Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

March 9

Emancipation Proclamation response

Who was it who said, after Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, words to the effect that the Union was demonstrating its love for slavery by freeing slaves in its enemy's territories but keeping them in its own? And what was the exact quote? --superioridad ^(discusión) 04:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find that quote, if it indeed exists, but I did stumble across this writeup about the Emancipation Proclamation,[1] which you may find enlightening. The Proclamation was a brilliant political stroke for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it ended any possibility of the British coming to the aid of the South. In effect, the Proclamation doomed the South to defeat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Found it on the Emancipation Proclamation page after missing it on my first read-through. It was William H. Seward, Secretary of State, who said:

We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.

--superioridad ^(discusión) 04:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Very good. Well, so there's more than one "Seward's Folly", it seems. Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing, but he was probably smarter than his cabinet, so it should be no surprise if they didn't see what he was up to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare and 46

I read something yesterday that said Shakespeare (born in 1564) was believed to be around the age of 46 when the King James Bible was completed (1611), and that if you look at Psalm 46 and count to the 46th word, that 46th word is 'shake', and if you count backwards to the 46th word from the end, that 46th word is 'spear'. Now, what I want to know is, where did the E go? Nah, joking aside, I am interested in this. Is there any story about how this was supposedly found out? Is there someone who looks for numerical patterns in bibles like this, and was it done before the age of computers? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You may find the answer at numerology. Curiously enough, it looks like a variant on the 23 enigma. LANTZY^TALK 12:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'd never heard of that 23 enigma before. That's interesting. Thanks. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 12:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It has been suggested (but probably not by JackofOz) that Shakespeare himself was responsible for the 46th Psalm in the KJV, and that he put that "shake...spear" in as a kind of signature. --Viennese Waltz 13:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see I've become a recognised authority on who Shakespeare wasn't. Feel free to use me as a self-appointed reliable source, if you like.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I suspected that, but the King James Bible makes no mention of his possible contribution. As you say, it has only been suggested. If this is actually the case, then it would make some sense - I think this is probably why I am asking the question. Otherwise, it's just a really bizarre coincidence. I'm interested in seeing if there is any background to the story. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

About the spelling — his name has been spelled different ways in the last 446 years. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That was mentioned to me yesterday by a friend, hence my quip about the 'e'. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

In a time when just being able to read and write was a significant accomplishment, spelling was not a major priority. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you count random words long enough in the collected works of Shakespeare (or the Bible for that matter), you will find that they were indeed written by a bunch of typewriting monkeys.--Saddhiyama (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't locate a better discussion of it at the moment than this rather silly King James Only movement website but it has the important points, that these words were already in previous translations of the bible in English (although slightly different positions), such as the Geneva Bible and the Great Bible, and that the words were not interpolations but accurate translations of the words in the source documents. The fact that much of the language comes from previous translations means that Shakespeare is hypothesized as being in a style editor role, drafted in to give a dry academic translation a colourful turn of phrase. This is rather akin to the US government deciding they want to update the constitution so they employ the chief write of House and Glee to finish it off, once it has gone through committee, and that writer inserting an injoke that no one on the committee notices. This dates the 46 revelation to 1900 and the theory was given a more detailed story in Rudyard Kipling's Proofs of Holy Writ. meltBanana 19:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The article from 1900 that apparently was the first to publish the observation is here. —Kevin Myers 19:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That is fascinating - it is tied in with the Francis Bacon theory..... I knew there had to be some story behind its discovery - thanks for those links! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm this is true? I've only got the revised KJ here - 'shake' is the 26th word from the start, 'spear' is 41 from the end. I doubt the wording has change that much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm it's true (for what it's worth): http://i.imgur.com/3sDvj.png Marnanel (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes - it does check out: thanks Marnanel. Coincidence? Possibly. Or a subtle hint by 'whoever wrote the Shakespeare plays'? Again, possibly. Or maybe this is all a subtle joke by the real playwright, who is writing the script for what we think of as reality: "all the world's a stage..." AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This is like the belief that there are similar hidden messages in the bible. There must be an article on this. Just coincidence - think of all the other things that do not occur. 13:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.254.54 (talk)

See Bible code. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Statistical data for names

Frank James & Jesse James were famous in 1882. What are the statistics of one naming their new born boy after "Jesse" and "Frank" in 1882? How does that compare to the years before and the years after? I suspect there is a spike in 1882 - yes?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Names given in 1880, 1881, 1882, etc would be easily tallied by reference to the 1900 Census, which contains first names and ages. There is not real reason to require the 1890 census, except perhaps to include those males who died between 1882 or whatever and 1900. Edison (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This site doesn't go back quite far enough to really show a baseline, but it seems pretty clear that Frank certainly didn't cause any more kids to go by that name after 1880 (in fact, there's a rather precipitous decline). Jesse also suffered a serious decline that didn't reverse until the 1960s. Matt Deres (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand... I am surprised that the fame of the more recent Jesse James didn't cause a spike. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The next U.S. census would have been 1890, and the form shown with the article does call for the names of persons living in the house. However, the article notes that most of the records were lost in a 1921 fire, so they're not likely included in the baby-name database. I also wonder whether Jesse James's fame might be greater in retrospect than at the time. As for the contemporary Jesse James, it's possible to see him as a celebrity (famous for being famous) whose notoriety will eventually be on a par with, say, Kato Kaelin or Arnold Zenker. --- OtherDave (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't you usually use birth records rather than census records for compiling baby-name statistics? --Tango (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with above question, as my great grandfather's given name at birth was "George Washington" - but was changed a year later to "John Jr" as his father's name was John. The "George Washington" name apparently didn't work out. All censes records show for him as being "John Jr" - not his name at birth.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The US Social Security website has a baby name tracker that goes back to 1880. You can type in any name and how many years you want to go back and it will show you how its popularity has changed over time. (Sorry, I don't know how to put a link in here, but I just googled "social security popular baby names" and it was the first result.) The history tracker is in the bottom right corner of the website. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

March 10

Thoughts on film genre

My understanding of slasher film is that there will be a single killer, and it is a defining characteristic of the slasher genre. Wikipedia definition of slasher film is: "a type of horror film typically involving a psychopathic killer stalking and killing a sequence of victims in a graphically violent manner, often with a cutting tool." This means the killer does not have materialistic motives; (s)he murders due to his/her mental illness. Films like Psycho, Halloween, Friday the 13th fit well in this genre. But in a second category of films that includes Wrong Turn or The Hills Have Eyes, there are a group of killers, not a single killer, and strictly speaking, these killers are not mentally disturbed. They kill people to eat them, to them their action is just collection of food. So how these films fall under slasher genre? The Wikipedia articles include these films under Category:Slasher films. The Descent is probably another movie that belongs to this second category. --Reference Desker (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

By defining genres narrowly enough, each work will belong in its own unique genre.--Wetman (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I would define a "slasher" differently, as any movie where the primary goal is to show people being killed in a brutal manner. This is wider than the definition you used, but doesn't normally include murder mysteries, etc. StuRat (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

But the mother of all slasher movies Halloween does not show any brutal murder. --Reference Desker (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I wouldn't call it a slasher, just a horror film. It's entirely possible for the sequels to develop into slashers even though based on a non-slasher. StuRat (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that films where the antagonist just wants to eat the victims for food aren't "slasher films". There are lots of horror movies about bears, ants, aliens, and even rabbits that are just trying to get a meal. This being the encyclopedia anyone can edit, you should go ahead and remove the ones you don't like, state your reasoning in the edit comment field, and if someone disagrees you can discuss it at Category talk:Slasher films. --Sean 14:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Horror films featuring bears, ants, rabbits as cold-blooded murderers belong to Natural horror genre. We are talking about films with human antagonist. --Reference Desker (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As it says in the article section that the original poster linked, various people have various definitions of the genre, so there's no definitive answer for the question. As Wetman implies, it's not an important distinction, though I know that humans love taxonomy and will spend time classifying anything. One other movie I'd offer to defy your definition, by the way, is the first Scream. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I found some references that describe Wrong Turn as slasher film. My view is that slasher film should be defined as any film involving one or more killers stalking and killing a sequence of victims. There should be sub-genres of slasher film (probably based on the nature of the killer). --Reference Desker (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Your link to the Defining the sub-genre section above also says: "There is substantial critical debate as to how to define the slasher sub-genre and what films are and are not slashers." WikiDao ☯ 02:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My father was a bank robber

This is not asking for legal advice, but just a matter of curiosity. Suppossing my father (or grandfather, or great-grandfather...) robbed a bank or committed some fraud and upon his death left the money to me. I may or may not have been aware of how this money was obtained, but I have spent the inherited money buying my house etc etc.

Now the identity of the robber or fraudster has been discovered, and the path of the money traced to me. Would I have to pay the money back, or not? Thanks 92.28.254.54 (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In all questions of law, you must specify a jurisdiction. --Sean 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I am in the UK, but I would be interested in how this differs from country to country. In Mafialand they have a three month (I jest, slightly) time limit for criminal prosecutions, so you wouldn't. 92.28.254.54 (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article. --Reference Desker (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's principle of law in Germany that you cannot acquire ownership of stolen property. I think there are several explicit and implicit exception to similar rules under Common law, however. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That may not be the same as stolen money. For example a painting stolen by the Nazis, that has been bought and sold by many people. Does just the current owner have to hand it back, or does everyone who sold it have to pay the money back? 92.28.254.54 (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The current owner has to return it (although I suspect that in the Nazi plunder situation there are several international agreements in place that modify the situation). The current owner also has a civil claim for the money he paid, all the way down the chain. And unless the buyers acted in good faith, they may also be criminally liable for receiving stolen goods. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Did he just love to live that way? DuncanHill (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Nemo dat quod non habet--81.98.97.252 (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In the US, the money would be confiscated. If you had purchased a house with the money, the house would be confiscated. See Asset forfeiture. This happens all the time in the US to seize money and property that is allegedly the proceeds of drug crime. The fact that you had been given the money, or inherited the money, doesn't shield the money from these laws. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

well, in most western legal systems there is a relatively short statute of limitations for crimes like theft (so long as there are no complicating factors like murder). so, unless your grandfather was robbing banks in his 70s, the SoL limitations would likely have passed by the time you inherited (meaning that no crime could be prosecuted, and hence no recovery of funds could happen under criminal law). The bank might open a civil case against you, but that would be a much harder case, since the bank would have to demonstrate that that you had wronged them, and couldn't use your grandfather's criminal nature against you. On the other hand, banks have lots of money, very good lawyers, and endless amounts of greed, so... --Ludwigs2 18:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, do you have citations for any of that? Civil forfeiture happens all the time, and the case is often an in rem case against the money itself, not against the bank robber. There's not even a requirement to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the money was stolen from them, at least in the US. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

For America, any non-capital (i.e., no one was killed during the robbery) federal offense would carry with it a five-year limitation, per US Code Title 18, Part II, Chapter 213, Section 3282. I'm not sure how that would affect the handling/possible seizure of the money, however, if it were discovered after 5 years. Disclaimer: IANAL. ^Avic_ennasis @ 19:16, 4 Adar II 5771 / 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The civil concept of property has nothing to do with the statute of limitation for the criminal act. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It very much does actually. More relevant, in the U.S. Code there are 2 main money laundering statutes. 18 U.S.C § 1956 is the primary one, and the "traditional" definition of money laundering. However § 1957 criminalizes the transaction of money over $10,000 that's derived from specified unlawful activity, bank robbery being one of those activities (think the ending scene from The Town... that's a federal felony). There are many more state based statutes, and depending on the case, other federal statutes as well. But at least that's a real cite and a place to start. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ownership of the foreshore in the UK

