doctored (they could have been doctored in non-dictatorial countries as well, but there usually exist some sort of checks and balances system that should in theory prevent these sort of things). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying this holds on average - surely some of the most dysfunctional states in the world are both dictatorial and lawless. However, "well-functioning" dictatorships (think Asia, not Africa) have often succeeded in both economic growth and rule of law. And my point was precicely that it might not be safer to live there - crime, as defined as things the government defines as criminal (such as random assault) could be lower, while imprisonment based on "thought crimes", danger of running afoul of the wrong people, etc., could be higher. I only meant to say that low chance of "being killed or assaulted etc" (original poster wording) might not correspond 1-to-1 to "safest country to live in". Jørgen (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

On the other end of the spectrum, Tunisia was up until recently considered to be the most stable (and I suppose safest) of the North African dictatorships. TomorrowTime (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Japan: low crime rates, no guns, long life expectancy, very hygienic people.AerobicFox (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest Japan.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been some reports that Japanese life expectancy was being overestimated a little by the way it was calculated, ultimately meaning Japanese life expectancy is comparable with "the West". That is, of course, of little concern to an immigrant; it might be because of cultural factors they would naturally adopt. I was reading about the flaws in the Japanese crime reporting system - very serious allegations indeed - but it wasn't from a reliable source. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, Japan has these extremely terrifying insects. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

---

There's a semi-famous quote about the Mongol empire at its height, that a virgin (maiden) carrying a bag of gold could walk from one end of the empire to the other in perfect safety. (Having difficulty finding the original source...). AnonMoos (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Genghis Khan: Conqueror of the World by Leo de Hartog, 1989 p.144. "A contemporary Persian historian wrote that in the region between Persia and Turfan, public safety was so widespread that a traveller could journey without interference from the Levant to Central Asia with a gold plate on his head." You must have imagined the virgin maiden! Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No I didn't -- "virgin" is included in many forms of the quote, as can be found in a Google search... AnonMoos (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere in the science fiction Nantucket series (On the Oceans of Eternity maybe?), Isketerol says something very much like that (except I think it was a naked virgin and two bags of gold). Whether S. M. Stirling made it up and purloined it from a historical quote, I couldn't say. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Grimble recounted a similar story from his decades in Kiribati in the early C20. Before the Pax Britannica, villagers feared to wander; once the colonial authorities had established order, even maidens could walk between villages without fear. That was from one of his informants, an elderly local woman; he gave the story the "virgin with bags of gold" twist in his memoir A Pattern of Islands]]', if I recall correctly. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That would have to be a rather strong virgin to carry around multiple bags of gold...Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos explained it perfectly. Safety is a relative concept. You can cherry pick statistics all you want but at some point day to day life becomes the most important consideration. If you're persona non grata in a hostile country then all those stats are meaningless. And if you live in a bad part of town then the broader country isn't your first concern. AerobicFox might be interested to know that, until recently, D.C. is virtually "no [legal] guns" too. Shadowjams (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at preliminary 2010 crime stats, I see New Orleans' murder rate was about three times D.C.'s. Baltimore's was quite a bit higher too, same with St. Louis and Detroit. The U.S. state with the lowest rate of violent crime in 2009 was Maine, with 119.8 violent crimes per 100,000 people, with a 50% lower rate in non-metropolitan counties. There were zero violent crimes reported by the Aroostook County sheriff's office (which does not include the cities of that county) and none in towns including Topsham and South Berwick. So if you want to be safe, you might want to try rural Maine. Just bring a jacket. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Another place to consider is Tecumseh, Ontario, Canada, which had the lowest "Violent Crime Severity Index" among Canadian cities in 2009 ([3]). It's also noteworthy that there were only three homicides in the 2005-09 period in Prince Edward Island. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

""no [legal] guns""
Lol I lived next to DC for three years, and that doesn't stop anyone from getting a gun if they want. Japan actually has very few guns. Criminals will mug a convenience store with a knife typically, thus is Japan.AerobicFox (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That may be because DC is an island in a sea of gun abundance, and it is impossible to stop guns crossing the border. I recall the statistics indicate that almost a 9/11 occurs every year in the US from gun deaths, compared with what happens in the UK per capita with its strong gun laws. 92.24.184.8 (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

re: statistics: Recently a studied showed that Malung-Sälen is the most dangerous municipality in Sweden. The study compared the number of crimes, accidents, fires, etc. in comparison to population. Malung-Sälen is a small municipality, but hosts a major ski tourism resort. 10 000s of skiers flock there every year. Many get injured and a few bar brawls occur as well. Thus in comparison with the small resident population, Malung-Sälen is by far the most dangerous place in the country by statics. In reality, not really. --Soman (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Might also be worth noting that most people who are killed or assaulted. Are attack by people they know, in their own home.Violence within families is more common, then violence between perfect strangers. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

UK police fudging crime figures?

Although the police say crime rates are falling, an independant survey says they are rising according to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12238962 A) Is there any more evidence that the police are manipulating the figures? B) What motive would they have to do this? C) How else could the contradictory figures be explained?

I have to admit some personal interest in this - last year I had a lot of criminal damage to my property, which cost about £1000 to repair, and even then its still much worse than it originally was. I was disgusted that the police would not interview the person to whom all the evidence pointed to; in fact I do not think they even registered it as a crime, so it will not appear in their statistics. 2.97.212.158 (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite how I read that report. The British Crime Survey always report somewhat different figures to those recorded by the police, not surprising as they are collected in quite different ways. As I recall on many occasions they have actually recorded lower levels of crime rather than more. If you look at the BCS report itself [4], it shows an overall fall of 5% in all the crime that they record, compared to the 7% fall reported by the police, not such a big difference. Mikenorton (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, that if last year you had nine burgalies and one murder, and this year you have one burgalry and eight murders, then on average that's a drop in crime. In other words its not appropriate to average different types of crime. 92.15.7.223 (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but the OP was talking about overall crime rates. Mikenorton (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That was the point of the previous paragraph - that it is misleading to average them and open to manipulation. 92.29.126.0 (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The police said burgalries, for example, fell by 7%, yet the British Crime Survey says they rose by 9%. I'd call that a large difference. 92.29.124.249 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that regarding the burglary increase shown by the BCS their report says 'BCS burglaries showed no statistically significant change compared with the previous year', presumably the sample was too small. Mikenorton (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't the police rely on recorded crime whilst BCS rely on sampling of people? Not all crime that occurs is reported to the police, and whilst some crimes such as car-theft/burglary will have much high report rates (mainly due to insurance reasons than a real expectation of recovery of goods), the surveys are likely to pick up things that aren't official reported. As for 92.15.7s comment - serious crime is separated out in almost all crime statistics reporting i've ever seen (but I agree that a reduction in the high level crime figure is an indicator of very little without looking into the numbers further). ny156uk (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The situation I had was that although a crime had clearly been committed, they didnt as far as I am aware issue a case number, in other words it was not added to the crime statistics. I wonder if the police have been manipulating the stats to show themselves in a good light? 92.29.126.0 (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that though recorded crime figures to come under significant scrutiny when compared to the BCS there is no decisive reason that the BCS should be perfect either. False recall and other factors can harm it but not the official figures (which are subject to their own errors as noted above). In other words, it isn't just a case of "Police say one thing, BCS says another, Police are lying". We could also do to remember that though both the BCS and Police Figures show overall crime falling almost every year for over a decade, fear of crime continues to rise. Prokhorovka (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you asked the police why they have stopped investigating your criminal damage? Astronaut (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

After not hearing from them for some time, I wrote them a letter, I've never recieved a reply. 92.24.178.157 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I would have given up quite so easily. Why not phone them and ask what progress they have made. Astronaut (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Headstone Foundation

Is it normal in the United States for the monument company that delivers a gravestone to a cemetery to make the foundation (picture link) http://www.flickr.com/photos/22738816@N07/3643227599/in/set-72157619909680727/
-OR- is it more normal for the cemetery sexton to make the foundation for the gravestone that is to be placed at the grave site by the monument company? IF the monument company usually makes the foundation, then is it marked out by the sexton where it is to be placed? Then does the monument company first come by and make the cement foundation, THEN so many days later places the gravestone on the new dry foundation? What is the normal procedure for MOST cemeteries in Michigan? Does the price of a gravestone then usually include the foundation?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest trying to find out who was paid to put your 'stones in place. They had a contract (actual or implied, in British law anyway) to do them as they should be done. If they didnt do them right, then they are responsible for fixing them, not you. 92.29.124.249 (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita Translation

I probably mispelled the title. Having read the scriptures long ago in college, I wish to reread them. When I accessed commercial sellers and read reviews, it seems there is much controversy about translations. It even seems worse than the best Bible battles. I don't want a translation by a partisan of any faction. Rather what translation would be used at CAmrbidge or Harvard?yale in the Oriental Civilizations department? Thanks in advance. I'd like a hardcover copy. 75Janice (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)75Janice

This Google search brings up any references in Harvard courses. The common one seems to be by Barbara Stoller-Miller. Alternatively, you could go with the one by Arthur W. Ryder, who was the one who taught Oppenheimer the Gita. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends what you want. If you are after accuracy of translation then the above recommendations are good. If you want a less accurate translation that preserves the poetry and mood then I like [this translation]. -- Q Chris (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

My personal favorite (and certainly among the most "academically reputable" etc.) English translation is Barbara Stoler Miller's The Bhagavad-Gita (Krishna's Counsel in Time of War) ॐ WikiDao ☯ 21:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I studied Indian civilization with Barbara Stoler Miller years ago. She would read erotic Hindu writings on WBAI in NY. I could not recall her names. Thanks.75Janice (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)75Janice

The dangers of pregnancy and childbirth

I don't think it is an exaggeration to claim that, until the past century, becoming pregnant and giving birth were grave dangers to women. Even now, maternal mortality in poor countries is shocking. I'd like to know what degree of danger it still holds now, in developed countries. Is it fair to say that getting pregnant is the most dangerous activity (risk of death, illness, persistent or possibly permanent disability) the average woman is likely to engage in? (Very few of us really go bungie-jumping or drive race cars.) Or are the real statistics dwarfed by, e.g. traffic accidents? I realise this must vary considerably if we are looking at risk over a lifetime (during which the average Western woman will drive or be driven untold thousands of miles, but undergo only a couple of pregnancies) or over the year of the pregnancy itself. I know that a senior scientist advising the UK government got a lot of flak for calculating that taking ecstacy was on a par with horse riding -- one bad outcome per 700 experiences, or something like that. We are apolitical and can afford to be rigorous. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the most dangerous time of life is when you are being born as a baby. 92.15.7.223 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that, for pre-20th century women, BrainyBabe is spot on. When I was researching for the article Plymouth Colony, one of the books I used was the work A Little Commonwealth by John Putnam Demos. The section Plymouth Colony#Demographics summarizes some of his data, but basically women died, on average almost 7 years earlier than men, and twice as many women died before their 50th birthday than men did; a discrepency due almost entirely to the dangers of giving birth. The section Plymouth Colony#Marriage and family life has information on infant mortality from Demos's numbers, about 12% of children, or one in eight, died before their first birthday. By comparison, in most modernized democracies, the number of infant deaths has dropped to less than 1% for most countries, that 12% figure is comparable to countries like Afghanistan and Liberia, and would place Plymouth Colony as the 5th highest infant mortality in the whole world today. See Infant mortality. While I don't have numbers for mothers dying in childbirth today, I suspect that the figures would be roughly to scale with the infant mortality numbers; that is there is probably a 10-fold increase in the survivability of childbirth due to modern medicine. Its quite clear in that today women out live men by 7 years, which is almost exactly the reverse of the 17th century numbers. --Jayron32 00:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

To get started on the numbers, the world total for maternal mortality is 342900 (year 2008) while traffic accidents are 1200000 (year 2004). (from this and this article, didn't check the sources). If we divide traffic accidents by two (though I think men are more likely to die in traffic accidents), that means that women are twice as likely to die in traffic accidents as in childbirth. However, it is not clear how this translates into "developed" countries, where more people drive (though under safer conditions) and health services are vastly better. My guess would be that driving is more dangerous on an "entire-life" horizon, but perhaps the odds come close when you just consider the year giving birth. Jørgen (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(after edit conflict): Some recent US figures: Maternal death rates gives a range of 11 - 17 maternal deaths per 100'000 live births, as the most recent estimates in the United States (I didn't check the references in this case). The Fatality Analysis Reporting System's numbers for the past decade range from 11.01 - 14.87 for "Fatalities per 100,000 Population", 14.53 - 19.33 for "Fatalities per 100,000 Registered Vehicles", and 17.96 - 22.00 for "Fatalities per 100,000 Licensed Drivers". The number of traffic fatalities in the European Union is generally lower per population, but as the article points out, the fatalities are also counted differently in the US. I don't know how maternal death figures vary within rich countries. For one example: the German article on Müttersterblichkeit (maternal death) writes that fatalities per 100,000 childbirths in the Netherlands have increased from 9.7 (1983 - 1992) to 12.1 (1993 - 2005). The recent figure for people killed in traffic accidents in the Netherlands is 4.6 per 100,000 (from the table linked to above). ---Sluzzelin talk 06:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As an editor who has contributed to many articles on medieval women, I have noticed that infant mortality as well as maternal deaths in or as a result of childbirth were noticeably lower in the medieval period compared to the 16th century. A noticable example being two of Henry VIII's wives having died of complications following childbirth. According to biographer Antonia Fraser in Mary, Queen of Scots, women would make their wills prior to giving birth as they ran a very high risk of death.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OP here. Thank you for your responses so far! Re infant mortality, yes, I had heard, and it seems intuitively likely, that the single day of your life on which you are most likely to die is the day you are born. But that can't be a surrogate indicator for maternal mortality. Re previous centuries, and Afghanistan now: I'm well aware of the general awfulness, but thanks for the extra statistics for context. I am, however, interested in the situation now in countries with a modern health care system. Jørgen, the problem with the raw numbers is that while 100% of people who die in childbirth are women, the same is not nearly true of traffic accidents, and for an often overlooked reason: statistics that divide male-female say nothing about how many children are involved. Sluzzelin, thanks for digging, especially the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. So if I interpret that correctly, then there is a striking similarity between the 11 - 17 maternal deaths per 100 000 live births, and the 11 - 15 for traffic accident fatalities per 100,000 population. If we do assume -- almost certainly a false premise -- that these deaths are distributed evenly over the population, by age and gender, then a pregnant woman has as much chance of dying of her pregnancy as any of us do of dying in a motor vehicle accident in any given year.

