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 4

The only woman in Margaret Thatcher's government besides her

I have heard, that prime minister Margaret Thatcher appointed only one woman as minister in her government during her years as prime minister. Is this correct? And in that case, who was this female minister? Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Virginia Bottomley. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

She served under John Major. The only woman listed at Thatcher ministry is Janet Young, Baroness Young. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Bottomley's article reads "received her first ministerial position in 1988 as a junior Environment Minister[2] and was appointed Minister of Health in 1989." Thatcher was PM until 28 November 1990. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

True. She became Secretary of State for Health in 1992. What's the difference between that and the "Minister of Health"? There's no mention of any such portfolio for the UK at Health minister. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you were actually right the first time. It's Minister for Health (well, "Minister of State for Health"), which is the next level down from Secretary of State, and it's they position Bottomley held in those years. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 01:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Before 1988, Health wasn't its own department, it came under Health and Social Security, so there was a Minister of Health that reported to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. This is all in the article you linked to. However, that is not consistent with Bottomley being Minister of Health in 1989... perhaps she was a Minister of State in the Department of Health (there are currently two of those according to Department of Health (United Kingdom)#Ministers, although I don't know about 1989)? I don't think that would normally be described as "Minister of Health", but it would be an understandable mistake to make. --Tango (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

So, I'm wondering why this portfolio (whatever it was called) isn't listed at Thatcher ministry if the holder was called "Minister". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it wasn't a Cabinet post, it was a Minister of State post, and the article you link to only lists the members of the Cabinet. In the UK, Ministers of State are junior ministers who do not run a government department and do not (generally) sit in cabinet, but normally take responsibility for a particular area of their department and are often described as "Minister for X" (more commonly nowadays) or "Minister of X" (no longer as common a usage). So for example in the large Department for Work and Pensions there is a Secretary of State and four Ministers of State who are called the Minister for Employment, the Minister for Pensions, the Minister for Disabled People and the Minister for Welfare Reform [1]. Valiantis (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Just correcting myself. There are two Ministers of State (Employment and Pensions) and two Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State (Disabled People and Welfare Reform) who are even more junior ministers than the Ministers of State (i.e. their portfolio is less wide-ranging and their pay is lower [2]). Valiantis (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, if the question is really about ministers in general rather than just cabinet ministers, there's Edwina Currie, who was a publicity-shy Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health. Henry^Flower 04:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The OP did write "minister" but the statement that is commonly repeated is that she only appointed one Cabinet minister. See for example this recent Vanity Fair article[3]. Valiantis (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This biography of Bottomley [4] from the parliament.uk site confirms she was Minister of State at the Department of Health from 1989 to 1992. I've edited the article and added the reference to clarify this. Valiantis (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Thatcher ministry article has a main list called "Ministry" and supplementary lists that mention the word "Cabinet". There's nothing to indicate the "Ministry" details are confined to Cabinet posts, and if this is the case, it really should be spelt out. Because, without this qualification, it's extraordinarily tempting to believe that anyone who was a Minister in her government would be listed in the "Ministry", and that anyone who's not mentioned was not one of her Ministers. It'd sure make answering questions like this one a whole lot less fraught. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Baroness Young was the only other woman cabinet member during a Thatcher government, and she was in post for only a year. There were several other women non-Cabinet ministers and junior ministers. The full list is:

• Baroness Blatch: Baroness-in-Waiting 15 January 1990 – 7 September 1990; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment 7 September 1990 – 28 November 1990
• Virginia Bottomley: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment 25 July 1988 – 28 October 1989; Minister of State, Department of Health 28 October 1989 – 28 November 1990
• Lynda Chalker: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health 7 May 1979 – 5 March 1982; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport 5 March 1982 – 18 October 1983; Minister of State, Department of Transport 18 October 1983 – 10 January 1986; Minister for Overseas Development, Foreign and Commonwealth Office 24 July 1989 – 28 November 1990
• Baroness Cox: Baroness-in-Waiting 3 April 1985 – 2 August 1985
• Edwina Currie: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health 10 September 1986 – 16 December 1988
• Peggy Fenner: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 14 September 1981 – 10 September 1986
• Baroness Hooper: Baroness-in-Waiting 17 September 1985 – 14 June 1987; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science 13 June 1987 – 26 July 1988; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy 26 July 1988 – 28 July 1989; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health 29 September 1989 – 28 November 1990
• Sally Oppenheim: Minister for Consumer Affairs, Department of Trade 6 May 1979 – 5 March 1982
• Marion Roe: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment 13 June 1987 – 26 July 1988
• Angela Rumbold: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment 2 September 1985 – 10 September 1986; Minister of State, Department of Education and Science 10 September 1986 – 24 July 1990; Minister of State, Home Office 23 July 1990 – 28 November 1990
• Gillian Shephard: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security 25 July 1989 – 28 November 1990
• Baroness Trumpington: Baroness-in-Waiting 11 June 1983 – 25 March 1985; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Health 30 March 1985 – 13 June 1987; Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 13 June 1987 – 28 September 1989; Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 28 September 1989 – 28 November 1990
• Baroness Young: Minister of State, Department of Education and Science 7 May 1979 – 14 September 1981; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 27 October 1981 – 6 April 1982; Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords 6 April 1982 – 11 June 1983; Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office 13 June 1983 – 13 June 1987

It's worth saying that some of these were more prominent than others. Sally Oppenheim was probably the second most prominent Conservative woman MP in 1979, and had a populist job, but reportedly did not get on with the Prime Minister. Edwina Currie, who was in a very junior role for two years, became very well known to the public. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Solo artists who have played with all four Beatles

Questions like this make me wish I had something more constructive to contribute... Anyway, would I be correct in assuming that Eric Clapton is the only artist who has performed with all four Beatles/ex-Beatles on a solo basis (i.e., with John in Toronto, George at the Concert for Bangladesh and Paul and Ringo at the Concert for George)? Thanks in advance. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Odd use of the word "solo", which I take to mean an artist performing on his or her own, so if Clapton performed with somebody, they weren't solo.HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think he means: was Clapton the only artist to perform with each of the Beatles, after the Beatles broke up? Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, no artist is truly "solo" if they have a backing group, right? But that's been the accepted use of the term for the past fifty years or so, so I went with that. Blueboar is spot on with regard to my meaning. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 01:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Elton John. A search for "Elton John George Harrison" brought a YouTube video of those two plus Ringo Starr. A similar search for "Elton John Paul McCartney" has also produced videos of concerts. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Oh yes and to clarify, EJ and John Lennon recorded "Whatever gets you through the night" together. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Billy Preston. He also (like Clapton) played on a Beatles record while they were together, and even performed with them live on the rooftop. His article says he worked on solo records with John, George, and Ringo. He also appeared in Concert for George with Paul playing "My Sweet Lord". (There's a youtube video of that.) Staecker (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well if you're going to have Billy Preston, you could also have Klaus Voorman... --TammyMoet (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

behavioral economics

How is the research conducted in this field? Thanks... 84.229.140.166 (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read our article Behavioral economics and come back here to ask if you have further questions. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I read it before posting the question. It doesn't specify, I believe, how exactly is the research conducted. What exactly do they do to reach their conclusion. What is the daily routine of a behavioral economist? Thanks again... 84.228.3.29 (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Behavioral economics#Behavioral economics vs experimental economics says it uses a mixture of experiments, theory, and observations in the field. Different behavioural economists will use different methods, whether it's conducting experiments, studying previous experiments, making observations, collecting data, studying historical data, or studying theory. It's not possible to give a typical daily routine; if they work in academia much of their time will be spent on teaching and administration, and even those conducting experiments will only do this occasionally. The best way to get a sense of the methodologies would be to read some academic papers on the subject. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hollands Land reclaimation

This shows what Holland would look like without all its dykes, and I'm trying to find out when and how they actually began reclaiming land? All I can find is the stuff in Flood control in the Netherlands, which now I actually look at it is kind of useful, but I'd really appreciate some casual level reading on this as it seems super interesting but I don't know much about Holland's history, for example I don't even know how civilized the people occupying that area were at that time. 109.150.87.106 (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK so I just took a look at that flood control article and it is more in-depth than it initially looked and so I've edited my initial question. I'd like some stuff from other places though maybe? 109.150.87.106 (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Indian National Congress provincial affiliates

Which states don't have provincial affiliations of Indian National Congress? So far, I know that Tamil Nadu doesn't. Who else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.100 (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think all Indian states have a Pradesh Congress Committee today. --Soman (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Arab nation relationship

Which Arab nations have strained or good relationship with each other like Lebanon and Syria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.100 (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

So you are asking for a chart showing the current relationship status of every Arab nation with every other ? Since there are about 22 Arab nations, that means 22×21 or 462 combinations. That's a lot to ask of us. StuRat (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

All Arab nations have a strained or good relationship with each other. XPPaul (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

We have a whole bunch of good articles with the title "Foreign relations of <country>" such as Foreign relations of Lebanon. Get stuck into those old bean! Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

My (limited) understanding is that whatever notions of "arab unity" may ideologically exist, it has rarely played out in practice. Realpolitik comes first, as it does pretty much everywhere in the world. "We have no permanent friends, only permanent interests" (quote from some diplomat). As to Lebanon and Syria, Lebanon pretty much lives under Syria's thumb. It certainly isn't a relationship of equals. Lebanon, by virtue of both its' geographic location and demographic makeup, has seldom enjoyed any true independence. 203.214.66.250 (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There is only one Arab nation, Balkanized into various states largely as a result of colonial division. Relations between these range from excellent to terrible, but also vary rapidly over time. --Soman (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

differences between national dresses

Does China and Taiwan each have a national dress?24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You can see Hanfu movement... AnonMoos (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(Though I'm not sure why all images have been removed from that article since the last time I visited it...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are images that have been removed from the page. The removals lack edit summaries, and are not menioned on the talk page. The images have been deleted by different editors. I won't restore the images, but maybe someone knowledgeable about this should restore them if they're relevant? The first and second images still appear on the Chinese version of the page. (And BTW, according to the logs, the removals happened before your last edit to the page, AnonMoos). --NorwegianBlue ^talk 10:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A group of Hanfu enthusiasts on a busy street in China.

I've got stuck in and put all those photographs back in. Rather odd they were removed - not cricket! Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll rephrase the question. Does Taiwan have a national dress/costume? If so, how it is different from the hanfu?24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The hanfu isn't actually the national dress of China; it is the traditional dress of the Han Chinese ethnic group. But Taiwan has an even larger Han majority than mainland China (98% compared with 92%, according to the Wikipedia article), so if you can say the hanfu is the national dress of China, it's also the national dress of Taiwan. 59.108.42.46 (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

So if Melinda Wang models for the Taiwanese national costume, would she sport a hanfu or qipao?24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I find it misleading to say the "hanfu" is the "traditional dress" of the Han Chinese ethnic group. It is the historical dress of the Han Chinese ethnic group, and then only a subset of them, depending on occupation. The "traditional" dress of the Han Chinese ethnic group has developed in the last 300 years or so, and examples include the robes and waistcoats familiar from the turn of the 20th century. It seems historically revisionist to deny that the dress has evolved simply because some of that evolution came due to the imposition of Manchu customs on the Han Chinese.

So to answer that last question, the qipao is firmly a part of the traditional national dress of the Chinese, Han or not, even if it is Manchu in origin. For one thing, the modern qipao looks nothing like the original Manchu dress-robe. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Rather, to answer your question specifically: a qipao would be part of the traditional dress in both China and Taiwan.

