Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

February 3

Veiling under Atatürk

I'm watching Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and I just got to the scene where Jones' friend reaches İskenderun. To my surprise, the women in the scene are veiled; is this an anachronism, or would it have been realistic? I vaguely remember reading that Atatürk outlawed the veil, but our article on him only says that he considered outlawing it. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on Atatürk's Reforms: "Another control on the dress was passed in 1934 with the law relating to the wearing of 'Prohibited Garments'. It banned religion-based clothing, such as the veil and turban, while actively promoting western-style attire". Since The Last Crusade was "set largely in 1938", I guess it was anachronistic by law. I didn't find any references on actual customs in İskenderun of 1938. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mistake any of the Indiana Jones films for documentaries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not :-) thus my question is about how true to life that aspect of the movie is. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, (see my long explanation of a similar issue at WP:RDE), but historically, Iskanderun wasn't part of Turkey, formally, until 1939. So it would not have been subject to Ataturk's reforms during the Last Crusade period. See İskenderun#Republic of Hatay and French_Mandate_of_Syria_and_Lebanon#Sanjak_of_Alexandretta. During the period of the Last Crusade, the area was part of the Hatay Republic and/or French Syria (depending on the exact dates), though the many in area had long agitated for annexation to the Republic of Turkey. It is likely that the reforms of Ataturk may not have had full acceptance given the split loyatlies present and shifting political sands prior to the annexation by Turkey in 1939. --Jayron32 03:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson A. Boylen

Who was Nelson A. Boylen? There is a high school in Toronto named after him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.14 (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The external link from Nelson A. Boylen Collegiate Institute turns out to be a Malware site, and I have deleted it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This book suggests he was a reeve of the township of North York. -- role^player 16:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David and Mary Thompson

Who are David and Mary Thompson? There is a high school named after them in Toronto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.14 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the article David and Mary Thomson Collegiate Institute explains the name. Bielle (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Presidents unpopularity

Why is it that George W. Bush is so universally hated-especially in Europe, yet Richard Nixon, who was thoroughly detested in the US, is rarely mentioned? As for LBJ, likely the man responsible for the thousands of Vietnam War casualities, there is hardly a bad word levelled against his name. I find this bizarre? It's easy to say the war in Iraq is to blame, but I'd say the media is largely the culprit.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time. That is all. Public opinion about a President during (or shortly after) his term has little correlation with public opinion about him much later. If you want a very extreme anecdote (and if you will allow me to over-generalize for humor's sake), consider this: A President calls up as many men as possible to go to war. The war is not popular. The general public has no interest in fighting it. The President appears to have no idea how to go to war as is demonstrated by not even planning ahead to have room for the new troops to sleep when they arrive for service. The war drags on and on. Far too many people die. Everyone hates it, but sticks with the President for the simple reason that they hope he will figure out how to get out of stupid mess. Then, the President is finally assassinated. Many many many years later, he is considered the absolute best President that ever was or ever will be. Go figure. -- kainaw ™ 14:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One big difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War is that the Vietnam War was already happening when the U.S. got involved, while the Iraq War was initiated by the U.S. Thus the Iraq War is seen as a war of aggression on the part of the U.S., while the Vietnam War (however ill-conceived) isn't. That could play a big role in the difference between Johnson's and Bush Jr's unpopularity in Europe. As for Nixon, Watergate was a purely U.S.-internal affair that had no impact on Europe, so it didn't influence his popularity much there either. Kainaw's point that Bush is more recent in people's memories is of course important too. Finally, when Johnson and Nixon were president, people in Western Europe couldn't afford to be too anti-American, because in the Cold War the U.S. was clearly the lesser of two evils. Nowadays it's easier to be critical of U.S. foreign policy without seeming to be pro-Communist. Pais (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonsense to claim that "The Vietnam War" was "already happening" when Johnson's and Nixon's policy decisions resulted in tens of thousands of US combat deaths and many times that of Vietnamese deaths. Granted, Eisenhower had refused to allow national elections in Vietnam in the late 1950's, because Ho Chi Minh would have won a national election as surely as George Washington did in the US in 1788, but there was very limited US involvement and very low grade conflict after the French lost at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, while trying to reassert colonialism after WW2. There were only a few US advisors in Vietnam when Johnson escalated involvement by sending combat troops in 1965. Nixon continued the involvement and escalated before executing an exit strategy akin to George Aikin's recommendation to "Just announce we've won, and leave", finally allowing the corrupt puppet regime in Saigon to collapse in the 1970's. Edison (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The anti-war demonstrations against US involvement in Vietnam, however, were far more vitriolic than the recent ones against the Iraq War.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Americans demonstrated against the Vietnam War mostly because they did not want to get drafted to go there and get shot. There is no longer a US draft, thus the motivation to protest is less. Edison (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of US Vietnam War protestors were university students who were already exempted from the draft.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Many students lost their student deferments for various reasons. You graduate? You get drafted. Flunk out? Get drafted. Edison (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the war itself was highly unpopular (both in the U.S. and in Europe), but Bush is seen as more to blame for the war in Iraq than Johnson was to blame for the war in Vietnam, because Johnson didn't start the war in Vietnam, and Bush did start the war in Iraq. Pais (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To give this some historical perspective... Lincoln was extremely unpopular during his term in office (not just in the Southern States - his re-election in 1864 was hardly a forgone conclusion). Today he is one of the most revered Presidents.

Also, I think it is inaccurate to characterize G.W. Bush as being "universally hated". Yes, there was (and continues to be) a vocal group that hated him and his polices... But there was (and continues to be) another group (even in Europe) who actually liked him, and supported his policies. In time, these factions will move on to arguing about other Presidents... and Bush's reputation will be left to the Historians. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to question the OPs claim that Nixon is rarely mentioned in Europe. To my knowledge he is generally viewed as the worst of US presidents in recent times, also by a majority of Europeans. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least he inspired some worthwhile art. Actually, I'd say Nixon is seen as a crook who managed to do some good, George II is more of an honest man who accomplished great evil. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Reagan was a crook who accomplished great evil, thus becoming one of the most popular presidents of recent history, while Carter was an honest man who managed to do some good, thus becoming one of the most unpopular. Go figure. Pais (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carter was a good man who made possibly the single stupidest Presidential decision in the last 50 years - to embrace the Shah of Iran after he was overthrown, and we're still feeling the ripple effect for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LBJ was widely respected in Europe in the mid-60s for his actions on civil rights, and as a result of the shock over JFK's death, although he certainly became less popular in 1967-68 as the Vietnam War escalated (and as mentioned above some people blame Kennedy or Robert McNamara more than LBJ for that war). George W Bush didn't do much visible good to make up for the unpopular things he did (he mainly benefited wealthy Americans, who tend not to be European): he started controversially, with the contested election and the horrible judgment of Bush v. Gore; 9/11 made him briefly more popular, but he soon squandered that, so you had almost 8 full years of infamy. Nixon, as already mentioned, was always unpopular with large sections of the American population and internationally, but had undeniable achievements from the moon landing to his visit to Mao. Watergate seemed to be a deep psychic shock for much of the USA (where the president was regarded as more than just a politician), whereas the rest of the world took it less personally, like the difference between your father doing something bad and someone else's father doing something bad.

Also, Nixon and Johnson are dead. It's less fun hating on dead people. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with Bush, to Europeans, was that he apparently knew nothing, and cared even less, about the world outside the US. And as well as seeming to be ignorant, he appeared arrogant about it. Indeed, it sometimes seems that it's difficult to get votes in the US if you do show much knowledge or interest in the rest of the world. Nixon was just seen as corrupt and sleazy, but that's par for the course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've overlooked John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton who were glaring exceptions to that rule.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that arrogance, plus saying he had to invade Iraq to stop al Qaeda, which was non-existent there, didn't help Dubya's image. His public persona of a person who couldn't string a sentence together was a problem too. Note that I am talking about image here. I don't know how smart or dumb he really was, but there were far too many examples of him sounding dumb in public. (Did he have bad minders?) To have such a person as the leader of the most powerful nation on earth was scary to many. It's important too for Americans to realise that most non-Americans have little interest in internal American party loyalties, which no doubt colours Americans' views of their President, i.e. non-thinking love or hatred based on party allegiance. Those who do pay some attention see two parties both well to the right of most parties in Europe. HiLo48 (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, appearing to be an idiot who can't manage a simple declarative sentence is no barrier to a successful political career. Remember Joh Bjelke-Petersen, HiLo48? His famously incomprehensible utterances made Dubya sound like the Laurence Olivier of politics. Yet, he was the longest-serving Premier of Queensland (19 years) and the second-longest-serving premier of any Australian state, ever. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both LBJ and RMN are somewhat tragic figures, and I think the anger at them has tempered somewhat. LBJ is a guy who desperately wanted to be loved, yet ended up being reviled. He was a great Senator, but a lousy President. The fact that he purposefully took himself out of the reelection race (and died not long afterwards) makes him feel a bit more "redeemed" than some. RMN was a wily, unpleasant, cruel, yet unarguably brilliant politician (and diplomat) whose paranoia led him to do all sorts of unnecessary "dirty tricks" for an election he would have won handily anyway. He was similarly the source of his own undoing (quite literally, in the case of making all of those exhaustive tape recordings of his conversations). If he had not done Watergate he'd be remembered as one of our most accomplished Presidents. I think people today, helped by the Frost v. Nixon style depictions of him, are more sympathetic with him than they would have been right after the 1970s. He was politically corrupt, to be sure, but it was always about power, never about money or women or the sorts of other scandals that have such a slimy air to them. At some level he must have been aware of what he was doing (who else names their re-election campaign CREEP?). Anyway, time lets us see this people as tragic, or Shakespearean, or even laudable, in ways that they were not seen at the time. FDR and JFK and Lincoln are all heros, but they were viewed with more jaundiced eyes by many of their contemporaries. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, time erases the details from memory and makes it easy to come up with summaries that are flawed. Johnson "purposefully took himself out of the reelection race" not for any redemption, but because Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy were stomping him in the polls and he probably would not have even won the nomination as the Democratic candidate for president. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't intend to suggest he took himself out for redemption. Just that in retrospective, it can look that way, in a tragic sense. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is as good an answer as we can expect from this forum-type of question. We can chat and opine for days, or just consider that the question has been answered. —Kevin Myers 19:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The revisionist history in the comments above are not in keeping with the traditions being developed here. Rather than throw out unsubstantiated views, please point to fact-checked articles. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACT/SAT prep

Hello again. I noticed that most ACT/SAT prep guides are focussed on raising a below-average score to average or an average score to above-average. Their tips are mostly assuming you will make mistakes and focus on "getting done in time" or "guessing effectively" (which I do not have probleme with). I can already get a very good (top 5%) score on both these tests and I want to see if I can get a perfect score (not out of any real need for college admission or anything but just to see if I can do it, as an interesting personal challenge). How would I do this kind of test prep? Are there any good guides for my situation "out there"? Thanks. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well speaking as someone who did get a perfect SAT score (in the verbal section only). Unless you are supremely intelligent, it is mostly luck. I took the SATs once and took PSATs (which if I recall correctly, is functionally identical) twice. I never did any serious studying. My PSAT verbal scores were in the high 700s, but when I took the real SATs I lucked out and got all questions I could answer correctly. You can increase your chance of getting a perfect score, but it is still going to come down to the questions that they ask that day. If you can score in the top 5% you could probably get a perfect score by taking the test a number of times. If that doesn't sound fun (it sure doesn't to me) then you could try studying hard (also not very fun). I can't speak for anything but the verbal section, but the real trick is to fully understand the meaning of all the words on their word list, if you can do that and you are good at taking tests, you are probably in business. A final bit of advice though: don't bother, if you don't need this for college admission. I can think of many more fulfilling personal challenges and no one really gives a damn about SAT scores outside of college admissions (and maybe sperm banks). --Daniel 17:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even college admissions doesn't split hairs over exact scores either. They use the SAT as a weeding tool, assigning students into pools based on minimum scores, and then usually having differing requirements for students in the different pools (for example, they may be looking for extenuating circumstances in students with lower scores, and very high scores may be able to help overcome a few bad grades). But if you are already in the top 5% or higher, there is nothing at all that a "perfect score" will gain you that a slightly-less-than-perfect test (say missing only 2-3 questions) wouldn't also get you. Admissions officers are well aware of the limitations of the test, and of the role that chance plays in the scoring, and you can't actually help yourself in any conceivable way by getting those last 2-3 questions right. You need to score good enough on the test. But perfection is not anything that will get you any net benefit. If you want to "go for it" just for amusement or the challenge of it, then have at it. But it isn't necessary for your college prospects. --Jayron32 21:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I improved my scores from the PSAT by 100 points (high 600s to high 700s) by taking a dozen or so practice tests (from those test booklets that bookstores sell (or sold), though no doubt there is now an online equivalent, since I did this 30 years ago). For the GRE, I did more practice tests and managed an 800 on the verbal part. Beyond ability and background knowledge—in my case, having been a voracious reader since the age of 6—I think practice is the key. It may not be tons of fun, but I treated the practice tests like a game, and they were mildly fun. Marco polo (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, you may find that these days ova banks care about such scores too. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Land

Hi, you know every land mass on earth like Eurasia, Africa, The Americas etc are they all like embedded in the seabed or do they just bob like a cork so they can move gradually?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 16:27, February 3, 2011

Plate tectonics has the explanation. Moving this to science reference desk. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestors of Qais Abdur Rashid

I am looking for genealogical information of Qais Abdur Rashid. It is said in Wikipedia that Qais Abdul Rashid is the 37th descendant of King Saul, but I couldn't find the genealogical ancestry tree anywhere. I would be grateful if furnished with the requested information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saying silence (talk • contribs) 16:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be quite legendary... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Carpenter Poetry

When I was young (50 to 60 years ago) my father read to me two poems by Edward Carpenter. One was about his body (which was doing its own unwished for activities) and his mind (which was also on its own). I cannot remember the names of these two poems. Any ideas what they are and where I might find the? 75.165.86.253 (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I'm not as familiar with Edward Carpenter's works as I should be. There are some potentially helpful links in our article (at this section), Wikisource is sadly deficient (s:author:Edward Carpenter). DuncanHill (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might try asking at The Edward Carpenter Forum. DuncanHill (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first actress in Italy and Europe