From the NHTSA website: "A total of 41,059 people lost their lives in motor vehicle crashes in 2007. Another 2.5 million people were injured." I wonder if a similar proportion holds true for pregnancy, childbirth, and lactation - 60x as many injured (or ill) as killed. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I drive a lot more than I give birth... I've got the feeling you're driving towards some point... what might that be? Shadowjams (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that a typical woman reaches menopause long before she gives up driving so......I don't drive myself but I must admit that I felt safer (four times) in the delivery room than I do on the Italian roads.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Modern doctors are remarkably good at healing wounds from both childbirth and automobile accidents, no matter the country. That the childhood mortality rate in countries with that kind of care have fallen to the rates they are would be called a miracle in any other time. I'm being glib because we're forgetting how absolutely amazing it is that we have childhood survival rates that we do, and that modern humans find it a matter of course.

Most mammals don't have this luxury, at least not without our help.

We ought to find that amazing for a second, and consider that we've done a lot of things right as a society. Shadowjams (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

However, many other mammals have easier childbirth than humans do (for humans it's complicated by simultaneous requirements for large brains and efficient bipedal walking...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

See Health-US: Maternal Deaths on the Rise — Global Issues.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all. I don't know that I am "driving towards some point"; I was hoping to find a realistic assessment of personal dangers. Is it true to say "a pregnant woman has as much chance of dying of her pregnancy as any of us do of dying in a motor vehicle accident in any given year"? So far, what we've found is indicative, not conclusive. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In Europe, maternal mortality peaked between the 1600s (when dedicated hospitals for childbirth became popular) and the late 1800s (when hygienic measures became popular) due to physician-spread cases of childbed fever (see Puerperal fever#History). Before and after that, maternal mortality rates were considerably lower. --Carnildo (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

January 22

Patent/Copyright Paradoxes

What was the name of the scientist/mathematician who tried to patent/copyright paradoxes and failed?Smallman12q (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that like a joke? Something like ironic patent lawyers tell at cocktail parties when the get really drunk? --Jayron32 04:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

'Ironic patent lawyers'? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of lame jokes at those parties... I don't remember any this bad. Shadowjams (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No...this was no patent lawyer. Google returned an excerpt from Slaves of the Machine: The Quickening of Computer Technology where on page 85 it says:

Paradoxes caused so much fear and loathing for mathematicians that by 1900 a German named David Hilbert, the greatest mathematician of his age, had had enough. He wanted a completely infallible, purely mechanical method anyone could follow to show although some deeply flawed piece of reasoning looked reasonable, it is in fact nonsense. Armed with such a method, he though, he could banish paradoxes forever.He sought a foolproof way to turn disguised nonsense into patent nonsensical. He failed utterly.

I'm fuzzy on the details, but I thought I read a mathematician actually tried to patent/copyright paradoxes.Smallman12q (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Not only did Hilbert fail in his quest, Kurt Gödel proved that this was because no such algorithmic method for testing whether a proposed theroem is true can possibly exist. This follows from Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which prove (roughly speaking) that in any system of mathematics there must exist at least one statement that is true but for which no proof is possible in the entire system. --Anonymous, 05:08 UTC, January 23, 2011.

Ah! the other meaning of wikt:patent, from the Latin: patens ... "Explicit and obvious". Astronaut (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been puzzling over this, because I too remembered something along these lines, but I realized that what I was remembering was the story about Kurt Gödel trying to explain to the US Citizenship board that there was a paradox in the US Constitution, and being told by Einstein that this would basically result in him being denied citizenship if he brought it up (and so on). Not sure if that's useful to you or not, but it was the closest thing that resonated with me... --Mr.98 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can copyright anything you like. You just have to write it down and circle a C at the bottom, and follow it with a date. It doesn't mean someone else can't rewrite the same problem in their own wording. --Lgriot (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you don't need to write the © and the date; in all countries that are party to the Berne Convention, copyright is automatic. As for re-writing, it's true that copyright is meant to cover expression and not ideas, but in practice this is a very blurry distinction. (If I write a book about a young wizard named Narry Smotter, I will probably still be sued for copyright violation, even if I have written everything in my own words.) --Mr.98 (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What is "the fall of the Synagogue"

The description of File:Vitrail Varennes Jarcy MNMA Cluny.jpg says that it depicts "the fall of the Synagoge."

• Question 1: Does this refer to any specific event in the history? I found there occurred the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70CE, but I'm not sure if the Temple is called the Synagogue.
• Question 2: Which is the picture of the "fall" in this stained glass?

Thank you. --Sushiya (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The middle panel on the right represents the "fall of the Synagogue". It is a woman with a broken staff, a bowed head (or a broken neck?), and the Ten Commandments at her feet. This is a common medieval representation of "Synagoga", the Latin word for "synagogue", represented as a woman because the Latin word is feminine. It doesn't refer to the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, but the symbolic role of Christ as the new Law, replacing the Old (Jewish) Law. Also, I've spent 20 minutes looking for information and images about this, and then I realized, of course Wikipedia would have an article about Ecclesia and Synagoga. It even has an image of the statues from Notre Dame de Paris! Adam Bishop (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would venture to guess, and it is just a guess, that it refers to the fall of the First Temple in the early 5th century BCE. I say it is the fall of the first and not the second because the fall of the second synogogue (which is the greek word for "assembly") because the later is not recorded in The Hebrew Bible.
For question 2, it is probably the decapitated man in the upper right side, because the bother lower images are the angels playing stringed instruments and the upper left are the shepards that are also mentioned in the description. schyler (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

But then it doesn't really fit with the other images relating to Christ's birth. And even though the destruction of the Temple in 70 is not mentioned in the Bible, it is at least supposed to be prophesized in the New Testament, and that event was far better known to medieval people than any previous Temple-destruction. (There are numerous medieval poems and romances about the events of 70, there is an important one in Middle English for example.) Also, medieval people love allegory. They love allegory a lot, way too much really. This is definitely not meant to represent a real event. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Dudes! We totally have Allegory in the Middle Ages and Siege of Jerusalem (poem). Hooray for Wikipedia! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Adam and schyler. Now I have made my translation of the Commons Picture of the Day caption for that image, which required me to understand the concept of the picture. --Sushiya (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

HMT means HM Trawler or HM Troopship?

In my recent tinkerings with various WWII naval stub articles, I've noticed that we seem to be using the initials HMT to mean both His Majesty's Trawler and His Majesty's Troopship. They can't both be right. Can anyone find a definitive reference as to how these titles should actually be abbreviated please? Alansplodge (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can make out they are both right, however unlikely that seems. This supplement from the London Gazette from 1940 [5] refers to the HMT Tamarisk, which was a trawler, and here is a postcard of the troopship HMT Asturias [6]. Mikenorton (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

My favourite duplicate acronym is OM, which usually means the Order of Merit but could also mean the Order of Manitoba. One day, some lucky Manitoban is going to get both gongs, and then she'll be Mary Smith OM OM. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That'll work better if she converts to, for example, Hinduism. --Anonymous, 05:10 UTC, January 23, 2011.

Thanks Mikenorton. I'll resist the temptation to start changing the names of articles! Alansplodge (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This article says that the HMT prefix is Hired Military Transport ! anybody have a reliable ref for His/Her Majesties Troopship? MilborneOne (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to add a Google search finds a lot of use of Hired Military Transport, one example from the Telegraph newspaper [7]. MilborneOne (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It makes sense because non-combatant ships don't usually have the "His Majestey's" prefix; tankers etc were/are RFA (Royal Fleet Auxilliary). The term used in the Falklands War was STUFT (Ship Taken-Up From Trade); none of the liners used then adopted an "HMT" prefix. However, "His Majestey's Troopship" is used in several WP articles, such as HMT Rohna. More research needed. Alansplodge (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Me again; one of the sources cited on the Ship prefix page (The Corporation of Lower St. Lawrence Pilots) says "HMT = His/Her Majesty’s Troopship". I can't find any reference on the page for "Hired Military Transport". Alansplodge (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

To add another to the mix, here is reference to His Majesty's Tug HMT Hamlet. Mikenorton (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Albert Terhune's parents

The article about Albert Terhune's father says that there were only two children - Albert and one more.

The article about Albert's mother says there were SIX children.

Which - if either - is correct?

EoGuy (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There are several sources that give six children, with three who survived to adulthood, Christine Terhune Herrick, Virginia Terhune Van De Water and Albert Payson Terhune. Virginia is not mentioned in the article about her father, but she was a published author and I don't think that there is any doubt about her existence e.g. [8]. Mikenorton (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Irish politics question

Actually, this is a question about parliamentary-style democracies in general. Currently, Brian Cowen is resigning from leadership of his party but somehow remaining taoiseach, that is, prime minister, for the next month or so. Apparently this is not unprecedented in Ireland. Has this sort of thing happened outside of Ireland? It seems very bassackwards to me. I thought that the position of PM basically proceeded ex officio from leadership of the ruling party, so that if the PM were to lose or relinquish control of his party he would thereby cease to be PM, end of story. But apparently not. Apparently the two positions are technically independent. And apparently it is sometimes advantageous to exploit that independence so that you can have your cake and eat it too. So why not just have two completely separate offices: party chairman and PM? Another thing: it appears to me, reading these Irish news stories, that there are two kinds of no confidence vote: one affecting a government and one affecting a premiership? The idea here is that the Green Party, the coalition partners of Fianna Fail, won't vote against the government of which they are a part, but might vote "against the PM". Once again, I didn't think that was a separate option. Can someone clear up my rather copious pile of confusion? LANTZY^TALK 19:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, someone has to fulfill the function and duties of PM while a new leader is selected. The office can not be left vacant. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As Ireland follows the Westminster Model, the leader of the largest party is asked by the head-of-state (presumably the Irish President) to form a government; the party leader can nominate any member of the Dáil to be the PM. Convention, however, is that the PM and the party leader is the same person. Another interesting question is why are the opposition raising a vote-of-no-confidence when Ireland is going to the polls on 11th March this year anyway? CS Miller (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine Gael is saying that there needs to be a new "credible" government in place before some EU thing happens in a few weeks. Also that the current situation is just generally bad and embarrassing for Ireland. The realpolitik reason is probably that they figure FF has bottomed out and the opposition is worried there might be a rally or a dead cat bounce in the next few weeks. LANTZY^TALK 20:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

John Major resigned as leader of the UK Conservative Party in 1995 and fought a successful leadership election whilst remaining PM. Dalliance (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

So this scenario isn't too unusual in the context of the Westminster system? LANTZY^TALK 20:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

After the defeat of Germany in early May 1945, Winston Churchill's British Wartime Coalition (in which the Labour leader, Clement Attlee had served as Deputy Prime Minister) broke up on the 23rd. Churchill then formed (constitutionally speaking, upon the King's request) a Caretaker Government of ministers from the Conservative Party and its allies (with none from the revived Opposition), which ruled the country, conducted diplomacy and continued the war against Japan for two months until the results of the General Election were declared on 26 July 1945, leading immediately to the Third Labour Government under Attlee. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is that the Prime Ministership belongs to whoever can command a majority in a confidence vote in Parliament. It's just a matter of custom that this is usually the leader of the majority party (or of some party, if no party has a majority). So if Cowen's party wants to support him as Taoiseach when he isn't their leader, that's their prerogative. I don't think it would happen here in Canada; instead, a Prime Minister who chooses to leave office will announce his resignation in advance, allowing the party time to choose a new leader before he (or she, of course) actually resigns the leadership. That's what Pearson, Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien all did, anyway. --Anonymous, 05:26 UTC, January 23, 2011.