In the UK, the Queen or the Crown owns all the land between high water and low water. My question is, how did this come about? Was there a law that made this explicit, and did the Crown/historical-royalty gain other land at that time? Thanks 92.28.254.54 (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Not quite all. DuncanHill (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And at the other end of the country, another system again. DuncanHill (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the Crown Estate says that approximately 55% of the UK's foreshore is owned by the Crown (note that this does not mean it is the Queen's personal property !). It does not say how this came about. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

More information on the website of the Crown Estate which also says "We as The Crown Estate own virtually the entire seabed out to the 12 nautical mile territorial limit". Another page on the same site has downloadable maps showing which bits of coast they own. Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In general, these kinds of things are legal issues to prevent squabbling over resource and passage rights. Nations usually declare sovereignty over territorial waters, including the seabed underneath; private owners generally have property rights over dry land, so questions arise about dividing lines. This would have impact on things like fishing, the development of wetlands, salvage rights on ships that beached or sank in tidal regions, oil rights for off-shore drilling... --Ludwigs2 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it not just be that the crown owns the whole country, other than those parts that have been given or sold to someone else, and not many people would have shown that much intrest in buying or giving away bits of the sea? 148.197.121.205 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Me again - this discussion gives lots of case law but the salient point seems to be:

"The Crown's prima facie title: The claim that the Crown is the owner of the foreshore and the sea bed under territorial waters was argued by Thomas Digges in 1568-69, and supported by Robert Callis and Sir Matthew Hale in the seventeenth century. It was resurrected in the nineteenth century, when the land properties of the Sovereign were transferred to the management of the Commissioners of Woods, Forests and Land Revenues (now the Crown Estate Commissioners) by the Crown Lands Acts 1810 and 1829. In A-G v Emerson [1891] Appeal Cases 649, the House of Lords confirmed that the Crown is prima facie the owner of the foreshore. Lord Herschell stated at p 653: 'It is beyond dispute that the Crown is prima facie entitled to every part of the foreshore between high and low-water mark, and that a subject can only establish a title to any part of that foreshore, either by proving an express grant thereof from the Crown, or by giving evidence from which such a grant, though not capable of being produced, will be presumed.'"

Another interesting bit: "The public right of fishery may be excluded by a private fishery, provided that the private right was created by the Crown before 1189; the Crown was seemingly prevented from creating further private fisheries in tidal waters by Magna Carta: Malcomson v O'Dea (1863)"

There you have it! Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

We've had a slew of questions lately that assume the Queen personally owns the entire country, and she personally receives all the taxes paid by her subjects. This is a view of the monarchy that can only have been gained by copious reading of The Wizard of Id. It bears NO relation to how things are actually done, in real life. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Our article on allodial title claims the Crown does actually own all the land in England, and the land we think we own is merely an estate in fee simple. I don't know whether it's telling the truth. Marnanel (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is the formal legal position, though the crown would reclaim the land only if normal legal transfer of "ownership" failed. For all practical purposes, the ownership is by those who are named on the "deeds". Dbfirs 10:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if the formal legal position was what obtained in practice, the Queen and the Crown are still different things. The Crown may well own all the land, but the human being we call Queen Elizabeth II does not. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Going back to the question of Britain's foreshore - effectively (and maybe unintentionally) the Crown has been the guarantor of the right of the ordinary Briton (in most cases) to walk, swim, sunbathe and fish on our beaches without let or hinderance from wealthy property magnates. This isn't always the case in the rest of Europe. Alansplodge (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but in Scandinavia you can roam anywhere you like (not sure how this applies to ripe wheat/oat fields or gardens) and not just on footpaths as with us. 2.97.212.204 (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, this is true in England also (and has been true for longer in Scotland), though cultivated land and private gardens are excluded. Dbfirs 19:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? I though we only had permission to roam over designated areas, suchj as set-aside fierlds, not everywhere. Isnt there such a thing as trespassing any more? 92.15.8.206 (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, farmers have to prove that land is cultivated to avoid the public being allowed to roam at will, though just spreading of fertiliser is usually sufficient to establish cultivation. Despite confusing signs in England in the past, trespassers usually could not be prosecuted since no criminal offence was committed (with a few exceptions), but they could be sued for any damage that they caused. See our article Trespass to land. Dbfirs 10:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an important elaboration, because without rights of access, public land often becomes effectively private land that is exempt from taxes. In the U.S. it is usual for desirable land to be surrounded by many miles of carefully posted private property, whose owners enjoy the public land as their right, and occasionally treat those found on "their" public property with great suspicion. Often public land is reached by an access road which is gated some miles away from the public land - one must past a very long stretch of dull road surrounded by No Trespassing signs, and the occasional entrance from private land or a private club, to reach the parking area (erected at some considerable public expense) which marks the beginning of the publicly accessible land. Also note that public land is increasingly inaccessible, lest terrorists hike near reservoirs, or the great unwashed tamper with windmills (not that one would want to hike such a noisy area anyway - typically the most remote and pleasant of lands previously, you might as well cross them off your map). Oh, and I should add that I think it is far more likely that every last inch of public land would be leased or sold off and made inaccessible, than that the public would ever see an act gaining them any access to private land. Wnt (talk) 22:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel sorry for you in the US, because even though you have lots of space, the opportunities to go walking in the fresh air through fields and woods etc must be very limited. I imagine the hiking trails and national parks only exiast in a few places. In Britain our dense network of public footpaths and bridalways are a national treasure and as far as I know unique to the UK (except Scandinavia though). Most of the footpaths and bridalways are across private land, where the owners are not at all trigger-happy as I hear they are in the US. 92.15.8.206 (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Which other countries do have networks of public footpaths and bridleways (for horses, not brides), or an equivalent of the "right to roam" that we enjoy in England & Wales (and that Scotland has informally enjoyed for centuries)? I assume that most deserts have this right. Dbfirs 10:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

None, as far as I know. I do not think they have any even in Commonwealth countries. For roaming, see the list at Freedom to roam. 92.24.186.239 (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting link. Do Americans feel deprived of footpaths, or are they happy with their extensive National parks? Dbfirs 23:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There are extensive state parks, state forests and state game lands - there is a lot of public land in the U.S. But as I say, many portions of these are much more accessible to a few people than to everyone else. You can have twenty miles of public land but the only legal way to get into it is to walk in from a major highway, which is not exactly the best way to appreciate the sounds of nature. There are also many "paths" in them, too many I would say, because they are regularly subjected to selective logging with the construction of coarse gravel roads, leaving behind well-lit forests littered with crowns and branches. But finding a spot where you can go quickly to a good natural place? Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. Wnt (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The advantage of the footpath network in the UK is that they join up with towns and cities, so provided you can get to the edge of a town or city you can walk out into the countryside without having to drive anywhere, and have a choice of routes too. There are also footpaths within towns and cities: I imagine as they expanded, the footpaths remained. The private landowners I've ocassionally asked directions from seem happy for townies to go walking in the countryside; they seem willing to share the pleasure of walking in the countryside with others. See also Rights of way in England and Wales. 92.15.11.100 (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hinduism sects and social caste

In Hinduism, are there 16 types of Hindus? Meaning there are brahmin, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras Hindus in Shaivism; there are brahmin, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras Hindus in Smartism; there are brahmin, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras Hindus in Vaishnavism and there are brahmin, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras Hindus in Shaktism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.57 (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has only 8 (n.b. not 16) articles on those categories:

• Varnas: brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya and shudra
• Denominations: Shaivism, Smartism, Vaishnavism and Shaktism

I'm pretty sure none of the denominations prohibit its members from belonging to any of the Varnas, and vice versa, so yes, that would make sixteen different possible combinations of those categories. WikiDao ☯ 20:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

65.92.155.57 -- You should understand that "varna" is a loose overall classification scheme, while the actual collective groups which are most important for most purposes in everyday life have been the jatis (not varnas). "Varna" has very limited usefulness for understanding things in specific detail... AnonMoos (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Judaism ethnic and religious sects

In Judaism, could it be possible that the Mizrahi Jewish population can be divided into Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist and Humanistic sects? Same thing with Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.155.57 (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Our Jewish religious movements article may be of interest to you, and also our Judaism article explains: "The Jewish Enlightenment of the late 18th century resulted in the division of Ashkenazi (Western) Jewry into religious movements or denominations, especially in North America and Anglophone countries. The main denominations today outside Israel (where the situation is rather different) are Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform." WikiDao ☯ 20:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The most specific definition of the term "Mizrahi" is those Jewish communities outside Europe which were not significantly affected by Spanish Jewish influences (i.e. neither Yiddish nor Ladino). This included communities in the Caucasus, Iran, Yemen etc. -- which during the 19th century and the majority of the 20th were mostly rather remote from and unaffected by modernist controversies occurring in Germany and the English-speaking countries... AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

March 11

Bengali surnames based on hindu varnas

Which Bengali surnames are associate with Brahmin caste, Kshatriyas caste, Shudra caste and Vaishya caste? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.177 (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lankan clothing

Does Sri Lankan people have their own clothing, like traditional clothing-official like how Pakistanis men wear karakul cap and sherwani coat and pakistani women wear shalwar kameez and Indian Hindu men wear dhoti with kurta and vest jacket and Indian Hindu women wear saris? I am asking this because I have seen Pakistani and Indian politicians do this to attend sessions but I have never seen a Sri Lankan, regardless he/she is Tamil or Sinhalese wear any traditional clothing to attend parliamentary sessions. Is there any websites that showcase the traditional clothing of Sri Lanka? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.177 (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a short description at Sinhalese people#Dress with no images or good links. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A photo here. This page shows the President of Sri Lanka in national dress. Here is a closer view. Alansplodge (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

receptions after ceremonies

I was wondering if any types of receptions are held after groundbreaking and/or dedication ceremonies for museums.24.193.90.61 (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes[2]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Servant girls in the muslim world - did muslim servant girls exist?

Where there servant girls, female domestics, in the muslim world before the 20th century? Forgive my ignorance in advance - indeed, that is why I am asking - but would'nt it in fact be very difficult for a muslim woman to be a servant in the private household of a family, considering the gender separation in a traditional islamic society, where women where not expected to have contact with men they where unrelated to? How was these matters solwed? And I also wonder: did muslim women have any contact at all with male servants? Upper-class household may have had non-muslim slaves, but was it always so? Did muslim servant girls exist before 1900? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if it has any bearing, but I remember reading that there was a colony of (blonde) Gorizian women in cosmopolite Alexandria, Egypt in the early 20th century (Italians in Egypt)

They used to work in domestic service (Nannies?).

Nasser apparently was cared for by one as a child.

--Error (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. That would imply that muslim servant girls was rare. --Aciram (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any empirical evidence, but I'm 100% sure that female Muslim domestic servants were in fact extremly common in the Muslim world prior to 1900. The purdah principle was never interpreted in such rigid terms as suggested by the question, and the issue of "relation" isn't entirely biological. A domestic servant is seen as a household "insider" and in some cases even a member of the household or family (albeit with much lower social standing than other family members). And in some West African cultures (Muslim and I suppose non-Muslims as well) it is rather common to "adopt" orphan children within the extended family (say the child of a distant cousin), and the adoptee basically becomes a domestic servant in the household. Such practices might have existed in the Muslim world prior to 1900 as well. --Soman (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that this is a very difficult question. Perhaps no one here has the answer to it? The purdah principle was as I have understood it strict enough to justifiy the question; or was muslim women allowed to meet men they where not related to in the men's own homes? My question does not pertain to servant girls actually related by blood to their employers, only to muslim servant girls not related by blood to their employers. The bit about a "household insider" was interesting. How was this defined? I should stress, that my question is mainly about the arab muslim countries.--Aciram (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Social restrictions of hindu women - where they allowed to meet men?