Who was the first actress in Italy? By first, I mean professionall, not a woman performing temporarily in a festival or similar, and the starting point is Christina Europe, not antiquity. I have heard, that Italy was the first country in Christian Europe to allow women performing professionally on stage. The first actresses in Italy - and thereby Europe - was to have performed in travelling theatres in the 1530s. Is this correct? Can anyone verify this? When was the first actress noted to have performed, which year and where? Thank you--Aciram (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article (which is used as a reference at the Wikipedia article Actor) reports on an unnamed woman as an actress in Venice in 1611. While not strictly considered "plays", that same article also reports women appearing in Masques in England during the reign of Henry VIII and says that such practice came from Italy, Spain, and Portugal and proposes that it is likely that women appeared in Masques in those locales as well. You can read the article yourself for more background on the history of women as actresses. --Jayron32 21:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Aciram (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empress Theodora was an actress (or an "actress", which probably included prostitution). So was her mother, and this was the 5th/6th century, so well into the Christian era. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but she seem to have been a dancer and entertainer rather than an actress, and in any case, Byzantium had a completely different cultural history from Western Europe. I should have specified that, though. --Aciram (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first known Italian professional actress was Donna Lucrezia of Siena, who signed a contract in 1564, but France is known to have had actresses as early as 1545. [1] [2]. In the 12th century Hildegard of Bingen wrote Ordo Virtutum, a play intended to be performed by the nuns in her German convent. Hrotsvitha (c. 935 - c. 1002) was another dramatist nun, but I believe her works weren't actually performed in her time. --Antiquary (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nuns was not professional actors, but those links was very helpfull, thank you very much! --Aciram (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never really thought about it before, but would mystery plays have had female actors? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember there where women acting in some of the religious plays in the middle ages, but they where local women doing this temporarily and not proffessionals. --Aciram (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italy wasn't a unified country until the 1850s or 1860s, so technically, you could have a first Venetian actress in 1611 say, or a First Milanese actress, but you can't have an Italian actress until unification. Googlemeister (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very well aware of that. It does not seem that anyone had a problem to undestand my meaning. --Aciram (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The appearance of women in masques should remind us of the separate cultural history of masque and theater.--Wetman (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

history

So, when did the iron age end? I know, it stops being used as a description once better documented and understood civilizations appeared to name the eras after, but other than that, when did iron stop being the most popular material for making tools and such like, and what replaced it? Steel? Aluminium? Plastic? Something else? Or is it still?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Iron Age. There's likely to be some good information there. --Jayron32 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those too lazy - the term "Iron Age" is a way of categorizing pre-historic societies. To qoute the article linked above; "The Iron Age in each area ends with the beginning of the historical period, i.e. the local production of ample written sources. Thus, for instance, the British Iron Age ends with the Roman Conquest." So people didn't stop using iron, we just know a lot more about them and can give them more accurate descriptions. Alansplodge (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To see some of the regional variety following the three age system, take a look at list of archaeological periods. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "plastic age" is used occasionally, by the way, but I don't think it's a scholarly term for a historical period. We don't have an article on it (only on a novel, film, and song of the same name). I guess atomic age is somewhat similar to stone, bronze, and iron, in that it refers to technology. The articles on history of technology and timeline of materials technology might interest you as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iron is still the most popular material for making tools and parts. Mainly because it's quite abundant (so cheap) and it's very strong. Plastic is used where wood used to be used, but it's rare for it to be structural. Concrete is probably second. (When did the concrete age begin?) I read somewhere that iron and concrete are by far the two most studied materials. Ariel. (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 4

Killer kings

British historical kings were well known for killing people, for example Henry the Eighth, Richard III and Elizabeth I and many more. 1) What was the most recent known murder or killing by or at the direct command of a King? 2) Were there any historical kings who never killed anyone? 3) Who killed the most? Thanks 92.24.190.211 (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English kings have never, at least since the Norman conquest, had the legal authority simply to order somebody to be killed, except perhaps on the field of battle for disobeying a direct order. There have of course been cases where a king has commanded his servants to secretly murder somebody, but the number of cases of that wouldn't be very large, and in most such cases the commands were given in somewhat ambiguous language. The more usual way to have somebody killed was to accuse them of treason or some other capital crime. Looie496 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George VI is probably a safe bet for a king who never killed anyone. A thoroughly decent man. Broody Mary may not have killed anyone with here bare hands, but killings she instigated are still commemorated every year here in Sussex. DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I would say that none of the three above examples count unequivocally as murder. Henry VIII's "killings" were the executions of two of his wives for adultery, which was considered treason because of the clear constitutional crisis the adultery of the Kings wife could cause (since it raises into doubt the legitimacy of the succession). To be fair, there is considerable belief that, at least in the case of Anne Boleyn, the charges may have been trumped up. Catherine Howard's adultery was most likely genuine. But, at least officially, execution for treason was a legitimate reason to kill someone (though, as noted, the charges against Anne Boleyn were spurious at best). Richard II's alleged murders of the Princes in the Tower isn't proven by any means; the fact that we believe it to be true is likely because of William Shakespeares characterization of Richard II, and not because of any hard evidence. Elizabeth's ordered execution was of Mary, Queen of Scots was likewise probably justified as treason given her involvement in the Catholic uprisings in England against her cousin, as well as at least three plots to assasinate Elizabeth herself. Elizabeth likely didn't want to execute her cousin (she had ample opportunity given that she was under arrest for 19 years!). The most famous muderous King was likely Henry II who is reported to have ordered the murder of Thomas Becket. --Jayron32 01:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction - Richard III, not Richard II, was fingered by his (possibly actually guilty) successor for the Princes in the Tower job. I recommend Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time for an entertaining and thorough, though perhaps not unbiased, examination of the matter. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Various species of murdering scum are likely to justify their deeds by specious definition: "She betrayed me!" Etc. Still considered murder by most of rational humanity. Edison (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the entire governmental stability of your country depends on your wife keeping away from other men's penises. There's a valid point to be made if there's a likely civil war that would result from your wife's pecadillos... --Jayron32 04:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder being the unlawful taking of life, it's questionable whether very many British monarchs were out-and-out murderers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard I prdered the wholesale slaughter of captured Muslim prisoners which included women and children. His brother King John left a trail of blood leading up to and beyond his throne. His crimes include blinding and killing his nephew Arthur, walling Maud de Braose and her son alive in a dungeon. The hero of Agincourt gave orders for captured French soldiers to be killed. Henry VIII ordered executions like we order take-away pizzas. Richard III has been accused of killing the Princes in the Tower, but there is compelling evidence which lays the deed at the door of the usurper Henry VII (father of Henry VIII, so go figure). I have read that some of the horrific torture devices were put into use during the reign of Edward IV who became cruel towards the end of his reign. Then there was Edward I, who treated the Scots with pitiless barbarity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Henry V of England, the execution of prisoners was in retaliation for the French sneaking round to the rear of the English line and capturing the baggage train. Shakespeare shows him upset at the women and children that were killed in the process but this, more contemporary report suggests it was the loss of horses that vexed him so. Alansplodge (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Henry ordered the executions out of fear that they might rearm, and being such a large number completely overpower the battle-fatigued English soldiers who wouldn't have been able to put up much of a defence. That vexed many of the English who were hoping to take French nobles for ransoms.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To question 2, I strongly doubt Edward V of England ever killed anyone or had anyone killed. Pais (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind supreme monarchs with titles that nobody translates to "king", you may want Ivan VI of Russia — his reign ended when he was still an infant, and he was a prisoner the rest of his short life. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World population pyramid

Where can I find a population pyramid of the entire planet? (Not a country) 76.69.186.194 (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right here (Third page), courtesy of the US Census Bureau. APL (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primer to List of Philosophies?

Is there a crash course, or primer to List of philosophies? Short of reading every single article or partaking in undergraduate studies in philosophy? Something that traces the history, evolution and relationships of at least the "main ones". I'm not after a primer to philosophy it self, I've got that mostly covered. just the reading I've been doing recently someone will bring up Libertarianism, or Utilitarianism, or Post-structuralism or something and I have to go away and read up on it, and that's ok, i'm not against doing that, neither am expecting an "easy answer," I understand people devote an entire life of scholarly study to each one of those, so I'm not expecting to learn about all of them in one sitting, but I've never even come across anything like an "origins of" or time line or how they relate to each other, which is a subset, which is a moral stance etc… Even if it takes a text book to get the basics, I'm open to any suggestions. Thanks. Vespine (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my English class, we had to read (an English Translation of) Sophie's World. It's a novel, but pretty explicitly written as an introduction to the history of (Western) philosophy, for kids or young adults. Buddy431 (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every philosophy class is a primer to some set of philosophies. There are too many to cover in some "Intro to philosophy" class. They are divided according to subject matter ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, etcetera. Greg Bard (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Of course, so i should just read what's linked in the Branches of philosophy section and i just noticed each does seem to have an introduction to its main theories. Thanks, seems obvious now I've seen those sections.. Vespine (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend Bertrand Russell's A History of Western Philosophy. Very well written. DuncanHill (talk) 14:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is well written, but not a primer as it's doorstop size as far as I recall. And it has been criticised by philosophers, dont remember why. 92.24.180.229 (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a primer because you don't need any prior knowledge of the subject to read and benefit from it. It's been criticised for missing out certain areas (e.g. Kierkegaard), and for partisanship, but as Russell said "I was sometimes accused by reviewers of writing not a true history but a biased account of the events that I arbitrarily chose to write of. But to my mind, a man without bias cannot write interesting history — if, indeed, such a man exists." If you confine yourself to works which have not been criticised by philosophers, you won't actually read anything. DuncanHill (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore, one should only read well-written books. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to second that recommendation for Bertrand Russell's magnificent book. For a reasonably comprehensive introduction to the subject (note it's Western philosophy) it's not really very long (800+ pages). One of my favorite bits is his introduction to Spinoza -- "Spinoza (1634-77) is the noblest and most loveable of the major philosophers. Intellectually, some others have surpassed him, but ethically he is supreme. As a natural consequence, he was considered, during his lifetime and for a century after his death, a man of appalling wickedness." I find this book to be so readable that every time I pick it up I have trouble putting it back down. Antandrus (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation for Senior Sergeant

Is there any abbreviation for the Senior Sergeant rank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.76.224.253 (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian police section in our article on Sergeant suggests "SENSGT", but "Sen-Sgt" or "Sen Sgt" seem to be used quite a bit more frequently. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian protesters

what are the motives of these troublemakers? --Cow Goat Hybrid (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wikipedia article 2011 Egyptian protests for the answer to your question. --Jayron32 16:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troublemakers? Corvus cornix_talk 19:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to those who are pro-Mubarak, the Anti-Mubarak protesters are indeed "troublemakers"... and of course, to those who have an Anti-Mubarak POV, the pro-Mubarak counter-protesters are the "troublemakers"... I strongly suggest that we not get get into arguments over labels and language here. If we are going to answer questions about the conflict on this board, we need to ignore any POV language that may be placed in the question... and focus on making sure that our replies remain neutral. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if taken literally, any protester (in pretty much any context) is a "troublemaker", though of course the term has a negative connotation beyond its literal meaning. Buddy431 (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Geography question

Which place name is shared by many cities ,many creeks, many lakes, a glacier , some hills , two islands and one knob?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.211.172 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, Spruce? Is there a prize? Mikenorton (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Boston Glacier on Boston Peak and the unrelated Boston Mountains. There is also a Boston Knob and many cities named Boston. I presume that there are also many creeks and lakes as well. I'm going with Boston. --Jayron32 17:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: These google searches also confirm that there are many creeks and many lakes with the name as well. --Jayron32 17:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to the addendum. There are also (at least) 2 Boston Islands: One in Maine: [3] and one in South Australia: [4]. --Jayron32 17:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the many cities called Boston - only the one in Massachusetts is a real city plus a 'rural-city' in Ontario and a 'city' in Georgia (population 1,417). Mikenorton (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it IS Boston, they forgot to mention The Stump! Alansplodge (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The specificness of the last two makes me think this is a quiz or a riddle. Anyway, there is a Fox for all but the last of them (although the various "Fox Hill"s are are townships, not prominences). 17:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csmiller (talk • contribs)

There's a Fox's Knob in Shropshire. Mikenorton (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many names that are used many times. Some very common names off the top of my head are Victoria, Washington, Columbia, York, King's, Queen's, Devil's, Land's End, Paris, Saint John, Bay, Pine, Fox. The limiting factors are the glacier and having only two islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.96.10 (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is another World Atlas quiz... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

? Pfly (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, no knob. Two islands and one glacier though. Anyway, ref desk isn't for answering these quiz questions. But if anyone cares to think about it, the quiz indicates the place is a "southern" city--presumably the US south. Pfly (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Boston, Virginia is doubly southern... --Jayron32 23:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Birmingham. That sound possible. Googlemeister (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, the question's already been answered. Apparently the answer was Sherman. I must say, "Sherman's knob" sounds like the title of a British softcore porno comedy. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem and Thailand/Cambodian border

Is there any precedent for the United Nations taking possession of areas whose rightful possession is under dispute in order to eliminate military conflict over the area... err... except for the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea? --Inning (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea sounds sort of close? Not really "taking possession", of course. By the way, the UN also has not "taken possession" of the Korean DMZ. (I found that page at Category:United Nations Security Council mandates.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my mistake but the UN is somewhere in there preventing all out war between North Korea and South Korea over who has the right to occupy that strip of land. --Inning (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus. Also, the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force Zone between Israel and Syria. There are some more listed under Demilitarized zone, but I lack the will to check how many of them are/were UN-imposed. Rimush (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DMZ between North and South Korea is not nor has ever been administered by the United Nations. The Korean War was between North Korea (and allies) and South Korea, 'backed by the United Nations'. The DMZ is a voluntary exclusion zone drawn up along the front line shortly after the cease fire was declared. Inside this zone are two villages: Taeseong-dong and Kijong-dong; and one of these is protected by the United Nations Command - not the United Nations per se, and the other is used by North Korea. Also, there is no issue of 'all out war between North Korea and South Korea over who has the right to occupy that strip of land', because it was stipulated in the original cease fire that neither side shall do so. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the United Nations Trust Territories? Are they a precedent for the kind of thing you're thinking of?

He might be a motherfucker, but he's our motherfucker.

I remember reading a quote which ressembles this sentence, althrough I am not sure of the exact formulation, which was attritubed to numerous U.S political figures, including FDR and Robert McNamara. I am pretty sure it alluded to a South or Central American dictator. Does anyone have any ideas?

I think it was William Casey, speaking of a Central American dictator (Here's an example). Antandrus (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is attributed to FDR (as "son of a bitch"): [5] Antandrus (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered further in Anastasio_Somoza_García#.22Our_son_of_a_bitch.22.