Mackenzie Bowell is generally cited as the only Canadian Prime Minister to be kicked out of the office in circumstances comparable to Brian Cowen, although even he was allowed to remain Prime Minister in name for a few months, while Charles Tupper actually led the government. It's arguably worse to have a lame duck like Chretien remain in power for nearly a year, unable to make any long term decisions because everyone knows he's going to resign before the next election. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What psychological problems are likely to be faced by North Koreans upon unification?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the new Kim (or whoever) doesn't markedly change the nature of regime, and it collapses rapidly. What psychological problems are likely to be faced by the average North Korean during reunification, and in paritcular, in discovering the true nature of the Dear and Great leaders? Egg Centric (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Our Korean reunification article, especially the second section "Comparison to Germany" covers this, but not in much detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csmiller (talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure North Koreans are already well aware of the "true nature of the Dear and Great leaders". Rimush (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of what I've read has led me to think that they are not really that aware, and that even the ones that escape have a very hard time really believing that it could have been as bad as it was. Things look a lot different to you when you've been raised inside a system with no other point of reference. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, they can, but people from outside can be fooled pretty badly about how badly the people inside are fooled. I recall that the media pretty much bought the idea that Romanians all loved Nicolae Ceauşescu, that his 99% re-election numbers or whatever were more or less real. Then at the first sign of a chink in his armor, they all lined up to be part of his firing squad. --Trovatore (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

People inside a totalitarian dictatorship can be thoroughly disgusted and resentful, but most of them will not be very well-informed about things outside their own personal experiences... AnonMoos (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is an article on the shock North Koreans experience after defecting to South Korea -- [9]. Now multiply that times 24 million. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Would it be anything like the problems Americans experience when they discover that the rest of the world does things differently from them, like spelling? (Sorry, been having a bad time correcting incorrect corrections to articles by ignorant editors - and I mean ignorant literally!) HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I know it's funny to be a little glib about how the majority of English speakers speak differently than the style you grew up with, but a lot of the above posters have had very insightful, if not moving answers on a very serious issue. So no, I don't think assimilation from a totalitarian dictatorship that's something akin to 1984 is anything like your bias towards Americans. Not adding a "U" and a couple of unnecessary phrases isn't totalitarianism. Shadowjams (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Missed the point entirely. The issue isn't the different spelling styles. I can handle that with no problems at all. It's the fact that so many Americans don't know that there other perfectly correct ways of spelling words in English, and go around "correcting" others' spelling when it's already correct. (In my country we all know that there are multiple forms of English.) THAT'S the parallel with North Korea. A lack of exposure to another system. Yes, I know it's a trivial example, but I was trying to bring it a little closer to home for some here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's entirely trivial. Shadowjams (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Washington Post article linked in Mwalcoff's post above tells of language variations being one of the challenges faced by defectors. HiLo48 (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That article was about current North Korean defectors trying to assimilate into South Korea, when the South Korean dialects of Korean are spoken around them on a daily basis. Such a case would be highly unlikely in the event of a reunification, as there would not be a sudden migration of everyone southward or northward. People would stay where they were. Only the political and economic situations in the North would change. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

One thing that surprised many East Germans after the wall came down, and this might apply to North Koreans too, was the discovery that not everything they had been told about the West was, in fact, a complete lie. For example, the East German government had long told them that West Berlin and other large West German cities had a problem with drug addicts, and everyone simply assumed it was a lie - then the Wall came down, they drove into West Berlin, and discovered that there were in fact drug addicts in West Berlin - maybe not to the same dangerous extent as the propaganda had implied, but clearly present nevertheless. Pais (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Der Golem

I've just watched the 1920 German film Der Golem (our article is at The Golem: How He Came into the World). It's set in some facsimile 'mediaeval' time, mostly in the Ghetto. I notice that the male Jewish characters have circles on their clothes (a single circle each, roughly on the top left front) (there's only one female Jewish character really, and she doesn't go outside her house voluntarily, so I don't know if it's supposed to be a gender difference). A lot of the male Jewish characters also seem to wear pointy wizard's hats.

I'm not sure what my question specifically is, other than where can I read more about this? and maybe how would this resonate for Germans in 1920?. 86.164.164.183 (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Jewish hat and yellow badge (the parts about the "rota") are the articles. Not sure about the last question. 213.122.68.238 (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

And Golem. None of this originates in the movie. Josefov is interesting as the orignial setting. Rmhermen (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, all interesting. It slightly saps my faith in humanity, but interesting. I'll add a little to the article on the film, for anyone else in the same situation. I'm still interested in other relevant links, especially on how it was received and understood by Germans in 1920 (would the hats and badges have been recognised? would the average audience root for the Jews?) 86.164.58.119 (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

UK tax deductable amounts for small businesses

The last time I had a conversation with an accountant, he said that the HMRC will accept deductions up to particular amounts without query for things like the cost of running a phone etc.

Where can I find out what these various amounts are and what they cover? Are they given somewhere on the HMRC website or anywhere else, or are they known only to accountants? Thanks 92.24.178.157 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably that's not an official rule, but just common practice to not check plausible amounts for things that anyone has - like phones. Wikiweek (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah, there definitely are official rules for certain things like expenses, but god knows where to find em. It's very unlikely they're all in one place. Egg Centric (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Rules about deductions exist. No doubt. But the HMRC probably only check if you indeed have some expenses if they look fishy. Claiming that you have a phone line won't be checked then. Wikiweek (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about running a small business from premises, or from home? If the former, you'll have proof of your phone expenditure in the form of bills. If the latter then yes, HMRC do allow you to claim the proportion of your home phone bill that you use for business. If you're asking whether you're OK to claim a modest amount for a phone you don't actually use then no - if you're unlucky enough to get audited they will want proof that anything you are claiming for has actually been spent, even if it's a small amount, and they will be looking to see whether any general claim - like a proportion of an existing phone bill - is "reasonable". HMRC do accept reasonable estimated claims for "use of the home as an office". It tends to be a pretty nominal sum - £5 a week was quoted to me by an accountant - and covers things like heat and light. If you have one room dedicated as an office you can claim a percentage of your household running costs, based roughly on the percentage of the house's floor space that your office occupies - but there could be capital gains tax implications* when you come to sell the house if you go down this route, so professional advice is necessary before you do so. HMRC's website is quite useful - see here for working from home, and here for tax-deductible expenses for self-employed people. Basically, if they think you are making reasonable claims they will probably accept them. If they think you are trying it on, they have the power to inspect you down to the last paper clip, surcharge and even fine you for anything you've claimed that you shouldn't have, charge you interest, and go back and do the same for previous years. It pays to try and get it right. Karenjc 14:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oh - and potentially business rates too. Karenjc 14:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking about how far you can go cheating the HMRC and still get away with it? Anyway, your question sounds like asking for legal advice, that the RD cannot provide.Quest09 (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Imagination is one thing, but facts are another. You're insinuating that anyone who fills in a tax form is a crook - an absurd conclusion. Even a taxable income of one pound requires filling in the forms. In any case, most people in business earn less than employees, since in business, unlike employees, more often than not you have a negative income as most businesses fail. The short answer is no I'm not, but the HMRC gives various allowances for some expenses, and its not obvious what they are. 92.24.184.8 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The OP asked where he can find out about what deductions claims are acceptable to HMRC. Asking where information can be found is not a request for legal advice. Karenjc 15:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You may find what you are looking for here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/thelibrary/ ----Ehrenkater (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Where could I find out what allowances etc I can claim without getting stung by CGT on my home? Thanks 92.24.184.8 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

January 23

Incest laws in Israel

It seems from the relevant articles on this site and elsewhere that many forms of incest are allowed in Israel. At least the laws there do not prohibit many types of incestuous sex that are outlawed elsewhere. Is this correct? Imagine Reason (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about the laws in Israel and a quick search isn't finding anything which I particularly trust. But if it's correct Israel does not have laws prohibiting consensual incestous sex, they're hardly unique in this regard, Laws regarding incest only includes a few countries but from a very quick glance there are at least 76 where there are no specific laws prohibiting consensual incestous sex including Brazil, Finland,(confusing article since modified) France, Japan, Portugal, Russia, and Belgium (mentioned under France). It also mentions it has been unsuccessfully challenged in Germany and there is a proposal to abolish the prohibition on consensual incestous sex in Switzerland. Note that anything beyond siblings and lineal descendants is even less likely to be illegal (e.g. first cousins, aunt/uncle-niece/nephew). Marriages may still be prohibited in some cases even when sex isn't illegal (in some of the earlier examples). Again I don't know much about the marriage laws in Israel but as has been discussed before, marriages are largely left up to the recognised religions so it's likely up to them (and I somewhat doubt that any of them allow siblings and lineal descendants to marry). Of course some countries may potentially have no specific laws regarding consensual incestous sex but all sex outside marriage. Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I searched this a little, and this interesting study came up: doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00505-7 I think in general in Israel most non-abusive marriage and sexual laws are left to each individual religion to decide and enforce. Ariel. (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's the old Ottoman "millet" system... AnonMoos (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

For the curious the article is here: Millet (Ottoman Empire). Ariel. (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Israel here I come! Egg Centric (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess it wasn't clear from what I wrote. Even though the State does not have laws about this, the various individual communities do, and those laws are enforceable. Ariel. (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

How does that work for people who are not religious? DuncanHill (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why that would be an issue, since people still belong to a given culture even if they do not believe in the religious principles that govern it, like an English person is still bound by the laws of England and Wales which have their roots in an Anglican worldview, even if that English person is not religious. More of a problem under the millet system, I'd have thought, is if you are a member of a smaller religion which is not recognised by the system. 86.164.58.119 (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

According to the workings of the Millet system, you belong to your ancestral religious community unless you explicitly convert to become a member of another recognized religious community -- regardless of whether you might be the most flamingly militant atheist in your personal beliefs. AnonMoos (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

ancestry.co.uk

When was Ellen Margaret Midgley born in Bradford, W Yorkshire c 1942? Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggest you contact the local registry office - [10], they can provide copies of birth certificates [11], for a fee [12]. Exxolon (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Kitty, Ancestry returns an Ellen M Midgley birth registered in Q2 (April-May-June) of 1942. Mother's maiden name Smith. England & Wales Birth index, Bradford district, Yorkshire county. Vol 9b page 223. Would this fit? Karenjc 14:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

IMDB title

What is the meaning of "video" in the bracket after the movie name? Such as this --Questesns (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• The film in question was released Direct-to-video? Exxolon (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The IMDb help pages say (V) after a title means "made for video or direct-to-video release"[13]; I think this is out of date and they now use (Video) for this purpose. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The everyday calendar in Islamic countries

In everyday use, do all Islamic countries use the Islamic calendar rather than the Gregorian calendar, even for non-religious purposes? 92.24.184.8 (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It's impossible to use the Islamic calendar for agricultural purposes. In the Ottoman empire a form of the Julian calendar was used to schedule agricultural tax collections, while in Safavid Persia a form of the Persian calendar was used. Nowadays, the Gregorian calendar is fairly widely diffused through most Muslim-majority countries... AnonMoos (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

For business purposes it's necessary to use the Gregorian calendar, as the rest of the world does. Newspapers always (well, as far as I have ever seen) use both dates, like Al-Ahram (I'm sure Dar al-Hayat does too but I can't access the website at the moment). Adam Bishop (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In Iran and Afghanistan, the Solar Hejri calendar is used rather exclusively. Moreover, I think that some more secular Arab newspapers, say organs of communist parties, only use Gregorian dates. --Soman (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Why the large growth rates in developing countries?

Are there any theories that account for the large growth rates of some developing countries, higher than those in the West?