I understand that the position of hindu women became similar to that of muslim women after the muslim conquest of hindu India. What I am asking about is the pure physical and social freedom of hindu women. Was hindu women before 1900 allowed to socialize with men they where not related to? Did they participate in a gendermixed social life? Of course, I realise that working class women was less restricted because of their work, so my question is directed toward hindu royal and upper class women. Did they have a visible part in social life? Where they allowed to meet male guests they were not related to? Did they show themselwes at official ceremonies? Where their presence required at officiall occasions? Did they show themselwes unveiled for non-related males in public outside or inside the house? Did they dine at the table with men at banquets? Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Origin of Politeama / Polytheama

There are several Politeama theaters in Italy, Portugal and Brazil. Apparently there is even a Polytheama in Greece. So what is the story behind the name? What does Polytheama mean in Greek? Is it a famous theater of Antiquity? A placename? A mythological character? Thankk you. --Error (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

According to this article, "Politeama means theatre where you can watch performances belonging to different genres". Another reference says, Politeama means "multiplicity of shows, with alternate musical and circus plays”. I don't know Italian and Greek language, but I guess Polytheama means where you can see shows of multiples genres or categories. --Reference Desker (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You might want to ask on the Language desk, but according to the LSJ it is a participle meaning "having seen many things". (It doesn't say what it is a participle of, though.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Relative contributions to victory in the Battle of the Atlantic

Hello, as we all know, the Allies won the Battle of the Atlantic in the Second World War. I have been told in an internet forum that the major part of the credit for this victory goes to the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy, with the USN playing a secondary role. I understand the bulk of the USN was deployed in the Pacific during the war, but: 1) is this assertion correct, and 2), I am curious if there is any way to quantify the contributions of the respective Allied powers (sum of tons of displacement, "scores" for numbers of U-boats sunk by each navy, etc.) during the Battle of the Atlantic. Thank you for any information. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't help with the quantification, but I will opine that this assertion is correct. When the US entered into the war it did so ostensibly against Japan, and most of its naval forces needed to be concentrated in the pacific, since that theatre was almost entirely naval. by contrast, the European theatre was predominantly ground and air combat - The German navy (despite some marvelous technical achievements) was never intended to be a decisive factor in the way, but was mostly intended to prevent supplies and men from crossing the waters to England or southern Europe. I'm sure someone can give a more detailed explanation, however. --Ludwigs2 18:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've found a bit more that indicates that in 1942-1943, at least, the U.S. priority was escort of troop convoys versus escort of cargo ships. But the story provided (by the Imperial War Museum) kind of dwindled after that except it mentioned that the U.S. put a number of escort carriers into action during the last part of the war. So it still seems a bit murky to me; apparently during the critical phase of the Battle of the Atlantic, it looks like the RN and the RCN did the bulk of the work escorting merchantmen, and yet, I get the impression that many U-boats were sunk during 1944 and 1945 as well, but I'm still not sure how the credit for the "kills" work out. All sources seem to agree that the greater use of air units led to more U-boats being sunk; but again, who did how much of the work? Thank you for your comments, Lugwigs2. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Some information here. The USN was helping with escorts during 1941 before the US entry into the war, in persuance of the Pan-American Security Zone. Once the US entered the war Admiral Ernest King either refused to, or didn't have the ships to implement a convoy system on the US east coast resulting in a "second happy time" for the U-Boats. Many consider March 1943 to be the crux of the battle[3]; thereafter it was all downhill for the Germans. Factors such as codebreaking, more and better escorts, escort carriers, long range aircraft, improved technology, the use of the Azores all contributed. I couldn't find any stats for number of warships engaged from each Ally, but I imagine the RN had the great preponderance with a significant input from the Royal Canadian Navy. However, the US contribution in terms of ship construction especially Liberty ships and Escort carriers and the provision of Liberator bombers to close the mid-Atlantic gap were vital. Alansplodge (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the link and the information. I'm beginning to realize that it could be quite difficult to quantify contributions to the "Battle of the Atlantic" as an entire concept. I'll try pursuing information on more specific aspects like numbers of U-boats sunk, what (naval / air action) sunk them, etc. As well, it looks like a lot of U-boats got sunk near the end of the war (bunch near Denmark for example), and it seems a stretch to count those as part of losses in the Battle of the Atlantic. On the other hand, while it appears the battle was largely won in 1943, it seems clear that all parties had to mount a significant effort to the very end just to keep the Atlantic a reasonably secure ocean to operate ships upon. This might lead to considering any statistical data as two groups, one for the period 1939-1943 and the other for 1944-1945. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945). On this side of the Atlantic, we've grown used to the Americanisation of events: U-571_(film)#.22Americanisation.22_of_real_historical_events. The other surprising thing I've just read is that Americans had no idea that a nuclear bomb was possible, until we told them that it was: Tizard_Mission#Meetings. 92.15.24.90 (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945) says that at the outbreak of the war the Canadian Navy consisted of "a handful of destroyers," which does not sound sufficient to patrol the Atlantic. Destroyers for Bases Agreement says that after Dunkirk evacuation "the Royal Navy was in immediate need of ships, especially as they were now facing the Battle of the Atlantic in which German U-boats threatened Britain's supplies of food and other resources essential to the war effort." How many destroyers did the UK and Canada have in September 1940 when the deal was signed? [Town class destroyer] says Canada gained 16 ex-US destroyers in the deal. Also, were significant Brit/Canadian naval manpower and vessels were freed up for convoy and war duty by the US assuming responsibility of the Commonwealth bases in Newfoundland and the Caribbean under the agreement? (These bases were certainly eagerly sought by the US to extend aircraft patrol range in the Atlantic). These destroyers launched 1917-1920 are always called "old," but their individual histories indicate they were sent out on patrol shortly after arriving at their Commonwealth bases. By comparison, how old was the average Brit and Canadian destroyer in 1940 on duty in the fleets they were joining? (Edited to add: Research shows about 14 Canadian destroyers, launched 1931-1935, available in 1940 before the deal).Edison (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Life Magazine, Sept 16 1940 indicates Britain started the war with 185 destroyers, but had lost 32, with new ones were being placed into service. Edison (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Edison, about the "old" destroyers, I noticed this the other day while looking up anti-oxidation compounds: "After World War I, NO-OX-ID was used as a military grease by the navy to put the majority of the naval fleet into "mothballs". The propulsion machinery was protected with NO-OX-ID military grease compounds they called cosmoline. All of the original 50 destroyers, sent to Great Britain prior to the United States entry into World War II, were protected with NO-OX-ID. When taken out of mothballs 20 years later, they were found to be in perfect condition." From this page. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In Sept 1940 there were more than 50 destroyers in home waters on anti-invasion duties, plus those required to protect the Home and Mediterranean Fleets, plus those under repair following the Norway Campaign, Operation Dynamo and Operation Ariel a few weeks previously. So the US destroyers were needed but they really weren't very good - huge turning circle, poor range, didn't do well in heavy seas. Once new escort destroyers and corvettes became available, many were quietly sidelined. One was used to blow up the dry-dock at St Nazaire in March 1942. Britain's 20 year-old destroyers, the V and W class destroyers, were converted into dedicated escorts by removing one boiler to give greater range. Alansplodge (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all comments so far. The article on the Royal Canadian Navy mentions "At the end of the Battle of the Atlantic, Canadian ships (either alone or in conjunction with other ships and planes) sank a total of 27 U-boats, and either sank or captured 42 Axis surface ships." A fine contribution, but considering the Germans lost hundreds of U-boats to Allied action, it seems clear that someone else sunk most of the U-boats. I'm guessing it was mostly the work of the RN based on maps that depict both spots where U-boats were sunk and the zones of responsibility for the USN and the RN in the Atlantic. Still, it seems like an odd omission that more basic stats on who sunk what aren't easily located. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A cargo ship or convoy of cargo ships, unescorted, is easy prey to a single U-boat or a wolfpack. The most effective hindrance to this is surface escorts - even old, slow, not very manoeuverable destroyers are quite adequate for the task of forcing individual U-boats to dive and thus preventing the destruction of the convoy (while not necessarily ensuring the destruction of the U-boat).

However, the most effective method of destroying U-boats in the Second World War was aircraft. See RAF Coastal Command during World War II, where it says "Coastal Command sank more U-Boats than any other Allied service." U-boats have to run on the surface to charge their batteries and to make decent speeds. They are visible to aircraft from a considerable distance, and were later also detectable by radar. If a U-boat is sufficiently damaged by an aircraft that it can't dive, then it is almost always doomed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at that article. (later) - Wow, 212 U-boats destroyed by RAF Coastal Command -- I think that is something like 25% of all U-boats sunk by Allied action. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Some more information. According to Table 70 in John Ellis' "World War II A Statistical Survey", of 785 U-boat kills:

290 bombed from the air at sea or torpedoed from the air

246 from surface gunfire or depth charges dropped from ships

25 from mines

21 from submarines

48 from "air and surface" (combined action?)

62 bombed in harbor

93 from other or unknown causes

Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this page will provide information on the agent responsible for U-boat losses. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, there's also at least one instance of a U-boat surrendering to an aircraft in mid-Atlantic, after the aircraft depth-charged it and sufficiently damaged it that the crew wrongly thought it was no longer safe to dive. It's a fascinating story but I've lost track of which U-boat it was, and therefore also the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Breaking News"

Has the definition of "breaking news" changed in the past, say, 10 or 20 years? In my mind, the term should refer to news that has just come into the newsroom unexpectedly - that is, news that has just broken within the moment. But it seems that the major US news networks (e.g. CNN and MSNBC) now use "breaking news" to refer to any story that has broken in the current 24-hour cycle. They'll use the term to describe a developing story even if the basic facts of it were established many hours previously; and sometimes on the evening programs, I've seen them come back from a commercial and present the viewer with a planned and scripted "breaking news" segment on some story from the morning (I remember Olbermann doing that, in particular). Is it just me, or has the meaning of this term been severely diluted? --71.184.5.17 (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Breaking" connotes to me news that is currently in the process of breaking, i.e. a news story which is still developing at the time of the report. This could be 24 hours old in some cases. Staecker (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is a major development now in a story which "broke" many hours ago, it is still breaking news. If someone took 20 hostage in a failed bank robbery 12 hours ago, and now he tosses out a hostage and shoots him, that is "breaking news." If police storm the bank and shoot the robber, or he gives up 12 hours from now, it is "breaking news." If they just repeat the story from hours ago with no major development, it is not breaking news. Old news is called "history." Naturally, one they get your attention with a "breaking story," they try to keep viewership with "This just in.." updates of which sometimes are of fairly minor significance. Edison (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, the meaning has been diluted. To me, something that is "breaking news" is happening right now and sufficiently earth-shattering so as to require my immediate attention -- the type of events which would cause the terrestrial networks to break into programming. To CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, however, that is no longer the case. Real news appears to have taken a back seat on those operations, and now everything from Charlie Sheen's antics to car chases is "breaking news" or "urgent" or "happening now" or "developing story" (how are all of those any different?) as they try to jockey for the channel surfer's attention -- and once you start watching, they just endlessly repeat what already happened. And thie even extends to local news: one controversial incident in the fall involved all four terrestrial stations in my area interrupting programming from 10:30 to 12:30 to cover a failed bank robbery and hostage situation which had ended at about 9:00. Predictably, all four channels' coverage consisted of running the same 30-second clip of the end of the situation, accompanied by innumerable phone calls from people who were only asked to repeat what they saw (and they all saw the same thing). It's all quite maddening; it seems only Al Jazeera is the only organization left that knows how to run a truly incisive and informative news channel. Xenon54 (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the exact same thing regarding the Japan quake. I would flip through channels, find one promising some breaking news on the quake, only to find they are rerunning the same old footage from hours ago. Something else annoying is teasers ("Is there a product in your home that could kill you ? Wait through several insipid commercial breaks and our preview of 'American Idol' and we will be glad to tell you to watch a later episode to find out !"). I have taken to bypassing the news on TV and now go to the Internet instead, for such reasons. StuRat (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Remember that some people do not constantly watch the news channels ... What for you may be "the same old footage from hours ago" is indeed "breaking news" footage for them. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, you could call a current account of the 9-11 attacks "breaking news", for those who spent the last decade in a cave. StuRat (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No, because we would expect that word of the 9-11 attacks would have reached even those who live in caves by now (word of mouth news is slow, but it does happen). A few hours passage does not make a news report "old". Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Leave aside the "breaking news" thing. Even the concept of "news" itself is very different from what it once was. There was a time, thankfully now past, when whenever that woman whose name I refuse to utter adjusted her bra strap or scratched her arse, it was reported as "news". in Australia, Shane Warne's antics and doings have been hitting the "news" for ages. Recently, it was all about him taking his then paramour Liz Hurley to lunch - that's all, they left his home, drove to a swank restaurant, had lunch there, and then went home. There was a full-scale car chase, helicopter vision, the works, with the breathless media breathlessly reporting on what all the other breathless media were doing, because Warnie sure wasn't doing anything worth reporting - just sitting in his car, driving.