Is an attritubion an attribution made on YouTube? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 5

Lawyer on trial defends himself

Does anyone know of any notable cases where a criminal defense lawyer was charged with a crime and successfully defended himself? Or is that even allowed? -- œ ^™ 03:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be allowed in the US (In the US, any defendant can represent themselves, whether they are a lawyer or not ... it is considered an extremely foolish thing for a defendant to do, but it is allowed). Not sure about other countries. Blueboar (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK it is also possible to defend oneself without a lawyer. I would expect lawyers to be able to do that too. Quotes from one quite recent case in which the defendant chose to defend himself can be seen here. The defendant was sentenced to 3 years in prison. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A smart lawyer would never defend himself, because that would take away an option of appeal on the grounds of "incompetent representation". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is a proverb to that general effect. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slobodan Milošević, a lawyer by profession, defended himself in the Hague. Of course he died before the trial ended, so we can't say whether he was doing it successfully or not... TomorrowTime (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That consideration never seems to stop WP writers from describing living subjects as "a successful actor", "a successful writer", etc. Let alone the total lack of any definition of "success". I eliminate as many of them as I can find, but it's a losing battle. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Given how hard it is to make it in acting/writing, I've always taken "successful actor/writer" to mean "makes enough money from it that they don't need a day job," as opposed to most "actors" in Hollywood who wait tables to pay the rent. In the case of Wikipedia, it's probably redundant, as if you're notable enough to be listed, you're probably "successful" at it. - This, though, means that "successful" for an actor is different than "successful" for a lawyer, where I would interpret it to mean "wins a large number of his cases". -- 174.24.195.38 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

It's uncommon but has been done. Harvey D. Myerson, a formerly prominent New York City attorney about whom we should have an article, was convicted at his criminal trial (as we note in the Myerson & Kuhn article). My recollection is that he represented himself. Although it's generally considered to be a bad idea, there can be advantages to it. In the case I'm remembering, be it Myerson or someone else, the attorney did not take the stand in his own defense, but was able to convey his side of the story to some extent through his questioning. For example, if a witness says that certain information was not provided, the attorney can ask him, "Did you think I was an idiot?" This lets the jury know that the defendant contends that he did provide the information, because he would have been foolish not to. He gets this message to the jury without the inconvenience of being cross-examined about it, and without saying anything under oath that might later support a perjury prosecution. A personable attorney-defendant will also have more opportunity to come across as a nice guy and make some jurors reluctant to vote to convict him or her. JamesMLane t c 00:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it's still a bad idea to defend yourself even if you're a good lawyer? I've always thought it was considered a bad idea only because chances are that you're not knowledgeable enough in the intricacies of law to mount a reasonably successful defense. Whereas a lawyer would know what he's doing, right? What other reasons are there for it to be a bad idea? -- œ ^™ 02:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers maintain a certain intellectual distance from the case. They are able to look at things objectively, design and plan a defensive strategy, etc. largely because it is just a job for them. When you are yourself on trial, even if you know the law, you lack the emotional distance to actually mount a competant defense. Just as psychoanalysts don't psychoanalyze themselves, just as an orthopedic surgeon doesn't set their own broken bone, lawyers shouldn't necessarily defend themselves. Knowing what to do and being able to do it effectively are different things. In the case of actually being on trial, the real fact that you are the defendent probably provides enough of a hinderance towards doing your job as a lawyer all that well. --Jayron32 05:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it this way: a doctor is well-trained, and generally knows what s/he is doing. However, diagnosing oneself is fraught with danger, because it's impossible to fully be objective in your assessment. In that same vein, a lawyer representing him/herself isn't able to stand back and look at the case from an independent viewpoint, and likely will miss many opportunities for defense because of that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What if you're a sociopathic, depersonalized, existentialist lawyer? What if Meursault was actually a brilliant lawyer? ;p -- œ ^™ 08:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As has been well mentioned anyone can defend themselves, barrister or not. Though it would be relevant to quote an old aphorism told to me by a professor (a professor that was a practicing lawyer, as it happens to be, I myself am only a pre-law): "Anyone who represents himself before the court has an utter fool for a client" 65.29.47.55 (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And since you would have to be insane to have an utter fool defend you, you can plead insanity! Googlemeister (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I believe that Albert Goldman defended a group of SWP members, including himself, and they were all jailed. Warofdreams talk 11:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stella!

Why was the US Stella coin called a Stella? Dismas|^(talk) 07:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because stella is Latin for "star", and the coin has a 5-pointed star on its reverse side. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that in the article, the term "quintuple stella" is used. That's apparently a fancy-schmancy way of saying "five-pointed star." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here

we see some men marveling at a Stella that has been tossed over a castle by the famous fast bowler, Leif the Lefty. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since a stella was a $4 coin, a quintuple stella would have been $20 (just as a "double eagle" was twice the value of an "eagle" coin). AnonMoos (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In New Orleans, if you stand in a courtyard and bawl "Stella!" they throw down coins I think...--Wetman (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an award for the best answer . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More currency - the loonie

Do Canadians use "loonie" as a mass noun? For example, would the question "How many loonies is 25 euros?" make sense? Or is "loonie" just the word for the coin? Dismas|^(talk) 08:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking whether the plural of "loonie" is "loonies" or also just "loonie"? The article Canadian 1 dollar coin uses "loonies" here and there, assuming the editor knows what he's talking about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. As a US American, I would have no problem saying either "I have a dollar" or "That'll be five dollars". But would a Canandian use loonie in both of those sentences equally? Dismas|^(talk) 10:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As in "that'll be 5 loonies?" I googled "loonie" and "loonies", and they seem to be used as we would expect; but I think that's strictly a nickname (like we say "bucks") and that they would most likely say "that'll be 5 dollars", in part because the joke is getting a little old by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We only say "Five loonies" when we want specific change for a five dollar bill, as in "I need 5 loonies please". "5 loons" would also be correct. However, for the 2 dollar coin (the toonie or two-nee), we would say "5 toonies for a $10" but NOONE says "5 toons". I'm guessing because we fear Warner Bros. might sue.. or something. -- œ ^™ 11:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard anybody call them "loons", but "loonies" and "toonies" are kosher. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard "loon" occasionally, but "loonie" is certainly the most common way to refer to the coin. Of course, we can also just say "dollar coin". I sometimes just call it a "one". --Anonymous (Canadian), 05:40 UTC, February 6, 2011.

If "loonie" is a mass noun, then "How many loonies...?" would not make sense, any more than you can ask "How many water?" Marnanel (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Loonie" is not a mass noun. We use it to refer to the coin and as a nickname for the currency. Otherwise it's dollar or buck, same usage as in the US. Aaronite (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I was imprecise with my terminology. Dismas|^(talk) 20:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone asked for twenty loonies, they would get twenty one-dollar coins. If they wanted a bill, they would just ask for twenty dollars. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Former British Empire not in the Commonwealth?

Aside from Ireland, the United States and Hong Kong are there any other countries that were part of the British Empire but are not members of the Commonwealth of Nations? --CGPGrey (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fiji and Zimbabwe are not members of the Commonwealth at the present time. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fiji is suspended for not intending to have an election anytime soon. Zimbabwe was suspended but left of its own accord in 2003. Alansplodge (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burma, Egypt, Sudan, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, South Yemen, Somaliland, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman ...... Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The former Ottoman territories in middle east (Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, and the various Gulf Emirates.) were were governed by the British as League of Nations Mandates... I don't think they were considered part of the Empire. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Tanganyika and South West Africa were LoN Mandates too, but they are part of the Commonwealth as Tanzania and Namibia. Alansplodge (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This map, used in our article shows them as part of the Empire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think one map proves the case... other maps disagree. For example neither [this map], nor [this one] shade Palestine and Mesopotamia as part the Empire. (I do find it interesting that while the second map does not include Palestine and Mesopotamia, it does include the former German colonies in Africa... I suspect historians of European racism would have a field day with that.) Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our List of territories of the British Empire includes the Arab mandates AND the Channel Islands. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup question: were the Isle of Man, Jersery and Guernsey part of the British Empire? --CGPGrey (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are Crown Dependencies, with a direct relationship to the monarch. They might informally be considered part of the Empire (and indeed Jersey and Guernsey were occupied territory 1940-45) and they went to war at the same time as the UK, but they were internally self governing. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well shit. That's going to make my improved UK venn diagram a real tangle. --CGPGrey (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could say they were "part of the Empire" ... in the same way you could say that England itself was "part of the Empire". Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are esentially private property of "The Crown". They could just as well design a flag for some apartment that "The Crown" owns somewhere and call it a "dependency". Rimush (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this proves anything, but the Channel Islands take part in the Commonwealth Games as individual nations, but in the Olympics are part of Team GB. Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Great Britain is only one island, England, Wales and Scotland also inclue many others. You may want these on your diagram as well. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is only partly true. "Great Britain" is indeed the name of the large island, but it is also used (for example, in the name United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) to mean England, Scotland and Wales, including the various offshore islands within those countries. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... I doubt anyone would seriously say that Islands like Skye and Mull are not part of Great Britain. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And at the Olympics, "Great Britain" extends to Northern Ireland and can also include people from Ireland (the other part of Ireland; the bit that isn't even part of the Commonwealth, let alone the UK). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii? (There has to some explanation for an American state having the Union Jack on its flag.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed there is. Good ol' Wikipedia. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, never technically part of the Empire? HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's Mozambique, which is part of the Commonwealth, but never part of the Empire. Corvus cornix_talk 05:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Rwanda. Rimush (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in Commonwealth of Nations membership criteria#Prospective members Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great map. If Sudan, Congo, and Egypt all enter the Commonwealth, Cecil Rhodes' dream can finally be realized! 61.7.120.132 (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal jewlery

In the book The Three Musketeers, Anne of Austria wears 12 diamond tags. What would the diamond tags that she wore look like?

Here is an example of them from the book. "There," said he, drawing from the casket a large bow of blue ribbon all sparkling with diamonds, "there are the precious studs which I have taken an oath should be buried with me."

Most of the refrences to them are rather vague as to their apparence. I'm just curious because there is a long portion revolving around them in the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClareRae (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the meanings of the word "tag" is "a ribbon bearing a jewel" (OED). The book being fiction, it is probably impossible to give a fuller description than that with any authority.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the French original, they are called "les ferrets de la Reine". The French article redirects to aglet in the en:wp. --Xuxl (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Aiguillette (ornament) gives a much better idea, including examples in various 16th and 17th century portraits. --67.22.236.140 (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Art with a gamma camera

Has someone used a gamma camera to take pictures of the world as art? Where are such pictures? Is this even possible with modern gamma cameras? 97.125.31.85 (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cop says: "Don't leave town"

I've probably seen it in a dozen U.S. crime shows: The police don't have enough evidence to hold the suspect, but as he leaves the detective says, almost in passing, "Don't leave town." I don't think that a police officer can decide on a travel ban, and I don't think that even if he could that such a vague statement would be valid. But, is there any legal way to prevent a person from "leaving town" when there isn't enough evidence to detain him or her?Sjö (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're saying they may wish to have further discussions with you, and it would suit the police's convenience if you can be quickly located (e.g. at your home, place of work, club etc). It's always good to cooperate with the cops, particularly if you have nothing to hide or fear. They can't stop you leaving town, but if you're out of town the next time they want to contact you, it would go well for you if you can produce a compelling and legitimate reason for being away (urgent family or business reasons, for example). Even better if you advise the police that you're leaving, and why, and where you'll be and for how long. But if you've left just to get away from the cops, whether or not you're using a contrived excuse to mask that, that in itself might say something about your guilt. So, "Don't leave town" is giving you enough rope to hang yourself with. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if I leave town for "uncompelling" reasons it will be taken as an admission of guilt? I do hope that police don't rely on such assumptions.Sjö (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But they do, to a degree. If someone's been asked not to leave town, and they have no particular reason for leaving, but leave anyway, wouldn't you wonder what's going on? It doesn't necessarily say "I'm guilty" - but it's certainly grounds for questions to be asked. On top of the ones they were already going to be asking about your involvement or otherwise in the original offence, whatever it was. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got sufficent reason to arrest someone and then release them on bail, then you can include travel restrictions in the bail conditions. I think that's about it. --Tango (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see this settled more persuasively. I know that in short-term confrontations, police in the U.S. seem to have a wide latitude to issue "lawful orders" or some such - e.g., people who don't get out of a certain area can be arrested for not doing so. I don't know what the range or duration of such orders is. At the same time, I'm not sure it would be truly advisable to call police to tell them of your travel plans. After all, if you were guilty, you'd just make something up ... and if you're innocent, you're giving them a good reason to arrest you in a hurry despite the evidence being scanty; and an arrest can involve substantial time due to lack of bail, or substantial money lost and gone for good to pay a bondsman, and in any case all sorts of restrictions that make it easy for a person to be put even further in legal trouble. Wnt (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the short term, sure. For example, a cop can say "Don't go anywhere!" to one person as he chases after someone else and it would be illegal not to obey (in the UK, at least - there was a case a few years ago where it was determined that simply saying not to go constitutes an arrest and leaving counts as resisting arrest - the reading of rights is only required prior to questioning). The police can't give long lasting orders like that, though. --Tango (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reliable source, but someone asked this question about seven months ago on an internet forum that is apparently frequented by American police officers: [6]. The officers present all seem to agree it is a movie thing and not a real life thing in most situations. Nobody seems to ascribe it any legal weight. Not definitive, or reliable (they could all be impostors, what do I know), but seems to jibe with what has been said already. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, it can be set as a condition of bail not to leave the jurisdiction of the court so granting bail. In which case if you so much as cross the state or even county line you can be hauled in, but if you stay in the city/county (often the same in major US metro areas I might add) you are not subject to arrest. As I understand it that is not an unreasonable request. I have several family members who are members of the bar but neither has practiced criminal law in years, so this is subject to YMMV as far as it may be out-dated, should not be considered legal advice, ect...65.29.47.55 (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the relevant Swedish legislation (https://lagen.nu/1942:740#K25). Here, the courts can issue travel restrictions when there is "reasonable suspicion", which is the same degree of suspicion necessary for detention. It is always a court decision, the injunction has to be served, and the content of the decision is specified: The village, town or city where the person must remain, the suspected crime, any other restrictions or orders (e.g. reporting to the police daily) and the consequences of not following the injunction. It seems improbable to me that the rules about due process are very different in the U.S.Sjö (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In short... in most western countries, a court can set travel restrictions... the police can not. Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Ancient Chinese Common Women

What are some famous ancient Chinese women who were not royalty or married into royalty? It seems like there isn't many. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, the only people we remember from the 'ancient world' of any culture are nobility, religious leaders, philosophers, and warriors. Women (historically) were not as well-educated and had far less leisure time than men (which opts out philosophers), were not usually allowed dominant roles in religious orders (barring cases like the oracle or Delphi), and did not generally participate in battle or train as warriors. That leaves nobility. Further, China had a particularly male-dominated culture: I'm surprised any famous women are recorded at all. --Ludwigs2 01:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Women of China: Shang Dynasty to the Early Twentieth Century by Barbara Bennett Peterson has a few, although most are part of the nobility along side their notability:

earliest female general, Shang dynasty - Fu Hao

poet, Spring and Autumn period - Lady Xu Mu

politician, Spring and Autumn period (Eastern Zhou dynasty) - Qi Jiang

beauty, Spring and Autumn period - Xi Shi, one of the Four Beauties

mother of Mencius, Warring States period - Mother Meng

political aide, Warring States period - Ru Ji

meltBanana 02:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mencius' wife gets mentioned some in his writings, too, if we want to stretch "famous" a little bit. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few women who were independently famous (i.e. other than by reason of their connections to famous men):

Huang Daopo who lived in the Yuan Dynasty was credited with introducing textiles technology learnd from the natives of Hainan to the Yangtze delta, thus starting the textiles industry there that would become immensely important for the next 800 years. Her biography is part of the primary school curriculum on the east coast and a shrine to her has been maintained to this day, not far from the Shanghai Botanic Gardens. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Zhenyi (not on English wikipedia but is on Chinese wikipedia: ) was a female astronomer of the Qing Dynasty, came from a prominent family of mandarins and was well known in her time for being both learned and also an excellent horseback archer. Well known works include "On the roundness of the earth" and "On lunar eclipses". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Li Qingzhao was a famous poet of the Song Dynasty, perhaps the best known female Chinese poet of the pre-modern era. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zhuo Wenjun, another woman poet of aristocratic birth, this time of the Han Dynasty.