Hanfu would not fit the usual definition of traditional dress for either China or Taiwan, except to a historical revisionist - it is more like a historical costume rather than a national costume. Another point to note is that the traditional dress varies significantly from region to region even among Han Chinese populations - in Taiwan, it may well be felt that certain (rustic) Hakka or Fujian dress, or even the ethnic costume of Taiwanese Aboriginese, are more representative of it than modern traditional Chinese dress. Similarly, in various parts of mainland China there would also be regional dress that may be regarded as more representative of traditional dress there. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus as a name

I wonder about the frequency of this as a given name in many Spanish-speaking countries (as Jesús). It seems pretty clearly based on Jesus from the Bible. In America, if I saw someone named "Jesus", named by English-speaking parents, I would think his parents were trying to make some sort of statement. At the very least, it would be eyebrow-raising, and I think that, acknowledging I paint with a broad brush, most Americans would react similarly. But given the commonness of the name, it doesn't seem like naming someone after an important religious figure is a problem. I also find the name Muhammad strange for the same reasons, particularly given the usual response by Muslims toward depictions of the Prophet. So maybe it's not that Spanish-speaking, or Muslim, societies don't have issue with it, it's that America does. Any light to shed on this? Thanks! 68.54.4.162 (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

According to our article Muhammad (name), Muhammad is the most common given name in the world, including variations. Ibrahim Mogra, chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain's interfaith relations committee and an imam in Leicester, is quoted as saying "Some of us believe we are assured of heaven if we name our children Muhammad.", see BBC news article What can't be named Muhammad. So there is clearly no taboo against naming boys Muhammad among Muslims. There does seem to be a taboo, or at least reluctance, against naming boys Jesus among Christians, with the exception of Spanish-speaking and Portuguese-speaking countries. All the notable individuals listed in our article Jesus (name) appear to have Hispanic roots. The thought occured to me that the frequent usage of Jesus as a given name in in Hispanic societies could have arisen during the nearly eight centures that parts of Hispania were under Muslim rule. This is just speculation, no sources. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 08:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

See a recent discussion on the same subject here. Alansplodge (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

James Jesus Angleton was mentioned in the article Alansplodge linked to, commenting that no-one found his name offensive. I'd just like to point out that his mother appears to have been Mexican (judging by name and place of meeting), something which was not mentioned in the previous discussion. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 10:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not just America that has an issue, I have an issue with it aswell; I'm certain that others in the world also has issues with it. The only way that I would not have an issue, is if the etymological definition of the hispanic varients are unrelated, which I doubt. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hold on, I've just read of the article on the name, it seems that the definition is not so exclusive as I had thought, but the idea still doesn't suit me very well. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If really want to use the full name, it is Yehoshua Immanu'El Mashiah. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The above takes several (distinctly theological) liberties with the name. More likely he would have been known as "Yeshua ben Yosef" or, in reference to his place of origin, "Yeshua miNetzaret". "Yeshua haMashiach" is the closest Hebrew equivalent to "Jesus Christ". If we wanted to get technical, it's worth nothing that the name Joshua, and all variants thereof, is etymologically derived from the name Yeshua or Yehoshua (both meaning either "Yah saves" or "Yah is (my) salvation"), which forms the basis of the Greek form Ieosous, which eventually became Anglicized (via French) to Jesus. Joshua is actually closer to how Christ's name would have been pronounced, minus the J (which didn't exist until France in the 16th Century). Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 09:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you please define theological liberties? Most likely those were his public names. The name I gave is simply a compilation of every name that he was given throughout the Bible, including His title. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that I missed one. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Immanuel was not a name given to (or claimed by) Christ during his earthly life. It may have been applied to him by those who recognized him as the Messiah (in accordance with Isaiah's prophecy), particularly after his death/resurrection, but it wasn't his "name" in any meaningful sense. And what do you mean by "most likely"? Are you just guessing? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 12:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The bible is a collection of various documents, nearly all of which try to make a theological point, and very few of which even make a claim at being historically correct in the modern sense. I'm not aware of any reliable evidence that Jesus was called Immanuel (or any variant thereof) in his lifetime. Indeed, even Matthew does not claim this, he only relates Jesus birth to a prophecy by Isaiah. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I knew one guy named Jesús, and yeah it's really no big deal in an overwhelmingly Catholic country like ours. I still find it disconcerting though when English-speakers tend to mispronounce the name as "Jeezus". Same with the male given name Ángel. It's weird, as if the very act of uttering them in English changes their intended meaning, from being something quite normal to something bordering on the ridiculous (though in the case of the former, it might have to do with the fact that Angel in English is usually a female given name).

This is all original research, but I think the way these different cultures view Jesus (the diety) could be a significant factor. In predominantly Catholic Latin countries, the Christian God isn't really viewed as a distant, angry, and jealous authoritarian figure. It's more like that of an affectionate but stern father. And in the typically closeknit families of these cultures, the greatest honor you can possibly give to a father is to name his son after him. It's also symbolic, important in cultures where symbolism is woven into the way of life. The fact that the name is taboo among English-speakers might reflect the difference in how their version of Jesus is perceived to react to having someone named after him. In one it is assumed he would be insulted and angry, in the other it is assumed he would be honored and rain blessings on the child. Go figure.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus (name) has the definitive answer to this. It sounds strange at first for English speakers, but remember that at Jesus' time, Jesus was a pretty common name and it being a biblical name and all made it common in many languages, and not only in Spanish and Portuguese. Obviously, all languages use their own variety of the name. English is an exception here. XPPaul (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

@ Genius: We can agree to have our opinions rather than argue about what were, and are is His names. To answer your question, the names that you gave sounds like original research. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Jesus" is etymologically equivalent to "Joshua", and there is no shortage of Joshuas in English. It's just not customary in northern Europe to name kids "Jesus". Probably considered blasphemous or something. Not so in Latin countries. Now, if a Hispanic family named their kid "God" or "Jesus Christ", that would likely raise some eyebrows. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose those Joshuas in the English speaking world are Jewish. WKB52 (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they are just of Jewish heritage. If a Jew named Joshua has children with a non-Jewish woman, he'll still have some motivation to call the children Joshua. The truth is, however, that's not possible to know how many Joshuas have a connection to the Jewish community. And maybe some Muhammad is not a Muslim, just have a connection to the relevant community. WKB52 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Including well-known Jews like Joshua Gibson. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't discard Josh Gibson being Jewish. Being black is not incompatible with being Jewish and here is a link of him in a Jewish hall of fame: [[5]]. 88.8.68.249 (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. According to the US Government, Joshua was the third most popular name in the US from 2002-2006 and fourth from 1984 to 1996 (with a few breaks)[6]. In New South Wales, Australia, it held the number one spot from 2000 to 2003 before slipping down to number two[7]. An opinion poll in the UK makes it number one in 2010[8]. The two names may have a common root in Hebrew, but for English-speaking Christians, Jesus and Joshua are two distinct people in every translation of the Bible; Joshua is the noisy chap at the siege of Jericho and Jesus is a carpenter who tells good stories and falls foul of the Romans. Old Testament names are common among Christians: Jonathan, Samuel, David, Daniel, Nathan, Sarah, Judith (my sister's name!) and Rachel. Aaron and Isaac have become popular recently. Alansplodge (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

US Constitution

There seems to exist in America an almost religious reverence for the Constitution. I wonder if there are any writings explaining or discussing this phenomenon that refdeskers have read and could recommend? Thanks! 68.54.4.162 (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's kind of an interesting point. Maybe to clarify a bit, are you talking in a wide sense, in that every american politician/statesman professes adherence, or are you talking more specifically about law makers in particular (whether congress, or the courts). Part of this phenomenon is of course less a reverence for the Constitution than it is for the rule of law. I'm sure there's plenty of discussion about that development and what it means and its origins. As an American lawyer, the respect for the rule of law is a constant, with a few exceptions perhaps. And in the U.S. that means the Constitution. Every person who works for the U.S. government, and every person who becomes a member of the bar takes an oath to that too. So I understand the religious analog you're making. However, what you're referring to is a basic human feature, not something about religion, or unique to Americans and the American Constitution. We all have prominent texts that, in whatever way, define core characteristics of ourselves. In American public life the Constitution is one of those documents. Shadowjams (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In case you weren't already aware, the U.S. Constitution is not just an ideal, it is the law of the United States. Saving debates about natural law which were quite active in the early years of the U.S., but have dissipated significantly since, there is no higher legal text than the Constitution. That may be why it appears to be revered. But if you already knew this and were getting more meta... see my answer above. Shadowjams (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What did you mean by "As an American lawyer, the respect for the rule of law is a constant, with a few exceptions perhaps"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The rule of law is the uniform guiding principle of every person, at least in theory, that swears an oath to become a lawyer in every common law country, and I assume almost every other country as well. That oath may, in rare circumstances, contradict some lawyers' personal codes. There are instances of laywers following their personal codes, rather than their legal ones. That's the exception I'm speaking of. Shadowjams (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I almost thought you were talking about yourself as the American lawyer, but the rest of the sentence didn't bear that out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the premise of the question is true. As said above, the Constitution is part of the law, which is why Americans reference it so often. But I remember historians complaining when the 200th anniversary of the Constitution came & went without Americans seeming to much care. The real "religious" document in US history is the United States Declaration of Independence. As discussed in the article, people have long revered it as something akin to a sacred text. The best book on the Declaration is called American Scripture for this reason. —Kevin Myers 13:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ. While the Declaration of Independence has significant meaning, it is not the same as the Constitution. And as much as we love telling the crown what it can do with its colonies... we also owe something to English common law, and the sensibilities that came with it. The "constitution" that comes with that is codified in the U.S. Constitution, which has unique legal significance in a way the Declaration of Independence does not. Some of the misplaced reverence you might be referring to may have to do more with popular ignorance. Shadowjams (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Lord only knows what you're "begging to differ" with, since nothing you say differs from my point. Your statements are almost self-evident truths, to coin a phrase, and not in dispute. —Kevin Myers 15:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One time we were going to a Quiz Bowl tournament and had to cross the border. The customs lady thought it would be fun to quiz us, and asked when the Constitution was signed. I knew what she meant, so rather than risk annoying a border official, I just said 1776, and she was happy. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a great story. I think a lot of history buffs learn to hold their tongues at certain times, but there's no historical confusion quite like the confusion between the Constitution and 1776. I saw a children's book once that told impressionable youths that Jefferson wrote the Constitution. The confusion is ingrained early. —Kevin Myers 17:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Jill Lepore has written a number of excellent articles in the New Yorker over the last few years about (apparent) Constitution-worship and (apparent) Constitutional-literalism. She points out that the literalist approach is comparatively newer than one might expect (and that none of the Founders actually believed it was some kind perfect, carved-in-stone document), and that most of the people who claim to be huge fans of the Constitution are, at best, fans of the Bill of Rights, and know next to nothing about the actual Constitution itself. (She also points out that despite the claims of the literalists, the Constitution qua Constitution is a pretty tough document to make sense of, full of really quite specific 18th century legal terminology.) This one in particular is quite excellent. Note that the frame of reference was the Tea Party claiming to be Constitutional literalists, but it goes quite beyond that in exploring the phenomena. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Also see American civil religion. A lot of Americans see "our Founding Fathers" not as they were -- as imperfect politicians that squabbled a lot, often hated what the others were doing, put their pants on one leg at a time and used outhouses but, like Biblical figures, as nearly perfect individuals whom we should treat with, as the questioner says, religious reverence. So for example, some people say we can't mess with the Electoral College because the "Founding Fathers wanted it that way" (even though current presidential elections are organized in a way the founders never actually imagined). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason for the Electoral College was to help get the Constitution ratified. The House of Representatives, and hence the Electoral College, were deliberately designed to give the small states a somewhat disproportionately larger voice, and thus a chance to temper being overwhelmed by the larger states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course you mean the Senate (two votes for each State) rather than the HR (proportional to population). But the EC might well exist without the Senate. One of its purposes is to avoid letting the vote be scattered among many local favorites; hence the command that "the Electors shall ... vote for two persons, of whom at least one shall not be a resident of the same State with themselves." (Those who can be bothered to check the text, rather than rely on my memory, feel free to correct it and remove this parenthesis.) —Tamfang (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was that the Founders thought that state legislators would choose electors, who in turn would scatter their votes among a group of eminent citizens, with the final decision to be made by the House of Representatives among the top five. They could not have imagined the issue of popular vote vs. electoral vote that we have today. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The idea was and is that the states elect the President, not "the people" as such. And the Electoral College purposely gives excessive weight to the smaller states just as they have excessive weight in the House of Representatives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If that was the intent, it is not clear that it worked. Another thing the founders didn't necessarily foresee was that slates of electors would be pledged to a particular candidate, and chosen all-or-nothing (with the exception of Maine and Nebraska).

In a simple model where all states are evenly divided between two candidates, the probability of an individual vote changing the result in a given state is proportional to N^−1/2, where N is the state's population. However, the chance of that state changing the outcome of the election as a whole is proportional to the number of electoral votes of the state, which is approximately proportional to N for large N. So an individual vote counts roughly proportional to N^1/2 — that is, an individual vote actually counts more in a large state.

In practice, of course, most large states are not evenly divided. Very little attention is paid to Californians, for example, because for the forseeable future the outcome is taken as a given (that is a fairly recent development; you can thank Pete Wilson for it). Floridians, though, have enormous influence, because they're in a fairly large state that's fairly evenly divided. --Trovatore (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(perhaps a more cautious way of putting my point about California would be: For the forseeable future, any Republican presidential candidate who takes California — will not need California) --Trovatore (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, that's twice you've said that small states have disproportionate weight in the House of Representatives. Have I missed something? —Tamfang (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Consider: Wyoming has 1 representative of 435 (0.229%), but 563,626 of 308,745,538 = (0.182%); California has 53/435 (12.184%), but 37,253,956 of 308,745,538 = (12.066%). Wyoming's "extra" 0.047% is 1.258 times its population weight (nearly +26%), while California's "extra" 0.118% is 1.009 times its population weight (just short of +1%); although this only became disparate with the Reapportionment Act of 1929. (Since some states have more, others have less; the smaller states almost all have more, but collectively more than the larger states.) To see the difference in population per electoral college member at List of U.S. states and territories by population#States and territories, see the '2000 Census Pop. per Pres. Elector column'. Dru of Id (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The "voters per elector" metric doesn't really make sense, for the reasons I explain above. --Trovatore (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Allegiance to the Constitution

Let me take a slightly different tack. When the United States were formed as a Republic (worship of republicanism being a closely-related but distinct topic), there was no human equivalent of the King to whom her civil officials and military officers (most emphatically including the President) would swear an oath of allegiance, in the way that a British officer swears loyalty to his or her monarch. There was no human embodiment of the nation and its ideals equivalent to a human monarch or pontiff. Instead the Constitution itself requires (at the end of Article II, section 1) the President before taking office to swear or affirm that "I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." In addition, Article VI requires that the "Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution". The current oath or affirmation (which I made upon becoming a census-taker in 1980 and 1990) is, according to Wikipedia, that

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

A similar oath or affirmation is made by those entering the armed services, with the addition of a pledge to obey lawful orders. So when a soldier or federal agent risks or sacrifices his or her life and limb, it is not for his King (or Queen) and Country, but for the Constitution and the Union. The Constitution is (or should be) the guarantee that the Republic has a popular and legally-limited government.