Yesterday, the media surpassed themselves. It was reported that a number of drivers had been breath-tested in Melbourne as part of the campaign to reduce road accidents over the long weekend (Monday's a public holiday in Victoria). The people tested happenened to include Shane Warne - but he was found to be sober and allowed to continue. That's it: Warne is driving his car somewhere, legally. And that's what passes for "news" these days? Heaven help us. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that the decline of TV news quality was also a problem outside the US. Is this a world-wide problem ? The one bright spot on TV news in the US is PBS (Frontline, NOW on PBS, Wide Angle, PBS NewsHour, Nightly Business Report). Do other nations have an equivalent ? StuRat (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

SBS World News is generally considered to have by far the best and most comprehensive and most globally-focussed and most immune-to-trivia TV news service in Australia. But it has among the lowest ratings, paradoxically partly because it not populist and sensationalist. People are just as addicted to "Shock! Horror!" here as they are anywhere, so any service that's fully committed to giving them a full plate of such stories every night of the week is a sure-fire winner, and any service that's committed to providing quality factual news is relegated to "boring". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock used to say that people like to see people in peril in movies because they like to see someone that's worse off than they are. The same principle would apply to news. It's fun to read about someone else's public disasters. Hence the apparent fascination with Charlie Sheen's apparently ongoing meltdown. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that sensationalism is necessarily incompatible with good news. For example, here in Michigan, we have a bank president who was apparently murdered, having been shot in the back of the head, and the police appear to be covering it up. First they claimed the cause of death could not be determined. Then, when the family rejected that conclusion and paid for their own autopsy, the truth came out. Next the police claimed he shot himself in the back of the head. So, this is a rather sensational story, but the news seems to have dropped it. I would think they would want to do their own detailed investigations of his life and death and do a special on the case, focusing on police incompetence/misconduct. Instead, they prefer to just repeat stories that come "over the wire", say about Charlie Sheen, since that's cheaper. StuRat (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an effect of the increasing immediacy of news coverage and the advertiser-driven system they use. a half a century ago, news came out once every 24 hours (maybe twice, if there was extreme 'breaking' news stories that could justify an extra printing). This prioritized depth-of-coverage - If you only get to talk about news once a day, you you set yourself off by being comprehensive and sophisticated in your reporting; people would buy the source that gave the best coverage, and advertisers would follow. now, news is covered on a minute-by-minute basis. This prioritizes immediacy and salience - you want something fresh, spicy, and geared to short attention spans (because you don't want to miss the next big moment because you're still covering the last big moment). Advertisers, then, follow the news outlets that can attract and hold the attention of viewers with the most frequency, which means outlets that are constantly producing the kind of voyeuristic trivia that a sizable section of the population can't get enough of. Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian, Charlie Sheen, Mel Gibson - these people get tons of news air-time because they are decadent sex symbols, and people tune in in droves to watch them destroy their lives, and the more people that tune in on average, the more money that comes from advertisers. very sad... --Ludwigs2 05:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is just an example of the debasement of a value-laden term, just like the use of the word "limo" to refer to airport vans. Perhaps the best example is the daily Fox News program Special Report. It used to be that a "special report" was, well, special. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

it still is special, but now in the 'special ed' sense of the term. --Ludwigs2 05:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To answer a mixture of StuRat's question and the original poster's question, I think the most respectable 24 hour news channel in the UK is BBC News 24. From what I can remember, this channel does have a standard "Breaking News" graphic template, but it's so intrusive that they wouldn't be able to leave it up for more than a very limited period of time. So things are only "breaking news" there for maybe half an hour or considerably less. Sky News, the main competitor, is similar, or in fact I may be conflating the two because I watch them so rarely. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

March 12

How binding is an agreement to sell a house?

Now that the whole situation is safely hypothetical...

Suppose you (as the buyer) have signed an agreement to buy a house, but the seller dies before closing. Is the agreement to sell legally binding on the seller's executor/heirs/whoever? --Carnildo (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In what legal jurisdiction does your hypothetical take place? Edison (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hypothetically, the United States, but I'd be interested in other jurisdictions as well. --Carnildo (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You would need to consult the contract itself (for such clauses as "successors and assigns") and a local real-property expert. The only answer we can give here is "it depends." Bielle (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This is fundamentally a legal question. We can't answer these. Note too that "in the United States" means 51+ jurisdictions... there's no way we can provide any semblance of a reasonable or legal answer. Shadowjams (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You should look at the Contract law article as it addresses this sort of question in a general sense. That said, a particular jurisdiction may have different rules that override the general common law rule, which is again why we can't make generalizations about the law or answer legal-fact questions like this. Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Museums, Libraries, and Zoos

I've looking for a word to go in the blank: Ministry of _________. The word is preferably a single-word, and encompasses Museums, Libraries, Zoos, etc. but NOT general education such as schools and colleges, and should not sound too Orwellian. I thought "Culture" but I decided it doesn't really fit. This is for an hypothetical government game. Thank you. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ministry of Field Trips ? :-) StuRat (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Cultural Record? Royor (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ministry of Preservation? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ministry of Heritage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.2.26.146 (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ministry of GLAM -- galleries, libraries, archives, museums. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, why have you decided that "Ministry of Culture" doesn't fit? We even have an article "Ministry of Culture", which lists some alternative names, if you need one. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would expect the "Ministry of Culture" to exclude zoos and include things like opera houses. StuRat (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I could be mistaken, but, given the list in the original post, I would expect that opera houses would be counted in "etc."... After all, only education was explicitly excluded... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So, OP, what's the common thread in museums, libraries and zoos? What other places would belong in that grouping - and why? Museums and zoos are places you go to and, for the most part, just look at what's on offer. Libraries are not; you go there to either browse or select a pre-identified book, then either read it there or take it home to read. What connects libraries to museums and zoos? They're all places of learning, I guess. You can also learn things at an airport, a shopping mall, a brothel, at work, on the bus ..., so this is about a particular kind of learning. But you don't want any reference to education. Hmmm. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the OP, but I'm guessing that they all have a mission of preservation (hence my suggestion above). It's true that libraries may also lend out, but not all do, so I see that as an orthogonal property. Some zoos are for entertainment only, but I'm assuming that zoos in this context would concentrate on conservation/preservation (our article on zoos has some discussion about this). Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ministry of Snakes, Sonnets, and Sculpture. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think one common thread is that these are places where people of all ages go voluntarily to learn more... as opposed to schools, which are not voluntary and are open only to children. I vote for "Ministry of Lifelong Learning."

They also tend to be underheated. I'm thinking, "Ministry of Chilly Walks". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Next door to the "Ministry of Silly Walks", right? Bluefist ^talk 13:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Many nations have a ministry of tourism.[4][5][6][7] --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

NSDAP POW's

What happened to all the Nazi soldiers during the end of World War II? Were they taken as prisoners, and if so, where to, and when were they released? Were they not captured at all? Were they gassed as revenge? Were they put on trial? Did it depend on their acceptance of denazification? And any other related info. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.2.26.146 (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally take a look at Prisoner of war. More specifically look at the many offshoot articles that are linked in the WW2 section of that article. Classically the POW classification was akin to slavery; since the 1600s that view has generally evolved to require the release of soldiers after the end of hostilities. The Geneva Convention is the more modern version of this understanding. That said, the Nuremberg trials dealt with officers and other culpable individuals in the German military at the end of World War 2. It should also be mentioned that there were similar atrocities on all sides, particularly in Russia and Japan (Unit 731). Undoubtedly there are issues with the western allied powers too... I believe that article's listed in the POW article. But none of that should undermine the sheer barbarity of the Axis' treatment of POWs, in comparison to the western allied powers. Shadowjams (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Barbarity? That's a funny word. A barbarian is held to be a rude, crude, unwashed and disorganized person (who will burn, rape and plunder for his own particular profit). Say what you want but none of the Axis suffered of these flaws. They (Germans in particular) were (more-or-less) organized, radical, fanatical (Japanese in particular), merciless, ruthless, cruel, etc. 'Barbarity' may be an unwise description. Flamarande (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't consider that treatment barbaric I'm not sure what you would. Shadowjams (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I consider that treatment cruel, criminal, ruthless and merciless (etc) but not barbaric. These crimes were not done by a horde of screaming unwashed of barbarians, who fought for their personal glory and raped and burned for their own individual pleasure. These crimes were largely planned by high spheres of power, well-organized by the bureaucracy and mercilessly carried out by ruthless organizations. There was nothing barbaric about it, it was way crueller than that. Flamarande (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You have perhaps not noticed, Flamarande, that words are capable of having more than one meaning. The OED s.v "Barbarity" (2.a) says "Barbarous or savage cruelty, such as is alien to civilization; inhumanity. (The usual sense.)", with citations from 1685. --ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Calling Germans "barbaric" has a long tradition of about 2,000 years. What they did during the first half of the XX century just confirmed this stereotype. Moral lesson learnt: don't behave like a barbarian if you don't want to be called barbarian. 212.169.178.229 (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence seems to be an unproven mistake. Flamarande (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Millions of German and Austrian soldiers were taken POW by the U.S., Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. The POWs taken by the western powers were held for awhile but not that long unless they were senior officers. The Soviet Union held onto their German POWs until the mid-1950s and many German POWs perished during captivity in the USSR. After release, the former POWs tended to return to their homes, although many opted not to return to areas under Soviet occupation. W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, many of the ordinary soldiers (as opposed to those in the SS and certain other special units) were not "Nazis" at all.. AnonMoos (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If you asked them after the war, hardly anyone was a Nazi, or if they were it was just because they had to join the party to keep their job or to go to college. Edison (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Oskar Schindler was certainly a member of the Nazi party. Why do you think he joined the party? Because it was simply advantageous. If you wanted to be promoted (or get government contracts) in Nazi Germany it was advantageous to be a member. It's the same story in all single-party coutries. How many members do you believe the Communist Part of North Korea has? A couple of millions? Do you really believe that the majority of them are fierce communists? Flamarande (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was simply advantageous to be a Nazi, to seize Jewish properties, and to plunder the conquered countries. And that's the problem: this lack of moral thinking, of pretending that they are not guilty. 212.169.178.229 (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It was highly advantageous to be a member of the Nazi party in Nazi Germany for a lot of reasons be it professional, economical or political (notice that Oskar Schindler is a fine example of someone who joined the party for the advantages but then went against its ideology). But the true problem is to believe that Germans were somehow exceptional. One should learn the background and circumstances of Hitler's rise and fall. It serves of no purpose to simply believe that it couldn't happen "here" (wherever 'here' is). The truth is that Hitler and his ideology can happen anywhere and at any time. It's only a matter of gathering the right circumstances: a desperate majority, a wide disbelief in democracy which pushes the voter to the extreme parties and huge amounts of propaganda. Afterwards you get the ppl drunk with jobs and later on with victories. Flamarande (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