Cai Wenji, a poet and composer of the Han Dynasty / Three Kingdoms period.

There are a number of courtesans, writers and other artists who were famous on their own accounts (and not just by reason of their marriage) but the most famous ones of these have a tendency to marry some sort of royalty, so I guess these are outside the scope of your enquiry. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Poole House

Hi. Who is that William Poole House refering to ? Which William Thompson Cade or which William Poole ? Thx -- Gary Dee (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian deism? Jesuans?

There is Christianity, there is Christian atheism, and there are not that view persons who believe in God and accept Jesus as the central prophet/revelator/teacher of God's word, but do not believe in the supernatural qualities of Jesus (virgin birth, resurrection, miracles...). But how do you call them and their belief? Is there a religious community with this belief? --KnightMove (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For them, Jesus is not the central figure. --KnightMove (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, Jesus in Islam did have a virgin birth and did perform miracles even if he hasn't been resurrected yet although he perhaps didn't really die. BTW, while I don't know if many would call him the central figure, I would say some/many? would call him a central prophet. See also Prophets of Islam. While most would accept Muhammad as the Seal of the prophets I'm not sure if all would consider him the central prophet. The central figure is arguably Allah/God. Of course for Christianity Jesus and God are central figure/s but often considered one and the same. Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)I would have answered Socinianism and perhaps Arianism, but it seems to my surprise, judging from the articles, that both these schools does in fact accept the virgin birth of Jesus, although they do not believe in the rest of the criteria you mention. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarianism? --Antiquary (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They also seem to accept virgin birth though. I am curious to learn why this particular dogma seems to be generally accepted, even by radical reformist branches that denies the divinity of Christ, miracles, the Trinity and other much more controversial things. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite literally Jesus had to be born of a virgin, for two reasons. One was that it was prophecied:

“

Therefore Jehovah himself will give YOU men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Im·man´u·el.

”

— Isaiah 7:14

Secondly Jesus had to be born of a virgin because he was perfect and required a perfect father. While there has been new knowledge about dominant and recessive traits, there have been no experiements about mixing perfection (holy spirit) and imperfection (Mary's Ovum). schyler (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will buy the prophecy bit, it seems reasonable that they would try to hang on to a continuity from the Old Testament. However the "he was perfect and required a perfect father" explanation does not seem to hold water, if those particular schools did not believe in the divinity of Christ. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you buy the prophecy bit? The prophecy was being given as a sign to King Ahaz that the Kingdom of Israel would not overtake the Kingdom of Judah, but King Ahaz died and his reign ended prior to 700 BCE, so how would a sign from God through Isaiah be valuable if it it referred to Jesus who was born nearly 700 years later? And that's notwithstanding the major issue of "ha'almah" not meaning a virgin, but a maiden, in Hebrew. But leaving that alone entirely, this taken as a Christian prophecy completely removed the incident from context. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STX: Being perfect and being human are not mutually exclusive. Jesus had to be born perfect in order to ransom from sin the human race, which descended from originally perfect Adam. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/1_corinthians/15-45.htm)

—Wavelength (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps have rephrased it, it sounded plausible that they would buy the prophecy bit in order to get a historical continuity in their faith from the time of the Old Testament to the New, however it does not mean that that is the explanation, it might very well be different one like the one Wavelength mentions above. I guess plausible or reason does not always apply to theoloy, not even these schools which were in their own time criticised for applying too much rationality to their Bible interpretations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In early Christianity, those who denied truly human qualities to Jesus, denied atonement, etc. and therefore had Jesus at a somewhat distant remove from humanity (similar to the God of Deism) were the Docetics. I don't know if there's any single convenient name for those who claim to follow Jesus as a great moral philosopher without attributing any divine characteristics to him, but it's similar to the Jefferson Bible etc. AnonMoos (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed perplexing. After all, the New Testament actually gives two different versions of the genealogy of Jesus (well, actually, Joseph... the relevance of which is also a curious issue). One would think that Christians would have been more open to consider a less literal interpretation of the text in such a situation. It is also worth considering the Jewish tradition of the Lamed Vav Tzadikim, the thirty-six truly good men who uphold the world, who are at once human, yet may be capable of becoming the Messiah, who may be regarded as the Son of Man. Wnt (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, remember that Christianity is actually more of a Roman faith than an Abrahamic faith, and as such has some decidedly pagan roots. Virgin birth was a very common trope in Greco-Roman theology, and Roman citizens would have naturally assumed that anyone 'heroic' would have been the product of a god mating with a mortal woman. IMO, Jesus just happened to hit the jackpot at the confluence of Roman paganism and Judaic monotheism (i.e., he wasn't just 'a' son of 'a' god, but became 'the' son of 'the' god). --Ludwigs2 01:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's extremely historically dubious. In fact, in the cosmopolitanism of the Roman Empire, the traditional "Greco-Roman theology" was greatly weakened, and few people took it very seriously as theology (as opposed to being a rich storehouse of poetic literary allusions, and a source of civic rituals which were considered to bind social and political entities together). People turned much more to things like Stoicism, Epicureanism, Mithraism, worship of Cybele, worship of Isis-Osiris etc., rather than worrying about fusty legends of Zeus siring demigods (which were of much more concern to archaizing poets than to most ordinary people in their daily lives). AnonMoos (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can how DRosenbach's claim that the prophecy found at Isaiah 7:14 references that "the Kingdom of Israel would not overtake the Kingdom of Judah" could hold water. Do you have a source, though, for this claim DR? I see that the remaining prophecy does indeed refer to Pekah, but to whom does the name-title "Immanuel" refer? Is it Hezekiah, who was already 9 years old at the time? Was it Maher-shalal-hash-baz, Isaiah's second son, who's mother is not known as a maiden, but as "the prophetess?" I think the two qualifiers disqualify these personages as the prophesied Immanuel.
Furthermore, when Matthew quotes the prophet he uses the Greek word parthenos for the Hebrew almah which are translated into English as virgin and maiden respectively. Thus, maiden means virgin in antiquity. While there may be other arguments that can be settled by simple logic, the truth is clear: the full and complete identity of Immanuel is found in the office and personage of the Lord Jesus Christ. schyler (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Isaiah, which was written in Hebrew, requires one to understand Hebrew. The letter hey preceding the word almah indicates that it refers to a particular known maiden -- Rashi states this refers to Isaiah's wife, while the Radak states that this refers to Ahaz's wife, but it certainly does not refer to some random woman who would approach you to claim that she's pregnant with no male involvement. And Immanuel would be either Isaiah's or Ahaz's next son. And you cannot bring any proof from Matthew because Matthew was written well after Isaiah and in Greek, not Hebrew. Who cares what Matthew wrote? There are two distinct words in Hebrew: almah and besulah -- the latter one means a virgin, while the former one means a maiden. What's a maiden? So the definition can be disputed, much like it could in English, but if I were trying to start a religion, I'd make sure my proof text was a little more substantial than taking a word that only might backhandedly refer to what I'm trying to make the basis of my religion. Your challenge has no merit, because Greek was a translation -- why does it matter what word was used? It's obviously more important which Hebrew word was used, and it wasn't besulah (virgin). Your emotional convictions blind your quest for truth. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you accept that all the writers concerned were (a) fully and accurately informed of reality (ultimately requiring circular logic), and (b) honest (see Pious fraud). [Addendum: I should have included (c) sane]. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ebionites is especially relevent to this discussion, even more so the section Ebionites#Jesus. --Jayron32 05:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the suggestion above of Unitarians is correct. Its modern anglophone manifestations are,at the denominational level, General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches in the UK and Unitarian Universalist Association in the US. Not all of the members of those organisations are Christians, but of those who are, many would hold the view of Jesus as a great teacher rather than a miraculous Son of God. The smaller organisations of relevance are the Unitarian Christian Association and Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship; their websites may be more specific about the detail of their Christology. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Irish Citizenship?

I'm trying to sort out the situation with citizenship in Northern Ireland and have two scenarios I'd like answered.

1) Two citizens of the Republic of Ireland move to Northern Ireland and have a child. Is that child entitled to British Citizenship at the point of its birth?

2) Two British (English) citizens move to Northern Ireland and have a child. Is that child entitled to Irish (Republic of) citizenship?

Thanks so much for any help. --CGPGrey (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~For #2, yes, as per the Constitution of Ireland. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Or maybe not. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For #1, following the guidance in the official border agency leaflet on British Citizenship, the answer appears to be No, at birth, unless either of the parents is "settled in the United Kingdom", which if I understand note 5 correctly, seems to mean they've lived in Northern Ireland under EEC free movement rules for 5 years or otherwise have indefinite leave to remain (or of course, British citizenship.) [Ignore this, it's just in here for the sake of completeness: it goes on to say that if said child lives in Northern Ireland for the first ten years of their life they qualify for citizenship or if the parents become settled whilst the child is still under 18] Straightontillmorning (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For #2, the child is 'entitled' to Irish citizenship, by virtue of being born on the island of Ireland to parents who had the right to live there [7]. Before 2005, the parents' rights were irrelevant. Having entitlement does not, however, automatically make them a citizen, there would be paperwork to fill out. --Saalstin (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 6

Antonyms

Is the apparent antonym set uncanny\canny the only one in the English language that consists of two unrelated words? I'm not interested in related but non-antonyms, like flammable/inflammable. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "unrelated" do you mean having completely different and distinct etymologies? Because that does not seem to be the case, according to the OED [8][9]. "Canny" is something along the lines of "knowing", and "uncanny" is something along the lines of "not known". WikiDao ☯ 03:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright -- MW didn't give me that data. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This probably would have been a better question for the Language Reference Desk btw. -- œ ^™ 03:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also antonyms are often very unrelated etymologically: happy/sad, good/bad, true/false, just because an antonym of happy is unhappy does not make it the only or true antonym. meltBanana 03:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the question DRosenbach actually wanted to ask is, are there any other cases in which X and un-X are not opposite in meaning?. Looie496 (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Credible/Incredible? They're kinda-sorta antonyms, but they don't really have the same usages. For example, you could call a trustworthy person a credible witness, but if you then said that they were the best witness in the case the could be an incredible witness. They could be both credible and incredible without being contradictory in any way. --Jayron32 05:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That usage of "incredible" would not have the literal meaning of "impossible to be believed", so antonymising it with the usage of "credible" that does have the literal meaning "able to be believed" is mixing apples and oranges. (It's like the zillions of things that are routinely described as "miraculous": are they "incapable of being explained scientifically"? Er, hardly.) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that is the EXACT request that the OP is looking for. He asked for words that would be grammatical antonyms, but which would not be literal antonyms. Credible and Incredible exactly match the request, just like his canny/uncanny pairing. --Jayron32 06:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP seems to be saying that, although "canny" and "uncanny" have the surface appearance of being related (albeit in opposition), they are not actually etymologically related at all. However, WikiDao's response seems to put the lie to that theory. But let's entertain the OP and see what we come up with.

Yes -- wow -- credible and incredible is a great example. Thanks! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems apparent that the OP takes "uncanny" to mean weird, spooky, unsettling, and "canny" to mean astute or thrifty. Those two meanings are not remotely antonyms. They would need to be opposite sides of the same coin to qualify as antonyms. I'm not convinced your "credible/incredible" example fits that bill. Your "incredible" comes directly from "credible, even though the meaning used is not the literal one. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 07:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the OP is after pairs of words that (a) appear to be antonyms but (b) are not antonyms and (c) are not even related, despite their appearance. His own example of "canny/uncanny" does not fit the bill because it fails test (c). "Credible/incredible" also fails test (c).

If there was a verb "to ite", meaning to twiddle idly with your navel lint, from an obscure Baluchistani word, then it and the word "unite" would be a candidate pair. They look like anyonyms but are not, and have completely different etymologies. We need a real example like that. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 08:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that that's what DRosenbach is looking for, Jack, but you came very close to an actual such instance—ionize and unionize. Deor (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright -- I forgot that one, but I remember thinking about it when I did first heard of that a couple years back. If you use the word unionize as "undoing the ionization of," then they are opposites, even though it's likely a made up context. But the proper meaning of unionize is based on a different word (with the un- already part of the root of the word, so I'd say this is merely a technical example, but not something that would meet my criteria. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of one more after hearing one of them on the radio: easy and uneasy. Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good one, Looie. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would easy chair and queasy chair be an example? Bus stop (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is still unclear to me, but here are some possible examples.

(un)less, till (until), (un)to, (un)toward
(counter)act, (counter)balance, (counter)point, (counter)top
(de)base, (de)grade, (de)light, (de)part (synonyms), (de)ride, (de)sign, (de)sire, (de)vote
within, without; inning, outing; income, outcome; in-house, outhouse; in-law, outlaw; inlay, outlay; inline, outline; intake, outtake
overtake, undertake
upright, downright
fraction, infraction
quite a few, quite a lot

Incidentally, a word can be an antonym of another word in two different senses.

(un)done, (un)locked, (un)sealed, (un)wrapped

—Wavelength (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncouth / couth. Couth is used in Scotland. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have always liked the verb "cleave"... which is an antonym of itself (and can mean both "holding together" and "cutting apart"). Blueboar (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle males

Is there a secular organization of males which is actively educating males about the importance of treating females with extra gentleness?
—Wavelength (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Football League. Not the kind of anwer you expected? Becasue it's a major issue where I come from right now, it was the first thing I thought of. (And does seem at least a little bit relevant.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...treating females with extra gentleness?" Er, no... I don't think that 'females' need 'extra gentle' treatment, so much as treatment as ordinary human beings, who's needs should be assessed on an individual basis, rather than according to cultural stereotypes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not everyone in the world shares your opinions, so what you think has no bearing on the existence (or lack thereof) of such a secular organization. --99.237.234.245 (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify the part about "extra gentleness" for us? Are you talking about that women on the average have thinner bones and less muscle mass, and that they are therefore more susceptible to injury from physical forces and that they have different injury patterns than men? If so, I think that many medical schools, sports organizations and such have that as part of their education. Are you talking about treating a woman with the same respect as you would a man, and about not assuming that all individuals follow the standard gender roles, and about not assuming cultural stereotypes, for instance that a manager is always a man? If so, I think that many workplaces and educational institutions have that as part of their education or on-the-job training. (For the record, I don't think it counts as "extra gentleness" to treat people as individuals, but opinons differ.)Sjö (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a secular organization of males whose main purpose is educating males to treat all people with gentleness, and females with extra gentleness? This pertains to physical and emotional differences between the two sexes. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/1_peter/3-7.htm)
—Wavelength (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would a quote from one of the epistles be relevant to a secular organisation? If that is the source of their views on physical and emotional differences between the sexes, then they are not a secular organisation. 86.164.58.119 (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STX: 86.164.58.119, the Bible passage does not need to be relevant to the organization. I cited it because it is relevant to my interests.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any organization whith that as its main purpose, secular or not?Sjö (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STX: Sjö, it seems to me that the existence of such an organization is plausible. There is the Men's League for Women's Suffrage, and there is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why limit your consideration to just one gender? There used to be a British society called the Polite Society, as far as I recall, whose members promoted being polite and considerate to others. I'm not sure if it is still active or still exists. Not to be confused with The Polite Society which is completly unconnected and very different, and disturbing in its implications too. 92.24.185.155 (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Execution of Jesus during or after Passover

Is it historically clear (not just in the Bible) that Jesus was executed immediately following or during Passover? If so, is there a fundamental reason for this timing, was it purely coincidental, or was it simply that religious passions are higher during Passover? askewchan (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read Historical Jesus and the similarly named, but different Historicity of Jesus and the articles Crucifixion of Jesus and Dispute about Jesus' execution method. Its not a simple question to answer; given that there's not a lot of extrabibilcal texts out there, i.e. texts outside of the Bible and the Apocrypha which purport to be contemporary accounts of Jesus's life. He just wasn't that important of a figure during his lifetime for anyone outside of his circle of friends to write about him. And so, there really isn't any external, historically objective source which discusses him at all. If you read the Bible, though, you can see that Jesus deliberately chose the week leading into Passover, and deliberatly filled his arrival in Jerusalem with religious symbolism. Remember, for the previous 3 years he'd been wandering around Galilee as an itinerant preacher. The entire week was orchestrated so that Jesus would fulfil prophesies from the Jewish scriptures. See Matthew 21 for a good perspective on the Triumphal entry into Jerusalem. --Jayron32 05:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Hebrew Calendar days begin and end at sundown. Passover begins at sundown on Nisan 14. Jesus had his Last Supper at that time, as was custom. Apparently Judas had betrayed Jesus 2 days earlier on Nisan 12. Additionally, it was by 3pm on Nisan 14 that Jesus was impaled. (Insight On The Scriptures, v. 2, p. 66).
Jesus' ministry was foretold in Daniel's Prophecy especially in the Prophecy of Seventy Weeks. Additionally, Jesus knew his ministry would last about 3 and a half years based on the 1260 days prophecy. Shortly after his triumphant entry into Jerusalem in the spring of 33 C.E., Jesus said: “The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified.” (John 12:23) (The Watchtower, 12/15/2010, Be Zealous For True Worship, paragraph 6). schyler (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are justice?