I imagine the high growth may be due to things like the implementation of technology copied from the west, the exploitation of natural resources, and the switching of the work-force from agriculture to factory production. But are these the only reasons? Thanks 92.24.184.8 (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Access to Western technology is surely a factor, but are developing countries now growing faster than, say, Britain did during the industrial revolution? It's not unusual for development to follow a kind of step pattern with sudden rapid growth following major breakthroughs. I think that is essentially what is happening with the economies of countries like China. --Tango (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The mobilisation of previously unused resources may play a part, and the fact that the West right now is still suffering from the damage of a huge financial crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

High growth rates in the developing world are not a recent thing. The current economic situation is not relevant. --Tango (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Solow growth model explains this quite well (the model, that is, not sure if the WP article is good) though it fails to answer a lot of other interesting questions on economic growth. Basically, we can think of the high growth rate in developing countries as a catch-up effect. Jørgen (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the OP is asking why the population growth rate is so much higher in developing countries? I always thought that was due to improvements in healthcare being in advance of social changes such as education and the emancipation of womem. Astronaut (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The increase in population in developing countries is usually because the change to the morality rate has decreased but people still reproduce as if it were high. It takes a generation to correct this, usually, which means you get extremely high growth rates for awhile. National Geographic had a nice article on this recently; unfortunately it appears that the graphs and data they included as sidebars are not part of the online content. In any case, though, I doubt this is what the OP is talking about, given that all of the examples provided are relating to productivity and economy. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean developing countries, or "developing countries" (i.e. those euphemistically so called to indicate that they are not developing)? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Not all developing countries have rapid economic growth. Brazil, China and India do, but Sub-Saharan African nations don't, and nor do many Latin American countries. We hear a lot about the nations which are growing quickly, but that shouldn't make us assume all less developed countries do so. Prokhorovka (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It all just depends on how you define "developing." One term which is slightly more precise is newly industrialized country, which includes the usual suspects. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I've heard the term used to refer to places like Zimbabwe, which has been under a dictator who has (intentionally, maybe?) prevented it from developing. In cases like that, it's a euphemism. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Access to family planning, sexual education, sexual and reproductive rights, and women's emancipation are important factos. But it is also important to remember that in developing countries, there is often no or little public pensions, and people without children will have problems to have someone to care for them economically once they reach old age. With the construction of a social welfare state, that need decreases. --Soman (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean economic growth, thanks. 92.15.26.222 (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

To correct a comment above, sub-Saharan African nations actually have an average rate of economic growth comparable to that of Asian nations. The Economist recently published a study showing that, of the 10 fastest-growing economies in countries with more than 1 million people during 2000-2010, 6 were in sub-Saharan Africa. Marco polo (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Korean Racist Slurs

Do the Koreans have derogatory terms for white people, black people and east indians? What are they? 99.245.73.51 (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

They call them: snow white, piece of coal, and second-class rice eater. All are pretty offensive in Korea. 77.231.17.82 (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

[Citation needed], especially for this sort of thing. Pais (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Would the slur imply I ate rice which was of a lower class than the speaker's rice, or that I ate ordinary rice in a lower class manner (dropping it from the chopsticks, using a fork, using fingers?) Pretty funny, all around. Edison (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

East Indians as in Indians from the east of the country, i.e. East India? Or the residents of the East Indies? Are there separate racial slurs for Indians from the East and West of the country in the OP's native language? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The first answer can only be a joke. 212.169.188.242 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

January 24

Firing Squad Regulations - German Army - WW2

I used to read a lot of Sven Hassel, and while his books may have been mostly fiction (and some even rumoured to have not even been written by him), they are full of minute details, many of which are completely unecessary for the plot of the story as a whole - sort of lending a certain amount of credence to the details, as it were. One episode that has always puzzled me was of a firing squad who had executed a prisoner and, contrary to the rules and protocol for firing squads, one of the members had shot the prisoner in the face. The rules stated that prisoners should be shot squarely in the chest. As punishment, the whole squad was then sent to the Eastern Front whereupon they were promptly killed. Is there a basis in fact here? Was it actually against the rules for a firing squad to shoot a prisoner in the face? I found it odd, because prisoners who are still alive afterwards tend to be despatched with a bullet to the head anyway. I seem to remember the unit in question in the story was Wehrmacht and not Schutzstaffel. Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Depictions of firing squads I have seen and accounts I have read, from various countries' armies, including WW2 German, have shown the prisoner being shot in the chest (with the heart sometimes marked as a target). A regulation saying "don't shoot them in the face" seems plausible, since a shot to the face might be painful and disfiguring without being fatal. People have had their cheeks and jaws shot away and lived. It is potentially a wasted bullet. Sometimes after the first volley, a doctor finds the prisoner's heart is still beating, and it is necessary to reload and fire a second volley (or to take a pistol and put a bullet through his brain). Here are some accounts of firing squads where the prisoner did not die after the volley of rifle (or musket) fire. Not all armies apparently used the shot to the head to finish off a wounded prisoner. Another reason to ban shooting in the face is to confirm the intended person was executed. It would be easy to shoot off the face of a substitute victim, and report to the authorities that so and so had been executed, if he had sufficient friends and admirers, such as some famous mutineer, hero, or political or religious leader. The shot to the head after the volley is shown as being to the side of the head, more than being a shot to the face from the front. Edison (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record I would like to point out that not only are there "rumours" that he did not write some of his book himself, there has also recently been made a plausible case against Hassels claims of him doing any active war service for the Germans at all. This was recently aired in a Danish documentary "Sven Hazel skandalen", and was based on the work of Danish journalists that was revealed back in 1963 (not the work of Haaest that is mentioned in the article, but a competing team, that is apparently infighting with Haaest over who did the actual discovery of the fraud). In fact the only kind of service Hassel did for the Germans was to serve in HIPO Corps in Copenhagen during the last months of the war. As I understand it many of the minute details in Hassels books have been criticised by actual veterans for their inaccuracy or even for being plain wrong. That is not to say that this particular detail may be incorrect, though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the case here, but many firing squads (of recent times) take care to avoid revealing who fired the fatal shot. If one guy shoots them in the head (or tries to) then he knows whether he was responsible or not. I forget whether teh German Army went to such lengths.- Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 11:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Purely speculating here... I could understand a rule against shooting someone in the face (as opposed to the head)... the government might want the face to remain recognizable... for identification purposes. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In Canada, we did it differently. Bullets are expensive, you know... Matt Deres (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. I was guessing that it may be for identification purposes. A single bullet could mess up a face quite easily, never mind twelve of them! What I was really looking for was some proof that this regulation actually existed. I am interested not only in the regulation itself, but also in the claims to Sven Hassel's lack of credibility. I would have thought that putting unnecessary yet highly specific details in his stories would harm his credibility considerably if they turned out to be incorrect. As a casual 'fan' of sorts, I have taken it upon myself to check up on individual tiny details in his stories, just to see for myself how real or realistic the stories attributed to him are. Getting back to the regulation itself, I would like to know to whom this regulation applied - which type of prisoner(s), which wing(s) of the armed forces, whether it was strictly adhered to in the later years of the war, and so on. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

One interesting thing in the history of firing squads I cited, and in other results from Google Book search, was how many of the shooters missed the target, perhaps deliberately. Edith Cavell was hit by 1 bullet from her WW1 German firing squad. Many similar cases were reported. One horrible account was of Germans shooting victims who were lying on the ground. A shot to the neck was ordered, but many of the police reservists shot them in the heads, resulting in explosions of brain tissue all over the shooters. In this sense, a chest shot is "cleaner." Mob hitmen do a "double tap: shoot them once in the chest, to bring them down, then once in the head to make sure. An Israli army commander called it "confirming the kill" when he fired 13 bullets into the body of a 13 year old girl after she was brought down while running away. She got two bullets to the head. The recent Tucson shootings demonstrated that even a bullet through the brain may not be fatal.

Religious fiction cliche

Hi, does anyone know of examples of a particular theme in religious fiction that I've come across a couple of times, and which I rather suspect is a cliche? I have seen a few works (one dramatic work and one novel come to mind) where characters discover a work of scripture from the religion, then suddenly convert, and have the whole meaning and purpose of their lives radically altered. Is it particularly common, and can people give me other examples? I'm not referring to books like the Left Behind series, which interpret the world through the lens of the Bible, literally interpreted, but specifically those which deal with the radical conversion theme. Thanks, It's been emotional (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to answer your main question, but Left Behind doesn't really interpret the world through the lens of the Bible, literally or otherwise. It's based on largely extra-Biblical traditions regarding the Rapture. Like many such traditions its based on an extreme, non-mainstream, overinterpretation of a select few biblical passages. There's very little agreement on even what the Rapture passages mean in the literature, or what significance they should have regarding eschatology. Really, Left Behind is a fun read, but its about as theologically solid as Raiders of the Lost Ark or Rosemary's Baby; that is it uses Christian traditions as a loose framework for story telling, but it doesn't really represent quality "theology". As far as the "Radical conversion" event, the Bible itself has one famous such event, see Conversion of Paul the Apostle. From other religions, the events surrounding the Bodhi Tree represent a similar radical conversion in the background of Buddhism, while the Cave at Hira represents a similar sort of conversion in Islam. Depending on your perspective and reading of the text, Christ himself could have had a similar "conversion", if you read the stories behind the Baptism of Jesus a certain way. --Jayron32 02:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of examples that spring to mind: Augustine of Hippo was converted after reading Romans 13:13-14; John Wesley after hearing Martin Luther's preface to the same book read aloud. Of course both had extensive knowledge of the scriptures already, so it's not as though the information was new to them. Marnanel (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I know you're looking for examples in fiction, but whatever cliche exists probably comes from various traditional and historical stories of conversion after reading. Maybe the earliest and most significant in the Bible is Josiah. Staecker (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems related to TV Tropes' "Easy Evangelism", which lists examples. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot speak to Christianity in general, but as a former catholic, within the catholic faith baptism is usually regarded as a necessary and vital part of conversion. as the article on catholic conversion explains, baptism in the faith is considered prerequisite to salvation. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all. The TV tropes link was good, and along the lines of what I had in mind, although I should ban people from linking to it, for I just spent about 3 hours virtually downloading the entire site :). Much too addictive... Any further examples appreciated, especially if anyone can answer the specific brief of fictional characters discovering a scriptural work and being converted primarily by that, rather than by the brilliant logic of an evangelistic character. In the examples I've seen (one was a purely amateur production, the other a minor-ish work of mostly quality literature) someone reads some holy words and "Poof" they are transformed spiritually, rather than being converted by a superior evangelist or a (presumably) logical argument. The message from those was that the holy books they encountered were so amazingly pure and magical that no one could fail to be moved by them. Not wanting to be too derisive, I didn't focus specifically on that aspect, but I would be curious to know how common it is. Thx again, It's been emotional (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ooohhh. Just had an idea. Not exactly the same exact thing, but consider the story behind 2112 (song), in the section where the protagonaist discovers the guitar, has a sort of "epiphany" which could be described in the your terms for religious conversion. --Jayron32 13:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Step away from that computer. Now. CS Miller (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that was really ridiculous ... or ridiculously scary :):) but I think that's why I visit wikipedia It's been emotional (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• See Robinson Crusoe. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Roman numbers

If I'm counting in roman text, I start at (1-I) and so on till I get to (4-V)! "Lets don't forget I'm conting" After I get past (V) All (I) go to to the right Of the (V)? What if (You) I start conting backwards, Do all (I) go to Left of the The (v) till I get (0)? --Stovetop151712 (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

counting forwards: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X

counting backwards: X, IX, VIII, VII, VI, V, IV, III, II, I. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

IV is 4 and VI is 6 no matter which "direction" you're counting. It's the same as if you were counting with what you commonly use. 4 and 6 don't change what they look like depending on which way you're going. Dismas|^(talk) 09:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If that was a reply to the OP, Dismas, could you please watch your indentation level in future. It looks like you're talking to me, but that wouldn't make sense since you're simply adding to what I said to the OP. High time I raised the general question of indentation on the talk page (not singling you out here). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a style guide for indentation for ref desks? One way of looking at it is that Dismas is adding to or elaborating on your answer, instead of talking to you specifically. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see Help:Using talk pages#Indentation (permanent link here).

—Wavelength (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I had never seen that guideline. I was replying to the OP and not you Jack. More often than not, I've seen replies indented one more level even when replying to the OP as I was doing. Dismas|^(talk) 01:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Some few editors may have established a style guide that says "No more indenting if you are replying to the same thing as the previous post" but common practice is to indent another step even when you are replying to the original poster. If the indentation is the same, then it is a good idea to add a space. Otherwise the two posts run together and seem to be from the same person. It is really not a big deal, and does not require rebuking the person whose indentation compliance with the MOS is imperfect. Let's all get along. Edison (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course if you are counting out loud (up or down), you would not use the roman numeral text at all, but would use the Latin words... Unas, Duo, Tres, Quattor, Quinque, Sex, Septem, Octo, Novem, Decem, etc. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, do you have a source for "Unas" and "Quattor"? They disagree with http://www.informalmusic.com/latinsoc/latnum.html.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

4 is Quattuor. "Unas" could be an indefinite feminine accusative plural form, but the normal absolute form of the number 1 used in counting etc. was "unum". AnonMoos (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

US presidential line of succession - who becomes Speaker of House?