¶ This is of course, the beginning of an answer rather than a whole one, but it should be borne in mind when trying to understand Americans' attitude towards the U.S. Constitution. Another parallel to be borne in mind is the passion of many revolutionary movements, from the French Revolution to the Prague Spring and Arab Spring for a new constitution that would limit tyranny, increase liberty, and give (or return) more power to the governed. In fact, appeals to a venerable and hallowed English Constitution supposedly already long in existence was a staple of revolutionary and reform movements from the English Civil War to Chartism, a tradition with which the American colonists very much identified themselves in their own struggles with the British King and parliament. Although the U.S. Constitution was adopted several years after independence, it was in a young Republic born of such a struggle in blood. And when far more blood was shed two generations later, both sides declared and believed they were defending the principles of that Constitution as well as of the American Revolution. So in some ways, the United States (especially when feeling under internal or external threat) has always felt that revolutionary spirit, and part of that spirit is expressed as dedication to the Constitution. It's not unnatural that sometimes dedication to the Constitution and admiration for the best and most effective parts of it, can combine into a worship of the whole document that some find extreme. This isn't meant as a patriotic Fourth of July oration (in fact, although I've lived in the U.S. most of my life, I haven't yet taken U.S. citizenship), but to try and explain the motives of behind "an almost religious reverence". I have also not discussed the use of rhetorical appeals (sometimes passionately sincere, sometimes quite calculated) to the Constitution in political and legal debates, such as those surrounding the Civil War, civil rights and civil liberties. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Mary Macleod (painter)

Hi! Does anyone know anything about Mary Macleod, an artist and painter, who painted this portrait showing Elizabeth Alice Aubrey Le Blond and this: [9]. I need informations about her life ... Thanks a lot, Doc Taxon (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I could find was this page, advertising an exhibition called "Portraits by Mary Macleod" in December 2011 at the Southampton Art School & Gallery in Wingham, Ontario. They might be able to tell you if it's the same one (there are an awful lot of people called Mary Macleod out there) and give you some information. Alansplodge (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One more: a note near the bottom of this BBC blog suggests that a portrait painter called Mary Macleod was the daughter of Edward J Leveson. Alansplodge (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Who is this Mary Macleod? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Haven't a clue as the link says "You have reached your limit for this page"...--TammyMoet (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If you click the "next" link at the top you do get taken to a readable extract. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.209 (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

And if you then click "Previous" you get to the page that wasn't shown in the first place. Funny. --Jeppi (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Kitty Ussher's husband

What is PeterJ Colley's middle name please? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking through the GRO index there are several people called Peter J Colley, however only one who is the same age as Kitty Ussher. His middle name is John, however there is no guarentee this is the right person: her husband could be older or younger than her and there are plenty of candidates to choose from. -- role^player 18:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Reason behind separate race question in corporate surveys

A specific example for this if you are the type that demands specific is Walmart's at survey dot walmart dot com. This one, for instance, has a question whether the survey taker is of Latino or Hispanic origin, and the very next question asks the survey taker to check all boxes that apply to them, including labels such as caucasian, black, asian/pacific islander. Both questions of course have an option to prefer not to answer. My question is why there is a specific question about Latino/Hispanic and why isn't this just another checkbox in the other race section? Remember, the checkbox one allows you to check as many boxes as you want. 69.243.220.115 (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This is probably done for consistency with other US demographic data, such as the census; see Race and ethnicity in the United States Census for a discussion. Shimgray | talk | 16:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, then I'd be compelled to wonder about the reasoning behind why they (or whoever (an individual organization or a group of organizations) was first and everyone started copying) specifically singled out Latino/Hispanic origin. The third paragraph of Race and ethnicity in the United States Census flatly states this but doesn't provide any backstory or justification of any sort. 69.243.220.115 (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

See the section on the 2000 census in the article you linked to for some backstory. It was a kludgy attempt (which, in traditional bureaucratic style, really satisfied nobody) to figure out who came from Latin or South America irregardless of what "race" they fall into. (Most Latin and South Americans are of European or African ancestry. A good number are actually of Asian ancestry, which usually comes as some surprise to Americans...) To its credit, the 2000 census categories tried to give people a lot of options for mixing-and-matching while self-identifying their race/ethnicity, in part because just handing people categories that seem sensible to white folks has been frowned upon for quite some time. The result, of course, is that census data on race/ethnicity makes almost no sense except to say "these folks are non-white" (which ironically is what the old categories basically told you, anyway) and is thus very hard to draw strong sociological conclusions from. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the question asks why "Hispanic origin" is a separate question rather than a choice in the "race" question. This article on the Census website says they first asked it like this in 1970 and found in testing that that way "would produce the most accurate and reliable results." It looks like the guy you want to talk to about this is Jorge del Pinal at the Census Bureau. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hispanics are not a "race" in the conventional sense. Many are of "pure" Spanish extraction and would be considered Caucasian, and many many more are of mixed race. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Nicholas Sarkozy and African leaders ceremony

What was the ceremony that was held in Paris where French President Nicholas Sarkozy and African leaders of former French colonies met? I was told it was called sans Afrique or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.73 (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it was in Paris? Sarkozy hosted the 25th African-French summit in Nice in 2010 ('vingt-cinquieme Sommet Afrique-France') detailed here, the 24th was in Cannes in 2007 (ici), the 26th hasn't been held yet and 23rd was long before he was President. --Saalstin (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sarkozy was also the keynote speaker at the 16th African Union Summit in Addis Ababa in 2011: details -- role^player 18:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

spirituality question

So, I was discussing dreams and such like with someone, and we got onto some weird stuff I did in my younger years that seems to be impacting on my dreams now, or at least the memories of it and of what might have happened had it gone wrong. I was given this advice

' Are you familiar with the term "Banishing"? Sounds like you have some obssesive and or destructive thoughts. The idea behind banishing is to "Deguasse" if you will. Like demagnitizing a tape head. I prescribe learning the Golden dawn banishing of the Pentagram and banishing of the Hexagram. Simple to learn. All good holy wholesomeme stuff Angels,Gods, Up stuff not down stuff.These will put your mind at ease and distance you from any "Occult" or unseen forces. Just a suggestion. '

I know nothing about this, anyone point me in the right direction here?

148.197.81.179 (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be referring to a sort of spiritual degaussing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

To get an idea of the context, you could start by reading our article Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and decide if you really want to delve into Ceremonial magic. (To clarify: as a Wiccan I'm relaxed about the milieu, but many people might not be, especially if they have a conventional Christian outlook.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.209 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That looks very... structured and wizardly to me. not what I was expecting. (to clarify my own position on such matters, I am very casually polytheistic, and sometimes wonder if I should be more active and involved in such matters, no conventional christian outlooks here) 148.197.81.179 (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of "fighting fire with fire", then it should be easy to understand that is one Satan's campaign techniques, he makes evil seem like good by using disinformation and whitewashing. For instance, do know that angels can be either good or bad? Not everything is as it seems, he uses evil to get rid of evil. You'll end up in a viscious cycle if you go down that path. Do you not think that if he can send angels of lucifer (demons) that he also withdraw them? Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't Jesus accused of the same thing ("fighting fire with fire" as in casting out demons in the name of the devil in Mathew 12:22-30)? Rabuve (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense to me, I can't see what you're trying to say, other than the good and bad angels, which I already knew. Though, I do wonder what makes something good or bad. But then, as I say, I'm not christian, so it doesn't apply to me. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I recommend you read the books written by Richard Dawkins. If that doesn't "Deguasse" your concerns about evil spirits and such, nothing will. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, quite. It's not evil spirits, though, I'm usually quite logical and sensible about such things, I know it doesn't make sense, but when I'm in bed, half asleep, it does, even when I can tell myself otherwise. Partly the memory of what I might have done, of losing control like that, partly perhaps my subconscious mind playing with my fears, which whenever I think of them just seem to grow and grow and feed on themselves... Yes, I'm all messed up inside, maybe something like that could help, maybe not. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion, not related to answering the question. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What I mean is that engaging with spirituallity and other occult practices is certain to cause you or someone around you to be worse off, and I'm not just saying ts based on bias. I've done a background study on this kind of stuff, and I've seen the inevitable consequences. A wiccan almost killed her son with a "protection encantation". Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Citation needed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC) How did she do that? something go terribly unexpectedly wrong? or do you mean something about the universe balancing itself out, bad for every good, that sort of thing? 148.197.81.179 (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC) I don't remember much of the details, but I remember that he was attacked by sprites which threw items at him, and chased him out of the house. Apparently, the incantation was spot on, but it backfired, possibly because he converted to Christianity before returning home from military service. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Yeah, right. The mystical woo you believe in defeated the other mystical woo... Really convincing evidence from the most reliable of sources - some bloke on the internet... If you're going to try to promote your belief-system on the reference desks, at least do us the honour of pretending to have evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC) What are you talking about, I just answered the OP's last question? I never promoted my belief system, I'm just saying that from what I've learned, it is bad news. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC) No you haven't. All you've done is told us what you think 'apparently' happened, and that somehow 'Christianity' put it all to rights. You've given no evidence at all. That isn't an answer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC) I told him what I could remember from the report, and I did not say that Christianity put it all to rights" or any form of those words, simply that based on the circumstancial evidense from the report, it is my opinion that it may be a relavent factor. Neither did I say that I have cited evidence. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Which 'report'? This is a reference desk. People are entitled to expect answers to be based on something more than 'opinion'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Yeah well, an opinion is all that I can provide. I don't remember what the report was, because it was some time ago. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the other commentary, if you feel "messed up inside," you should see a physician or psychologist. They are better suited to this than random strangers on a website. Magical incantations might ease your mind for a bit, but won't actually identify the issue or help you deal with it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Follow up: culture and magnets, how do they work?

Are there any religious movements that make ceremonial use of magnets, particularly with the ceremonial intent of removing information from structures? In a related question, what is the cultural and social function of non-diagnostic or atypical diagnostic techniques involving magnetic resonance imaging? To what extent have scholars considered these uses as having a ceremonial or cultural meaning centred purpose rather than a purpose inline with "normal medicine"? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Just listen to yourself. “Cultural and social function of non-diagnostic or atypical diagnostic techniques involving magnetic resonance imaging”. You use so many long words in your post it sounds like management-speak. – b_jonas 11:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a perfectly well-formed question. I think making fun of a question because you don't understand the words, or the question, makes you look a little ignorant. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have seen work on this from two specific points of view, both relating to brain imaging in particular. One is the way in which brain imaging studies are often trotted out to support various Buddhist beliefs. The other is specifically on the use of brain scans as representations of human selfhood, especially in legal contexts. (Technically that one talks about PET rather than MRI scans, but same difference.) --Mr.98 (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would think there would be little use of MRI's for "ceremonial or cultural" purposes because they are too expensive. Bus stop (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo's question likely assumes that the line between ceremonial and cultural purposes and, say, diagnostic or medical purposes is a somewhat arbitrary one. "Cultural purposes" is an almost infinitely vague notion. The fact that in the US such tests are done because of a quirky, contextual confluence of insurance company requirements, malpractice lawsuits, and public unease about missed diagnoses fits pretty well under "cultural purposes" in my book, and potentially even "ceremonial" purposes, if you have a wide-enough view of "ceremony". I had an MRI done at a research laboratory once as part of the training of undergraduate scientists — is that any less "cultural" than any other rite of passage? --Mr.98 (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Mr.98 is right, I'm assuming that "normal medicine" is culturally constructed as a practice. So an entire medical system could verge into abnormality (sluggishly progressing schizophrenia anybody?). Bloody Buddhist physicalists; it reminds me of Christianity and geology in the 18th and 19th century. The idea of constructing a self with a magnet is a particularly curious one, I'm not completely up on the continental philosophy work on bio-power etc, but there are some curious attempts to manifest consciousness in the world, and law is a domain where these issues are hard fought. Thanks Mr.98. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