What is justice? Who can judge for justice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.149.9 (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question you ask "what is justice" has been the central question of political, judicial and political philosophy since the time of the Greeks, a succinct answer is impossible because it involves by necessity the political and social philosophy of the respondent. I would answer that justice is judged upon the natural equity, that is, that each producer should have a natural share of the proceeds and that justice is only achieved when a man receives the vast proportion of what he produces, and any other situation subverts creation into charity. Of course there is ample room to disagree and thus is created the entire realm of political debate. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In what respects do the articles Justice and Judge fail to answer your perplexity? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of "on earth" in the question title leads me to suspect that the OP wants us to consider the theological side of the question as well - you know, the whole "no man on Earth is as just as God in the Heavens", "God will be the final judge, taking precedence over earthly judges" thing. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's two definitions of justice that sometimes act in conflict with one another. I've looked, and can't find a reference, but I remember from a long-ago philosophy class that you can think of these as "vertical justice" or "horizontal justice". Veritcal justice means, roughly, that everyone gets what they deserve; that is each person is judged against their own actions. Horizontal justice means, roughly, that everyone gets treated the same. I may have the exact terms wrong, but the concepts are sound. These things end up in conflict in many societies. For example, we have a sense that people who commit crimes should be put in jail (veritcal justice) and that people who commit the same crime should get the same sentence (horizontal justice). However, in the U.S., we find that even if these principles are applied perfectly, we end up with a situation whereby a LOT more black people end up in jail than white people, a clearly injust situation. But then we have the untenable position of fixing it by either intentionally jailing white people more often (i.e. activly violating horizontal justice) or letting people get away with crimes (i.e. actively violating vertical justice.) The answer, of course, is that there are inherently unjust states of being that are not being considered in the example (socioeconomics) which leads to the problem, and THOSE need to be addressed. But at least it shows the complexity of considering justice. --Jayron32 13:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's well-known that, for similar crimes, blacks do get heavier sentences that whites in the US. See e.g. Furman v. Georgia. So you start with a lack of "horizontal justice". Not to mention the dubious justice of building the wealth of a society at least partially on the backs of kidnapped slaves and then discriminating against their displaced and poverty-striken descendants for another century before slowly redressing some of the injustice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the "look what you made me do" trap. No one chooses to be born a minority, but they do choose to be law-abiding or to be criminals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a statistical fact that disadvantaged groups commit crimes more often. To borrow from Anatole France: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." At least in my version, a just society must take structural injustice into account. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What has that got to do with individuals? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think the fact that George Washington, Nelson Mandela, and Mahatma Gandhi all committed "crimes" tells you something about the influence of structural injustice on individuals? Unless you assume humans are born with a single bit that's set to either "good" or "bad" (admittedly a typical American fallacy), you cannot ignore the fact that the structure of a society influences both the ability, the desire, and the necessity of committing crimes against the laws of that society. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Races and other social groups do not commit crimes. Individuals commit crimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Not wanting to take this further in to soapboxing territory then it already is, this will probably be my sole reply. However it's easier for an individual to make the choice not to steal bread when they have a $97 million dollar earth sheltered mansion to go back to and they can easily call up to have a New Zealand Pāua and truffles and Malaysian petai and durians flown in direct from the source if they so desire basically wherever they are in the world (I'm not aware they've ever done this but they obviously could) than an invidual who's children may die if they don't steal said bread. And yes you probably know I have a specific individual in mind who's is purposely unnamed (and per WP:BLP as well as the simple fact most people should know who I'm referring to I'd prefer it to stay that way).

This person's wealth is largely selfmade but this process was probably assisted by being born in to a very wealthy family so amongst other things dropping out of Harvard University probably didn't seem like such a big deal as it would have to someone there on a scholarship who's family was counting on him/her to support them once they finished; and having access to computers at school when they were something most people even in developed countries had never even used or heck probably didn't even understand what they were about ditto; and I suspect to some extent even the early contacts and any capital was greatly assisted by this person's family and history. Note that this isn't a criticism of said individual, in fact from what I've seen I strongly suspect he'd agree with me.

To take it back to the original question, 'What is justice?'. Is stealing a loaf of bread without say physically threatening or harming anyone worse then say running a US$64.8 billion ponzi scheme? (Okay the punishment here was quite severe but the difference between punishments for white collar crimes and blue collar crimes is a common question.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might interest you to know that "Justice" is the title of one of the more popular courses at Harvard University (taught by Michael Sandel). There is a television series of the lecture that's put out by WGBH-TV ([10] - at least portions viewable online) that you may wish to watch. -- 174.24.195.38 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to add here, I've just always liked the portrayal of justice with the blindfold, the sword, and, the balance, so I added it to this section entirely on a whim. APL (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how helpful is being a fluent speaker of modern Greek, to learning ancient Greek?

Ancient Greek preceded our time (at the earliest) by about 2800 years, around 2600 to 2500 or 2400 years ago was an especially interesting time as well (Golden Age). My question concerns trying to learn it as a living language, starting with modern Greek.

I have no frame of reference to compare with English. I can't imagine that it wouldn't be easier for me to learn Old English (the language of Beowulf) than it would be for a Russian or Chinaman. But that is from only 1200 years ago.

You have to go back 1000 more years than that to get as big a difference (if you consider only time) as between ancient Greece and a modern speaker.

My question is: nevertheless, is there a way to learn modern Greek first, and then expand that living, real language use into being a living speaker of ancient Greece? I think the exercise would not be futile with Beowulf -- I do believe that someone could read Beowulf with a much more living and active language mastery than anyone reading Latin. But can you do the same thing with ancient Greek? I know that the Italians don't do it with Latin -- they don't expand their true, living language skills to be able to speak Latin. They can only analyze it. Which can you do with ancient Greek, if you are a speaker of modern Greek? Can you only analyze the language, the way Italians do with Latin, or can you really speak it if you try, the way I think is (barely) possible with beowulf?

Thanks for any insights you might have on this quesiton. 109.128.155.164 (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of the vocabulary of Modern Greek is either directly from Classical Greek, or is made out of elements from Classical Greek. Since Greek spelling is also quite conservative, these old words and roots are generally readily recognisable (even though the way they are pronounced has changed considerably). Some areas of the grammar however - particularly verbal conjugations - are rather different, and Modern Greek speakers have to study these specifically in order to understand most Classical texts with any precision. The case is different in English, where not only has much of the grammatical apparatus of the language changed, but so too has a significant part of the vocabulary, with words from Latin and French either existing beside native English words, or in many cases supplanting them entirely.

So if you learn Modern Greek first, it will help you learn the vocabulary of Ancient Greek, but not much else. Whether it would be worth doing so depends on how much use you have for Modern Greek. --ColinFine (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker of Greek, I can attest to what Colin says above: the average Greek can make little sense of Thucydides on their own. I might also add that many words from ancient Greek pose unexpected surprises to the speaker of the modern tongue because, although perfectly recognisable, they have undergone changes in meaning. That said, many of the differences between the two languages had already occurred by the first few centuries AD, when the books of the New Testament were written. The Koine Greek language of that time is quite similar to modern Greek and I can read it reasonably easily—as can my grandmother, who boasts of no higher education. The experience is not an exact equivalent of modern English speakers reading the King James Bible, but it is not too far removed, either; this is a remarkable thing in itself, as the Greek version of the Bible is between four and five times as old as the King James Version. Waltham, The Duke of 22:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

California-Arizona desert murders

Back in the mid-1970s there was a series of horrific murders carried out by a father and his teenaged son in the California-Arizona desert. Their modus operandi was to set up a fake detour sign to lure motorists off the main highway, then the two would kill the cars' occupants, using shotguns. On one occasion an entire family was wiped out, including a one year-old baby. They were eventually caught. I have searched the Internet in vain for info on these crimes. Would anyone happen to know more about the case? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in Tucson in the mid-1970s, and I think I would have at least a vague memory of something like that, but I don't. I suspect that you are remembering something from a movie or book. Looie496 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely not. My dad was so worried that he drove my sister when she moved from California to Texas back in 1978 so she wouldn't have to cross the desert alone. It must have happened in the California desert, rather than Arizona if you never heard about it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you maybe remembering (or misremembering) the events described in The Onion Field? --Jayron32 18:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nver saw it. Anyway, I was in my late teens when the killings took place and I know they really happened. The Los Angeles Times even wrote a long article about them, giving the gory details of the killings, which is why they made a strong impression on me and frightened my dad. The father and his son were caught by 1978.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that you are thinking of the Tison gang crime rampage, which got a lot of media coverage in 1978. It involved two men, Gary Tison and Randy Greenawalt, who broke out of the Arizona State Prison and along with some companions including Tison's sons, went on a rampage across Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado, killing a number of people including some tourists who had stopped to help them. More info at this page. Our article Tison v. Arizona also has some information about the story. Looie496 (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a different case. The father-and-son team killed more than one family, and their modus operandi was different in that they used fake detour signs to lure travellers off the main highway where they waited in ambush for them. These killings took place in the desert over a period of time. I know they were caught by 1978 because that was when I read the article. Thanks for the links but it's not the same case at all.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know Steven King wrote a short story with a similar plot. I wonder if it was inspired by actual events now. Googlemeister (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've already discounted this possibility, but for what it's worth, that does sound very much like a movie I once saw - fake detour sign, barb wire over the street, family of so-inbred-they're-barely-human degenerates. I just can't remember the title right now. TomorrowTime (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most films are based on actual events. If only more newspapers would put their archives online the problem would be solved.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me that you are remembering the Tison case (which shares many details with your description: father and son; drivers being tricked; a family including a baby being killed with shotguns; people fearful of driving alone across the desert; the year 1978), but that your memory has morphed over the ensuing 33 years by conflating the events with other things. This could almost be a textbook case of the fallibility of human memory -- it is exactly the sort of process that Elizabeth Loftus and Daniel Schacter have described in their books. Looie496 (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Jeanne can't have been more than a toddler, at most, back in 1978 anyway, so she could easily be mis-remembering....... ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I wish that had been the case Ghmyrtle. I actually celebrated my 20th birthday in 1978 and I recall one of my presents was the Rolling Stones LP Some Girls!!!! My memory is very clear about that time period. It's possible that the LA Times got their facts and details wrong and were referring to the Tison gang.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen them, but the description reminds me vaguely of The Hills Have Eyes series of movies -- the first of which was released in 1977. And see also (as Looie mentioned) false memory and confabulation. WikiDao ☯ 19:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it's probably less dramatic than these two syndromes. It's more likely that the LA Times reporters had got their facts wrong when they published the article. There are certain atrocities that occur which one just does not forget; for instance, I distinctly remember when the Robin Graham disappearance happened in November 1970. The Wikipedia article confirms what my memory records.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

innocuous do not disturb sign

with flatmates, what is the most common "do not disturb" kind of sign on one's door handle? A towel? Or something else.

I mean, if it were agreed on ahead of time... (it doesn't have to be recognizable, in fact it seems to me it would be classier if it werne't). I just would like to know if there is a common solution to this...

109.128.155.164 (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm in the US (judging by "flatmates", you are in a different English-speaking country), but I don't think there is a "most common" sign. Perhaps a clothes hangar or something, but a lot of things could work. Falconus^{p t c} 18:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

would hanging a condom on the doorhandle be to obvious?--Jayron32 20:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

stay classy, Jayron32. 109.128.155.164 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is stereotypically a sock or a tie, isn't it? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a tie. That's classy! 109.128.155.164 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on Jayron's good idea, maybe a "do not disturb" sign ripped off from a hotel somewhere. That should convey the message in spades. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this variation on the usual joke about a sign on a van: "If this room is rockin' / Don't come knockin'." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a closed door? 92.24.185.155 (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identify painting/Greek myth

I'm trying to remember a painting or the myth it was based on...

-It was by a river
-There are a bunch of people (about seven) reveling, at least one is holding a pitcher, and they're either drinking from the river or drinking wine... possibly the river had turned into wine?

-Two of the people had collapsed together by the river or were collapsing, tangled up

-I think some of the people might have been nude, or maybe they were all in togas

-It's based on some Classical myth

-The people in the myth were under a spell and doomed. Something about what they were drinking was important to the story. A god (Bacchus?) was involved.

-The painting's style was pretty realistic, so maybe something from the Renaissance? It wasn't recent.

Sorry I know that's not much... Any ideas? 163.1.231.93 (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)awfc[reply]

Sounds like a bacchanalia...there are images in that article, and a link to more Commons images, is it any of those? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's definitely a river in the painting. Thanks though... 163.1.231.93 (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)awfc[reply]

Maybe something like Poussin's Bacchanalia? (except the river is not-too-prominently, just-barely visible in the background...) WikiDao ☯ 22:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found it! Titian's Bacchanal of the Andrians! Thanks everyone for pointing me towards Bacchanalia. At the Bacchanal of the Andrians the river 'turned to wine', so that's why I remembered the river even though it's not too prominent, as in Poussin's...163.1.231.93 (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)awfc[reply]

February 7

Do servicemen have multiples of the same uniform?

Do servicemen (soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and anyone I left out) have multiples of the same uniform? Specifically do they have multiple identical dress or duty uniforms for when one is at the cleaners? I freely admit little to no knowledge of the military, and am more interested in how consistent and clean looks would be achieved with only one uniform on hand if that is the case.