More information at Forced labor of Germans after World War II and Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union and German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union. Apparently 1,300,000 thought to have been taken prisoner by the Soviets are still unaccounted for. On the other hand, 24,000 German POWs in the UK wouldn't go home and settled here instead, most famously the ex-Fallschirmjäger and Manchester City goalkeeper Bert Trautmann, who played to the end of the 1956 FA Cup Final, despite having suffered a broken neck 17 minutes earlier. 109.170.169.29 (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Obafemi Awolowo and the man-made Biafra famine

I just blundered onto the topic, and I'm seeing wildly different accounts of this Obafemi Awolowo. The Wikipedia article offers a very rosy picture, matched by a glowing Kofi Annan eulogy. [8] Yet I also see several sites such as:

"Nigeria had launched a blockade on Biafra and Chief Obafemi Awolowo declared "All is fair in war, and starvation is one of the weapons of war. I don't see why we should feed our enemies fat in order for them to fight us harder" (Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Financial Times London, 6/26/1969; Daily Telegraph, 6/27/69). Awolowo was the Vice Chairman of the Federal Military Executive Council of the Nigerian state when he made this statement.

Obafemi Awolowo fanatically championed Nigeria's notorious "Starvation as a legitimate weapon/quick kill" war strategy on Biafra, which resulted in a huge percent of the total Biafran casualty, especially the death of children in their millions."^[9]

I haven't tracked down the original microfilm articles, however, and the online sources I've seen wouldn't pass Wikipedia standards.

Now I don't think there's any dispute that Awolowo was in a position of power in Nigeria at a time when Senator Kennedy said that there 10,000 children starving per day in Biafra, after these people were displaced from food-producing areas and (bureaucratically) denied aid by the Nigeria which refused the Red Cross permission.^[10] However, the starvation quote seems usually attributed to "the Nigerian government", "Nigerian officials", etc.

Can anyone clarify whether Awolowo actually delivered the starvation quote, and point toward the most reliable sources for his role in the starvation itself? Previously asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa 18:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Wnt (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

How are proposed changes to pension contracts legal, UK?

Not a request for legal advice, but I am just curious. I thought that the pension retirement age and the final-salary status of a pension would be something that formed part of the contract between the employee and the employer. So by what mechanism will the proposed changes take place? Will there be an Act Of Parliament that says that these contracts are over-ruled by the Act, or what? Its rathjer like an employer suddenly deciding to pay you less or make you work longer hours, both different from what you had agreed to. Thanks 92.24.181.168 (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

When the Government is said to be changing "the retirement age" that just means the age at which someone becomes eligible for the state pension. That doesn't affect private pensions. Similarly the Government doesn't influence the final-salary status of private pensions either. There is also the matter of the entitlement of government workers (direct employees of HMG; mostly civil servants), both for final-salary and retirement-age matters; that is a contract, and the extent to which the government can vary that is limited by the terms of that contract; they can impose terms on new employees, and negotiate with existing workers (often collectively, with unions or similar groups) to get an agreement for a change. HMG doesn't directly dictate the terms and conditions of the employees of its contractors or of local government, but as funding flows from HMG to both, it has some influence over them. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A caveat to the above: there may be complexities due to how HMRC treats payouts from private pensions, and I don't know whether any age-related thresholds apply (and whether these vary in line with the state retirement age). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 15:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

There is an "annual allowance" on how much pension you can accrue in a year (£50,000 lump sum equivalent) before getting taxed on it and a "lifetime allowance" on how much pension you can accrue in your lifetime (£1.8m life time equivalent). I don't believe they are connected with the state pension age in any way. --Tango (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As Finlay says, the changes in the state pension age don't affect occupational pensions (except perhaps for "bridging pensions" which some schemes with normal retirment ages below the state pension age pay to people before their state pension kicks in). However, even if it did affect occupational pensions it wouldn't break any contracts because, generally, when there are big changes in pensions legislation it only applies to pension accrued after the act comes into force. For example, in 1997 there was a change in the law that required pensions in payment to increase by at least the lesser of inflation and 5% each year (previously there was no requirement to increase pensions in payment, other than Guaranteed Minimum Pensions). If, for example, you worked for a company from 1990 to 2004 then half your pension would be under the old rules and half under the new rules (a lot of schemes provide benefits that are more generous than the statutory minimums, of course). --Tango (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

So will a) none of these proposals make any difference to the pension t&c that an employee has already, but only apply to new employment contracts for future employees, or will b) the terms and conditions of existing pension contracts change but only from the date the proposals come into effect, or c) the terms and conditions will be back dated to the date when the employee started work? Thanks 92.15.8.206 (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

They won't make any difference at all to anyone as far as occupational pensions are concerned. The change to the state pension age is just that, a change to the age you can start claiming your state pension. It makes no difference to other pensions. (There have been some recent changes from using RPI to CPI as the measure of inflation - that change does affect some occupational pensions, but only increases and revaluations that happen after the change, past increases and revaluations are unaffected.) --Tango (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

nudity vs clothing

If humans are born nude, why clothing is considered the social norm? Why public nudity is outlawed and not accepted by the society? --Naturist soldier (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Which society? The norms vary greatly. See our article on nudity for some examples. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Clothes are functional, they offer protection, warmth, they have pockets to carry things, they look nice. The reason they are the norm is due to modesty; do you really want to live in a society where boners are visible?AerobicFox (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"Protection" can be broken down to protection from sunburn and injury. There's also a protection from disease aspect, as one naked person sitting where another sat can spread pinworms, for example. Loose fitting, thin, white clothing can also protect from heat due to sunlight. In a dry environment, clothes can also help to prevent drying of the skin. In a moist environment, sitting on certain surfaces nude, like vinyl, can damage the skin.

Clothes also help to tell us who is what. How would you identify a nude police officer or store clerk ?

I believe that people's lack of body hair evolved in conjunction with us starting to wear clothes. There are advantages to being relatively hairless, like some protection from certain parasites, and not staying wet as long after you swim, but these are outweighed by the disadvantages (like a lack of effective temperature control), unless you wear clothes to fix those.

Also note that "clothes" aren't unique to humans. A snail's shell serves many of the same purposes (although it compares more precisely with body armor). StuRat (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

We're also born covered in blood and attached to an umbilical cord. Not exactly the way anybody would want to spend the rest of his or her life. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"If God had meant for us to be nudists, we all would have been born buck naked." StuRat (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure our OP is comfortable with the idea of clothes for safety purposes. The interesting aspect is the clothes for modesty purposes. Clothes don't assist one's safety when swimming casually in a public place. In fact, they get in the way. As a high school teacher, it depresses me every year at the school swimming sports watching boys trying to swim fast in baggy board shorts. But most jurisdictions outlaw nudity there. Why? HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Nudity is a taboo. Every society has taboos on things like sex (no homosexuality), language (no swearing by women), food (no eating fish) and so on. Taboos often don't make much objective sense. Nudity is one of the most-common taboos. Almost every society, excluding the extremely primative and the post-modern, has nudity taboos, even if they only require a penis sheath for men. Not being an anthropologist, I can't hazard a guess why nudity is such a common taboo around the world. But it being so common, I don't think we can brush it off as weird. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Clothing can do a lot of things, but it is primarily designed to be a class distinction. In an office, clothing designates your job level. In a restaurant, clothing defines your lifestyle, income, and education. All in all, clothing divides people into groups. That is why so many schools require uniforms. The best alternative would be a completely nude school - which would only be exciting to the students for a few days. But, people can't handle the idea of naked students, so a uniform is required to try and remove ideas of social strata. Of course, it fails. Students are not stupid enough to think everyone wearing the same uniform is equal. -- kainaw™ 01:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The radical Summerhill School[11], founded by educational pioneer A. S. Neill. used to be famous for taking a relaxed view of clothing or the lack thereof. Whether they continue in today's "child protection" obsessed world, I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Do they really wear board shorts for competitive swimming? That's bizarre. Are Speedos not allowed then? Students who wore them would have a noticeable advantage. --Trovatore (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

These aren't wealthy kids. Usually the only swimwear they own is boardies. That's the preferred choice if only one is possible. Which brings me to the obvious aspect of clothing - Fashion. Right now, round these parts, speedos are out, board shorts are in. And there is no way the fashion industry is going to encourage nudity. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society." --Mark Twain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Mark Twain never met Madonna. (For the younger crowd, think Lady Gaga, except nakeder.) --Trovatore (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Pity. According to this, they'd have been 89% intellectually compatible. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Somebody told me this morning that the way to ensure you are cooking bacon and eggs at the right temperature is to do it naked. (I felt this critical information just had to be added to this discussion.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Mental state of writers

What sort of mental state do writers of great literature tend to be in when writing? Would they typically be concentrating perfectly, with the words flowing in a sort of trance, or would they more likely come up with some ok stuff and gradually perfect it? If they wrote a paragraph in their heads, would they be able to remember it, considering it the one "right" way to express the thought, or would they just as likely get confused when trying to put it down on paper? It's been emotional (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It will, of course, vary, but I suspect that most write down a first draft, then revise it many times, until they are happy with it. They may revise it as they write it, or go back when finished. There are many rough drafts available of works of literature which show this process, giving us an insight into the writing process. StuRat (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

"Would not your butt, by any other name, stink as bad ?" - WS
           a rose                       smell as sweet  StuRat (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It varies all the way across the gamut. Some writers think it all out ahead and never revise; others start by outlining and then build the final product by increments. Thomas Aquinas had such a strong memory that he is said to have compensated for the slow speed of scribes in his day by dictating multiple books at the same time. Vladimir Nabokov, on the other hand, wrote each sentence on a note card and then continually rearranged them until he was satisfied. Looie496 (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

...by dictating multiple books at the same time...? Wouldn't that just make it harder for the scribes, if they were already struggling with the first book? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

He had a whole team of scribes, each working on a different thing. The problem is that using medieval techniques it could take a few minutes to write down a single sentence. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is that ? Did they actually write it down directly as calligraphy, rather than scribble it down, then later rewrite it in fancy form ? StuRat (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Elitism of oxbridge