Hello! A quick question: In the US, if the Speaker of the House becomes president, who fills his shoes as Speaker of the House? Or is there no replacement; the two jobs just coincide? Until, I take it, a new election is held? Thank you for any answers. 88.90.16.147 (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's impossible for the President to simultaneously be the Speaker. The President has the power of veto over laws, so to preside over one of the chambers where laws are created in the first place would represent the greatest conflict of interests in recorded history. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a lot of power, but I don't see how it's a "conflict of interest". Note that the vice president, who in most administrations does pretty much what the president tells him to (though this is tradition rather than anything in the Constitution) is president of the Senate.

I do believe it's true, however, that you are not allowed to be simultaneously president and a member of Congress. I'm not sure where that requirement lives. --Trovatore (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It might be covered somewhere in Separation of powers under the United States Constitution. But how could it not be a conflict of interests? The House passes a bill and the Speaker/President then just vetoes it before it ever gets to the Senate for consideration: what a dumb system that would be. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Not just sure how that would work. The president can't veto a bill until it's been passed by both houses and presented to him for consideration. The speaker has no veto power at all. In any case I don't see how it's a conflict of interest, which generally refers to a situation where someone has a fiduciary duty to two interested parties whose interests conflict, or who has a personal interest in conflict with those of someone to whom he has a fiduciary responsibility. --Trovatore (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Ah, we have something about it at Ineligibility Clause. Also referenced in The West Wing, when John Goodman's character Glen Allen Walken becomes Acting President after the invocation of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. I'm a little confused about the overlap between the 25th amendment and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. --Trovatore (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The House of Representatives would elect a new Speaker. In practice, the selection would be made by the caucus of the majority party in the House. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The selection of candidate would be made by the majority party leadership but the election is a normal vote of the entire House. It isn't really a problem to not have a Speaker for a few hours. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• The House rules for the 111th Congress are at the GPO website (and I'm sure they'll post the 112th's rules in a few weeks). Rule 1 authorizes the Speaker to create a list of temporary (pro tempore) speakers who can run parliamentary business when the Speaker is unavailable. If the Speaker ends up being removed from office (such as to become President), then as a formal matter, the first person on the pro tempore list takes over for the purpose of conducting the House's election for the next speaker. As the above answerers note, as a practical matter the majority party's leadership oversees the vote, at least during times (such as the last couple of decades) when the parties are well-disciplined. --M@rēino 16:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• • It should also be noted that, by tradition, the role of the Speaker of the House has been split among several functions, and they are rarely exercised by the same person at the same time. While the speaker is nominally the leader of the majority party, most of the footwork done in that role is handled by the whip. The speaker also nominally serves as the presiding officer of the house, but in practice often delegates the role to someone else. The actual speaker rarely serves as the presiding officer except during very important occasions. Even during important votes, they often delegate to a senior member of their own party; during usual business the role is often handed to freshman congressmen to give them valuable experience in the operation of the House. There's really nothing that the Speaker does which is irreplacable, at least for a few days during the transition of power. When the House isn't in session, the Speaker's only vital, official role is te be alive until the President and Vice President die. Presumably, when the house meets after such an event their first order of business would be to elect a new Speaker, as they do after each election cycle. --Jayron32 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If the Speaker became Acting President during the incapacity of a President while no Vice President was available, the President might regain the capacity to serve (as if recovering from a stroke, heart attack, or injury), In the relevant West Wing episode, the President temporarily stepped down because his daughter had been kidnapped by terrorists, and he was unable to respond to their demands both as a father and as a leader. If a President were taken hostage somewhere,as has happened in fiction a similar situation might obtain. A person in the line of succession has the option of refusing. The possibility of a future political career would help induce someone to accept the Presidency when it might be only for a short time, like a temporarily disabled President or a death near the end of the term leading to a lame duck Presidency after someone else has been elected for the next term. It seems a hardship for a career politician to give up the powerful position of Speaker just to act as President for a short time, but the law seems to require he resign as US Representative, not just as Speaker. There would be a special election to replace him as Representative from his district. A former Speaker and ex-Acting President would likely be a shoo-in to be reelected, making him the most junior member of the House. There is no reason he could nopt be reelected as Speaker. John Quincy Adams was re-elected to the House and served for 17 years after serving as an elected President, and Andrew Johnson was re-elected to the Senate after succeeding to the Presidency when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, and after surviving an impeachment, and served briefly before dying. Edison (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The confusing thing about the The West Wing episode is that it involved the procedures from the 25th amendment, which (unless I missed something) does not mention any line of succession past the vice president. The stuff about the speaker of the House all comes from the 1947 act. That the 25th-amendment procedures would extend through the entire line of succession is sort of plausible, I guess, but the amendment itself says nothing about it, and the procedures from the 1947 act are less detailed. --Trovatore (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The confusing thing about The West Wing episode is solely the fact that it is a work of fiction, and people are trying to draw real-world relevence from a work of fiction. The writers are under no requirement to get the legal ramifications of their writing correct, or even close. They have one purpose and one purpose only: to tell a story which is entertaining enough to make you watch some commercials. That is all they are trying to do. There is zero connection between that purpose and what would actually happen in an analogous situation. Confusion arises when people ask too much of their fiction, such as expecting it to be non-fiction. --Jayron32 14:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a category of fiction that attempts to be accurate about this sort of thing, and The West Wing is in that category. --Trovatore (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you imagine that the writers just made up the whole idea of the Speaker becoming President, or of the President signing a letter that he was temporarily stepping down? Read the relevant portions of US law and you will see that there is indeed the line of succession as shown in the TV show. The process corresponds to published scenarios of what would happen absent a serving Vice President. On what basis do you claim there is "zero connection?" What other procedure do your reliable sources state the relevant laws call for? (The office remains vacant and there is no national executive? Some General takes command? Cabinet officers take turns in the Oval Office? The President's wife fills in unofficially as Mrs. Wilson did after Wilson's stroke?) Granted toward the end of Franklin Roosevelt's and Ronald Reagan's presidencies, there were reportedly times when they were not really up the demands of the office, but their families and staffs pretended all was well, just as in the Wilson presidency after his stroke. It would be possible for the handlers to restrict access, perhaps releasing only an occasional written communication or video filmed under carefully controlled circumstances when the invalid was feeling up to reading some text for the camera. Various world leaders have been handled like that: Leonid Brezhnev, Francisco Franco and Mao Zedong. Edison (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Cabinet officers take turns in the Oval Office?... that is actually not that far fetched... I forget when they changed things, but until fairly recently the line of succession did go through the Cabinet Secretaries before it went to the Speaker of the House (the order of succession was determined by precedence, based on the date of creation of the Cabinet office... example: the Sect. of State was senior to the Sect. of the Interior, and thus senior in line to be President). As to fiction... I think the point was that West Wing didn't have to follow reality... While they happened to base their story on reality, they were free to ignore the details if the story required them to do so. So it is not a reliable guide to what the law says. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a reliable guide, no. But neither are they free to ignore details. The West Wing is in a category of fiction, similar to hard science fiction, that is expected to get things right, and if they don't then that's just an error. There are classes of details that are allowed to be different in their alternative universe (elections happen on 2 mod 4 years; there are countries that don't exist in our world) but this is not one of them. --Trovatore (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

how many trees needed to make A4 paper?

--59.189.218.40 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

How much A4 paper? A single sheet? Pais (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Googling your question gives almost 56 million results. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

looking for a ratio. like 1 tree can produce how many sheets or 1 sheet needs how many trees. can use Google but many of the answers there are not reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.40 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This site (which looks pretty reliable, and is fourth on my search above) gives about 8,300+ sheets from one tree. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously it varies from tree to tree and what kind of paper you are making, but most sources when you google it agree it's about 8500. 19:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Prokhorovka (talk)

Tea Party Movement/2010 US Mid Term Elections

At the moment I am about to commence research for a thesis on the polarisation of the political scene within the United States of America. My main topic of interest and research will be primarily on the 1994 and 2010 Mid Term elections as case study examples and some chapters explaining the cause and effect of Polarisation. However with recent sources I am struggling to find reliable articles and books. Does anyone know any reliable sources of information on the Tea Party Movement and perhaps a guide analysing the 2010 US Mid Terms Elections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.20.162 (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Though most of them are newspaper articles, you could start with the references for this section of this article. Prokhorovka (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Check out Jill Lepore's recent book (The Whites of their Eyes) on the Tea Party movement — she is a great scholar, a great writer, and very perceptive. As for a general framework on the 1994 election, George Lakoff's Moral Politics is something I found quite useful. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there an International Day for Physically Disabled / Special Needs people?

If so, what date is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.40 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE, International Day of Persons with Disabilities. In short, December 3rd. Prokhorovka (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What type of disabilities does this day cover? Only physical disabilities or also special needs conditions such as autism and epilepsy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.218.40 (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The UN page is unclear, feel free to e-mail them and ask. Prokhorovka (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article has an external link to UN Enable - International Day of Persons with Disabilities - 3 December 2008, whose FAQ page answers the question "What is disability and who are persons with disabilities?" as follows: "The term persons with disabilities is used to apply to all persons with disabilities including those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which, in interaction with various attitudinal and environmental barriers, hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others." [sic]

—Wavelength (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Curses, I spent ages reading FAQs on that site, how did I miss that! Prokhorovka (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

January 25

Immunity for diplomats' children

Is there a reason to expect that children of diplomats are protected by diplomatic immunity? I read recently about it in the case of Jens Soering (see: Jens_Soering#The_court_case). Quest09 (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

One reason to expect it is that Article 37, section 1, of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations states: "The members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his household shall, if they are not nationals of the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 36." [14] ---Sluzzelin talk 02:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In this case, why wasn't Jens Soering, the son of a German diplomat, judged in Germany? Quest09 (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The key words appear to be "forming part of his household". Soering was about 20 at the time of the murder and was possibly living on his own. In that case, the immunity would not extend to him. Bielle (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's also important to note here that regarding immunity for diplomats, it is attached only to true diplomats, consular and other adjunct officials are granted a lesser degree of rights at least within the US. An immunity only extending to actions within their official duties. As a result, it would be within rights of a shrewd prosecutor to argue bad acts by family inherently falls outside of their official role. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not just in the US that consular officials enjoy lesser immunity than diplomats. In the Vienna Convention refered above, consular immunity is limited to the performance of official duties, and does not extend to members of the household. I don't know all the details of the Soering case, but it is to be kept in mind that immunity for dependents only applies in the country of accreditation and is limited to dependents living with the diplomat who has immunity because of his or her diplomatic status. As the young Soering was living in another city and was a college student at the time, it's likely the US would not have considered him a dependent and therefore would not have granted him any diplomatic immunity.--Xuxl (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why Jens Soring acted in this way after the murder accusation. Had he fled to Germany, he would not be deported, not just because his father is/was a diplomat, but also because Germany do not deport its own citizens. 212.169.185.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC).

cancelled coins of denomiation of 25 paise coins by R.B.I.w.e.f.June2011

Sir, It is learned from the News papers that the Governor of R.B.I.has declared that, they are going to cancell the coins of 25 paise,w.e.f.June,2011.As they declared of cancellation,they did not give any alternatives to, those who are in possession of so many coins which are accumulated with the public, since long as 25 paise coins have been ceased in the market long back, though it was not officially declared.With this situation general public suffers a lot .As I enqired in S.B.I./Govt Treasuries regarding the policy of refunding the coins,but I was told that they have not received any letter to that effect It is my kind request to you guide me from where can I get information/or I can ask the authorities for the said matter.There are millions of Indians like me who will lose the money for no fault of theirs,with present conditions of hard living I hope will get reply soon. ////////// Yeolekar,A.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvinddy (talk • contribs) 11:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume this refers to the Reserve Bank of India. If the coins will be withdrawn from circulation in June, you have more than five months to return them to the bank, and deposit them, if you have an account, or request larger-denomination notes. Or am I misunderstanding the situation? BrainyBabe (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I love the people who address us as "Sir" as if they were writing a letter to the editor. Pais (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It was formatted as a letter. As Indian English explains, some of their formal epistolatory style comes directly from the East India Company. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The RBI has not yet announced its procedures for the call-in of the coins, according to stories I've read such as [15] & [16]. As others have noted, the best option open to you is to have such coins converted into 50 paise or 1 rupee coins. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

World War Two

I need to know if Rehburg, Germany was a part of the East or West during WW II. Basically, if a plane was shot down over Rehburg, Germany or Bad Rehburg, Germany, would that have been considered enemy territory?