Those in healthcare who wear scrubs have multiples. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All servicemen only work every two days. One day, they are in their uniforms, and the following day it is washed while they relax in civilian attire. 109.128.127.87 (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. Servicemen are issued a set of uniforms when they enter the military, and are given a monthly clothing allowance to help them augment their wardrobes over time. Here's some information about the clothing allowance:[11] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is yes. For example, US Army current issue includes four sets of ACUs.[12] Of the seven uniformed services of the United States, you left out the United States Coast Guard, United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that include officers? It was my impression that while enlisted personnel in the US military was issued uniforms, officers had to pay for their own because of some old custom that has stuck around. Googlemeister (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, my brother only had one dress uniform though he had several sets of BDUs. He didn't have to wear his dress uniform very often, so there was little point in having more than one. Dismas|^(talk) 11:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The clothing bag issue varies over time. In 1978 I was issued two sets of dress greens, four sets of khakis and four sets of cotton fatigues. By the mid-1980s, it was one set of dress greens, four BDUs and two PFUs (personal fitness uniform). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot depends on where you are stationed and what your duties are... I would imagine that a Marine stationed to the Washington Barracks and posted to White House guard duty will need more than one set of his dress uniform... on the other hand a Marine stationed to Afghanistan probably does not need a dress uniform at all. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It broadly depends what uniform you mean, but in general yes...

Working dress, day to day stuff, then one would have several, in the same way anyone would have several outfits used on different days. For more specialist clothing then that's less likely.

Brit context here: I have one set of formal Mess_dress, two sets of service dress (Jacket/ Trousers/ frame cap etc), 5 sets of barrack dress (shirt/trousers) about 10 sets of combat clothing in various patterns; DPM, Desert, Multi-Terrain Pattern (Crye multicam), a couple of sets of fire-retardant coveralls, 6 pairs of assorted combat boots, two pairs of cavalry boots for wear with service dress or barrack dress.

So lots of kit, of various ages, some supplied, some acquired, some purchased.

ALR (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An anecdote of original research: When I was in the Marines, this is what I had: 1 set of dress blues, 1 pair of black shoes, 2 pairs of green slacks, 2 short-sleeve green shirts, 1 long-sleeve green shirt, 1 green jacket (those all combine for the brave and charlie uniforms), 2 pairs of combat boots, 5 pairs of camo pants, and 2 camo blouses. My primary uniform throughout service was the camo uniform, but once at work, I removed the blouse. So, I wore the same blouse all week, but a new pair of pants. I had workout boots that got sweaty and nasty. I had normal boots that stayed clean. I only wore the bravo once. I wore charlies when on guard duty a couple times - so I had two short sleeve shirts for that. I only wore the dress blues on special occasions, so no need for more than one. -- kainaw ™ 17:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plead error

In context of law, what is "plead error" or what does it mean? For example:

"...The Court would consider, in the light of the subsequent course of events, that Thailand is now precluded by her conduct from asserting that she did not accept it [the disputing map]. She has, for fifty years, enjoyed such benefits as the Treaty of 1904 conferred on her, if only the benefit of a stable frontier. France, through her Cambodia, relied on Thailand's acceptance of the map Since neither side can plead error, it is immaterial whether or not this reliance was based on a belief that the map was correct. It is not now open to Thailand, while continuing to claim and enjoy the benefits of the settlement, to deny that she was ever a consenting party to it."

Thank you. --Aristitleism (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"To plead X" just means to argue and rely on some evidence / doctrine / law etc - e.g. "to plead insanity" in a murdern trial means to argue and rely on the defence of "insanity" to murder. "Error" sounds like it's a shorthand for some doctrine - of manifest error which can be read by the court? Perhaps you need to give us more context. This reads like a public international law case. It would be helpful to identify the court, the legal system and context. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's public international law case—Case concerning Preah Vihear 'Thailand v Cambodia' or see the International Court of Justice docket
I also thought that it would a shorthand for some legal principle. But I was unable to hazard a guess what it is. --Aristitleism (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking a public international law analogue of "manifest error" in contracts, but some googling led me to this, error vitiating agreements / treaties, which seems to be on point. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

City of London

There are three Baronets of the City of London. Sir John Williams, 1st Baronet, Sir James Sanderson, 1st Baronet and Sir Matthew Blakiston, 1st Baronet. Yet Maurice Glasman is not allowed that territorial designation on being elevated to the Peerage [13]. So why were they? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure that he was "not allowed" the designation? I am under the impression that the person granted the Baronetcy has input into what his title is... so I would assume he requested to be "of Stoke Newington and Stamford Hill" instead of "of the City of London". Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the report is accurate. The City of London would seem to me a bit excessive for a mere baronet or a (devalued modern-day) baron. And there are several examoles of people taking a ward, eg Peter Levene, Baron Levene of Portsoken. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His assertions about why he apparently couldn't have that territorial designation (the City not being subject to the Crown, etc.) are demonstrably incorrect: as this list of creations shows, peerages have been created with territorial designations referring to the City on numerous occasions. That list is in fact not entirely up to date - the most recent such creation was for Margaret Wheeler, who was created Baroness Wheeler, of Blackfriars in the City of London, in 2010. One possibility is that he wasn't allowed to have "of the City of London" rather than "of X in the City of London". There are rules as to what can and cannot be used, but they're not published, so we have to guess at them somewhat, and they seem to change over time. However, it appears from the list that local authorities in London now can't be used on their own: the last "of the London Borough of X" was in 1978, the only "of the City of London" was in 1973, and the last "of the City of Westminster" was in 1981. He was presumably told that if he wanted to refer to the City he'd have to pick somewhere in it. As his only connection to the City seems to be that he doesn't like it, perhaps he decided he didn't feel like doing that, and chose some other places instead. In any event, even without this data those assertions are extremely suspect - territorial designations merely indicate where a peer (or baronet) comes from or is associated with, and don't imply any form of overlordship whatsoever (hence the permissibility - and reasonably widespread use - of places outside the UK with which the peer has some connection). Proteus (Talk) 14:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting and erudite as ever. And I see that Leslie O'Brien (1973) was created Baron O'Brien of Lothbury, of the City of London. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct something you said earlier as well, a Baronet is not part of the peerage. The lowest ranked peer is still a Baron. --Jayron32 16:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for statistics on Life Imprisonment in Florida

(1) In 2009 in Florida, USA, how many were sentenced to Life in Prison? (2) Of these in question (1), how many were 1st degree felonies, 2nd degree felonies, etc.?

Thank your for your time.64.129.215.254 (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I googled sentencing statistics florida and found this page and by clicking one of the "x" graphics, I eventually got to this page, which says in their 2008-2009 fiscal year, about 1,693 people were admitted to prison with a sentence length of 20 years or more. (For their statistics, for some reason, if someone is sentenced to life in prison, they code it as though it were a 50 year sentence.) I didn't see the 1,693 sentences broken out by different crimes, but this page breaks out all the admissions by the crime, so you might be able to puzzle out the answer to your question. Note that Florida seems to group its statistics by fiscal years, so these pages are for part of 2008 and part of 2009, not the full 2009 calendar year. One sad note: this page states that out of all the newly admitted prisoners, about 75% were functionally illiterate. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

about annasophia robb

can i please have annasophia robbs email and phone number please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.94.34.155 (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Firstly, because we don't have it, and secondly, even if we did, we wouldn't give it to you. Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, not a telephone/e-mail directory - I doubt very much Ms Robb would want to be contacted by random fans anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked nicely, the answer is a polite no. 129.120.195.10 (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives the URL for a presumably official website. Check that website and see if they have any "contact us" info. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could contact her representatives at http://pro.imdb.com/name/nm1455681/agent?d=nm_ovrview_contact, but you have to register to do that, and they charge a fee after maintaining an account for something like 14 days Corvus cornix_talk 00:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Sweden more likely than UK to extradite Julian Assange?

Are there different laws in both countries? 80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following too closely to this since Assange turned himself in to the UK authorities, but at that time it was Sweden who wanted the UK to extradite him to Sweden. Are you asking if Sweden would be more likely than the UK to extradite him to the US if the US files some sort of national security charges against him...? WikiDao ☯ 19:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The front page of MSNBC as I write this has a big headline, "Assange Afraid of 'Execution' if Extradited", with the subhead, "Wikileaks' founder, at left, asserts that if he is extradited to Sweden to face rape charges, he would eventually end up in U.S., where he could face the death penalty." The original poster is presumably asking why Assange seems to have a greater fear of being extradited to the US from Sweden, as opposed to being extradited to the US from the UK. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What capital crime is Assange alleged to have committed? Or does he just have a guilty conscience? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that depends on what political pundit you listen to. Some are claiming that his actions in publishing classified government documents on Wikileaks is treason, a potentially capital crime in the US. It's a dubious claim but, given the behavior of the US government over the past decade, I can't blame him being nervous about the prospect. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peculiar idea, though; Australia might perhaps make such a charge, but you can't commit treason against another country, only your own. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Unless Assange is a US citizen, treason doesn't figure into it. He's just cooking stuff up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assange isn't cooking it up, political pundits here in the USA are. And, given how we invented "enemy combatants" & put them in Guantanamo, I wouldn't blame him being nervous about us picking him up regardless of extradition treaties. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This CNN blog says the fear is that he'd be imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay or executed for espionage if extradited to the US. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We won't let him off that easy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-US-citizen, he could not be executed for treason or, I believe, espionage. However, if the Wikileaks releases caused any US govt employee to be killed, even overseas, he could conceivably be charged under terrorism statutes that carry a possible death penalty. Looie496 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, you are not Glenn Beck and this is not Fox news. It would be great to use wikipedia without having to know anything at all about your views on those, like Assange or the occupants of Gitmo, who you seem to hold in low esteem. The rest of us manage to refrain from treating the RDs as a forum for our opinions. I'd be grateful if you would do the same. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. Tell us another one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... How do we know that Bugs isn't Glen Beck? :>) Blueboar (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, I'm seeing it spelled both "Glen" and "Glenn" here, and I don't know which is correct. Where's Cuddly3 when we need him/her/whatever? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of countries which have abolished the death penalty will not extradite people to another country if it's possible that they will be executed (Extradition#Restrictions mentions that the European Court of Human Rights has determined that it would violate the European Convention on Human Rights to do so, at least in a previous case). I'm not sure what the current law is like in either the UK or Sweden, but I think it's unlikely he'd be extradited from either country to face capital charges. (On non-capital charges? I have no clue.) -- 140.142.20.229 (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, the question was: Why is Sweden more likely than UK to extradite Julian Assange? Not why he doesn't want to be deported to the US (which is pretty obvious, considering the trouble he had made.). The answer is I don't know, maybe a deportation agreement makes his situation more instable there. Maybe he doesn't care, but doesn't want to be judged for rape in Sweden (but is too chicken to admit). Quest09 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP needs to understand that Assange is invoking extreme hyperbole in the hope that some America-hating Europeans will buy into it and keep him free from the consequences of his actions. The OP may not realize it, but he's asking a "loaded question", i.e. a question that assumes a premise that may well be false. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second question is OK, are there different laws? But, the first could be better formulated as: Why does Assange fight extradition (to Sweden obviously)? The point is that the RD cannot know. We can only speculate about his reasons (although we are supposed to do that. Quest09 (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, you are quite cavalier about dismissing the dangers to Assange's life as being merely a public relations ploy. Just in this news story you can see that Mike Huckabee wants Assange tried and executed; a former aide to the Canadian prime minister wants to dispense with the trial and just have him assassinated; Peter King, the new Chair of the Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, wants him charged under the Espionage Act (which, according to our article, subjects violators to the death penalty); and Sarah Palin stirs up all her gun-bearing nutjob fans by saying that Assange has "blood on his hands".

If these kinds of statements were being made about you in some foreign country, you probably wouldn't be too keen to subject yourself to a jury of its citizens, either. JamesMLane t c 03:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why Assange doesn't want to be extradited to the U.S., but the calls for execution clearly are purely a public relations ploy by people desperate to be in the news. In practical terms neither Huckabee, Palin, King, or the Prime Minister of Canada's staff really has a say in how Assange is treated. The decisions about prosecution would be made by the current administration, which doesn't exactly take orders from Sarah Palin. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OP Here (different IP): yes, I see that I asked a loaded question, without intention. I fully understand that Assange is not eager to be deported to the US, no matter how good the weather in Guantánamo might be. But, would indeed Sweden be more prone to deport him? Is there a legal difference with the UK? Don't they apply the same EU laws? 212.169.191.85 (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a moot point. If he were extradited to Sweden from the UK and then the US tried to extradite him then it would still need approval of the UK. (i.e. you couldn't play pass the parcel with him). It's highly unlikely the US will try to extradite him (this part is my take on it BTW), that is mostly the line of the right wing politicians & media. Usually they say such things, but it is the middle of the road parts of the federal govt. that usually get down to such matters. Bottom line is that any such extradition would end up taking many many years; and they have still not identified an actual crime to charge him with (the army scuppered the right wings original plans to charge him with endangering the lives of soldiers by saying he hasn't :P). It's a right mess. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the contents of Extradition Act 2003 and this page, I'm starting to think Mr Assange may have a better chance in Sweden than in the UK (provided he successfully refutes the rape charges, obviously). Sweden won't extradite for military or political offences, or where a death sentence would be imposed, and the charge must be "equivalent to a crime that is punishable under Swedish law by imprisonment for at least one year". Compare it to Britain, which seems bound to hand over just about anyone the US asks for (and did so even before the US had actually ratified the treaty under which it was demanding extradition), and which has in the past contrived to execute someone for treason even though they weren't a citizen. If he can avoid being convicted for rape and sexual assault, he may be well advised to cultivate a taste for Ikea furniture and smörgåsbord. Ka renjc 17:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in our article to suggest that Casement was not a British subject. The controversy over his execution related to the interpretation of the Treason Act with regard to where the acts were committed. DuncanHill (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe they have Ikea furniture and smörgåsbord in prison too? Sweden is well known for their comfortable prison system, so, he wouldn't have to be acquited to spend a pleasant time there. Quest09 (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of the UK hanging a non-citizen for treason was William Joyce; the excuse was that he held a (fraudulent) British passport. --Trovatore (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the death sentence note, I can't imagine the UK extraditing anyone to face execution. Clearly this would be an incredibly bad move for the UK (whose population would require a cutoff at mass-murderer for any significant number of people to support a death penalty); in the past, the previous government even said so itself. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the political hyperbole here isn't really appropriate. Simply put: The UK is highly unlikely to extradite Assange to a nation that allows capital punishment (aka the USA). Assange feels, however, that Sweden has no problem with doing so, which places his life in danger if extradited to Sweden. Sweden has also allowed prisoners to be sent to Egypt for torture, something Assange's lawyers assert lends credence to his fears.[14] — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But according to fairly reliable sources, including some leaked by Julian Assange, didn't the UK use extraordinary rendition to Egypt too? Prokhorovka (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy against giving Legal Advice.