How elite are Oxford and Cambridge universities in selecting students, and recruiting professors? I've heard that they take the cream of the crop for their academic staff, which is why they produce so many Nobel Prizes, but is this true, and do they attract them with money or the prestige of the campus? As for the students, what percentile of school-leavers would you typically have to be in to get accepted? I know there is more to it than just your marks, but it seems to be the most important starting point. I was roughly in the top half a percent, all those years ago, so would I have stood a chance? It'sbeen emotional (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It is true that Oxbridge is very elite. I think the main attraction for academics is that there are already lots of top academics there that they want to work with. We don't normally think in terms of percentiles. We don't have anything like the American SAT that you can get a percentile from. By what measure are you saying you were in the top half a percent? The most important thing is A-level grades. To get into Oxbridge now you essentially need 3 A's, if not better. It didn't used to be quite that high. If you tell us when you left school then we might be able to find out what the typical entry requirements were then. It will probably depend on what subject you would have wanted to study. --Tango (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Percentiles in Western Australia work like this. If there are exactly 100 people your age in the state, regardless of how many complete year 12 (final year of school), and your overall mark (out of 510) is ranked third, you would be in the 97th percentile, since you beat that percentage of people. For most things, and with only a handful of complications, that is your spot in the pecking order for universities. It has less significance for Medicine, Dentistry, Fine Art, Performing Arts and Music, but is otherwise pretty important. I'm not worried about the exact answer that would depend on when I graduated (1980s, if you must know my age :) ); I'm giving myself as a reference just for general personal curiosity. I could get into most things here, at the time, so I'm wondering if that would translate into the British experience at all. I take your point that you do not have a strict ranking system, so an approximate guide would be enough. Thanks again, and in advance for any further comments. It's been emotional (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In case any of these figures are useful: in 2006, approximately 10% of students sitting A-levels gained three As or above[12]: about 60,000 people. The basic offer at Cambridge in 2008 was three As[13]. About 4,000 new people gain a place at Cambridge every year[14], which is about a quarter of applicants. You cannot apply to both Cambridge and Oxford as an undergraduate in the same year. Marnanel (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This article claims that 300,000 people took A-levels in 2010 (well, it says "took their exams", but the context suggests A-levels, and the figure is surely far too low to include GCSEs). Similarly, this article claims that 300,000 graduated last year (I'd imagine that most people who do A-levels go to university). So would 10% not be about 30,000 people? (If this is correct, and if 16,000 people apply to Cambridge, and presumably a similar amount to Oxford, it would suggest that roughly the top 10% of A-level students - those getting three As or similar - are applying to Oxbridge and roughly the top 2.5% are getting in.) In any event, if about 8,000 students are getting into Oxbridge each year, and if I'm correct in reading our article on the demography of the United Kingdom as implying that there would be about 750,000 people in a school year, it would seem that about 1% of the population get into Oxbridge. (This is probably a bit too high, as it ignores the large number of overseas students at those universities, but I'm not even going to try to factor that in!) Proteus (Talk) 23:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the prestige of the campus-- neither is a campus university. Marnanel (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting statistics for this that mean anything, is very difficult. The above statistics about the basic offer for Cambridge in 2008 are correct, but it needs to be explained that the basic offer being three A's does not mean that anyone getting three A's could gain admission to the university. When I was offered a place at Oxford, the basic offer made to me and about half the other successful applicants that year, was two E's. Oxford and Cambridge are regularly criticised for rejecting individual applicants who gain four or even six A's at A level. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The main method for sifting prospective students applying to Cambridge (and I believe Oxford as well, though I have no personal experience of it) is the interview, which in the early 1990s typically involved a general interview and then a subject specific interview. It would be for the student to impress the Dons that they had particularly inquiring minds, not just the ability to pass exams. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If that is the main method, Sam, does it follow that they are rejecting a large percentage of otherwise-worthy applicants, just on the basis of the interview? If so, it does sound fairly tough. It's been emotional (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the interviews are the main filter. Some subjects do involve other factors besides A-level results, see List of admission tests to colleges and universities#United Kingdom. For example applicants for medicine have to earn a certain BMAT score to stand a chance of getting to the interview stage. On the day of my Cambridge interviews, I also had a Thinking Skills Assessment (kind of a logical reasoning test) although they claimed to not put much weight on that because it was something of a novelty. The interviews themselves were gruelling though. I had three: one in physics, one in maths/chemistry, and one general interview (with a bit of materials science thrown in, because that was the interviewer's speciality). Of course the interview procedure varies from subject-to-subject and college-to-college.

If you were in the top half a percent of marks, then I certainly think you would have stood a good chance. But it really does all depend on the interviews. the wub "?!" 00:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all for a quality answer. By all means add more, since I don't think the discussion is finished, but it satisfies my initial burning curiosity. It's been emotional (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

One think I do know first-hand from an Oxford admissions person was that the average applicant who gets in has 7A* GCSEs (last year's applicants), with a 'minimum' (i.e. in reality) of 3 or 4. Can't find any data on how many people that this, though. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The demographic approach already applied above can be refined a little. The age cohort is less than 750,000, between 600,000 and 700,000, varying from year to year, can be looked up somewhere, somehow at wwww.statistics.gov.uk. About half start A Levels, so the 300,000 is about right, although some of those won't have full passes, let alone the As and A*s for Oxbridge application. Then if the 8,000 entry is right and you want to factor in for international students, say 75% are UK entrants = 6,000 UK entrants. 1% of the cohort. So someone in the top half percent might well be OK, but you never know. They have people working on admissions whose job it is to understand the Australian and other systems, so you should have got an interview. It also depends a lot on what subject you apply for. They are saying at the moment that young people from poorer and ethnic minority backgrounds are applying for the "wrong" courses, i.e things like PPE rather than science and engineering (but those are only relatively less competitive). Itsmejudith (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgotten verses of La Marseillaise

Where can I find a vocal performance of (any) of these verses of La Marseillase which are very rarely sung? Thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You asked a similar question a couple of months ago, didn't you? Wasn't your current question answered then? WikiDao ☯ 00:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not ask that question but seeing as I attend the same college it is quite possible one of my classmates (in the same French history class) did. Furthermore that question concerns the couplet des enfants which is one of the often-sung verses. Please see the link I gave for the non-frequently sung verses I'm referring to. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That verse is at the end of the section you link to. But in that case:

Please do your own homework.

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

(But asking Google can be helpful too with that sort of thing;). WikiDao ☯ 02:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That verse is not at the end, there are two couplets des enfants, each with different lyrics (although it's a forgivable mistake if you only speak English), and this is not homework (how could it be?), more of an interest in going deeper with the material presented in class. Google hasn't helped me at all here because these verses are not part of the "full version", and should be distinguished from those verses that while not usually used (Que veut cet horde...; Quoi des cohortes étrangères...; Tremblez, tyrans..., etc) are part of the full version. Please read the article before jumping to conclusions, thanks. 72.128.95.0 (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Film genre generic plots/formulas

I stumbled upon this Slasher_film#Defining_the_sub-genre which gives quite a detailed generic plot or formula for that type of film.

Where can I find similar generic plots/formulas for different genres, not just horror?

I know that there exist many different lists of the "n" basic plots, so no need to tell me about those, but they are not linked to different film genres. I'm looking for the plots/formulas for specific film genres. Thanks 92.15.8.206 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Is TVtropes.org something you're interested in? Dismas|^(talk) 00:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That is about notable highlights in films/tv rather than the whole plot. It is also organised by the highlights rather than the genre. But thanks for trying. 92.15.8.206 (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It does have a Genres section, though. 90.195.179.167 (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

March 13

Age to stay in hotel alone

In Kansas, United States, may a person under 18 stay in a hotel without someone over 18 staying with them? If not, does the person over 18 have to be a parent/guardian, or can it be any person over the age of 18? I did a quick Google search [15], but don't exactly see much in the way of reliable sources, so if someone could provide a non-answer site source that would be great. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You could call up the hotel you are thinking of spending a night at, and ask. I don't think there are any legal restrictions, but of course I don't really know. WikiDao ☯ 00:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There may or may not be legal restrictions, but, as a practical matter, I'd expect most hotels to refuse to allow minors as the only guest. The reason is that the risk of damage to the room, annoyance to other guests, and of lawsuits, if the minor is injured, outweighs the benefit (the money they might make). Similarly, it may be illegal for a minor to be in a hotel room with an unrelated adult (does the Mann Act cover this ?), but, since they don't check the ID of the child, this isn't likely to come up. StuRat (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As a male in Australia I've often shared a hotel room with my son, and nobody has ever checked who we really were. I obviously don't know about Kansas, but I expect the practicalities of checking would probably mean you could obviously do the same there with no trouble at all. HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, you weren't checked because they didn't have reason to suspect anything. If a minor comes alone to a hotel, he will have to - mostly - pay with his credit card, and show some form of id. 212.169.190.126 (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If they do let you stay alone, they may at least require an adult to provide their credit card details as security. It is normal to require a credit card when you are staying in a hotel in case you leave without paying or damage the room, etc., and since under-18s can't have credit cards, someone else will have to stand as guarantor. --Tango (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That is not universally true. I've stayed at plenty of hotels in the US paying strictly with cash. For sure, they weren't always good hotels... Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In the US, minors can have a credit card. 212.169.190.126 (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I find that very unlikely. They may be allowed a secondary card on their parents card, but minors cannot take out loans. They can get something like a Visa Electron (which apparently isn't available in the US, but I'm sure there are equivalents), but hotels probably wouldn't accept those. --Tango (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop me if I'm wrong, but I think the answer to this question would come down to the policies of individual hotels, and not to national or state laws. The only way I can think of to answer it is to make a list of the hotels in the area you'd like to visit, and call them by phone and ask them, one by one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you are not wrong. Calling the hotel seems the easiest way. Although the OP might just want to know if in general this is possible. 212.169.190.126 (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be correct; I'm looking mostly for a "most common practice"...the reason I'm asking is I'm looking into the possibility of my 17 year old friend (who lives out of state) coming to visit, and I'm looking at whether in general she would be able to stay in a hotel by herself because with me being a guy it might be a sticky point with parents and her boyfriend if I or another guy in her circle of friends here (there are no 18 year old girls in the circle of friends) had to stay in the hotel with her. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case, one option would be for you to check in with her, but not stay, just leave her alone in the room. However, beware that if your credit card is used, then they will bill you for any extra services or damages. Since 17 is above the age of consent in most US states, (or is that all ?), then you should be safe from charges of statutory rape. StuRat (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing StuRat just said should be construed as legal advice. There are states where the age of consent is 18. You say there are no 18 year old girls in the circle of friends; but are there parents of friends she could stay with, or other older women (teachers, professors etc.)? That would not only be more reassuring for her parents and her boyfriend (and possibly herself), but also less expensive. —Angr (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an anecdote, not a legal policy... I stayed in hotels with a friend of mine when I was a teenager. We were both well under 18. Nobody made a big deal about it. We didn't pay for it. It was paid in advance by our parents. -- kainaw™ 16:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Chain hotels in Europe tend not to allow it. For example, if you book inclusively through Eurostar they won't even allow children to share one room while the parents have another. There has to be at least one adult in each room. You can't send a group of teenagers off to Disneyland Paris on their own. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Anxiety against anxiety

How can one type of anxiety - like eating disorders, which block a person from eating - overpower the fear of death? Shouldn't the latter anxiety be always superior to the former? 212.169.190.126 (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the time we're talking about a mental disorder. Now I didn't take much abnormal psych myself (I was a psychology major for a year in college, which does not make me an expert), so I can't really give you the whole pathology of anxiety disorders (including anorexia), and certainly it is not a behavior which promotes survival, but whatever chemical and mental causes lie behind a given anxiety disorder most likely disconnects the potentially life-threatening behavior from the fear of death. Perhaps someone at WP:PSY, the relevant WikiProject, might be able to give more info? Wabbott9 (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The OP's question has a built-in false assumption. In reality, nearly everyone thinks they're immortal, or at least that there's nothing they can do to themselves which will kill them unless they choose to do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter here is everyone thinks he's immortal. We still have embedded instincts: eat, breathe, don't kill yourself. Why could one of them be turned off, is the question. 212.169.183.128 (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do people do anything that could get themselves killed? Anorexics in particular may get kind of a "high" from not eating that overrides theoretical instinctive behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Another difference is that non-eating is an immediate pleasure, whereas not-dying is a long-term pleasure. Quest09 (talk)