But from where are you getting an idea of "constructing a self with a magnet"? And also in an earlier post you mention "…use of magnets, particularly with the ceremonial intent of removing information from structures". I don't understand where these magnets come into play and for what purpose. Bus stop (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If you read the discussion in the section above regarding magnets, where a comparison is made between "degaussing" and a particular religious practice—thus asking about the ceremonial use of magnets to (in a belief) literally remove information from a person, an "erase head." Regarding constructing a self with a magnet; isn't this the implication of claiming that MRIs (or PETs or CATs) image a substantive element of consciousness in relation to legal debates about personhood, identity and self? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I don't believe that magnets banish demons or image "the mind"—I am asking about people's belief in practices that are "culturally meaningful" to them. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify the phrase "culturally meaningful"? The field of medicine is a part of the "culture" of humanity. That would entail construing "culture" broadly. Bus stop (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I referred to ritual or ceremony. To the extent that Doctors over-proscribe antibiotics without reference to demostrable placebo effects, they're participating in a transfer of cultural significance. The patient propitiates the Doctor with claimed symptoms and an expectation of expertise, they're unnecessarily proscribed antibiotics (or, "necessarily" within a treatment regime that has been broadly published as outmoded), and the patient then feels that their sickness has been culturally accepted as meaningful because they've got a small packet of amoxicillan. I'm not referring to the system of meanings within normal medicine's claimed epistemology, but to ceremonial or ritual exchanges lying outside of that. Mr98's suggestion regarding the atypical use of MRIs in the United States; or, the Australian Government's funding structure for major medical purchases that encouraged the purchase of major diagnostic equipment well above and beyond the need are examples of behaviour more to do with the reproduction of US or Australian culture as a whole, than the reproduction of the culture of normal medicine in those societies. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not "ritual" or "ceremony" to wastefully or harmfully deploy medicine and medical procedures. I don't think that ritual or ceremony ever interface with anything objective or rational. Those terms can be used fancifully. I don't see how they apply to standard medicine. Bus stop (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"I don't think that ritual or ceremony ever interface with anything objective or anything rational". Perhaps you should try thinking a bit harder? I find myself unable to restrain myself from pointing out the apparent interface between the rituals of circumcision common to many cultures and the physical object at the centre of such practices... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—what is the "physical object at the centre of such practices"? Does it have a name? Bus stop (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

See penis and foreskin... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—circumcision is an objective term, but a ritual practice that may seem similar may in fact vary in some ways. The ritual practice may be an older practice than the comparable medical procedure. But the ritual practice is likely to vary in other ways as well. Bus stop (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. Any ritual circumcision interfaces with an object, often using an object constructed solely for this ritual function, and carried out in another object constructed for ritual functions. Your original statement is so self-evidently wrong that it isn't worth debating further. You might consider researching the subject of material culture a little before making such daft assertions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—"object" and "objective" are two different terms. Just because a penis is an object doesn't mean that a ritual procedure involving that object is as objective, or rational, as a similar medical procedure involving that object. Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm not interested in arguing semantics. Your attempt to divide the world into the 'ritual' and the 'rational' is so utterly at odds with everything the social sciences have taught us in the last century that it isn't worth debating. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You are generalizing. A medical procedure and a ritual are two different things. Can there be a point at which the distinction between the two is burred? Maybe there can be such a situation, but I don't know of such a situation. Can you suggest or describe such a situation? Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Just wrong. Not worth arguing further. Though you might like to look into Medical anthropology to see why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision is a medical procedure. When is circumcision a ritual? We are talking about related but different procedures. One of the distinctions is in the context in which they are performed but there are other distinctions. The exact procedure may be slightly different. The setting may be different. The language accompanying the two procedures is likely to be different. We can't just overlook differences and pronounce medical procedures indistinguishable from rituals. Bus stop (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wronger still... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaving it up to you to tell us when the distinction is blurred between the medical procedure and its closely related ritual. If no circumstance exists in which the distinction is blurred we can assume that the two sorts of procedures are different. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Humongous wrongness... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—can you articulate where I am wrong? Bus stop (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

More or less everywhere - you seem to be under the misapprehension that there are no ritualistic aspects to 'medical procedure'. Like I said, see medical anthropology - though I'd have thought this was blindingly obvious anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

...and on the more general subject of ritual and health, I'd recommend reading "Body Ritual among the Nacirema", a seminal ethnographic essay on the subject: [10]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you mention[11] medical procedures and rituals in relation to "penis and foreskin". When are medical procedures and rituals indistinguishable from one another in relation to "penis and foreskin"? Do you know of any such circumstance? I do not. Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you read "Body Ritual among the Nacirema"? It's only a short article, and will answer your questions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I have no idea why you are comparing modern medical practice to the practices of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. They are very different. Again, getting back to a point that I made much earlier in this thread—one sort of practice is objective and rational—the other sort of practice is not. You can argue that these distinctions do not create as bright a line as I assert. But if you are going to do so vis-a-vis the example you gave, you would have to show that the ritual of removing the foreskin is, under some circumstance, similar to the medical procedure of doing so. Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

ROFL! "Indigenous peoples of the Americas" = "Nacirema"? Not exactly 'indigenous', Bus Stop. You've got it backwards ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I am fully cognizant that Nacirema is American spelled backwards. So what? What is your point? Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

My point is that your assertion that are no ritualistic aspects to 'medical procedure' is just plain stupid: ritual is everywhere - as the "Nacirema" article points out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you joined this discussion here. Correct me if I am wrong but almost the entirety of your first post was: "Perhaps you should try thinking a bit harder? I find myself unable to restrain myself from pointing out the apparent interface between the rituals of circumcision common to many cultures and the physical object at the centre of such practices". I've been trying since to get you to tell me when the "ritual" version of this practice is similar to the "medical" version of this practice. I still can't get a response from you in relation to that question. My assertion is that the ritual version and the medical version are in fact distinct. Bus stop (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion is wrong. Medical practice involves ritual. Heck, in the UK at least, waiting for a bus involves ritual. All it takes is a hour or two of ones time, and an open mind, to see this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—concerning the removal of the foreskin, can you describe a situation or a circumstance in which we would not be able to tell if it were the "ritual" procedure or the "medical" procedure that we were observing? Bus stop (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see no point in discussing this further. Medical practice involves ritual, as does every other aspect of human social behaviour. That you are too stupid to understand this is your problem, not mine. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—your argument that "medical procedure involves ritual" and "waiting for a bus involves ritual" is not all that relevant to what we are discussing. Two distinct versions of the removal of the foreskin are found—one medical, the other ritual. You are going on at length about the notion that there is "ritual" in medicine too. Nevertheless the distinction remains concerning circumcision in the "medical" sense and the quite different though often similarly-named circumcision that is part of "ritual" involving religion and other arcane ideas, which tend to be much more irrational than any you would encounter in a medical context. Bus stop (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you win. I wasted four years studying anthropology. The entire field of medical anthropology is wrong. The social sciences in general are wrong. They must be. Because you know more than them, obviously. Because... hang on, what are your qualifications here? As far as I'm aware zilch, zero, nada, none at all. But because you are Wikipedia's number-one expert in out-of-context quote-mining, asking for evidence for things people haven't said, and missing the point entirely, you must be right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you are not showing by real or hypothetical examples that removal of the foreskin in a religious setting is the same as removal of the foreskin in a medical setting. We have articles on Brit milah (Jewish setting) and Khitan (Muslim setting). I think that these settings are different from a medical setting. You are missing the point when you focus solely on the notion that there may be "ritual" even in modern medicine. Bus stop (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware male circumcision was a cosmetic ritual when it was practiced medically in Australia. Parental demand centres around meaning structures with shared names, but distinct from, the medical functions of male infant circumcision. In particular, the use of male infant circumcision as a general prophilaxis, and transmitter of shared socially constructed but biologically worn masculinity, by parents is significant. In some cases mothers seem to believe that it gives the child sexual power, or the capacity to bear sexual power. In the US it might vary, but over here it seems to be transmitted by family unit and often to do with "resembling his dad." Now there's a Freudian terrain you wouldn't want to expose without an ARC grant. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, the reason I'm not "showing by real or hypothetical examples that removal of the foreskin in a religious setting is the same as removal of the foreskin in a medical setting" is because I never said it was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—no matter how "ritualistic" modern medicine may be, and I think there is considerable doubt that modern medicine can be properly described as "ritualistic", the core applicability of the term "ritual", in relation to circumcision, or procedures closely related to circumcision, is to a form of procedure that is resistant to change, dates back several centuries, and is closely related to religion. The religious groups involved have often been practicing circumcision for many centuries. Their methods for performing the procedure are very resistant to change. Modern medicine by contrast is willing to adapt to new technology and procedures. Modern medicine is not beholden to a large body of arcane literature. You are using the term "ritual" innovatively but such usage would still be distinct from the way in which the term would be used in reference to the religious ritual of circumcision. Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As Fifelfoo has already pointed out, many supposedly 'medical' circumcisions are in fact carried out for 'cultural' reasons. Your dichotomy is false. As for modern medicine not being "beholden to a large body of arcane literature", I suggest you visit the library of one of the many excellent medical colleges to be found in your home town (New York I believe?) - you will find endless shelves of exactly that. As part of the rites-of-passage involved in becoming a master of the arcane medical arts, one tends to have to visit such libraries, and ideally, read a little of their content: though one can also try sleeping amongst them, in the hope that the contents will enter your mind as you dream - this seemed to work for me when I was a student ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say "many supposedly 'medical' circumcisions are in fact carried out for 'cultural' reasons". These are not rituals. These are medical procedures. Under Judaism for instance a medical circumcision is not Brit milah. One is a ritual; the other is a medical procedure. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, please cease your babbling nonsense. Humanity isn't constrained by your lack of imagination, and neither is it constrained by Halachic law, except as it chooses to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—the halakha that you refer to is part of Judaism and is many centuries old. Modern medical procedure departs from the Jewish procedure. One procedure has a very old rationale. The thought processes in support of the Jewish version are purely ritualistic. The medical version is not ritualistic except in the fanciful use of the term ritual that you have been presenting here in this thread. A medical doctor will not likely be touting a ritualistic reason for removing the foreskin. I am willing to entertain ideas that you might have about how a ritualistic procedure might be indistinguishable from a medical procedure but you are not presenting any examples for our examination. Therefore what we have are the two distinct set of circumstances that I think represent all procedures of this sort, or at least that I am aware of. You have to present concrete examples or all that you are doing is insisting that there is no distinction between medical and non-medical removal of the foreskin. Stated conversely, we need to see presented at least hypothetical circumstances in which the ritual and non-ritual removal of the foreskin are indistinguishable procedures. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, I have never asserted that "there is no distinction between medical and non-medical removal of the foreskin". As for why doctors remove foreskins, I'm sure quite a few do it because they get paid to do it. They may also (as the article I linked earlier pointed out), enlarge or reduce other parts of their 'patients' anatomies, for no better reasons. None of this is of any relevance to the question as to whether current orthodox medical practice can be free of ritualistic and symbolic content. It isn't, it cannot be, and regardless of why (or how) a circumcision is carried out, if a doctor does it, he or she will be doing it in a social role deeply imbued with meaning, and laden with ritualistic practices, whether anyone taking part in them is particularly aware of it or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As I noted above, getting your son's penis modified because "its cleaner" or as a general prophylaxis against fear for their health is not the same as a procedure proscribed by a recognised medical professional that normal medicine claims will have a prophylactic health benefit. This isn't to say that the latter couldn't also be ritualistic, as I noted above with anti-biotics, even within normal medicine much of the conduct is ritualised and bears meanings not contained within the epistemology of normal medicine ("I like him, he has warm hands," much?). Similarly, getting your son's penis modified for reasons of the cultural transmission of acceptable masculinity, or because of family tradition, is again ritualised. Getting open heart surgery is ritualised. Revising the DSM or ICD is ritualised. Publishing a review of cases is ritualised. Many of these rituals don't bear any meaning from the epistemological system related to their action. Some of the rituals bear content related to their epistemological system, for example, the ritualistic esteem placed on Doctors is related to normal medicine's construction of Doctors as experts. Even when "Doctor as God" isn't in play, other ritual relationships hold, such as "Doctor as mechanic." Similarly the technical hierarchy of the Ward bears both ritualistic content and at the same time content from normal medicine's findings. (Hell, even the technical organisation of medicine into Wards, Departments, Hospitals and Health Care Providers bears ritual content; that sickness is enforced as a distinct geographic and spatial moment in life). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say "It isn't, it cannot be, and regardless of why (or how) a circumcision is carried out, if a doctor does it, he or she will be doing it in a social role deeply imbued with meaning, and laden with ritualistic practices, whether anyone taking part in them is particularly aware of it or not."[12] I don't think we automatically make assumptions without evidence. I think the above remains a medical procedure unless we have reason to conclude otherwise. You are referring to something that is "deeply imbued by meaning." Where is the evidence for that? What would make you conclude that? It is not part of the scenario you describe above. "Laden with ritualistic practices" as indicated by what? You are describing a straightforward, nonreligious, medical procedure. No "ritual" is in evidence in the description you provide above. You refer to a "doctor". I have no reason to believe that just because the individual is a doctor that there is any "meaning" above and beyond the standard medical role expected of that individual in their professional capacity. Bus stop (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bus Stop, this is a reference desk, not your own personal soapbox. As for what makes me reach the conclusions I do, I'd say it is a product of the accumulative knowledge of the social sciences, as imparted to me through my time spent studying anthropology at university, and indeed also imparted through personal experience. As has already been pointed out to you repeatedly, there is an entire academic field (medical anthropology) devoted to the subject we have been discussing - the interaction between 'medicine' and 'culture'. If you want to find out more, I suggest you study the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo—you refer to "getting your son's penis modified for reasons of the cultural transmission of acceptable masculinity".[13] From where are you deriving that this sort of thing takes place? I have yet to encounter the articulation of a notion of "acceptable masculinity" in this context. Do you have a source indicating that "acceptable masculinity" ever plays a role in "getting your son's penis modified"? This may be the Humanities reference desk (as opposed to for instance the Science reference desk) but I think a source would be a plus. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It took all of two minutes for Google scholar to find this example: [14] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you will note that more than once I have suggested that you merely provide a hypothetical scenario to illustrate your case. This you still have not done. How much more difficult it would be if I actually asked you to provide an actual sourced case illustrative of your point. You are still presenting your own ideas without even the accompaniment of an argument in support of them. Again: you said "It isn't, it cannot be, and regardless of why (or how) a circumcision is carried out, if a doctor does it, he or she will be doing it in a social role deeply imbued with meaning, and laden with ritualistic practices, whether anyone taking part in them is particularly aware of it or not."[15] For what reason would anyone believe that? Do we normally assume that there are ritualistic practices deeply imbued with meaning in the daily functioning of a modern medical practice? Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"Do we normally assume that there are ritualistic practices deeply imbued with meaning in the daily functioning of a modern medical practice"? I do. You don't. I've studied a relevant field (anthropology). You haven't. Your lack of knowledge is your problem, not mine. Do something about it, or find another thread to troll with your repetitive drivel. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bus and Andy... this thread seems to getting a bit too personal, and (while fascinating to read) also straying from the purpose of this reference desk. May I suggest that it is time to "respectfully disagree" and move on to other topics. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—who is "troll"ing a thread? Who is using a thread as a "soapbox"? You introduced the topic of circumcision to this thread here. After much circumlocutious reasoning presented by you and countered by me we are at this point at the end of this needless dialogue. Bus stop (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Andy for noting that reference regarding circumcision (or absence of circumcision)'s function in constructing Australian masculinity. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