I am not seeking legal advice here. But I do sometimes think that questionners are brushed off rather brusquely with the retort, "Wikipedia does not give legal advice", in response to a legal issue query. I entirely agree that Wikipedia is neither equipped nor responsible for giving legal advice. Anyone seeking legal advice should only ever use the services of a fully trained, qualified, practising Lawyer/Solicitor in their local jurisdiction. But I can't help but wonder if a response based on "This is not to be taken as legal advice - it is expressly offered as a legal opinion only" might be more in the spirit of Wikipedia being more helpful to those seeking information. I worked in the law for many years in the UK and it's interesting to note that even our High Court Judges do not make legal judgements (that function is reserved for juries) - the judges only deliver sentences in criminal cases and "Opinions" in civil cases, both of which are subject to challenge in a higher court or tribunal. Just a thought. But on medical questions I wholeheartedly agree that no advice should be offered at all. 84.13.75.152 (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are questioning or proposing a change to the RD guidelines, that would probably be better done on the talk page. WikiDao ☯ 19:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

commentary of The Cask of Amontillado

Is there a website where there is a commentary on The Cask of Amontillado?

Well, there's an article on it here at Wikipedia: The Cask of Amontillado. WikiDao ☯ 20:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

Vocal range

I read something about a person (I forget if it was a man or a woman) who could sing an incredible vocal range, something like baritone to soprano (my memory might be exaggerated). Is this story true? What is the largest range that is theoretically possible for a person to sing? Thanks.72.128.95.0 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you were thinking of Ivan Rebroff or Yma Sumac. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Block of Into Eternity is something, too; not famous outside of metal circles, but he can go bass to soprano falsetto on a dime, sing well at everything in between, and do rather fierce death roars in all of those ranges. For an example, you can check out Tides of Blood off The Incurable Tragedy. And he basically never took vocal lessons; I know that's not who you're thinking of, but he has that kind of range. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

remember: I, a baritone, can whistle a fine Queen of The Night high high soprano. But, although it sounds better than these guys singing at the wrong end of their range, it doesn't sound as good as if I just sing in my own register. I used to be impressed with these people making ANY sound in such a high range. But the truth is, you can't listen to it. After, for example, Ivan Rebroff is singing his "soprano" parts (as in the beginning of this song: [15]) it is like a breath of fresh air, when he sings in his real register - baritone, like me. His high parts are a terrible substitute to having a woman complementing him in those parts of the song, just like whistling is a terrible substitute to singing. I don't exactly blame you for being interested in these 'marvels', but don't mistake these guys for a piano - which really can produce a lovely sound at any point in its eight-octave range. A man is not a piano. 109.128.127.87 (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of a subjective thing, though; many people would find Stu's voice harsh to the point of unlistenable, but I love it. It depends on what you want to hear. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, I don't find Ivan Rebroff that bad Nil Einne (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also the last few seconds of this song: [16]. If she wants to make a sound that high, let her pick up the violin, or piano, or if push comes to shove whistle it. I wanted to turn off the song, but luckily it was over. 109.128.127.87 (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The man in this video can sing 6 octaves(!). That's not to say that he can sing well in all registers, but he is the world record holder for highest vocal note. schyler (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, indeed, any of them. 109.128.127.87 (talk) 09:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Storms and Georgia Brown (Brazilian singer) are the current record holders with a 10 and 8 octave range respectively. meltBanana 02:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to hear someone whose range per se was not record-breaking, but whose highest note was an impossible-sounding double-high D, just listen to Mado Robin. She could produce stunningly clear and bell-like tones at this extraordinarily high pitch. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sunan Airport and Air Koryo

Does anyone know if Air Koryo has its own head office building at Sunan Airport, or if the airline's offices are in the airport terminal? If there is a special building, I could submit a photo request for it. If not, I'll just use the terminal image. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any information on this; there doesn't seem to be an online map of Pyongyang's Sunan International Airport such as you would find for other airports. There are a couple of websites that claim to have photos of Koryo's offices in Pyongyang[17][18] but I don't think these are good enough sources to directly reference on Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these! I will ask for a relicensing, but it seems like they aren't the head office - At http://www.korea-dpr.com//Air%20Koryo/contact.htm , the Air Koryo website mentions it has city ticket offices in Central District, Pyongyang. The Flickr photos seem to be the city ticket offices. The actual head office is in Sunan district, where the airport lies. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peers and Knights

After reading the question above about baronets of the City of London, I decided to attempt to get a basic understanding of what I think is called the British honors system. (Yes, I know that Britons call it the "honours system", but I like to be consistent in my spelling.) Please correct me if I am wrong: Britons can be divided into three categories—the sovereign (of whom there is only one), peers, and commoners. Peers are what might also be called nobles. Some peers are hereditary; others are awarded their peerages as life peers for the remainder of their lives only. In addition to peers, there are commoners who are awarded various honors. Am I right that chivalric orders are one of the types of honors awarded to commoners? So, knights are commoners, then? Apparently baronetcies are an honor that commoners can hold, and apparently some baronetcies are hereditary. Is this also correct? What about knighthoods? Are some of them hereditary, or are they held only during the lifetime of the beknighted (or whatever the correct term is)? I promise that I have taken a look at the relevant articles, but they are not entirely clear, and the whole subject is complex and confusing. Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: the whole subject is complex and confusing. There are entire introductory and advanced courses on this at University. It is somewhat interesting though (to me, especially the imitation of the country gentleman and the planter gentry in the Old South). schyler (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The baronetcy was a controversial title from the start, and has largely fallen into disuse, excepting extant hereditary baronetcies which have not been subsumed by more important titles. It was basically a transparent attempt by the early Stuart kings to raise money outside of Parliament. The idea that Kings could raise money (and thus govern) without Parliament didn't really end up going well, and the entire concept of the Baronetcy kinda goes with that. See English Civil War for how well that all went. Because Baronets are such an oddity, they kinda lie outside of everything else. The peerage (that is, Barons, Viscounts, Earls, Marquesses, and Dukes) are feudal ranks given to what basically used to amount to territorial governors of the King. Different sizes and locations of the territories gave rise to the ranks; the largest and most economically important territories were given over to Dukes, and called Duchies. The most important territories lied on the borders of nations (border lands were called "Marches" or "Marks") and thus the strategic importance of these lands placed them second in rank behind dukes. Smaller, and less influential territories were then parcelled out as Earldoms, Viscountcies, and Baronies. That actual system didn't really work so well for the King, as the King found that semi-independent hereditary governors didn't really "toe the party line" all that well, so direct administration in the name of the King was gradually transferred directly to civil servants like Sherrifs and Magistrates; this often created conflict between the rights of the "Barons" (as the titled nobility are collectively known) and the Crown; this conflict is what eventually leads to things like the Magna Carta and eventually Parliament and all the rest. Knights are basicly the military "middle management" during Feudal times; think of them roughly, rank-wise, equivalent to the frontline officers (Lieutenants and Captains) of today. During times of war, the titled Barons were expected to serve as the Generals, and the Knights were supposed to serve as their frontline officers, while the actual fighting infantry were under the command of the knights. That's not exactly correct, but it roughly captures the relative ranks and roles of the various ranks. The term Knight really refers to the heavy cavalry of the period, which of course is basically what Knights were. Since heavy cavalry are very expensive to maintain, the "honor" of being a knight is reserved for your best warriors (or those to whom you owe political favors!). Of course, with the advent of professional armies (In England, this occurs most famously under Oliver Cromwell, see New Model Army) along with the advent of gunpowder and the changing nature of warfare, knighthood becomes a purely honorary title. --Jayron32 03:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So a knight is just a commoner, similar to a grocer, a farmer, a carpenter or a tavern owner? Would the offspring of a knight be considered equivalent to a barmaid or a woodchopper in lack of suitability to marry the offspring of a Duke? That is a might surprising. Edison (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. Remember that in England, officially anyone without a proper peerage title is officially a commoner. Practically, that means that the younger brother of a Duke wouldn't end up being a noble in his own right. In reality, what happens is that noble families make sure that all members of the family end up getting titles granted by the king, so that you end up with a distinct and static class structure in England during most of history, with almost no mobility. It's also a land-based class structure; thus you can have interesting situations where a Baron who is so poor he doesn't have a pot to piss in still gets a seat in Parliament and political power, while a rich merchant without land or title has absolutely no civic power at all. Knights are commoners, and unlanded commoners, so they kinda fall into that realm. In reality, knights become a real problem for the Kings of Europe. Think about it: You have a sizable class of well-trained, well-equipped warriors without political power and, in times of peace, nothing to do. That spells a LOT of trouble, since the Knight class develops a reputation of wandering the country side, thieving and pillaging as mercenaries (basically, the hired thugs of the time). Enter The Crusades, which basically focuses that energy and gives the knight class something to do instead of being the hired thugs for rich land owners, used to rough up the peasantry and keep them in line, or to raid the neighboring land owner's property. --Jayron32 03:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was Henry VII who made it illegal for nobles to maintain private armies; his son, Henry VIII made the royal court the epicentre of cultural activity that drew all his nobles from the outlying regions, making it less likely that they would plot rebellion in their far-off castles and manors. In the Middle Ages, Welsh Marcher Lords had almost as much power as the English king. See the Despenser War article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer one of your questions directly: All baronetcies are hereditary - that's what distinguishes them from knighthoods. They're both called "Sir", but the eldest surviving son of a baronet also becomes a baronet on his father's death, whereas the son of knight doesn't. Baronetcies are also similar to hereditary peerages in that they're, well, hereditary. But they're not part of the peerage. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A knight has always had higher social standing than let's say a gentleman farmer or country squire.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but what if said farmer was the rightful heir to the throne? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually George III's nickname was the Farmer King.--Jeanne Boleyn 16:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be a wee bit irritating on the point by Jayron that members of the nobility would make sure that the whole family were given titles by the King/Queen. In our present situation, we have an example of where that practice wasn't pursued by Princess Anne (only daughter of the present Queen), when she asked that her 2 children NOT be given titles. Her reasoning was that as Anne was not going to inherit the throne(her brother Charles would do that on his mother's death), her 2 children were NOT Royal and so didn't merit a title. And as it turned out, that seems to have been a most wise decision, given that they both got the chance to live comparatively normal lives, out of the full glare of the limelight. 78.146.43.71 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, even though Anne was the second born child, all 3 of her brothers and all their descendants have more senior positions in the line of sucession than Anne and any of her descendants. And even if all 3 brothers and all their children were suddenly wiped out, Anne would still not be called Heiress Apparent but merely Heiress Presumptive, because the law assumes that the Queen and Prince Philip, at the the grand old ages of 85 and 90, could still produce a male heir, who would topple Anne from her place.

Girls - yuck! Well, that's basically the position the succession laws adopt. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Marco's question "What about knighthoods? Are some of them hereditary?", they are almost always, as Jack said, for life only, but there are two hereditary knighthoods: the Knights of Kerry and the Knights of Glin. A third title, that of White Knight, has been dormant for the last 400 years but might still be revived. All three families were granted their utterly anomalous titles in medieval Ireland, where ideas on these things must presumably have been very different from in England. --Antiquary (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Property Taxation

How is the property tax imposed in the state of Florida? Does the legislature have the exclusive right to impose this tax or is the responsibility shared by both the state and the counties? 71.196.66.52 (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not just the state, according to §200.011 of the Florida Statutes. Paragraph (1) provides that "county commissioners shall determine the amount to be raised for all county purposes", and paragraph (6) apparently allows school districts, municipalities, and special taxing districts to levy property taxes as well. Nyttend (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pachelbel's Canon

Questions about these two videos:

1) Brass version -- what are the names of the five instruments they are playing from left to right.

2) Guitar quartet -- do they play it differently just for the fun of it, or can they not play it exactly how it's supposed to be played because they are using guitars that don't have continuous bow rubbing?

Thanx! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) Tuba, French Horn, Euphonium, Trumpet and Trumpet. The Euphonium may also be a Baritone Horn. 2) Accoustic guitars have very short sustain, meaning that to replicate the sustain of other instruments they have to use other techniques. A common technique is tremolo picking, though using multiple layered guitars like this is another way to replicate the effect. --Jayron32 05:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the fourth valve is not a defining characteristic of the euphonium versus the baritone, it is more common. What seals it is the large bore flare on the bell of the instrument. Additionally, in brass bands, the baritone often takes the baritone range found in vocal arrangements. That is, when a piece originally written for vocalists is transcribed for a brass band, the horn player will bring his or her baritone and leave his or her euphonium at home. In this piece, the register is tenor, and the euponiumer is most likely playing the top part of the bass clef (tenor) found from the original piano part, whereas baritone is often written in treble (octave down). schyler 14:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

food to buy

I have 50 euros to spend on food. What should I buy that would last 2 weeks? I have a full kitchen and all the time in the world. 109.128.127.87 (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you already have in the kitchen store-cupboard items such as flour, rice, dried herbs, spices? (this affects my suggestions) 86.162.68.36 (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this article from the Philadelphia Daily News. Since you mention euros I suppose that you are in Europe, but many of the suggestions are useful all over the world, like avoiding pre-cooked food.Sjö (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have an empty kitchen since I just moved in. This is also why I don't have more money, I had to use it for rent and deposit. 109.128.127.87 (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would also depend on where you are. 50 euros will get you a different amount of food in different countries. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get some flour and yeast, and make bread, rolls, cakes. Canned fish, like sardines or mackerel in sauce, is a good buy. If you want meat to last two weeks, you can salt it yourself; get pork belly or hock (or even cheaper, pork cheeks, trotters) and rub the meat with a generous mix of salt and sugar (both are cheap and you need them anyway), then after a couple of days wash it off and store it wrapped in paper or cloth. You can add spices and herbs, you should find recipes online. Then you can stew your home-made bacon with beans. If you don't eat pork, other meats can be salted. You'll want to eat plenty of vegetables, but they are better bought fresh rather than kept for two weeks. Perhaps you have a freezer though, in which case make vegetable stews and soups. Apples are cheap and store well, you can add them to meat dishes, vegetable dishes, salads. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pasta and potatoes are fairly inexpensive, and they can be used in a variety of ways.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wow, I didn't even think of flour and yeast! I have a fine stove, a fine fridge with freezer, a lot of empty cupboards, as well as the normal kitchen implements: basically all the time and space to make ANYTHING requiring freezing, refrigeration, I have a microwave as well for quick reheating, anything like that.