Psychologically, a person will not generally have multiple competing anxieties, but rather one central anxiety that manifests in different forms. For instance (note: this is purely hypothetical, and should not be taken as any form of fact or diagnosis), an eating disorder may be a manifestation of a fear of death that has passed through a number of cognitive distortions - e.g. from an unconscious association between death and being overweight - so that the disorder is an indirect response to the fear of death, despite its health risks. --Ludwigs2 05:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of life

What is the purpose of life other than eating and having sex? Why do we live? What are the value of our existence? --EditorThomas1991 (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

See purpose of life, a reassuring article. 213.122.42.235 (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you assume there is some sort of externally-assigned "purpose"? It's up to you to create your own purpose for being. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Presumably it's possible to create a purpose which is wrong. You might as well ask: why do we assume there is some kind of externally-assigned "truth"? (Assuming we're of the same mind on that point.) Purpose is a highly personal thing, though, of course, so the exact nature of objectively right and wrong purposes will vary a great deal from person to person. My goal in life, for instance, is not to run a marathon every day. That would be an incorrect purpose for me. Once upon a time I found a great Wikipedia article about all this, which I thought was the meaning of life article I just linked to, but it seems not. The article I found - which I hope still exists - said, in a nutshell, that the value of our lives is the range of human values, and it had a handy list of them. (I found the example "athletic achievement" rather out of place on the list. Most of the values seemed to revolve around knowledge in some way.) 213.122.42.235 (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally, religions try to help someone create a purpose which is "right". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To the OP today, eating and sex may be the only things that matter, but even if they enjoyed unlimited amounts of such things, most people would find it difficult to continue enjoying it if everyone around them was in massive suffering. Humans tend to want to do something about the conditions in which others live, even if only for their closest family. And then those family members want to make thing better for some others. And so it goes. It quickly gets very complicated. We cannot help trying to help at least some others. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If we all dedicate our lives completely to helping others, that would cause an infinite regress and a complete lack of meaningful purpose. On the other hand, if everybody else were to help just one person to pursue his own goals - me, for example ...81.131.13.43 (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. We'd be one big happy family, without any wars or poverty. 92.15.11.100 (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We'll get back to you on that. Meanwhile, don't do anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the one person we are all dedicating our lives completely to helping is this one, right? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In a Darwinian sense, the purpose of life is to make more life. In a philosophical sense, there is no one 'purpose' for life- you're simply here, and if you want your life to have a purpose, you have the privilege of deciding for yourself what that purpose should be. Some people choose love, art, money, work, power, community, justice, charity, pleasure, or despair, but those are not your only choices.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

My own view is that when we ask what the "meaning" or "purpose" of life is, we are usually just being imprecise in our speech. (I'm not a huge follower of the philosophy of language, but this is something I agree with.) If you refine the question down a bit further, you will get better answers, or at least structured ones. "What should I do with my time?" is still vague but a bit better. "What should I do to get into heaven?" is in my opinion not a very fruitful question, but there are still lots of people who will offer up structured answers regarding it. "Why did I evolve this giant forebrain that worries so much about purposes, anyway?" can come up with very plausible results. Just as a set of examples. Treating everything as having a "purpose" is as linguistically problematic as treating "nothing" like just another "thing" — you can form it into a grammatically correct sentence, but it doesn't mean it makes any logical sense. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To help others. 92.15.26.29 (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So to quote one of the Peanuts characters, "Then what are the others here for?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Its very sad that you consider the value of others in such instrumental terms - that people only have value if they are of use (to you). Less altruism in North America than in Europe it appears. The short answer would be "To help you". 92.15.11.100 (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

To provide food and sex? HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Shelter is, or should be, higher on the hierarchy of needs than sex is. In fact, maybe the OP should read hierarchy of needs to get some more insights. ("Lower", actually, i.e. more "basic".) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To take my shot at it, I would start by considering: what is the purpose of the universe? Because life is the interaction of a person with the universe, and its purpose should be the same. Now for a religious person, the universe was created by a supremely reasoning Creator for some good reason. For others, it may be alleged that the universe was a random accident; but then again, where did the idea even of random accident come from?

My speculation is that the universe is a draft, not a final product, and its purpose is to serve as an intermediate stage toward that final product. The evils within it are like the wax in lost-wax casting; they bring out the countervailing good which is the desired artwork, which is to be saved for the next draft. Fulfilling Maslow's hierarchy of needs to continue life is temporarily useful, and often noble, but it does not address the goal directly, but moves perpendicularly to it. In the end, there is some goodness in people which is meant to come out, which they can choose, and in so choosing now, establishes their character in future versions. But the use of the final product, that work of art so lovely that divinity itself toils to attain the pleasure of seeing it? Well, I suppose that is the use. Wnt (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Anger management and age

Do your ability to manage anger (i.e. not to burst) improves with age? 212.169.183.128 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the impression that women manage it better, and men worse, when they get older. Quest09 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I know people of both genders who have got better at anger management with age, as well as people of both genders who have got progressively (and considerably, in some cases) worse. It depends on the person. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

yes and no. Younger people have more intense emotions that are more difficult to control; older people have more entrenched behaviors that are difficult to stop. People do tend to mellow as they get older - simply because testosterone production decreases over the years, if nothing else - but if you've spent 30 or 40 years losing your temper, it's tremendously difficult to break that habit. --Ludwigs2 17:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

But this guy dreamed of conquering the world when he was 49 years old. And this guy at the age of 68 said "those who don't love me do not deserve to live". --Reference Desker (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What has that got to do with anger management? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That was in response to Ludwigs2's comment: "People do tend to mellow as they get older". --Reference Desker (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that Hitler and Qadaffi were/are not in control of their anger? And how do you know they were less mellow in old age vs. their youth? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was talking in general. My point is that it is a misconception that people tend to mellow as they get older, it all depends on the socio-economic status of the person. --Reference Desker (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone mellows as they age. Often personal characteristics become more pronounced.--Wetman (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Some people loose their ability to manage their anger, but do not get angrier, just show it more often. Quest09 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Also consider that old people may have more to be angry about, since loss of independence, disease, and impending death can be rather frustrating. StuRat (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

StuRat, your comment is a stereotypical view of old people. Social status has something to do with it. Rupert Murdoch fathered a child at the age of 72. And Hugh Hefner at the age of 84 is remarkably calm and spend time with girls who are 50-60 years his junior. --Reference Desker (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I stand by my claim that older people have more trouble with disease, tend to lose their independence due to an inability to drive or live on their own (in a greater percentage than younger adults), and are closer to death. If you find references to dispute those facts, please share them with us. StuRat (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What if Canada abolished the monarchy?

Would the Governor General or the Queen dissolve Parliament before the final vote on the bill? --70.244.234.128 (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No. DuncanHill (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Surely they wouldn't want to lose their power. --70.244.234.128 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither the Queen, nor the Governor General actually has any power. Her role (and that of the Governor General when acting for her) is ceremonial and advisory. Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The article says that they still have the power to dissolve Parliament or fire the Prime Minister. --70.244.234.128 (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Canadian Constitution requires a proclamation from the governor general before the enactment of a constitutional amendment. The governor general could refuse to issue such a proclamation, creating a constitutional crisis. The prime minister would then call the monarch to ask him or her to replace the governor general. If the monarch were to refuse, the crisis would get really thorny. However, it should be noted that the British to my knowledge have not attempted to interfere with any transitions to republics since the Anglo-Irish War, with the exception of Rhodesia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As always, this is a confusing issue. The crown has no real power, and the Governor General and Queen's role is purely symbolic. Though it can and has happened that they have used their Reserve power, it hasn't happened in almost 100 years. Besides, they get very little benefit from existing (The GG's salary is less than most CEOs. We don't send any revenue to the Queen in England. It all stays in Canada. If Canada wanted to dump the monarchy, we wouldn't need a war. We would just leave. Aaronite (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In November 1999, Australia held a referendum to decide whether or not we would become a republic. As a nation, we voted No. Four months later, the Queen visited Australia, and made a speech including the following words:

• My family and I would, of course, have retained our deep affection for Australia and Australians everywhere, whatever the outcome. For some while it has been clear that many Australians have wanted constitutional change... You can understand, therefore, that it was with the closest interest that I followed the debate leading up to the referendum held last year on the proposal to amend the Constitution. I have always made it clear that the future of the monarchy in Australia is an issue for you, the Australian people, and you alone to decide by democratic and constitutional means. It should not be otherwise. As I said at the time, I respect and accept the outcome of the referendum. In the light of the result last November I shall continue faithfully to serve as Queen of Australia under the constitution to the very best of my ability, as I have tried to do for the last 48 years. (Quoted from History of monarchy in Australia.)

I can't see why it would be any different in Canada. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

While I know it's not directly part of this discussion, it's important to point out that Australia did not vote No to becoming a republic. Australia voted No to becoming the particular kind of republic proposed in that referendum. HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That's right. We weren't given the threshold choice of "Do you want to become a republic?", and then "If so, what kind of republic do you want?". It was a particular change, or no change at all. But in the context of this discussion, it's only relevant to point out that there was a vote on a republic, and the majority voted No, but the Queen wouldn't have minded either way because it was our decision, not hers. If I may say so, the OP's question has a Hollywood concept of monarchy, with trappings of absolute power, the divine right of kings, and other medieval notions that have nothing to do with how modern constitutional monarchies operate. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The queen is good with P.R., which is a significant portion of her job anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The poor woman has been stuck in a cushy but meaningless and confining job for almost six decades. If I were she I'd be bloody well sick of it by now. I certainly wouldn't try to hold on to "power" by my fingernails at the age of 84.

I'm against monarchy, but I really kind of feel for the current crop of royals, who had very little choice in the matter. --Trovatore (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That raises an interesting point. It being an inherited job, the current and future monarchs are essentially stuck with it. Slaves to it, in a sense. What if the monarchy itself said, "We quit"? It's one thing for the occasional monarch to abdicate or get decapitated. But what if the whole lot of them had some kind of epiphany and said, "We've had enough. We're boarding up the palaces and moving to a commune in the Outback. So long, and thanks for all the fish 'n chips." What would happen then? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are almost 2,000 people in the line of succession, and it seems unlikely that all of them (including the Kings of Norway and Sweden and the Queens of Denmark and the Netherlands) would suddenly decide they didn't like monarchy. If only some of them decided that, the Crown would simply pass to the next in line. But if they all did, I suppose we'd find another heir - the Jacobite heir (Franz, Duke of Bavaria), for instance. Proteus (Talk) 22:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) What do you mean by "the monarchy itself quit"? That is a nonsense notion, Buggsy. A building cannot decide to repaint itself purple. A monarchy or a presidency may be various things, but one thing it's definitely not is a sentient being that can think for itself. Maybe what you're getting at is what happens if the entire Royal Family says, en masse, "We're outta here, you lot can sort it out yourselves". In that case, the Queen remains queen until she formally abdicates, which is not even her decision in the end but the Parliament's, but if she made it very clear she wasn't playing the game anymore, the parliament would no doubt oblige her by passing a law deeming her to have abdicated (which she would be required to sign into law - funny if she changed her mind in the meantime). The law says that her heir Prince Charles succeeds. He would then have to abdicate if he didn't want to be king. Then Prince William would succeed. He would have to abdicate. Then Prince Harry succeeds ......... and so on right down the Line of succession to the British throne, to its bitter and obsessively compulsive end if necessary. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, Mr. Nitpicky, I meant "the royal family". You're talking about a formal process. But supposing some low-level royal discretely bought a large, private island, and the royals all went there on vacation, and once they got there, they said, "Screw your legalistic processes, we're not coming back." And suppose it did come down to the King of Sweden or some such. Would the British people accept that idea? Or would Parliament more likely take an emergency vote on whether to abolish the monarchy in one shot? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is historical precedent (King James II and VII) for a monarch's flight from the country being taken by Parliament as an act of abdication. I'd imagine something similar would happen in your scenario. I doubt Parliament would dare to abolish the monarchy without a referendum. And if there was public opposition to a foreigner becoming monarch, I think it's more likely that we'd choose someone else (either from further down the line of succession or someone new entirely - a senior peer, perhaps) than that we'd abolish the monarchy altogether. Proteus (Talk) 23:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

But Elizabeth does, I think, have a goal. To outlive Charles. PhGustaf (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So far so good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada can't abolish the monarchy. The British monarchy is a British institution and only the British parliament can abolish the monarchy. Canada could, however, cut all ties from the British monarchy and the Commonwealth. I hope that makes sense. If not, here's an example. Lets say a nation decided to use the US dollar as their currency (and had agreement from the US). That country couldn't abolish or disolve the US dollar. They could stop using it; but only the US could scrap the US dollar. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC).