Thank you so much, Hazel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjk49 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There was no division into West Germany and East Germany during World War II. All of Germany was (from the Allies' point of view) enemy territory, at least until the Western Allied invasion of Germany. After the war, Rehburg-Loccum, which is in Lower Saxony, was in West Germany. Pais (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Germany was not divided into east & west until after WW2, and so the question appears to be null. It was in Germany. Assuming the plane was from the allies, it would be enemy territory. If it was an axis plane, then it would be on friendly territory. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

However, according to this map, the area where Rehburg is was under Allied control by 9 April 1945. If an Allied plane was shot down there after that date, it would be on friendly territory. Pais (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

See Partition of Germany for a little more background. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

would it be considered wrong to deceive someone in poker or part of te game?

I would not consider it ethical for someone to "hustle" in any betting game - deceiving people and thereby taking advantage of them. isn't it different in poker though? isn't that what you're there to do? to be deceived? If someone sat down at your table and played for an hour, then on their very last hand showed that the whole hour had been an elobarote ploy, and got up again with all of your money (and that of others), having made an expert play - would that be considered swindling, hustling, and deceitful? Or is that what you are at the poker table to experience, like the entertainment of pro wrestling, and the fake soap opera aspect played as though it were real? (which I don't consider deceitful in the least - it IS the game). Thanks for your perspective, especially from poker players... Would the person who did that (winnig a lot of money in the process) be a "swindler" or a "good poker player"? Thanks. 91.183.62.45 (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a gambler, but I suppose it depends on whether the deception is allowed within the rules of the game. Bluffing in poker is (if my knowledge of poker, which is derived entirely from TV shows, is correct) is allowed, but hiding an ace in your sleeve is not. Someone who wins using the former strategy would then be considered a good poker player, while someone who wins using the latter strategy would be considered a cheat. Wikipedia has an article on Cheating in poker that may interest you. Pais (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

no, it's not that. it's misrepresenting your ability...is that a swindle? ("hustling")? 91.183.62.45 (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) This may verge on asking for opinions rather than facts, but my understanding and experience of playing poker is that deceiving one's opponents as to one's ability and legitimately concealed card holdings is an essential aspect of poker in its advanced forms. Bluffing - by betting heavily on a poor hand so as to intimidate others into folding - is within both the rules and the spirit of the game. Actively misleading opponents by facial expressions as to how good one's hand in is arguably just an extension of maintaining a 'poker face' so as not to give any such information. Deliberately playing poorly before taking a big pot on the last hand is arguably more questionable, but presumably everyone else in the game is playing (and gambling) willingly and has the same opportunity for the same ploy. Hustling, like most confidence tricks, often depends upon the 'victim' being both gullible and greedy, in the sense of being eager to win money from someone the victim thinks is less skilled. Obviously, using any form of cheating (concealed or marked cards, dishonest shuffles, colluding kibbitzers, etc.) crosses the line into swindling. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We also have an article on Slow play (poker). I think it's considered to be in the spirit of the game. Sandbagging in pool, however, is not. (Especially when handicapping is part of the score, see Sandbag). ---Sluzzelin talk 16:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

aspect I'm interested in

Please elaborate on exactly this sentence. "Deliberately playing poorly before taking a big pot on the last hand is arguably more questionable.". This is the essence of my question. What makes you say that? Do you believe it is questionable, or in fact part of the game? In other words: is the person who wins using this tactic a "questionable player" or a "very good player". Please answer in as much detail as possible. Especially if you're a poker player. 91.183.62.45 (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Earlier answers below will have likely superceded this late one, but since you ask - I would consider misleadingly poor play to be impolite behaviour amongst relatives or friends playing for amusement and trivial stakes, but a perfectly fair (though risky) tactic if playing seriously for serious money (as I used to long ago, but not in the last 3 decades): however, in some circumstances others might differ and make their disapproval robustly plain, so I might not use the tactic if, to put it bluntly, I were to judge that it might get me beaten up. Also, I would and have done so when invited to join a game with other players of unknown abilities, but would not have deliberately tried to lure known poorer players into playing with me. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think what you are describing is a Card shark, which according to our article is an "expert card gambler who takes advantage of less-skilled players, without implication of actual cheating at cards". A Card shark (or sharp), then, may be considered a "hustler" or a "swindler" (especially by those hustled or swindled;) without necessarily also being considered a "cheat". There is nothing within the rules of the game that requires players to accurately reveal their skill level to the other players before, during, or after game-play. WikiDao ☯ 16:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about getting the sharks to play very loosely by pretending to be one of their fish. Does sitting down at a table, spilling small chips for an hour, then suddenly cleaning up with great play - if I sit down with 400 in chips and get up an hour later with 5000 through this techique make me a "great player" (for the table), owing to the fact that I won, or a swindler? Poker player responses especially welcome! You can go beyond morals too: is it rude of me? 91.183.62.45 (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) In poker, "bluffing" is usually limited to the use of facial expressions, body language, and betting patterns, but does not extend to other types of deception; it is definately not "anything goes". For example, it is considered against the rules to make statements about or give away any direct information about your hole cards. You cannot state "I have two diamonds. I just need three more for a flush", whether you are lying OR telling the truth. It's also considered bad form to be overly demonstrative, for example folding a hand preflop in Texas Hold'em, and then reacting to the flop cards as though you blew what should have been a good hand; since that gives information to other players about what cards you may have had. I have seen several players cautioned at televised events for doing exactly that. Also, bluffing only happens in the context of the hand; it is considered very bad form in most poker games to intentionally lose hands to make others think you are a worse player than you are; or to collude with other players secretly to, for example, always lose hands to a friend to give him a stronger chip position. There is also the issue of the "string bet", whereby you cannot indicate a likely bet on your part outside of your turn. If you pick up chips before your bet while someone else is making a decision, as though you were going to bet, you cannot then fold your hand after they make a bet. Also, you cannot slowly add chips in phases to the pot to see others reactions; bets must be made cleanly and in one motion. (after EC with above, responding to it) At any game I have played in, it would be considered very bad form to intentionally play badly hand after hand to "suck people in" (i.e. "Sandbagging"), only to later reverse yourself and suddenly start playing well. Players with a reputation for doing that would get disinvited from playing very quickly. --Jayron32 16:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "sharks ... pretending to be one of their fish" is precisely the definition of what a card shark is. You can be a great player without being a "shark". To be a shark, you must be a great player who pretends to not be a great player for the purpose of getting not-so-great players to play with you. (You are not a shark if you are a not-so-great player and happen to just get lucky enough to win big, of course). I am an amateur poker player who has played occasionally with much better players, and though I have never lost heavily to a great player who was pretending to be a not-so-great player, if I did I would not consider it "rude" or "immoral" of the person to have gotten away with that ploy, I would consider it to have been just part of the game (and my fault for having been "fooled"). WikiDao ☯ 16:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(But clearly I am speaking informally from an amateur perspective. I defer to what appears to be Jayron's greater expertise in this matter;). WikiDao ☯ 17:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we're both probably right on this WikiDao. It's all about context and knowing your environment. I have a rotating homegame I have been playing in for over 10 years; the players change over time but most of us have been playing together for years. Its a $20.00 stake, the money is so low to keep bad feelings to a minimum; its basically an excuse to spend 20 bucks for the chance to drink beer and say rude things about women with your friends. In a game like that, attitudes and conventions are very different than in games like casino-run tournaments and cash games, which is ALSO going to be different than the sort of games that go on is sketchy, underground poker clubs. What is laughed off and considered "good form" in the context of a home game can get your knees broken if you are playing in a different sort of crowd. If you know that your friends consider something OK, go with it. If you are in an environment with a bunch of strangers, it pays to play it straight until you can judge the "unwritten rules" and "codes of conduct" allowed. --Jayron32 17:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Faking a lack of skill, or faking a phony tell is a trick that you could really only do once. So a weekly game between freinds wouldn't really be vulnerable to that sort of sandbagging. APL (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I rarely play poker, but I'm surprised no one picked up that the premise of the question involves getting up from the table after a single big-wining hand.

Surely that's not considered friendly? APL (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's also not the kind of thing you can do in a home game where play usually goes on until a certain time or all the beer's gone. This question seems to be geared to gambling with strangers to me. And there's little point in sharking unless there's substantial money on the table. In that context I do believe that sandbagging your opponents might lead to a disagreement. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This question really can only be answered with opinion, so I will relate an anecdote. In undergraduate college I used to run fairly large weekly tournaments with a buy in structure that set aside a bonus that got added back into the pot at the end of every month in a bonus tourney (people who missed tournaments had to pay extra to get into the bonus tourney to encourage people to come every week). At what was probably the biggest tournament I ran we had something like 42 people and a pot of about $3k. This guy shows up (the friend of a friend of a regular) acting kinda drunk (and drinks through the whole tourney) and making a bunch of very beginner mistakes (including asking for the ranking of hands a couple of times), but he wins the key hands and ends up taking the whole thing down and walking away with about $2k. Some people got pissed, but it was impossible to tell if he was deliberately down playing his ability or if he just got very lucky (who knows maybe a combination of the two?). We never saw him again. Personally I don't have a problem with it (and I was playing in the tourney too), but I know others did. It also could be a bit of a dangerous move, I know some people at the tournament where pretty angry and fortunately they weren't violent, but I could see the situation ending badly if it were only slightly different (This event actually led me to scale down the size of the tournaments while raising the stakes). Context is the key here. In a low stakes friendly game this kind of deception is going to be inappropriate and is unlikely to get you invited back. In private games like the one I described it is also going to frowned on by some of the players and could conceivably get the swindler beat up and his money taken by disgruntled players. In a casino context it might be frowned on by some of the players, but the casino certainly wouldn't care and you aren't likely to get robbed a casino. This sort of deception is certainly within the rules of the game, but it is likely to upset people, on the other hand poker players tend to get upset at just about anything that causes them to lose. --Daniel 19:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the anecdote. I never ask about rankings. Would that anecdote have worked differently if he had started by saying "Look, I'm not dumb, okay? I know exactly what I'm doing. Are we all clear on this"? Then I would argue, he was just the best poker player there - and that's why he is the one who walked away with the cash. 91.183.62.45 (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If he had done as you said and made it clear to everyone that he was an expert player and then proceeded to play like a drunk beginner, it would certainly lessened the acrimony at the end. However it would also certainly weaken the effectiveness of his ploy, possibly to the point uselessness. The point of this type of play is to cause players to let the guard down and open themselves up to big losses. If players believe that another player is skilled they aren't going to let their guard down even if this player is playing like a fish. Here is another related anecdote (sort of the opposite situation): I once ate lunch with a moderately famous photographer and the conversation turned to poker, he proceeded to tell me what a great player he was and that he always took all the money from everyone he played with. I saw this a sign that he was in fact a fish. Besides the fact that taking everyone's money every time is basically impossible, a really good player would not want to advertise their skill to such an extent. Not advertising your ability is different than deliberately playing like a chump and is certainly acceptable in all situations. --Daniel 20:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OP here

Oh. Guys, I need way more etiquette than this. I really thought - due to bluffing - that it was kind of "anything goes". You're basically telling me that bluffing is okay, but bluffing about bluffing is not okay. In other words, you're saying that it's okay to pretend to have a strong hand while having a weak one. But it's NOT okay to only be PRETENDING to have been pretending to have a strong hand, expressly so that you will be called out on it, everyone can see that you're a bluffer, and next time also pretend to be bluffing, but this time 5x bigger, and this time without actually bluffing at all - you do have the nuts. THat's what it comes down to what you guys are telling me: bluffing is okay; bluffing about bluffing is not okay. Really, guys? Really? You want me to be more predictable, so you can get my money? And you will call me rude or immoral if I'm not predictable enough for you (when I bluff, I have to really want to be trying to bluff: I can't just be wanting you to see me "try to bluff"). Let's make a compromise, since that's obviously wrong. How would you feel about if when I sat down at the table, I outright told you "I'm not a beginner, don't mistake me one. If you see me acting like a beginner, it's just because I have greater mathematical insight than you. Got it?" And get everyone to consent to the fact that I"m not actually a beginner. Then I can proceed to pretend to bluff, have them get on to the fact that I'm a (pretend) bluffer, and then have them try to call my pretend bluffs, which are real. Obviously this is just good math, and good poker. With the disclaimer I just provided, would you feel that what I was doing with my specially deep mathematical knowledge was okay? (And, for reference: that's exactly what I did the last time I sat down to play poker - began with that disclaimer.) 91.183.62.45 (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the crux of the disagreement wasn't bluffing about bluffing but rather the means available to you to bluff. Most poker players I know frown on exaggerated displays of emotion and talking about your cards could give other people at the table an unfair edge (IE if you say you had the jack of spades and that's a card I need for a straight flush, I know now that I cannot possibly get the hand I was hoping for, other players, not knowing I needed that card, are at a disadvantage because I knew what was in your hand). Given that those are the norms, it would be, in my opinion, highly questionable to act as if you are unaware of the rules of poker (unwritten or written) to give other players the impression that you are not a poker player. Honestly, though, they might well assume you're an online poker player, good at the game, unaware of the norms of table play. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OP: there are three levels here:

• Playing (assumedly well). perfectly acceptable, and generally generating respect
• Hustling (pretending to play poorly while actually being able to play well). Hustling is basically acceptable in any gambling game, but hustlers are generally considered small-change chumps, and no one much likes them.
• Cheating: artificially influencing the game to get a better chance of winning. not nice, can get you shot.

really good gamblers don't try to fake out people about how good they are. they are usually pretty arrogant about it. The arrogance is part of getting big pots: people will put down serious money to challenge a good gambler. If a good gambler wanted to hustle someone they could (and there would be nothing ethically wrong with doing so), but why would they? You can't hustle other good gamblers (part of being a good gambler is not being gullible enough to fall for that stuff), and hustling average gamblers is not going to net you much money (if you shoot fish in a barrel you end up with small fish and a barrel full of holes, yah?). Don't think about this as there being rules against it; it's just not practical for good gamblers to hustle. --Ludwigs2 18:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay - I've decided to "show more of my cards". In the secton below, I detailed my strategy in more detail. My original suggestion that I "pretended to be a fish" was a simplification, but I realize it's not enough to the answer I'm really looking for. Please read my actual strategy, Ludwig2s, below, and I very much welcome your perspective. Especially not so much the strategy, but the strategy after having made the appropriate disclaimer. viz: "I'm about to play in a way that's hard to read, but it's not because I'm a fish, but because I have a very excellent strategy. Same goes for paying attention to anythign but the cards - please don't think that the cards aren't important to me or that I'm not interested in winning." I literally want to reduce the amount of information available about me to other players. And yes, that often resembles a fish, who can't even read his own cards. Normally, the only person who would make the kind of mistake that gets you to the showdown with an 8 high is a fish. However, my strategy of going to the showdown SOMETIMES despite having 0 personal information about my hole cards (didn't really look) in order to reduce the signal to noise ratio for that particular hand to 0, is the single OTHER case anyone would ever go to showdown all-in with off-suit 5 and 8... So, my play WILL resemble that of a fish, from time to time. Is that okay, as long as I give the appropriate disclaimer? I'm just a better poker player, due to my math tools. Can I use this fact in the way I suggest, while remaining honest, upright, and having good character (much more important to me than being able to utilize my greater understanding of mathematics, statitics, probability, signals theory, and psychology). Thank you. 91.183.62.45 (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Essence of my Strategy

My strategy doesn't really come from "faking a lack of skill". Instead it comes from this: there is no 'way' that I play a particular hand. It depends on whether I'm playing tight or loose at the moment, which is random. Why is it random? Because if there WERE a way I played a particular hand in a particular situation, others could hone in on that and I could lose. This way, there are two ways I can play any particular hand: tight or loose. They have no way of knowing which mode I'm in - only I know. So, by not having ONE algorithm for how to play a hand in a given situation, I become a stronger player than them: I can't be read. Since, there's nothing to read - my actions are not determined by my cards, but by my cards and a random number which they don't know. This is a very powerful way of playing - but it also means that sometimes I will have to say no to hands with good pot odds, just because I'm in a very cautious/risk-averse mode just then. There is one more thing. I like to pay attention to something other than the poker cards (without slowing the game), so that my behavior is not influenced by a single source of entropy -- the cards -- but two: a conversation/whatever's going on on the TV behind me/etc etc. It's not that I want to seem "distracted" -- it's that I want to decrease the signal to noise ratio, by having my attention split between the signal (the cards I'm seeing) and the noise (the cadence of a conversation, or another game, or anything else). Would you consider it ethical/okay of me to use both of the above strategies? 1) alternating weak and strong plays, so that I am totally unpredictable, since I literally do not follow any algorithm that determines my play. and 2) splitting my attention so that my immediate reaction (when I'm not the player whose turn it is) is not determined by a single source of signal, but a source of signal and a greater source of noise (such as a conversation with a hot woman to my right)... Again, the underlying mathematical reason for both of these things is not to appear to be a bad player, or to appear to be distracted. It's to be a BETTER player. To play meta-bluffs and meta-poker. If I start the game by telling people that's I'm neither weak nor distracted, but in fact just a very good player, does my strategy become okay? Or do you guys insist that I both become more predictable (playing the same situations in the same way - not sometimes "wrong" -- with negative pot odds -- and sometimes "right" -- with positive pot odds) and much easier to read, by focusing my attention on the consequences of the game no matter what? To royally fuck with the other players' signal-to-noise ratio, when I'm in my most aggressive mode, I will bet and raise, and even go all-in, while having only PRETENDED to look at my hole cards. Since I myself do not know the value of my hand, the opponents' signal to noise ratio is reduced to literally 0. However, they have no way of knowing, in the same situation, whether I am currently playing so hyper-aggressively, or in fact am playing extremely tightly at the moment. Do you think it would be wrong of me to go all the way to an all-in showdown without having looked at my hole cards? (Having only pretended to?) Please give me detailed etiquette and moral guidance on all of the above points. Thank you. 91.183.62.45 (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing your betting strategy is a major part of playing poker, this isn't deceptive. If your strategy is to "bet so that I am hard to read" that is kinda, sorta, exactly what good poker players do every day. --Jayron32 18:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The basic reason I resemble a fish

The essential reason I will always resemble a fish is that it would seem only a fish would play randomly -- it seems at any skill level above total beginner, your play would in no way resemble random play. But that is bad poker. Because if it is anything less than random, then it can be read. So, the perfect play is, on some level, indistinguishable from being a total beginner's play who is just playing literally randomly. I never ask myself "what would a fish do" and just do that. Instead, I just play using the above algorithm, while being aware of what it LOOKS LIKE I'm doing. What impression my play -- which is not determined by me, but a random source as well -- makes it look like I'm doing. So, is there any way for me to apply the above algorithm (which is correct, and mathematically works) without accidentally stepping on toes and being accused of sandbagging? Would it be sufficient to start the egame with a declaration that everything I do is calculated, and I am not a beginner or a fish? It still seems to me like I should be able to continue doing what I'm diong -- which comes from having a degree in math and deep understanding in poker -- while giving people fair warning that I'm not a fish.... Also, on the same token, what if in the beginning I will tell people that I will not keep playing the game if I win a really, really big pot - since I would just lose it again (which is true). If in the beginning I tell people that I'm not a fish, and I tell people that if I win really big I will leave before I blow it all (which is true -- I would blow it all: from hitting my hyper-aggressive mode, and going all in with the whole winnings without having looked at my hole cards), then does it make it okay and acceptable and ethical and a decent thing to do to apply all of the above mathematical tools I have developed, resulting in play that seems close to random (which means it is perfect poker play, perfectly unreadable) despite my assurances that I wasn't a fish, and which results in my winning a big pot, and, just as I gave fair warning of in the beginning, not continuing the pattern, but leaving with it? How would you feel about this if I told you all this at the onset? Thanks... 91.183.62.45 (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

P.s. I would also say that if I pay attention to other things than the cards, it doesn't mean that I don't care about the cards. They shouldn't think that it's all the same to me, on the contrary, I do care about winning... If I told that at the onset, then would it be okay to then distract myself with other sources of input than the cards, so that I become less readable? Thanks... 91.183.62.45 (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Basically guys, the common thing in this whole thread is: I've developed great poker tools through mathematics (entropy) and signals theory, and would like to apply them without misleading anyone: ethically, correctly, and with character. Can I do it? 91.183.62.45 (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

End point to me is that betting systems, other than perfect strategy, and card counting in blackjack, are usually losing propositions. Intentionally playing worse than your best will almost always guarantee a worse outcome than consistent play at your highest level, unless you are hustling. You might win some pots going all-in on a weak hand and forcing players questioning the value of their hand to abandon it. But you're only liable to take small pots that way as people strongly invested in the hand feel that they have a good chance of a strong hand and might well call your bluff, this is more likely if they think you are playing wild. Going all-in without even LOOKING at your cards is suicidal, yes your opponents know nothing about your hand because they can't read you at all, but there is so much other information on the table that their guess as to your hand is only part of it. What if you go all-in on, a terrible hand that has a minuscule probability even with the best possible cards convert into a good hand? What if they have two aces in their hand? In addition, if I saw someone playing that aggressively, I'd walk away from the game. It's not pleasant to play with a rampaging bull. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I didn't read all that stuff about you being a fish, but the answer you're looking for is "yes". Employing your own strategy is entirely part of the given rules of virtually any game; bluffing and employing meta-strategies goes to the very heart of advanced poker. Let's say you do it: play dumb and then clean up in the end. What's the guy gonna say? "Hey, that's not fair, I thought I could take advantage of your lack of skill with impunity!" Just remember, and I can't stress this enough: lots of very smart people have lost their shirts around a poker table. Just as you are free to lose the first few hands in an effort to bluff them into thinking you're unskilled, they're just as free to stand up after taking half your money and walk away. Matt Deres (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

you make a good point, an old gambler's adage is "it's impossible to cheat an honest man." Most con games rely on the mark's greed. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

OP, are you really trying to say that your carefully-considered and "mathematically superior" strategy for playing poker is to make your bets without reference to, or even knowledge of, the cards you have?

And what you would like to ask us about that here at the Wikipedia Humanities Reference desk is: do we think that you can do that and still be a good person?

Did I get the wrong impression somehow, after reading everything you have written above, or is that really what you are asking, and if so is it because you are deliberately trolling, perhaps? No offense; it's just I'm finding it sort of difficult to understand otherwise. WikiDao ☯ 21:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a poker-playing, computer-programming, surrealist friend who comes out with shit like this, so I'm going to assume good faith. He doesn't even always lose all his money every time we play, either. One of the nice things about poker is that being sufficiently bizarre and sphinx-like will get you quite a long way, whatever cards you have. 81.131.14.206 (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that if you deployed this betting strategy against me I would have no trouble at all with your betting strategy and would offer to buy you a drink if only you return next week with more cash.

You see, your strategy would work if the goal in poker was "Don't ever betray your cards, even a little, for any reason". But that isn't the goal in poker. The goal is to win As many hands as possible. Keeping your cards secret is only a means to that ends. Remember, at the start of any given hand, the odds are against you having the winning hand. If you don't take deliberate action to improve your odds, then statistically breaking even is the best you can hope for.

Imagine a simple dice game. Each player secretly throws a die and highest throw wins. You don't even look at your die and place a bet every throw. Your opponent only places a bet if his own throw is above three. You haven't betrayed any knowledge of your die, but he has greatly improved his odds.

On the other hand, this : "Also, on the same token, what if in the beginning I will tell people that I will not keep playing the game if I win a really, really big pot" would be unacceptable in most friendly games. APL (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

what if I got up and cashed out most of it? (this is a casino), to return and keep laying with less? 91.183.62.45 (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Arnulf

Who is the most likely Arnulf noted on an English parish church notice-board as a rector of St James' Church, Stretham, Cambridgeshire on or before 1222?

• A search through the Domesday Book reveals two Arnulf's

• Arnulf d'Ardres
• Arnulf de Hesdin

• Wikipedia disambiguation reveals 12: Arnulfs on Wikipedia
• Google reveals a few: Arnulf's on Google
• There are no Arnulf's mentioned in Meadows P., 2010 Ely: Bishops and Diocese, 1109-2009. Boydell Press. ISBN 1843835401

--Senra (Talk) 16:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just some guy, most likely. Important enough to be rector of a church, but that's not such a big deal. Arnulf is a pretty popular medieval name. If he's anyone, you might be able to find some more info in the relevant Victoria County History, or Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae. I think they are all online at British-History.ac.uk (I'll look further when I get a chance later today). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, nothing in the Fasti (which doesn't seem to go down to this level of clergy), or in the VCH (which talks about Stretham here). Where did you see this note about Arnulf in 1222? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

is it true that japanese, when recycling, sort their trash into 10+ categories?

if so, exactly how many? --59.189.218.40 (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It varies from place to place, and exact numbers of categories are hard to come by, but in 2005 Yokohama did update it's rules to require 10 types of sorting not 5. Prokhorovka (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And, again from 2005, one town had 44 categories. Nanonic (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

10 really isn't all that many; I'd hazard that most people in developed countries have the opportunity, if not the obligation, to sort into at least that many categories. Looking at my own situation in the UK (the UK having been one of the poorer performers in recycling among Western European countries):

• plastic, metal, and glass containers go in one box, but are separated by the scaffy when he picks stuff up (that is, right there in the street, rather than later). If the council provided three containers for this I'd happily separate them myself. If I take the glass to the recycling centre (or the drop off point at various shops) I'm supposed to sort the cullet into three (clear,brown,green). So, for containers alone, that's five.
• at home all paper goes togther, but at the office we split clean white paper (shreddings) from others (brown paper, coloured paper, newsprint). So that's another two.
• then there's basic landfill. I live in a flat so we don't get green/food collection, but our neighbours with gardens do get a green collection (for composting) so that's two more for them.
• I live near the edge of town; if I was another half mile or so out, the local pig farmer would collect food waste for pigswill.
• I return plastic bags and depleted batteries to the supermarket, and old cloth to a bin outside the supermarket. Unwanted and expired medicine goes back to the pharmacist.
• Beyond that there's all the different categories of stuff that the local civic recycling centre wants me to separate anything I take there: in addition to most of the categories above, there's wood, rubble (stone/bricks/plaster etc.), scrap metal, electrical goods, paint, and motor oil.