STOP... this is definitely getting too personal. Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar—I would have no objection to "hatting" or archiving. Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

international shipping

I need to get £85/70lbs of toys across the atlantic from colorado to england. my contact in the area assures me the cost of this could be as much as $600, which seems excessive to me just to post something. Anyone suggest any cheaper way I could do this? Or, at least give me a more accurate price, since he seemed a bit unsure on this.

148.197.81.179 (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Try this link. Moonraker (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Looked at that, isn't it for sending stuff from england though? 148.197.81.179 (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Try this. Moonraker (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Try the post office website, [16]. They have a price calculator. It depends on the weight and dimensions of the package. The number is coming up quite high for me ($300+), but that's for express service. You can probably get a better price for slower delivery, but you might need to call or go into a post office in person. You could also stop in at a local mailing store which seem to be everywhere and ask for advice. RudolfRed (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It is going to depend heavily on how quickly you need to get it where it is going. If you can afford for it to take several weeks, then you can send it by sea fairly cheaply. If you need it there within a couple of days, then you'll need to fly it and that could very easily cost $600. --Tango (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Might not need this any more, my contact has agreed to instead become my business partner and help ship things out to customers, many of them likely in america anyway, a huge saving there. But thank you for all your help anyway. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

March 5

Rock star whims

Why Hollywood and rock stars tend to have weird whims? example. Is it because people get more pedantic when they realize they can get away with wathever they ask? Is it a marketing strategy? Is it to appear with a extravagance halo? (as an aside note, I'm a bit surprised there is no whim (psychology) article)--85.55.220.40 (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

One theory I heard once is that it's actually a way of measuring the amount of detail that the people providing the amenities put into their job. I.e., if they M&Ms have been purged of the yellow ones, then you can be sure that the sheets are being changed and the bathrooms kept clean, etc. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily, if they're spending all their time searching the M&Ms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed by David Lee Roth in his autobiography (Snopes article). -- BenRG (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's their way of showing they are the boss. While this can happen with anyone rich and/or famous, it's probably more common in those who achieve fame and fortune early, without learning to be humble first. Rock/pop/rap stars, sports stars, and actors can fall into this category. But then again, Donald Trump seems to have managed to become quite a jerk, even though he inherited his money and/or made his money in real estate. StuRat (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Richard Stallman of free software fame has some pretty specific instructions for people who want to invite him to speak, see here. In some cases famous people clearly do it just because they can get away with it (the Bob Hope impersonators and all that), but on the other hand, life on the road is tiresome. People have drunk themselves to death staving off the homesickness. And it's no fun having to tell kind strangers that their thoughtful attempts at making you comfortable are actually making you uncomfortable, when instead of a five-star hotel all you want is to sleep on someone's couch or instead of champagne you just want Haribo brand gummi bears. Actually, now that I mentioned that, particular brands of candy seem to figure pretty often on these lists - comfort snacks, obviously.--Rallette (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you expect? Picture this scenario. A rather ordinary-looking guy with a modicum of talent as a singer, drummer, guitarist, whatever, finds himself a clever manager who lands him a record contract. He gets lucky and he/his band sell lots and lots of records. The power trip naturally comes as a resuly of people constantly kissing his ass, groupies kissing other parts of his anatomy, kids telling him they have all his records, journalists asking him his opinion on world affairs, even if he has never opened a book in his life...obviously at some stage he's going to believe he's a modern King Louis XIV.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Stallman's demands, by the way, are so lovably and understandably sincere and specific. He's not particularly demanding, but he's very exacting. 68.190.231.128 (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of the requests on those lists tend to be more or less reasonable. The exceptions are often understandable. Mary J. Blige wants a brand-new toilet seat in her dressing room. Heck, why not? If I was a pop star, why not take advantage of the fact to ensure I can sit on a toilet seat that's never been infected with germs? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A truly discerning person prefers used toilet seats for their residual warmth. Bus stop (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course someone who can demand a new toilet seat wherever they go can also demand a heated toilet seat.... Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There's far more germs on a damn door knob than on most toilet seats. People fuss self-importantly about the most ridiculously trivial things, and ignore the elephants in the room. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Do rock stars ever demand elephants? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Contemporary erotic painting

Hello, if anyone knowledgeable about this subject please reply. I want to know the name of notable painters associated with erotic painting in contemporary art (i.e. 1950s onwards). Some notable contemporary erotic painters I know are Cecily Brown and John Currin. Some other notable names (excluding pin-up artists and comic book artists) who's themes in painting include modern settings such as striper, nightclubs etc? --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 03:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Mel Ramos, John Kacere, Hilo Chen, Hubert De Lartigue, Jock Sturges, John De Andrea (sculptor). I found all of those names at this gallery's web site. We have an article on one of the owners of that gallery, Louis K. Meisel. Tom Wesselmann. Bus stop (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, some of Eric Fischl's stuff is quite racey. Alansplodge (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Balthus? Bus stop (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Beryl Cook? More comical than erotic, but certainly often set in strip clubs, nightclubs etc. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the links! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No one mentioned Jeff Koons' Made in Heaven series featuring his then wife Ilona Staller. Astronaut (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What was the ideology of the Republican Party in the South after Reconstruction 1877-1928?

It seems like most histories of electoral politics in the South end the Republican narrative in 1877 with the end of Reconstruction and don't pick up again until 1928 when the Solid South began to crack. I was wondering what was the status of the Republican party between 1877-1928? I realize that the South was effectively 1-party during that period and that the Republicans were a hopeless minority. I was wondering if there was any organizational Republican structure in the South (especially the Deep South) at all during this time? Was the racial makeup all-white? What was the ideology of the Republican Party in the south and how did it differ with that in the North? Was the Southern Republican party to the left or right of the Northern Republicans and Democrats? --Gary123 (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of articles e.g. Scalawag and Carpetbagger with small bits of information on Republicans in the south. The Republicans had strong support in parts of the former Confederacy, e.g. in Appalachia where there were fewer former slave owners, but not so much in the Deep South. In Georgia the Georgia Republican Party briefly held power after the war, with the support of blacks and those from the mountainous north and west. In South Carolina the situation was somewhat similar, with Republicans holding power thanks to freed slaves and carpetbaggers; see South Carolina Republican Party. In the South, the Republicans were sometimes in alliance with the radical anti-corporate Populist Party (United States), particularly pre-1900 when the Democrats were more pro-business. It's a long period with complex issues; you could explore the articles on the individual states' Republican parties, though these are of varying quality. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

During that time period, especially in the early part of it (say, last 3 decades of the 19th century), the Republican Party had almost no presence in the south. In many places, Democrats ran unopposed in local elections. During the latter half of the 19th century, the Republican Party, nationally, had two main sources of support: Large, corporate support from industrialists and abolitionists. Neither were very welcome in the south. The Solid South article sadly doesn't discuss the time period as much as it discusses the fall of the "Solid South", but basically the local Republican Party all but disappeared from the South (except for, as noted, some pockets in Appalachia) for many years. --Jayron32 23:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

During the the Nadir of American race relations, Southern Republicans often turned their back on blacks -- see Lily-White Movement. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

In my readings on McKinley and Hanna, I've learned that blacks were a large part of the Republican Party in the South. Even where they couldn't vote. There was considerable competition to be a delegate to the national convention, which was in the 19th century generally 2 delegates for each of a state's electoral votes, even though Republicans in the South rarely won them. The reason for this was, if you helped elect the winning candidate, you might get civil service patronage. You might want to review William McKinley#Civil rights and the sources supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, it is not quite true that the Republicans won nothing in the South. They took a congressional seat or governor's mansion now and then, and even had some success in the early 1890s with fusion tickets with the Populists. Republicans won a handful of Southern seats, in an arc from Virginia to Texas, in 1894, though nothing in the Deep South.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That "arc" you describe is basically Appalachia and the Ozarks, which was already noted as the one place that the Republican party survived in the South; Hillbilly politics always worked very differently than it did in the deep south, --Jayron32 20:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The supplanting of the Republican Party in the South was, as I understand it, a slow process with many stops and starts. There was always a tension, similar to one that lasted into the 1970's, between Republicans who wanted to keep or restore their traditional alliance, sealed in a bloody conflict, with Afro-Americans (who still voted in the North as their votes were being taken away in the South) and those who saw a natural conservative affinity with the upper and middle classes of white Southern society. Among the books I've found useful in trying to understand the conundrum are Stanley P. Hirshson's Farewell to the Bloody Shirt: Northern Republicans and the Southern Negro, 1877-1893 (Indiana 1962), Dewey W. Grantham's The Democratic South (Norton 1965; a lecture series), George Brown Tindall's The Disruption of the Solid South (Norton 1972; a parallel lecture series focused mainly on the mid-20th century but with very useful insights on the 19th), Eric Foner's Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 (Harper 1988; a massive work whose last two chapters do pursue what happened after 1877) and C. Vann Woodward's The Strange Career of Jim Crow (Oxford 1955, 1957, 1965, 1974, a classic short work based on yet another lecture series). I've seen but never read another C. Vann Woodward standard classic, The Origins of the New South, 1877-1913, Volume 9 in Louisiana State University Press's History of the South (LSU, 1951, 1968, 1971). Some insight could also be gained by studying the post-Reconstruction careers of the first two black U.S. Senators (both Mississippi Republicans), Hiram R. Revels (1827-1901) and Blanche K. Bruce (1841-1898). There's also useful material in Kevin Phillips' The Emerging Republican Majority (Arlington House 1969, Doubleday 1970) and E.E. Schattschneider's The Semisovereign People: a realist's view of democracy in America (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1960, 1965 reprinted 1975 by Dryden Press). The latter points out that many Southerners still voted Republican in presidential elections (for example 37% of Georgia's vote went to McKinley in 1896; other statistics in Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections). The one concrete detail I remember about Southern Republican parties between Hayes and Nixon is that some of them had no interest in growing; the fewer members the less competition for local Federal jobs in (for example) the Post Office and customs whenever Northern Republicans succeeded in electing a GOP president, which they did for all but 16 years from 1860 to 1932. These small state parties still sent delegations to Republican National Conventions but could be easily influenced (in the manner of pocket boroughs in British parliaments) to support an establishment candidate, such as William Howard Taft in 1912. Their authenticity was also a question in the 1952 nomination battle between Robert Taft and Dwight D. Eisenhower. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

West-gate of Moria

Why does the inscription on the arch of the West-gate refer to Khazad-dûm as "Moria"? The inscription was written in the Second Age, but the city was only renamed "Moria" in the Third Age. Double sharp (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

An inconsistency or mistake on Tolkien's part, at least according to http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Doors_of_Durin Pfly (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Incident in early Islam

On the Entertainment desk there was a question about movies taking place during the First Fitna, which reminded me of a movie I was watching about an incident in the very early history of Islam, where a local Christian ruler attacked the Muslims, possibly after pretending to form an alliance with them first. It was while they were still in Arabia, so it wasn't a Byzantine or Abyssinian ruler. While I was watching the movie I remember looking up the details on Wikipedia, but this was about a year ago and I can't remember anything about it anymore. Was this actually an historical event or am I just misremembering everything? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The only movie you may have seen 'about an incident in the very early history of Islam' is probably this film, but I have seen it many years ago and cannot remember its details. --Omidinist (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have seen that, but this one was in Arabic (with badly translated subtitles). I was actually watching it on a Saudi Arabian satellite channel. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"The cry was no surrender" - The Siege of Derry

Disclaimer: I have (to my knowledge) neither English nor Irish background. But I find the history intriguing anyways.