Canada can abolish the Canadian monarchy, just not the British monarchy. Your dollar example fails to take the Statute of Westminster into account. Marnanel (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fly by Night, you wrote "Canada could, however, cut all ties from the British monarchy and the Commonwealth." That's true, but the one does not imply the other. Canada could become a republic and still remain part of the Commonwealth. —Angr (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Constitution of Canada#Amending formula provides a mechanism for amendments to the Canadian Constitution affecting the Office of the Queen of Canada, including, I would say, its abolition. Monarchy of Canada#Succession and regency is also very pertinent. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Copying public domain images from copyrighted material

Hello everyone. This is a hypothetical that I was wondering about, but I guess it could have some applications on Wikipedia. Let's say that a book published a public domain image. Could you scan the image from that book and publish it legally? Is the image itself still public domain or does it become copyrighted once it is published in a copyrighted work? Thanks. BurtAlert (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright applies to a specific expression. So if there is any aspect of the scan that identifies it as coming from that particular book, you would be violating copyright. The original version would still be in the public domain and can never be brought under copyright merely by inclusion in a larger work. Looie496 (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I brought that case up with File:Harrison Football Political Cartoon.jpg. I didn't get any substantial answers on the question. The original is a line sketch. The image used here is has been colored. So, it is not the original, but looks much better. -- kainaw™ 19:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

For a US context only:

Once something is in the "public domain", it remains so, indefinitely. That's part of the definition of "public domain." So if I take a public domain drawing, and scan it, I have not create a new copyright — the underlying content is in the public domain. If I take it and include it in a book of my own personal poetry, the arrangement, and my poetry, are copyrighted. The image, removed from its context, would be in the public domain. You cannot just write "copyrighted" on a public domain image and change its copyright status.

But! If you modify the image in a "creative" way (and the bar is very low for "creativity", but not indefinitely low), your modifications are copyrighted! You have just created a derivative work that is itself copyrightable. ("Creativity" is not how legal people talk about it — the term they use is "originality," but I feel "creativity" covers the meaning better for a non-legal crowd. But a lawyer I ain't!)

So in the case of Kainaw's image, if the coloration was done recently, it probably is copyright protected, even if the underlying image is public domain. (An "artist" had to make the decisions as to what color to make it, how to do the coloration, etc. — these are all well "creative" enough for copyright law.) One way to put it is that the lady would be public domain, but the moustache would be a derivative work.

Does that clarify? The question is, in the end, whether the reproduction is a derivative work. If it introduces "creative" aspects, it usually is. If it does not, it is usually not. The exact definitions of what makes it derivative can vary by jurisdiction — e.g., in the United States, retouching a photograph of an artwork to make it look more like the original artwork is not a derivative work (and does not create a new copyright), in the U.K., this is less clear. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, the U.S. has a very low threshold of originality (though not indefinitely low, as Mr. 98 points out). In some places, the standard is significantly higher. Switzerland, in particular, has a fairly high threshold of originality: see Swiss copyright law. In the U.S. essentially any photographic work is protected (with the exception of when the photograph is a slavish reproduction of another copyrighted or public domain piece). In Switzerland, on the other hand, photos must be deemed to be "creations of the mind, literary or artistic, that have an individual character". In practice, it often appears that the aesthetic appeal of a photo plays a role in whether Swiss courts consider it original and creative enough. I think Swiss copyright law is stupid, but that's how it works. The point is that pretty much every jurisdiction has different copyright law. Afghanistan doesn't even have any copyright law! Intellectual property is a veritable mess even in any one jurisdiction, let alone worrying about every jurisdiction. Buddy431 (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

See Commons:Commons:PD-art. Wnt (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Child pornography laws

In Canada, child pornography laws were designed to protect children (where "children" is defined as anyone under the age of 18). However, the age group most interested in viewing/distributing child pornography, and most capable of obtaining it, should be teenagers, not middle-aged pedophiles. How do the courts deal with cases where teenagers watch porn of other teenagers around the same age? Is it considered child pornography for practical purposes?

Disclaimer: This is not legal advice; I'm simply curious. --99.237.234.245 (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It's still legally child porn no matter who is looking at it. I can't find references to it right now but I'm sure that one of the recent busts of a child porn ring included teenagers. A few months ago there was also an uproar about "sexting" where a 14-year-old sent naked pics of herself to an 18-year-old, who then sent them to other people; there was some debate about whether that guy, if he could be found, would be guilty of distributing child porn. Here is an article about the incident. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There have been stories like that, where the underage kids producing their own porn have been prosecuted for it, or at least threatened with prosecution. Speaking somewhat to the OP's question, I think the difference is that the kids don't think so much about it, it's just being daring or whatever, and they might not take it altogether seriously. It's the adults, ranging from the aghast parents and the legal authorities, to the proverbial "middle-aged pedophiles", who take it seriously. That's why we have an age of consent - because the kids are assumed to be incompetent, or at least too naive, to be giving consent in some way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of prosecuted cases like that in the US, Child pornography#Sexting and sexting also mention these as well as cases in Australia although it's not clear whether the involve people sending photos of themselves. I've never heard of cases in Canada although Canadian news is not something I pay attention to. Nil Einne (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In Canada, and in many US states, the age of consent does not apply to teenagers having sex with other teenagers. For example, the Canadian age of consent is 16. 14- and 15-year-olds can have intercourse with someone less than 5 years older. 13- and 14-year-olds can have intercourse with partners less than 2 years older. For all practical purposes, then, Canadian law permits teenage sex; few teenagers find 30-year-olds attractive. I was wondering if an exception like this applies to pornography as well. --99.237.234.245 (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Porn is a different situation from underage teens just fooling around under the covers. Production and distribution of child porn is illegal and severely punished, no matter who produces it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? Adam's example doesn't apply because a 18-year-old is significantly older than a 14-year-old, and because the distribution of porn was done maliciously. --99.237.234.245 (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A reference for what? That child porn is illegal??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That it's "severely punished no matter who produces it". --99.237.234.245 (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the underage kid who distributed self-porn? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

March 14

Observations about Japan's emperor and cabinet

Like many people I'm following loads of television and internet news coverage of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Two questions have come to mind that I haven't been able to find answers for. (1) Has there been any public reaction from the imperial household? I feel sure that if a similar disaster befell a European monarchy, the monarch by now would have at least have issued expressions of condolence, and would quite possibly have made some kind of address to the nation to get people to pull together at a moment of national tragedy, or toured a devastated area. This is not a criticism but an observation. I know the emperor of Japan is not secluded from the people (e.g. he makes new year speeches) so I'm wondering if perhaps the customs around death and mourning in Japan are such that this response would not be proper or expected. Can anyone enlighten me? The only mention of the emperor I've seen is reporting of messages of condolence sent to him by international heads of state. (2) Whenever I've seen PM Naoto Kan in the last few days he's been wearing some kind of bluish overall/donkey jacket rather than a business suit as I would have expected. See for example the video part of the way down this page, where you can see what I mean, and also observe what look like badges or insignia stitched on the arms. I'm sure I also saw footage of the whole cabinet wearing the same kind of jackets but cannot find this online. It's clear from Commons that Kan is not averse to wearing a standard suit jacket, so I'm wondering what the meaning is and if this is his standard attire when not meeting world leaders, or if he's trying to say something about 'getting to work' following the quake. Any ideas? Thanks Wikpedia! 82.46.43.33 (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the emperor: Japan's emperor was traditional viewed as a God, and, as such, above the daily affairs of the Japanese people. Thus, he had subordinates who would do "mundane things", like dealing with the aftermath of a quake. This has changed somewhat since WW2, however, when the model of the detached emperor did not serve Japan well. Still, compared with a European monarch, you will likely still notice less of a "hands-on" approach by the Emperor of Japan. StuRat (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Rubaiyat editions

As a lot of you all know, the first and fifth editions of The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam by Edward FitzGerald are often printed together in one volume. I have some questions: Why is this done? Which version is generally considered superior? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitefox (talk • contribs) 06:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

aid and future museum

I'm not using this site as a crystal ball or anything like that. But by any chance, might there be a telethon and/or a live concert appealing for financial contributions to help the victims of the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami? Would there also be a future museum in the area, as well?24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, quite likely, to all that. In the meantime, you can donate to charities trying to get help through. Haiti still needs help, by the way. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering the relative wealth of each nation, Haiti seems far needier than Japan. StuRat (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Japanese Red Cross has asked for donations. If you wish to donate, check your local Red Cross/Red Cresent's web-site for a Sendai appeal. As you appear to be an American, the US Red Cross's appeal is here. CS Miller (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Old buildings in Japan

This is another Japanese-related question. After watching footage of the disaster, I noticed that all the buildings shown in Japan appear to be of fairly recent construction. I am wondering if there are any old, historic edifices such as temples, palaces, or government buildings that exist in modern Japan? Specifically any which pre-date the 20th century. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Most certainly there are very many old buildings in Japan. Specifically the Temples enjoy international attention. One example is the Shosoin from the Nara period. There are many others. --95.33.155.229 (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There are also a lot of old castles. The article Japanese Buddhist architecture may also be of interest. Japanese architecture also contains many examples of old buildings still extant, some dating back to the 7th century, apparently.--Saddhiyama (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. What beautiful structures. I hadn't realised there were so many extant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Double names

In the english speaking world, are there any/many cases of someone naming their child with the same given name more than once. Examples might be Harry Harry Truman, or John John Kennedy. The only likely situation where I can see it occuring is where the parents name the child after a sports team resulting in (say Alan John Frank Harry John Peter Richard John William Arthur Robinson). (Just curious). -- SGBailey (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is Major Major Major Major. Quest09 (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick article search turns up John John Florence and John John Jesse, although I can't confirm whether they were names given at birth. Warofdreams talk 11:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

James James Morrison Morrison Weatherby George Dupree, in the poem "Disobedience" by A.A. Milne. Fictional character. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there have been many John Johnsons and similar names throughout history, and given the tendency to name boys after their fathers, there could many redundant names on the order of John Johnson's son John Johnson. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not quite answering the question - Henry Henry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

... and Alan Alan, James James and Thomas Thomas (several). Gandalf61 (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys. -- SGBailey (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

General Knowledge question

Which journal is considered as the world’s first business publication? On the GOOGLE search I got Financial Times but except one site, every where else it is given as the America (USA) 's oldest business magazine. Would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.252.236 (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick Google books search shows The Journal of Commerce, first published in 1827, is the oldest business newspaper in the US. --Reference Desker (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And you may find this article interesting. --Reference Desker (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Lloyd's List from 1734 perhaps. 92.15.11.100 (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)