So that's 15+ categories (but households sort into only three or four categories for curbside collection). In practice most stuff goes into one of the basic categories and the whole process isn't burdensome at all. 44 categories does seem like more of a challenge, however. -- 87.112.107.231 (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I lived in Japan for 2 years and agree that it varies from city to city. In my area, the local government distributed an information card to each household that explained what went where via pictures -- very handy. We had somewhere around 10 categories, but nearly all of your daily waste falls into "burnable" (food, paper, etc) or glass. How often do you throw out electrical appliances, umbrellas, etc? In practical use, it wasn't a hassle at all, and I wish more places took the trouble. The Masked Booby (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

bbc iplayer

Does anyone know how to tell how long programs are available on bbc's iplayer site for? I have tried noting down the dates and times they give for each program, but it seems half of them are wrong, sometimes by two or three days.

148.197.121.205 (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It varies. They're all supposed to be available for at least a week (except perhaps films) but some things are on for longer. They'll often keep a few episodes of serial things, as a series catchup, for longer. But I can't see a pattern to what is kept longer and what isn't. 87.112.107.231 (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition of partial lot legal description

When I asked the cemetery sexton where exactly was Lot E-41 ("E" is a section within the cemetery), his answer was:
It is approximately 13 rods E. of North corner of north line of cemetery.
What does that description say EXACTLY using feet as the measurment?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

According to our Rod (unit) article, one rod is equal to 16.5 feet. So 13 rods would be 214.5 feet.

I don't know how the cemetery is laid out, do you have a map? One possibility is that it is a perfectly square cemetery with borders running N, E, W, and S, in which case the sexton would presumably have meant to say the North-West corner of the cemetery, and that the lot lies on the North boundary line exactly 214.5 feet East from that corner. There are other possibilities, though, so without further information I'm afraid I cannot respond more EXACTLY. WikiDao ☯ 22:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the cemetery plot map.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22738816@N07/5339246227/in/set-72157619909680727/

Lets assume North-West corner of the cemetery as you say, THEN would that mean 214.5 feet East to the Northwest corner of Lot 41?

There are 5 grave spaces in each Lot and each space is 4 feet. Then from the North line to the South line I assume 20 feet with no setbacks. What would a typical length be for the lay of the body of West line to East line? The headstones are on the far West end.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Is low inflation the highest goal of economists?

Would an economist running a country stick with a low inflation target even though it pushed the economy into another recession or even depression? Thanks 92.28.244.122 (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Just today MSN ran an article about the need for inflation, to increase the "cost of money" (IE the interest rate) and encourage saving over borrowing. Deflation is far more a threat to an economy than Inflation, because it makes consumers clam up and stop spending. Why buy anything major today when it's going to be cheaper tomorrow? In addition, normal inflation is a key part of borrowing, eith money becoming worth less over time it helps offset interest on long-term loans like house mortgages and governmental debt. So, in short, SOME inflation could be argued to be a good thing, just not too much, and deflation is even worse than inflation. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where 65.29 got this thing that deflation is worse than inflation. Deflation is never too extreme,but it can last for a decade. Japan had 10 years of slight deflation. Here in Germany we got minor periods of time with deflation (but not with high inflation, which was rather moderate), but the country if growing now heavily, so no main harm. In the 20's - 30's inflation has wrecked the german economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.185.76 (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm passing along what I heard/read. And in many ways Japan's slight deflation has lead to serious economic problems. Inflation to a *modest* level is good for an economy, for the reasons I outlined above. Hyperinflation is something else entirely, and usually is not purely economic in nature. Hyperinflation usually also comes with serious societal upheaval and leads to serious long-term problems and short-term utter collapse. Deflation, however, causes contraction of the economy, amplifies debt and encourages consumers not to spend. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You might also be interested in the phenomenon of stagflation. Some fear* that the UK economy may currently be in danger of this. *(OK, weasel words, but such was a suggestion on a BBC Radio 4 current affairs programme a few hours ago.) 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Some left-leaning economists (I seem to remember Robert Reich being among them) have not been pleased by the way that the Fed in the U.S. has sometimes interpreted a low unemployment rate as a sign that the economy is on the verge of overheating, so that it's time to raise interest rates. However, the Fed is not supposed to place low inflation as a priority above sliding into recession... AnonMoos (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a complex question. One source of complexity is that if a government has its own currency, it always has the option of paying its bills, to its own citizens at least, by printing money. This naturally produces inflation. Thus inflation in some cases functions as a sort of tax, reducing the value of the money that is in circulation and giving that value to the central government. It is actually the easiest tax for a government to collect, because they don't have to force anybody to give them money -- they just print it. Thus it happens sometimes that weak governments, even those run by economists, turn to inflation in order to stave off fiscal collapse. Looie496 (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems with overemphasis on inflation is that it often misses other factors which may be a greater reflection on the health of an economy. Inflation generally only deals with the price of goods, but ignores other factors like wages and purchasing power and things like that. The value of currency means next to nothing in isolation. For example, if inflation is 5%, but over the same time period wages went up 10%, that represents an increase in real wages, and as a result, we can say that the economy is healthier, since people can now buy more today than a year ago, even though everything costs more. Some economists will often skip past inflation (because that deals in currency, which in the world of fiat currency, is a very ephemeral concept) and look at things like labor equivalency in real goods; for example the time needed to work to be able to purchase a common item, like a loaf of bread. If in country A, it takes the average worker 10 minutes to earn a "loaf of bread", and in country B, it takes the same worker 1 hour to earn the same amount, we can say that worker A is better off than worker B, and Country A has a stronger economy than Country B; even though we have no idea what the relative strength of their currencies is. Which is not to say that inflation is not important. A small, single-digit annual percent inflation isn't much to worry about. The real problem with inflation is hyperinflation, which results in unpredictability for the average citizen. If you just got paid $1000, you want to know what that $1000 is going to buy. In a market experiencing hyperinflation, you don't know hour to hour what your money will be worth, and that uncertaintly leads to all sorts of problems. Brazil in the mid 1990's came up with a novel solution to inflation problems; it basically created confidence in its currency system by creating a "virtual currency", which by law did not change its value. See Plano Real for how it worked. But the early 1990's Brazilian currency situation was a mess, due to unpredictable inflation, often with prices doubling over a matter of hours. Under normal circumstances, small amounts of inflation have effects on the economy (such as driving large institutions to alter their credit/savings ratios and things like that), but in general it doesn't affect normal behavior of the average consumer all that much. A 3% inflation rate doesn't make you more likely to buy a car or a gallon of milk than, say, a 5% inflation rate would. But if inflation was fluctuating between 30% and 50%, it would have a very different effect on your purchasing habits. --Jayron32 06:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Subjectively, to me as an average bloke, higher inflation made me feel prosperous and optimistic about the future as I would get better off as I grew older because the real value of my mortgage would fall and my equity increase. With very low rates of inflation I have none of that - the future looks grim, so I hang on tightly to my money, do not spend, do not invest. 92.15.28.68 (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You cannot "do not spend, do not invest" your money. You always have to do one of both, saving is also investing.Quest09 (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not if a) you save the money in coffee cans buried in your back yard and b) you save the money in a financial instrument whose interest or Return on Investment is less than inflation. In both of those cases, you lose value, which is sorta the exact opposite of the purpose of investment. --Jayron32 13:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what the current Bank Of England governor, Mervyn King, is required to do. Has he a mandate to pursue low inflation at all costs, or have the politicians cut him some slack? 92.15.28.68 (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

January 26

Bangladeshi visits by Mahatma Gandhi

Which districts or places did Mahatma Gandhi visit when he went to Bangladesh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.66 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been called Bangladesh during his lifetime... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that he made extensive tours in East Bengal, including a four-month walking tour of 49 villages in 1947. He also lived for six weeks in a small Muslim village in 1946. I expect there were earlier visits as well. Looie496 (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Puccini v. Andrew Lloyd Webber -- copyright term?

It's mentioned in both La fanciulla del West and The Music of the Night that the Giacomo Puccini estate sued Andrew Lloyd Webber on a claim that the song from The Phantom of the Opera too closely resembled a melody from the Puccini opera (the case was settled out of court). However, I wonder what the length of the copyright term would have been that would have allowed the Puccini estate to sue Lloyd Webber. La fanciulla del West premiered in 1910, Puccini died in 1924, and The Phantom of the Opera premiered in 1986 -- wouldn't the Puccini opera have been in the public domain by the time Phantom premiered? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It would depend on the country, but in the UK copyright expires 70 years after the death of the artist, so it wouldn't have been free until 1994. Prokhorovka (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

But it was only extended from 50 years by the Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995, so it should have become free in 1974. Warofdreams talk 10:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Investigating further, I'm suspicious of this claim, which doesn't appear in any contemporary news report on Google. This news story from 1998 about Ray Repp's rejected claim that Lloyd Webber had plagiarised his work doesn't mention any claim from the Puccini estate, as I would have expected. The earliest mention of the story which I can find is from 2002, when it is already mentioned as if well in the past. In the absence of any further evidence, I think this is one for Snopes. Warofdreams talk 11:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Who are these people?

Reading the The Onion: who are the people in the photographs? http://www.theonion.com/articles/congress-honors-911-first-capitalizers,18856/?utm_source=morenews --Icemannequin (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The one in the center is Dick Cheney. Dismas|^(talk) 11:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

On the right is Pat Robertson. Staecker (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Precedents on this game

I'm wondering if the game "E-card", as seen on the manga Kaiji, has any precedents ?
The game goes like this: 2 players, each player has 5 cards, 4 of the 5 cards of each player is a "Citizen" which when played against another Citizen results in a draw, one of the players has a "King", which wins against the Citizens, and the other player has a "Slave", which looses to everything except the King. The players take turns playing the cards until either player looses his "special" card.

At first the game seems to be biased toward the King side with 4/5 chance of winning by playing the King in the first round, but knowing that, the slave side could play the Slave in the first round and win, at which case the King side could just play a Citizen and let the slave side loose, the slave in turn, can play a Citizen and the round will draw, the it goes to round 2, now with 4 cards each, the King side have 3/4 chance of winning.

I think there are 2 aspects of the game to be considered, probabilistic and psychological, but the latter is more interesting to me.

What I want to know is if there is any literature for this kind of problem ? Or the author was the first to create such a game ?

I'm posting this here because I think the game type suits this ref desk, but I'm not sure, please move if you see it fits 189.120.226.199 (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming random play, there's a one in five chance of the king and slave being played in the same round. If that doesn't happen, the king wins. Warofdreams talk 12:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No. There is a 1 in 25 chance of both being played in the first hand. If neither was played in the first hand, there is a 1 in 16 chance in the second. (assuming random play). Quest09 (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that covers the probabilistic side I guess, but as I said, I'm more interested in the psychological sense when there are people playing, people will hardly play randomly, specially if there is a wager, they want to win. 189.120.226.199 (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If either player follows a strategy that makes them more likely to play their special card in one round than in another then the other player can exploit this strategy to improve their chances of winning. Therefore the best strategy for both players is to play their special card in a random round. The Slave player then wins if both play their special card in the same round, which has probability 1/5, and the King player wins if they play their special cards in different rounds, which has probability 4/5 (which is what Warofdreams said). Gandalf61 (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Austrian Empire vs Kingdom of Hungary

Is this a good edit? The issue is that Austria-Hungary (according to that article) didn't exist til 1867, when it was formed as "a monarchic union between the crowns of the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary in Central Europe." But if those two entities (Austrian Empire and Kingdom of Hungary) had existences of their own, I'd expect Budapest to be most sensibly described as being in the Kingdom of Hungary, even if the Kingdom of Hungary was itself part of the Austrian Empire. Any advice would be helpful--thanks. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Such issues should be discussed on the article talk page. You can ask for outside opinions at WP:3O or WP:RFC. I am sure that reasonable arguements can be made for any of four or five possible ways to write that text, and since reasonable people may disagree on reasonable issues, there should be an attempt at consensus-building on that article's talk page. --Jayron32 13:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a geography question, in part to assess a large pattern[17] of such edits. See the ANI thread about Hobartimus. I wanted to get a reality check about my reaction to the geography. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)