A few questions about the Siege which our article doesn't seem to answer:

1. Did King James ride up to Bishop's gate in person to ask the city to surrender? Was this common practice for His Majesty alone to personally take such an action? He's the king - how would he take this risk upon himself?! He was lucky the defenders didn't succeed in killing him when they fired at him!

2. The city's decision not to surrender was no doubt brave - but to what end? Was it just patriotism (religious or secular)? Or were the inhabitants fearful of being dispossessed or slaughtered if they surrendered? Did King James have a reputation of cruelty towards those who surrendered to his forces?

3. If King James had prevailed, would it have likely made any difference to the ultimate outcome of the Williamite War in Ireland? (A "what if" question, I know). Our article says nothing about any effects of the failure of the Siege of Derry on the wider campaign.

4. Why didn't the Jacobite forces make greater efforts to secure (i.e. clog up) the river-head? The Royal Navy's tactic of forcing the way up-river would have been obvious, wouldn't it? Compare to the Defence of Fort McHenry, where the defenders clogged the river by sinking ships. Couldn't the Jacobite forces have placed better impediments to a naval force than a flimsy floating boom, easily dismantled by properly-equipped combat engineers? 203.214.66.250 (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Question 1: Yes, at least according to the rather florid Protestant accounts. Quoted from a speech to mark the 150th 138th anniversary in 1826: "...the Monarch... who came down attended by a numerous retinue, to the brook in this side of Foyle Hill, within 300 yards of Bishop's Gate. He thought his royal presence would awe the garrison, surrounded by monks and Jesuits; he thought that he had nothing to do but hold up the beads and the ropes and that Derry's gates would fly open at their touch... after giving an astounding shout of "No surrender!", the beads were answered with a shower of 18-pounders". It goes on to say that one of the King's aides-de-camp was killed by a shot from Roaring Meg. These were big (for the time) seige guns and hitting any particular person with one would have been a very lucky shot indeed. 300 yards was well outside of accurate musket range (only 50 to 75 yards).
• Question 2: see Bloody Assizes, Judge Jeffreys and Jack Ketch, all of which are still bywords in England for merciless judicial barbarity. See also Alice Lisle (aged 68), who was convicted of harbouring fugitives from the Battle of Sedgemoor and was sentenced to be burned alive (although this was commuted to beheading). Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Question 3: See What if James had won the seige? for an opinion by Richard Doherty.
• Question 4: The boom was constructed by a clever French naval officer called Bernard Desjean, Baron de Pointis. France led the world in the art of military engineering in the reign of Louis XIV (you may have heard of Vauban) and I expect that they trusted their expert. To be fair, it did prevent Percy Kirke's squadron from entering Derry and left it hanging around in Lough Foyle for more than a month. The assault itself wasn't easy; the Mountjoy bounced off the boom and ran aground; she only avoided capture because she was refloated by the recoil of her guns. It may also have crossed the Jacobite's minds that if they won, they would have needed the city to start trading again fairly quickly - not really possible if you've blocked the river without any means of unblocking it afterwards. Alansplodge (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I finally found a Jacobite narrative of the Seige of Derry. In respect of your Question 4:"the said town could not be relieved with provisions but by a straight branch of the sea, which was not deep enough to bear a middling vessel at the ebb of the tide. By this we see the taking of the town depended on the stopping of a single ship from coming up the river, which was an easy task; for the work would be infallibly done by sinking across the channel a gabbard or two, which medium was proposed to general Hamilton in process of the siege, when three ships came into the river with corn for the king's army. But the general answered he would not have that done, because it would afterwards spoil the commerce of Londonderry, and thereby lessen the royal revenue. It is said that he had for his prohibition the king's authority." (pp. 65-66)

Further on, the author examines the failure of the seige: "...it is not so easy to understand how came this ship to pass scot-free by so many batteries, and yet in four or five weeks before, three vessels attempting the same fact were repulsed. The king's soldiers answer that the gunners of the batteries, or some of them, were this morning, the thirty-first of July, drunk with brandy, which caused them to shoot at random." The author goes on to speculate that the brandy might have been paid for by the English. He continues: "In the interim those gunners lost Ireland through their neglect of duty... However, some will excuse them, and say that their guns were so small and so few that they could not sink a ship in the passage. This makes me reflect on the best advice that was given in this business, which was that a bark or two should be sunk in the channel, and this infallibly would have done the feat and saved the kingdom, for no carelessness or treachery could there have place." (p. 84) So there you have it. Alansplodge (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(From the OP - different computer) Thanks so much for your well-researched answer. It is intriguing. King James (accompanied by his retinue of monks and Jesuits): "Open up these gates in the name of the Catholic version of Jesus!" I suspect that speech has some heavy propaganda-influence. Likewise the Jocabite idea of the Williamites secretly furnishing the gunners with brandy to sabotage them. Both could, of course, be true in theory. Thanks again. 203.45.95.236 (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I only had a sketchy view of events before I started digging around, so we've both learned something. I may revise the article at a later date. Of course, King James could have said anything, because nobody could have heard him 300 yards away, no matter how loud his voice was. I expect that he had a lacky to do the shouting for him. Alansplodge (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Numbering systems in the West?

Before the adoption of the Arabic numerals, what was the numbering system most commonly used in the West?200.119.78.251 (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Roman numerals. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And the abacus was used to do calculations.
Sleigh (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Death penalty in Texas

How many innocents have been killed by the state of Texas? --Broadside Perceptor (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Before someone steps in to criticise the question, let me reformulate it for the OP's benefit. How many people have been executed in Texas for crimes which it has subsequently been proven they did not commit? --Viennese Waltz 16:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We are not allowed to speculate, so our response will necessarily omit people who were innocent but whose innocence was never proven. Marco polo (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A core problem in answering your question is that virtually all parties have a much stronger interest in overturning capital sentences prior to execution than afterwards. However, our wrongful execution article references this Executed but Possibly Innocent page from the Death Penalty Info Center, which lists 6 contemporary Texas executions. Likely no meaningful data exists for the historical record. We also have an article on capital punishment in Texas, and estimates could probably be made by projecting the rate of overturned convictions in recent years onto the number of executions in prior years (note that you can't as readily project onto contemporary executions as [some] improper convictions are already stripped out of that data set). — Lomn 16:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

List of exonerated death row inmates lists zero people anywhere in the US who were executed since 1970 and then later exonerated. Staecker (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as people who we are 100% sure must be innocent of any crime, probably none. However, there are many for which we aren't 100% certain they were guilty of the crime for which they were executed (and many of these are a matter of degree, such as if they did commit the murder, but it wasn't premeditated). StuRat (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As the Death Penalty Info Center site Lomn refers to says: "Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead." So the non-exoneration of the executed in the USA is a matter of the logic of the law, not of the non-existence of innocent people executed.Cameron Todd Willingham was executed for murder in Texas, where the weight of subsequent expert opinion is that no murder was committed at all.John Z (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

More cautiously, one might characterize expert opinion as declining to find convincing evidence of arson. Subsequent investigators have said that the reasoning of the original investigator was, basically, nonsense. I have not, however, heard any of them say "if this had been arson, we would have seen such and such, and we didn't".

It is hard to imagine that Willingham could possibly be convicted in a trial informed by current expert opinion. That is not the same as to say he was innocent. Personally I can't come to a conclusion on that either way.

There is no individual case, at least in the post-Furman era, where a person was executed by Texas and it subsequently became entirely clear that that person had been innocent. But there are enough cases where it seemed dubious that it seems almost a statistical certainty that some of them have been innocent. --Trovatore (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire." quoted in our article is quite strong. Would a cautious expert make a stronger negative statement about any fire? Being able to say "if this had been arson, we would have seen such and such, and we didn't" is an impossibly hard standard to meet. John Z (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

While the arson may not have been as was presented in the trial, Willingham's bizarre behavior, like trying to save his car while his kids were burning to death, makes it hard for me to imagine him to be innocent. However, others with similar bizarre behaviors, like Casey Anthony, who felt the need to duct tape her daughter's mouth and dump her in the woods, didn't seem to be enough to convict them of murder. When the direct evidence of murder is weak, juries seem divided on convicting based on behavior alone. StuRat (talk) 05:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's extremely weak evidence. The fact he may have been a disgusting person who didn't give a damn about his kids and perhaps was happy to see them die (I'm not saying this is the case, simply that it's a possibility if we accept what StuRat said as true) doesn't come close proving he murdered them in itself. Many people are happy Adolf Hitler died and wouldn't have helped him when he was dying, who weren't even born when he was alive. (I'm not saying the Adolf Hitler is the same as his kids, simply pointing out an obvious case when plenty of people wouldn't help a person dying yet clearly weren't involved in his death.) If the standard in Texas for a murder case with the death penalty is really so weak then it seems likely a lot of innocent people have been executed. Nil Einne (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I imagine the thought in the mind of the jurors was "I'm not positive he's guilty, but, even if he isn't, he still deserves to die for being a 'disgusting person who didn't give a damn about his kids and perhaps was happy to see them die' ". StuRat (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I know we all speculate a lot here, in general, but can you try to not do so when it's so blatant? Shadowjams (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I would note that even if we accept the suggestion the jurors had resonable doubt but decided to ignore it because he 'deserves to die', this doesn't mean they would have decided to convinct without the arson evidence, a standard suggested earlier. In fact, while I'm sure some questionable cases could be found, the only other case presented by StuRat suggests perhaps juries don't infact generally convict people just because of dodgy behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jury nullification is when the jury agrees that the person is guilty, but declare them innocent anyway, perhaps because they consider the sentence to be too harsh for the crime. I wonder if there's a term for the reverse, when a jury agrees that the person is innocent, or at least doesn't agree that they are guilty, but still convicts, because they despise that person and think letting them go is too lenient. StuRat (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As a post script, one salutary case in the UK that gave real impetus to the abolition movement, was the wrongful execution of Timothy Evans in 1950. He was hanged for the murder of his wife, on the evidence of his landlord, John Christie (murderer). Three years later, it was found that Christie had hidden the corpses of several other young women in his apartment, and he confessed to the murder of Mrs Evans. By then, Evans had been dead and buried for some time. Alansplodge (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Chester Bowles Asian Fellowship

Was the Chester Bowles Asian Fellowship which Gloria Steinen ws awarded associated with Chester Bowles, Former US Ambassador to India? Is there a list of other recipients? -- 16:34, 5 March 2012‎ 96.56.168.74

Painting by Milon

Hello,

I have a very large framed oil painting with the artist's name in the bottom left side as MILON in large green letters. It is approximately 35 to 40 years old, maybe older. It is in colors of reds and greens and of a potted plant, a bottle,(looks to be champagne), and a bowl of green apples (?). I have tried different sources for information on this artist and can't find anything. The Milon I did come up with was into glassworks. Does anyone on this site have any information on this artist? It's actually a pretty painting hanging in my living room. Thank you in advance for any assistance. L. Griffin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.217.6.134 (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There is an artist Milon Mukherjee who signs his works as "Milon" - here, and some more information here, here and here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sir Henry Arthur Blake

Was he generally known by his first or second name? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In this NY Times article he is consistently referred to as Sir Henry Blake. Almost all other references agree, except this page from Stanford, which names him Sir (Henry} Arthur Blake. I believe this is an error, however. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ditto here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

His London Times obituary has the title A Distiguished Irishman - Death of Sir Henry Blake MilborneOne (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Use of UK libraries restricted to local residents?