Is making bread from flour really that much cheaper than buying fresh bread?? 217.136.92.148 13:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.92.148 (talk) [reply]

Only if you usually buy expensive artisanal bread. Your standard loaf is about as cheap as it can get. 86.162.68.36 (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Making bread costs about half to a quarter what it costs to buy it[19] and note that that site used the price of probably the most expensive brand of flour there is for the comparison. A more reasonable (but still perfectly fine) brand of flour costs half that. Ariel. (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those figures quoted are true for the UK, although I cannot speak for Belgium. And anything which relies on ordering a 'pound of yeast' is of limited value to someone with little money right now, who wants to eat right now. I can buy a loaf of sandwich bread for 47p, and no bag of flour I can buy in a shop combined with the cost of electricity to heat my oven for long enough is going to be cheaper than that (yeast is a negligable cost at about 37p for my last little tub of dried active yeast that's lasted months). I can get closer to that price by baking large batches, except then I have to make them smaller loaves so I don't have to remove shelves from the oven, or I can't fit them in and still have to heat the oven too long, and then I'd have to freeze them, making them only good for toast. The only way I could properly approach that price is if I bulk-bought flour, which would require a lot of money upfront. So no, either option is fairly cheap, but you're not going to save money baking your own bread in this country. 86.164.25.178 (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whois puts them in Belgium. Some of this is going to be culturally specific, and I'm assuming you mean "last 2 weeks (without running out)" rather than "last 2 weeks (without going off)". I would buy a couple of jars of herbs or spices that I particularly like, but which are still cheap, so that I could make different-tasting food from the same ingredients. For me, that includes salt, pepper, basil or oregano, chili flakes (or curry powder), and vegetable stock cubes. When I had money to spare next month, I'd then buy a few more different ones. For you, it might be different. I would then buy dried pasta, rice, tins of peeled plum tomatoes (cheapest I can get, each can does two portions), maybe tinned fish, frozen peas, packet red lentils. Depending on meat prices in your shops, you might be able to get a packet of bacon and use a rasher here and there to make things tastier. You might be able to get stewing steak cheap, and so make a nice slow-cooked stew (with plenty of cheap vegetables) that will feed you at least two meals. You're probably going to be buying some vegetable every couple of days, like a carrot or a small swede: they won't keep and it's a waste of money to bulk buy them if they go off. Bread is about the same price whether you make it or buy it, unless you're very picky: it's fun and cheap to make with a container of dried active yeast and a bag of strong flour, but you're not going to be saving money compared to buying. Bread lets you make sandwiches for lunch and toast for breakfast, so yesterday's leftovers are still there for tea today. I would be mostly eating lentil soup, dahl, yesterday's dahl rolled into little balls and baked, tomatoey fishy pasta sauces, stew if I'm lucky. If I didn't splurge on bacon, I'd have bought a packet of mature cheddar to make sandwiches, grate onto pasta, and generally add a cheesy tang to otherwise bland food. 86.162.68.36 13:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.68.36 (talk) [reply]

Buy porridge oats, some fresh fruit and milk. Mix the oats with water, bring to the boil stirring constantly to stop it sticking to the pan, chop some fresh fruit into it, add a splash of milk and if you like, a tablespoon of strawberry jam. Mmmm. Cheap, tasty, easy, quick, filling and very nutritious. 78.146.43.71 (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through a couple periods in my life when I had to get by with very little money. I found that the foods that stretched my money farthest were dried beans (probably the cheapest source of protein available), rice (to eat with the beans), onions and carrots (to add vitamins and flavor to the beans and/or potatoes), and potatoes (rich in calories and a variation on rice). You might want to throw in porridge for breakfast. You will probably want a little something to flavor the porridge. You'll need maybe 6 pounds of beans, 3 pounds of rice, 5 pounds of potatoes, maybe 2 pounds of oats for porridge, maybe 7 onions and a bag of carrots. If you still have money after that, throw in a few eggs and a few cans of fish (sardines, mackerel, etc.) for variety and added protein. Throw in some canned tomatoes and/or tomato paste for flavor and variety. Or you could cut substitute preserved meats (e.g. bacon) and more canned fish for the beans. Also, with extra money, according to your preference, you can substitute some flour and yeast and/or pasta for the potatoes and rice. If at all possible, if you have a freezer and a little extra money, get some frozen vegetables for the vitamins. Marco polo (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's incredible that no one cited ramen noodles. In the UK, they are available from £0.10 (!). And that makes a perfect dinner (about 500 calories). Quest09 (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking actual Japanese ramen, Chinese lamian, or (because I don't think such noodles are so cheap) instant noodles? I'm not familiar with the UK noodle market, it may be just be that you are using ramen in a different sense to what I am used to. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant instant noodles. I don't believe they are original, they are from Sainsbury's. Quest09 (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

50 Euros is plenty for two weeks. Roast a chicken. Get celery, carrots and onions, potatoes, dried beans, and rice. Eat apples or pears. Make broth with the chicken carcass and cook cabbage in it. Make pasta with olive oil, garlic and cheese.--Wetman (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Echo the above that 50 Euros is an enormous amount of money for 1 person to feed on for 2 weeks. One standard foodstuff that I always have is Minced/Ground Beef. It's phenomenally cheap in the UK/Europe (less than 5GBP/kg) and can be used for Pasta dishes and Pies and also made into meatballs, burgers etc AND is suitable for freezing. Nanonic (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

50 euros is more than enough if you cook from scratch and avoid the most expensive ingredients. The reason for some of my suggestions was that I thought your problem was how to keep stuff for two weeks. Since you have loads of time you still might enjoy some more ambitious projects like making your own bread or salting your own bacon. Eat lots of fruit and veg. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitated to say it was plenty, since I don't know the cost of living where they live, nor the relative price of meat, and feeding one person alone is more expensive than feeding one person as part of a group. Also, because they are likely to want to underspend by enough to deal with anything unexpected. 86.162.68.36 (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you're in Belgium why not buy liquid bread? You'll need something to cheer yourself up surely! --TammyMoet (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for "healthy but cheap" food is rice and beans. Mix them with tomato sauce and maybe some sliced black olives and you have a great dish. You can also try Red beans and rice if you want some meat in it. Ariel. (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tempeh is a great food. It can be frozen. But you could just buy as needed. Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

“

Washington is a city of Southern efficiency and Northern charm.

”

— John F. Kennedy

Is this supposed to be irony. I always thought of Northerners as having less charm and Southerners having a slower tempo, thus less efficient. I guess it could be lost on me since I am from The West and The South at the same time. schyler (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, it's a pretty funny quote. It would be like : "You have all the tact of a simple farmer and the honesty of an accomplished diplomat." 217.136.92.148 (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a quote I heard of Canada once "Canada could've had the best of all worlds: English culture, French cuisine, and American technology. Instead they got American culture, English cuisine, and French technology". I'm sure there are dozens of other backhanded compliments out there. --Jayron32 17:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that one as well, but I think it was French culture and American know-how we could have had. Matt Deres (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost positive it's intended as a joke. (If not exactly 'irony'.) He's saying that Washington got the worst of both halves of the country. APL (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's a joke. The American South is well-known for its charm and hospitality, but also a laid-back attitude. While the North is known for its industry & transporation, but a less friendly environment (aka [[New York City]). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is saying Washington is inefficient and un-charming. Bus stop (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a joke. Got a feeling that Gore Vidal used it first. DuncanHill (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A joke in much the same vein compares the stereotypical vices and virtues ascribed to various ~~European~~ nationalities. I don't know the origin, but a copy is here. 84.93.187.205 (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure a form of that one was in Yes Minister or Yes Prime Minister. DuncanHill (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing ability

Is there a page on wikipedia that deals with the cognitive ability to draw pictures? I can't draw any better than a three year old and am wondering if there is a part of my brain that doesn't function properly or is under developed compared to most. I just kind of want to know what differences there are in the brain activity of a normal person or an artist when they draw and someone such as myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.38.218 (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if we have a page on it, but the book you really ought to read is called Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. It's a tremendously interesting and fun read. One of the basic arguments is that your drawing ability is heavily tracked to when you stopped really trying to draw. So if you stop doodling and improving at age 9, then you will draw like a 9 year old your entire life. But there is much evidence that shows that if you take someone (even in their 40s) who draws like a 9 year old, they can, with a great deal of practice, "advance" their drawing through other stages. It also discusses what levels of drawing are appropriate for each age group — you might not draw like a 3 year old, but more like a 10 year old, or something like that.

Now none of this will tell you systematically whether or not you are somehow developmentally inhibited. But the odds are that you are not — just that you haven't really worked at it enough. Not everybody can be a Van Gogh, of course, but most people can, with practice and instruction, draw in what is considered a fairly competent fashion. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully endorse what Mr 98 says. I did a short course based on that book and I was amazed at how well I could draw, after always believing I was fitted only for stick figures. I didn't continue on with the practice, mainly because drawing was not something I wanted to particularly devote any time to - but if I ever did, I would certainly revisit the book and the exercises. One thing that has stayed with me, though, is the awareness not just of the shapes of objects as I actually see them (as distinct from my mental concept of what such an object "should" look like) but also of the shapes of the spaces between objects. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A similar example which has stuck with me, for some time now, is that drawing things up-side down often helps you to focus on the form rather than the semantic content of the drawing. For years I have to admit I used this whenever I needed to forge a signature. (Never for illegal reasons, of course.) Forging a signature right-side-up means you are thinking about the letters that go into it. Turn it up-side down and suddenly you are focused entirely on the shape of the lines. It's an easy exercise — try it one way, then the other, and compare your results. Just a very clever bit from that book that has always stuck with me, though I must have read it well over 15 years ago. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An officer in the fraud division of the RCMP told me the same thing about forging signatures. It's one of the reasons you should always watch someone signing a contract or financial instrument. Turning the page upside down is a dead giveaway. :>) Bielle (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pilgrim(s) in an unholy land

What is the source of the line "I am a pilgrim in an unholy land" (or perhaps it's "we are pilgrims..." ? It's used in "Lincoln Lover" in 2006, in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in 1989, and as the title of lots of blogs. I doubt such a nice turn of phrase comes originally from such a lame movie; is it biblical, or from some other source? 84.93.187.205 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through Google's web, book, scholar, and news archives and I don't see anything earlier than Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (and not really that many things after it, though it's also a song by the Riverboat Gamblers). And lame movie? Nah, Temple of Doom was lame; Last Crusade is practically Oscar material in comparison... Matt Deres (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wild stab in the dark: In one of Marsilio Ficino's letters [20] he says: Cur animi, cum divini sint, tam prophane vivunt? Quia domum regionemque habitant prophanam. "Why do souls, which are divine, live in such an unholy way? Because they inhabit an unholy house and land." Probably not what Professor Jones was quoting, though. Marnanel (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an allusion to Exodus 2:22? --Jayron32 06:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China

Hey. I always hear all these things about how China is going to become or already has become the most influential country in the world. I've been wondering, both today and with an eye toward the near future (=next ~100 years), is it better to be an American citizen or a Chinese citizen, all other things being equal? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's calling for a speculative and value judgement. Not the sort of thing the reference desk is set up to answer. I imagine either will be something of a Curate's egg. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that, in the timescale you describe, and with continuing economic and political trends, it will depend less on citizenship, and more on your position in the relevant society. Of course, ' with continuing economic and political trends' assumes a lot, so the real answer is nobody knows. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we look at the present, there are many metrics that are fairly easy to compare. Taking figures from the United States and PRC articles mostly at random, the United States has a Per Capita GDP of $47,000, while the PRC's is $7,500 (and that's taking Purchasing power parity into account. Nominally, the PRC has a per capita GDP of only $4300). Per Capita GDP is a crude but often used measure of quality of life in comparing different countries. You could look at life expectancies: 78 years in the U.S. vs. 73 in China. Infant Mortality is 6 per 1000 births in the U.S., 23 per 1000 in China. Looking at HIV/AIDS in the United States, it appears than about 0.2% of the population is infected in the U.S. (580 000 of 300 000 000), while the number may be more like 0.1% in the PRC (~1 000 000 of 1 000 000 000, see HIV/AIDS in the People's Republic of China). Some of these numbers can be extrapolated into the near and medium term future without too much trouble, though others are harder to track and predict. I don't think that anyone really has a handle on what things will be like for either country in 100 years.

That being said, you might find The Next Hundred Years an interesting read. If I recall correctly, Mr. Friedman predicts that the United States will be mostly prosperous for the next hundred years, while China will have some severe political fragmentation. Obviously, this is nothing more than a reasoned guess on his part, and he can't hope to predict any specifics, but it really is a pretty good read. Buddy431 (talk)

Some relevant articles in order of interest: Dynastic cycle, Social cycle theory, Globalization, and Infinite regress. schyler (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the OP is asking about citizenship, not residency in the US vs China, or working in the US vs China, or studying in the US vs China then I think it is relatively clear that US citizenship is more valuable since it confers more rights - a US citizen can travel freely to a larger part of the world than a Chinese citizen. US citizenship would also attract protection backed by the largest military force and largest economic entity in the world. A Chinese citizen in China is subject to the full force of the arbitrary, immature and politically influenced Chinese legal system, whereas a US citizen in China would be protected to some degree. The US legal system is generally regarded as relatively more mature and less arbitrary comapared to the Chinese one, and in any case consular protection by China is probably less powerful than that by the US. Both the US and China have negligible social benefits by general Western standards, so that factor can probably be discounted. US citizenship is not exclusionary, so you can be a dual citizen. By contrast, a Chinese citizen (except one from Hong Kong) loses Chinese citizenship upon acquiring another. So if, for example, you would be interested in being an EU citizen as well, it is better to be a US citizen than a Chinese one. All in all, US citizenship is probably more valuable. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels Intercommunal Transport Company

Which level of government has control over and/or funds the Brussels Intercommunal Transport Company (or is it a private company)? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.236.12 (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This link (2nd para. after bullet points) mentions a contract with the Brussels-Capital region. Dalliance (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reconciling one's idols with one's ideals

I am looking for essays, book passages, studies even, on the following phenomenon: You feel great admiration for a public person (artist, politician, writer, anything really, but someone famous you don't know personally). As you read more about this person, you find important biographical elements that clash with your own moral fabric, with your own ideology, if you like. Part of the "problem" may be explained away with different times and different environment, or other reasons. In any event, I'm looking for notable literary or scholarly examples discussing the strategies of reconciliation (they may also only focus on one example and needn't make any general reflections on this topic). Many thanks in advance. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though our article has only a little blurb, much has been made about Charles Barkley's position on athletes as role models. This seems like somewhat related to your inquiry. --Jayron32 06:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein Religious Views Article

I read the Einstein religious views article and now I am confused. Did Einstein believe in God or did he not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best we can say is sort of. By his own statements, he was mostly agnostic, that is he found his own belief in God to be indeterminate for the most part. In other statements, he seems to make clear that insofar as he believes in God at all, he believes in an impersonal God who may have created the universe in a general sense, or perhaps established the general framework of the Universe, but does not take an active role in it. In this sense, it his views may best be described as a sort of agnostic Deism. That is, he doesn't seem to take a firm position on whether or not God exists, but if God did exist, he doesn't believe that God takes an active role in working in the Universe. This view of God is actually explored rather well in fiction in Kurt Vonnegut's The Sirens of Titan, known as the Church of God The Utterly Indifferent, which just about captures the idea. --Jayron32 06:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armed bodyguards

I removed mention of armed security from Ishmael Khaldi#Edinburgh University Incident. None of the references say the security team were armed and, personally, I doubt Scottish (or British) law would permit personal security to carry weapons. However, would someone like to confirm that my feelings on this are true - that armed security is not allowed under the law? Astronaut (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

metals

Which would be easier to bend into a different shape, a staple or a pin, both of around 25mm in total length, I suspect the pin is slightly thinner, but am not sure, as they are within a sealed box. Also what could I use to do so, given that I have no metalworking implements at hand, could a pair of scissors do it? I tried on one of my smaller pins, with no effect. Or, could they cut a thinner metal wire into easier to bend segments of the same length?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]