Am I able to use a public library in another area of the UK from which I don't pay council tax to? eg: a Liverpudlian travelling up and using Newcastle library etc?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.244.252 (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Depends on local arrangements. You'll need a proof of address that you're from the qualifying area, whatever that is - generally a county, but with some exceptions (e.g. the "Libraries West" arrangement allows any resident of former-Avon, Wiltshire, & Somerset to use each others libraries). Obviously, this only covers getting a card, & borrowing things - if you're just talking about walking in and using the facilities, anyone can --Saalstin (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I was just wanting to visit, so that's that sorted. As a visitor, though, you're still allowed to photocopy books when there, correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.244.252 (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This is OR from personal experience, but (at least in popular holiday locations) one can get a 'holiday membership' to a library, often on payment of a nominal fee - say £5. It generally allows borrowing of fewer books over a shorter period than regular membership, but it's worth asking about. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

People like teachers can sometimes get membership in the municipality where they teach, even if it's not where they live. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I used an "away" Cornall library, was asked if I was a member of my local library, and on answering yes, was given free access to their internet facilities. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

City of Westminster library, which I use, allows anyone with proof of permanent address anywhere in the UK to join. If you are actually intending to use a non-local library, it is probably easiest just to call them or check on their webiste. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all for the replies! I emailed the library in question and can become a member if I bring with me proof of ID and address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.244.252 (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking for an ancient poem or song

In a documentary by Richard Miles he refers to (quote from memory, I'm certain there are many errors here) "a 4,000 years old poem... describing a good city: The stores are well provided/and the people bath to the holiday/ The old man are mighty in wisdom/ and the old women give good advice/ the young man are eager to fight/ and the young women eager to dance/ The children play with joy/ The people are happy." Any idea as to the source? If I remember the dating right, it must predate Home by more then a millennium. 109.64.24.206 (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If it's really that old then it pretty much has to be either Egyptian or Mesopotamian. The Epic of Gilgamesh seems like the highest probability. Looie496 (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In the introduction to Ancient Worlds, Miles says it's from the "Curse of Akkad."--Cam (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but here [17] seems to be the entire (?) text, and no such description of the city. 79.183.18.214 (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Better to look at The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature for example: Here's their translation. Compare the lines you remembered with: "She [i.e. Inana] endowed its old women with the gift of giving counsel, she endowed its old men with the gift of eloquence. She endowed its young women with the gift of entertaining, she endowed its young men with martial might, she endowed its little ones with joy. The nursemaids who cared for (some mss. have instead: of) the general's children played the aljarsur instruments. Inside the city tigi drums sounded; outside it, flutes and zamzam instruments. Its harbour where ships moored was full of joy. All foreign lands rested contentedly, and their people experienced happiness." ---Sluzzelin talk 09:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all VERY much! 79.183.18.214 (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

March 6

negotiation

is the article on negotiation a possible research topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinyho (talk • contribs) 08:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to clarify your question. Are you asking about improving the existing article on negotiation in Wikipedia? If so, the answer is definitely "yes". But if you're asking about whether you can base a research paper for some academic institution on the Wikipedia article, the answer will depend on the requirements of the course and institution; but is likely to be "no" because in general encyclopaedia articles are not appropriate bases for research other than by providing a list of reliable sources to examine. --ColinFine (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

However, the "References and further reading" section at the end of our article could get you started on primary sources for your paper. StuRat (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Help in identifying subjcts in photo

Creole girls, Plaquemines Parish, 1935

Would anyone happen to know the identity of these three girls in this photograph taken in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana in 1935? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If you take a look at the Library of Congress site, [18] from which the photo was uploaded, there are dozens of 35mm photos which might have been taken around the same time and place as the one of the three women (sisters?). None of the others seem to show the same three women, but might be photos of neighbors. One creole individual is identified in on of the photos, and the occupation (unemployed trappers) is given. They might or might not be related to the three girls, who seem more prosperous (better clothes, jewelry). There is also identified a white family of tenant farmers. Several homes appear to be up near a levee, similar to ones I have seen by the Mississippi near New Orleans. I did not see a wire fence like the one behind the girls in the other photos. I won't give the names here because some of the children might still be living and it wold seem an invasion of their privacy. Given the parish and a couple of family names, one could then turn to the 1930 US Census to see who lived in and near the plantation. The 1940 census will also become accessible to the public a few days from now, and is accessible through Ancestry.com and other genealogical sites (subscription required.) Edison (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OT, but an interesting style of guitar I haven't seen before. It's evidently manufactured rather than home-made, as one can dimly discern a label through the soundhole. Can anyone point me to information on such? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.254 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a Balalaika to me. At least, that's where I first go when I see a triangular-bodied guitar-like instrument. --Jayron32 20:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There are too many strings to be a balalaika. The fingerboard looks like a standard guitar fingerboard. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There are uncountable number of hybrid string instruments. Like the guitjo and the banjolele and banjolin and any number of other such hybrids. They were actually quite popular in the 1920s and 1930s (c.f. George Formby), so I would not be surprised that a commercially availible "balalaika-guitar hybrid" of some sort were availible at the time. --Jayron32 20:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the hybrid aspect, but I just don't think it has anything to do with a balalaika. If you look closely, the body depicted here isn't even a triangle. There are four sides, whereas balalaikas have three sides with the apex of the triangle meeting right at the neck. The only similarity this instrument has to a balalaika is that it is vaguely triangle-shaped when seen from a distance. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The guitar is a "Harmony Supertone Hill Country" guitar.--Cam (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well found! --Jayron32 04:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

$2.98 in the Sears catalog! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Cam. (And apologies for veering from the OP's query). Now I wants one, but not, sadly, at that price. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.188 (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In point of fact I was curious about the guitar as well. What is truly incredible to realise is that the girls would all be in their 90s if they are still alive.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking technically, Jeanne, if you realise something, it's ipso facto credible, at least to you. But I sort of know what you're getting at.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot say the same for you, JackofOz. I posted a question here and I fail to see how your sarky comments provide me with the answer. I sadly conclude that you just couldn't resist the temptation to put someone down. May I suggest that if you cannot find anything constructive to do around here why not try editing some stubs that are in dire need of expansion. Hmm?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoa. Sorry if I upset you, Jeanne. It was a light-hearted comment (see the smiley), not a put-down of you or anyone. It had zero sarcasm, but if it came across that way to you, that's something I take on board for the future. Thanks for the feedback. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Incredible also to realize is that someone in their 90s once looked like those girls. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

italian poetry, read, online

are there free audio readings online of italian (not latin) poetry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.82.6 (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

commons:Dante#Sounds. – b_jonas 10:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

things fall apart

with reference to Achebe's 'THINGS FALL APART' discuss Achebe's response to the colonial notion that Africa has no historical interest of its own ,for we find it's inhabitants living barbarism and savages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.205.183.34 (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't do people's homework for them. Read our Chinua Achebe and Things Fall Apart articles. And read Things Fall Apart itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

PLUTONOMY MEMO

Was the Citigroup Plutonomy memo really produced by the corporation Citigroup?If so where can I get a copy of the plutonomy memo that I can cite for my research papér? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.20.215 (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No doubt about it. Right now, the link in our Citigroup article is working. No link to the second memo, "Revisiting Plutonomy" there though. Can be hard to get them because Citigroup tries to pull them off the web.John Z (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the second report. [19] I find it quite cute that Citigroup et al thinks they are capable of censoring the entire internet. Anonymous.translator (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

- So what the hell guys? I could've sworn that there was a wiki article on the Citibank Plutonomy memo, what happened? No mention of it on wikipedia, is it their PR doing this?

March 7

Young adult novel where boy hears dead mom in fan?

Does anyone know the name of a young adult novel about a boy whose mother has died telling a girl that he hears the voice of his dead mother when he talks into an electric fan. --Gary123 (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

different "Wake Up America" poster

I'm trying to find a different "Wake Up America" poster. No, I'm not referring to the WWI and WWII versions by James Montgomery Flagg. I'm referring to a poster which depicts a bird singing and buildings appearing to be waking up. Where can I find such a copy?24.90.204.234 (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, a lengthy Google search failed miserably. I did find this image, which seems to fit in well with the discussion above about circumcision in the US ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The two Universities shall kiss at Stamford

...a prophecy (to which you may find allusion in the fourth book of "The Faerie Queene" that both Universities [i.e. Cambridge and Oxford] would meet in the end, and kiss, at Stamford. Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, "On The Art of Writing". [20]

Can someone who knows more about Spenser than I do resolve the reference? And does anyone know of any other record of this prophecy? Marnanel (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The most famous "prophecies" in 16th-century England were probably those of Mother Shipton... AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't find quite that in The Faerie Queene, but Book 4, Canto 11, stanza 35 has this:

And after him the fatall Welland went,
That if old sawes prove true (which God forbid)
Shall drowne all Holland with his excrement,
And shall see Stamford, though now homely hid,
Then shine in learning, more then ever did
Cambridge or Oxford, Englands goodly beames.

I think I can go some way toward explaining those lines. In 1261 a number of Cambridge students seceded from the University and tried to set up a rival university in Northampton. In 1333 many Oxford students and teachers made a similar attempt to set up a Northampton University, before moving on again to Stamford. Neither project lasted more than a few years, but they were remembered for much longer. In the 15th century the chronicler John Hardyng built the facts up into a claim that a University of Stamford had been founded by the mythical king Bladud, father of Lear, and had lasted until it was suppressed by Pope Gregory the Great. He also included in his chronicle an alleged prophecy of Merlin:

That studious throng which
Oxenford doth cherish
In time to come the Stoneyford
Shall nourish.

The historian Richard White (1539-1611) combined the two genuinely historical incidents into a move by students from both Oxford and Cambridge to Northampton, and then (1264) to Stamford. All the above is abstracted from Martin Smith Stamford Myths and Legends (1991). --Antiquary (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Lieutenant Governor (question about the word)

After I have asked several persons I know I am going to ask it here.

Why is the Governor's deputy in U.S. States called Lieutenant Governor and not Vice Governor? The President's deputy is also called Vice President and not Lieutenant President. Does the word Vice Governor exist in American or not? I question this because in my native language (German) a Lieutenant Governor is called "Vizegouverneur" what means Vice Governor in English. Because the word Vice exists in Engish (such as in Vice-President or Vice-Admiral) I wonder why it is not used for a governor. Is there an explanation to that? Thanks in advance, Jerchel (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The term *vice governor is not in use in the United States. Instead, as you have said, the stand-in for a governor is called a lieutenant governor. See Lieutenant#Etymology, which explains that the word lieutenant means "someone who holds a position in the absence of his superior", which is exactly what a lieutenant governor does. Sorry that I don't know why this word was chosen for the governor's stand-in while vice was chosen for the president's stand-in. Vice is apparently a Latin word, while lieutenant is an originally French word with roughly the same meaning. English is like that; it often has more than one word from different sources with similar meanings. The use of one such word rather than another is generally a historical accident. Marco polo (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The USA got the term "governor" from Britain, and Commonwealth countries that have state or provincial governors (Australia, Canada, maybe some others) have "lieutenant-governors". The question is not so much why they're not called "vice-governor" in the USA, but why the Vice-President is not called "Lieutenant-President". Probably because it sounds too militaristic. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Aside from its use in lieutenant governor, the term lieutenant is most often used for military ranks, such as lieutenant colonel or lieutenant general. Its use for the governor's stand-in in North America may date to the time before independence when (British) colonial governors, such as John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore or William Phips, also served as commanders of colonial militias. Marco polo (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

See this previous question on the Language Desk. Alansplodge (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

EO indicates that "vice-" means "deputy", while "lieu(tenant-)" means "in place of". A paper-thin distinction, it would seem. But maybe connected with the level of the office. For example, "viceroy", a "deputy king". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

UK Social Services

I heard on tv today about a chap who accidentally came across a site containing pornography. He was shocked and reported it to the police. They “borrowed” his computer and got the Social Services involved. They got an order from the court whereby he cannot see his daughter for nine months. Can anybody find a written source for this please? Kittybrewster ☎ 22:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

[21], but it's four months not nine and of course we only have his word for it that he "accidentally" came across the images. --Viennese Waltz 23:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, he found the images on his computer – which he claimed were a result of accessing particular sites but may not have been, I don't know. Given the seriousness of child pronography offences, I'm sure the police are examining the possibilities thoroughly.

Secondly, he is allowed to see his daughter, just not on his own. "When his wife works late, as regularly happens, Mr Robinson's daughter goes to his mother-in-law's home." Generally, then, this is not nearly as much of a problem as a full ban. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

well I think he was a chump to have reported it. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering his suggested alternate solution was just throw the computer away, with no mention of wiping the HDD/s, it's perhaps fortunate for him that he did report it or he may very well be now completely banned from seeing his daughter. Nil Einne (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Money Market savings account vs. standard savings accounts

Why do banks usually give better rates for money market accounts than savings accounts? Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the first paragraph of money market accounts it's to do with minimum balances. If you have a savings account where you have to keep say $1,000 dollars in it at all times then that's a more stable account than one where money can be constantly coming and going. Usually every extra barrier to preventing you spending/withdrawing your savings will result in a little more interest being thrown your way. ny156uk (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

[22], [23]: Money market accounts have higher minimal balances, and limit the number of transactions per month. This means that the bank has more freedom to use the funds in the account, so can afford to pay a bit higher (though typically still quite low) interest rate. Buddy431 (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In the US, a bank savings account is protected by the FDIC (within limits), and requires the bank to hold a portion (8% or so) in reserves. Money market accounts do not have these same conditions, and may be re-invested in riskier asset classes such as bonds. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Money market accounts are insured by the FDIC too [24]. Money Market accounts are distinct from Money market mutual funds which, despite the name similarity, are really quite different. Money market mutual funds are not FDIC insured. Buddy431 (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Flatulence as torture method?

Yes, yes, giggle. Now, I saw this on South Park as a parody of 24. It would be bloody unpleasant I'm sure, but has anyone ever done any serious research into this, in terms s of torture effectiveness? I'm thinking CIA type conditioning... Rixxin (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Torture for the recipient or torture for the producer? Bus stop (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

South Park! Next Ref Desk question please ( this one stinks).--Aspro (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me there are far more effective tortures, both in terms of unpleasantness and humiliation. The difficulty of needing to fart on cue is another problem. StuRat (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for Johnny Fartpants! Alansplodge (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the answer to the question is that no, nobody has ever seriously investigated it, but it may well have been done at some point in an impromptu or unauthorised way. Humiliation and sexual abuse are sometimes used as part of torture, and could involve many things. Another method (which has been used by the USA) is to restrain people until they piss and shit themselves. See Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Torture and the United States, and the rather poor article List of methods of torture. Abuse and humilation of prisoners takes many forms, but I'd be surprised if someone hasn't farted at a prisoner at some point. Pretending to shit on the Koran is reported in a number of cases (see previous links) and this may well have involved a little anal flatulence.

Offensive-smelling chemical compounds are sometimes used for crowd control - see Non-lethal weapon#Scent-based weapons - but I can't find any evidence of them being used as torture. Unpleasant odors (feces, urine, burning flesh) would be an incidental part of many forms of imprisonment and torture.

On the other hand, a Swedish convict was punished for farting at his guards.[25] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

March 8

Livonian fashion

Livonian belles

Our article on Livonia includes this rather splendid picture by Dürer. Is the burqa/birthday cake type affair in the middle accurate, or could it be Dürer's fantasy? If real, were such things common in medieval Europe, or was this a particularly Livonian taste? Henry^Flower 04:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not common in medieval Europe. StuRat (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

According to this page, from the Finnish National Board of Antiquities, as late as the 18th Century Livonian women were wearing a garment with prehistoric roots in the Baltics and Finland, a large shawl fastened at the front with a silver clasp and covering the head and shoulders. There is unfortunately no illustration, but my guess is this would be the "burqa" in Dürer’s drawing, although Dürer is no doubt embellishing a bit.--Rallette (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

These costumes show a slight Byzantine influence.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Which Are The 4 Publicly Funded Art Universities?

Here claims that it is one of 4 publicly funded art universities in Canada (paraphrased). Which are the other 3?Curb Chain (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If you had looked further into that Web site, you would have found the first sentence here. Deor (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hound names

Quote from "Looking back" by EM Creighton: "Beagles are not given 'doggy' names, they have what is known as hound names.". What does this mean? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A bit of digging found this book about hunting with dogs, which discusses the naming of beagles and other hounds. Even in 1903, the names are described as "old fashioned" but still "preferable". "How infinitely to be preferred, for example, are such names as Bravery, Champion, Stormer, and Statesman, to Squeaker, Sally, Thwacker, and Gaslight, all of which I have encountered". Hound names seem to be more solid, masculine names, as opposed to the slightly more light-hearted names you'd give a pet dog. Smurrayinchester 12:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"Wolves and hounds were especially meaningful to the Celts. The implied meaning of many wolf and hound names is that of a warrior."[26] Bus stop (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"The naming of hounds is important because a Foxhound is an animal of enormous dignity and is far and away better bred than most of the humans who are likely to come in contact with it. It deserves a name in keeping with its station."[27] Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I would think the point was to name an animal in some connection to its function, i.e. "workers" vs. "pets". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Mayan Calendar, Leap Days & The Winter Solstice

Main Question: Is it just a coincidence that the Mayan calendar rolls over to the next long count on the winter solstice?

It's my understanding that the Mayan long count calendar is not designed to track the seasons (as the Gregorian calendar does) but rather just to count the number of days since their creation, which is why it does not have any leap days. Is this correct?. If it is, then is it just a coincidence that the next rollover on 13.0.0.0.0 happens to fall on the winter solstice? Thanks in advance for any help. --CGPGrey (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, according to Mesoamerican Long Count calendar the previous rollover, 12.0.0.0.0 happened on September 18, 1618, and the one after, 14.0.0.0.0 will happen on March 26, 2407. The Mayan calendar wasn't year based but day based, so there's no reason it should follow solstices. Indeed, the Mayans, being tropical, wouldn't have cared about the solstices much at all since in the tropics, the sun doesn't reach its highest/lowest point on the solstices and without accurate clocks there's no other way to tell what day the solstice is. Instead according to an (uncited) claim in our article on Maya civilization they cared about zenial passages, when the sun is directly overhead - much easier to measure. Smurrayinchester 12:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Will EU be like SO?

Given the current economic problems in Europe (Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc.) and the European Union being in disarray, do you think it will cease to exist in the way the Soviet Union ceased to exist? B-Machine (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. " RudolfRed (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It can't cease to exist in the way that the Soviet Union ceased to exist, because it does not exist in the way that the Soviet Union existed. The members of the EU have much more sovereignty than Soviet republics had. Looie496 (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, EU does not have centrally planned economy. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 23:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

However, if the EU goes out of business, it will indeed be like the USSR, in the sense that it will be non-existent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Another difference is that the EU isn't held together by the KGB and the tanks of the Red Army. Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It would only cease to exist if all the member governments wanted to withdraw - and that seems extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future (are there even any major political parties that support withdrawal?). 130.88.99.218 (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

When does crown copyright expire in Australia?

So I checked the section about Australian crown copyright, but there is no mention of how long it lasts, unlike the other sections. However, in the article about Cyclone Tracy, there is a mention of a "30-year rule". Does that mean that crown copyright in Australia lasts for 30 years? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The thirty-year rule generally refers to a system by which confidential official documents are made public after thirty years - nothing to do with copyright, but simply that they're now available to researchers through public archives, etc. Some particularly sensitive material used to run on a hundred-year rule, which was the same thing only stricter. (These strict rules are now a bit vaguer in some places because of freedom of information legislation, which usually doesn't set a fixed time but mandates that material can be released when asked for, if not otherwise protected. So some material that would normally have been closed after thirty years is now released much sooner; other material remains closed, if not applied for, until it's released under the normal run of things.)

Crown copyright in Australia currently lasts for 50 years (in most cases) - see Copyright law of Australia#Government-owned copyright. Shimgray | talk | 23:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Black Duke's Hand

I've been (hopefully) improving the Black Brunswickers article, which has a "Wikipedia:Good articles/History" rating, despite (until very recently) containing some machine-translated gibberish from the German article. Anyway, this site, describing the demise of the "Black Duke" at the Battle of Quatre Bras says; " It was a fatal wound, the musketball smashed through the Duke's one hand, his abdomen and his liver." Our article Frederick William, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel doesn't even mention that he only had one hand. So what happened to the other one? Google has failed me for once. Alansplodge (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds more like an awkward way of saying it smashed through "one of the Duke's hands", i.e. the other one was perfectly fine. But then, "one of his hands" is also a bit awkward because it sounds like he has a bunch of hands, while "one of his two hands" is redundant because obviously he only has two. Strangely enough "through the Duke's hand" sounds fine to me. I suppose the best solution would be to find out which hand and specify it. Or maybe he did have just one hand! (Or maybe you are being sarcastic and I just can't tell?) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No sarcasm intended. Alansplodge (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that the Black Brunswickers article says "the Duke's only hand", but could this be, as you say, a poor machine translation? Adam Bishop (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably an error. According to this 1837 source, he was on horseback and the bullet went through his left hand. Iblardi (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I added "the Duke's only hand" in a fit of over enthusiasm. I'll take it out again. I believe that the original language of the website I quoted above isn't English, so you're probably right - it's a translation error. Thanks for the reference Iblardi; my German is really poor, but isn't that gothic typeface difficult to read? The statue of the Duke shown on our WP page has him holding a sabre in his right hand, so I think we can conclude that he did have two hands. Thank you both. Alansplodge (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think of doing a Google Image search. Here's the Duke's statue from a better angle, showing both hands. This portrait makes him look as mad as a box of frogs! Alansplodge (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

March 9

Capability of the UN regulating the internet

Regarding the new treaty on internet governance backed by China and Russia, how would the UN be able to regulate the internet? They'd have to go through the United States to take control of the domain name system. The United Nations is impotent, so I don't see how all of these other countries would be able to regulate the internet. Would it be within their own borders or would traffic be intercepted internationally in a coordinated manner? --Melab±1 ☎ 01:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

They would only be able to do it with the cooperation of the member states who actually have physical control over the internet lines, hubs, etc. The Internet is a bunch of hardware connected by a bunch of wires — it is a physical thing that lives in a physical world. It's not unregulatable, but you really have to take that into consideration when thinking about how it'd be regulated. There is zero possibility that the UN could do it without a lot of active participation from the member states. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Since China's main interests in the internet are for cyber-attacks, copyright infringement, and censorship, it's quite possible they may want to have the UN regulate it, knowing full well they will be incompetent at it, leaving China free to do as it pleases. StuRat (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would a UN organisation be less competent at regulating the internet than anyone else? And why would incompetent regulation be better for the Chinese government than no regulation? Seriously, what is with these bizarre assertions about the UN? Though I'm not sure what treaty are we talking about exactly - the only references I can find are from random blogs that call it the 'internet control freak treaty'. To Melab: I'm not really sure why you think it would be necessary to take control of the domain name system globally - countries already routinely filter access to domains; there is no reason why you can't do this on a local level. I imagine it would be trivial for China to separate from the existing domain name system if they really wanted to. 130.88.99.218 (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

How many examples can you think of where the UN solved any major problem ? For example, how did they do at preventing genocide in Rwanda ? They make lots of resolutions about Israel/Palestine, so I take it they've solved that problem ? StuRat (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I take it you realise that the UN Security Council is only one dimension of the UN?

ALR (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Activists in unfree/partly free section of the world gain information about freedom and rights through the internet, and the servers of most websites are based in the free world (i.e. the first world). So it is predictable that some countries, such as those mentioned above, will try to destroy the epicenter of knowledge, which is possible only through the United Nations. If the United States doesn't shut down servers/websites in their land, they will be accused of violating international laws. Here is a critical analysis. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 04:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that that article is by a commissioner of the US Federal Communications Commission, so hardly a neutral party. I'm a little bit surprised by the lack of independent analysis of any of this - maybe I'm just choosing bad search terms. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Queen Anne Boleyn's polydactyly

Interesting and funny (even if a rumour) :

• the english article Anne Boleyn reads "... and on her right hand six fingers"
• the french article fr:Anne Boleyn : "... polydactylie (six doigts à sa main gauche)" = left hand
• the german de:Anne Boleyn : "... an jeder Hand sechs Finger (Polydaktylie)" = both hands

I asked the question here fr:Wikipédia:Oracle/semaine 10 2012#la reine Anne Boleyn (Oracle = Reference desk) and someone who searched different books on google books answered that the left hand was mentioned more times...

Anybody, another information ? 84.227.88.17 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, according to the Chicago Medical Recorder, Volume 37 published by the Chicago Medical Society, she had 6 fingers in both hands, and 6 toes in both feet. But a quick google search shows there is no proper information available and different sources are making different claims. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 08:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A BBC article claims historians dispute whether Anne Boleyn really had polydactyly. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 08:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The six fingers allegation derived from the pro-Catholic Nicholas Sanders who was overtly hostile towards Anne and greatly contributed to the monster image of Anne Boleyn.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeanne, that's certainly been persuasively argued, but I'm not sure that historians agree on it. --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So, how reliable is the information about her third nipple/breast? Astronaut (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering people of all social class were wildly superstitious in the 16th century, the presence of six fingers, a third breast and a large wen on her neck - all believed to have been the marks of the Devil - would this have made her popular at the French and English courts, not to mention endearing her to Margaret of Austria? The likely destination of a girl with these obvious birthmarks would have been a convent not three royal courts.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, considering that the king had executed Boleyn, saying nasty things about her would have been a good way to win the king's favor. Certainly few would have dared to speak up in her defense. Marco polo (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

ECB liquidity boost for banks

So the European Central Bank lends banks money at ultra-low interest rates, which enables the banks to purchase government bonds that yield much higher rates. It's like the Fed's quantitative easing, no, but instead of banks parking the money at the Fed they're buying high-yielding investments? Isn't this just giving money to the banks? If it's just another form of government bailout, wouldn't it make more sense for taxpayers to take a stake in the banks in return? 66.108.223.179 (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Debt holders get paid before equity holders in a bankruptcy, so the ECB is taking less risk by lending money to banks than it would be if it bought a stake in the banks. (You can combine the two with convertible bonds, but I haven't heard that proposed.) Generally, governments want to try and keep at an arm's length from the actual management of private businesses, which is difficult once you own large stakes in them. As for banks buying high yield government bonds, I'm not sure they are. Governments bonds in most EU countries are at very low yields at the moment. (Greece is obviously an exception, but nobody is buying Greek bonds - that's why Greece needs EU and IMF bailouts.) --Tango (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a handout to banks. One hand washes the other. Imposing government ownership on the banks might lead to things like limits on vast compensation for managers (effectively) at public expense. Politicians in many countries are (partly) dependent on bankers for campaign funding, so they are loath to interfere with bankers' privileges. Note that François Hollande has threatened to do so, and as a result other European leaders are shunning him. Marco polo (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware that US politicians are all bought and sold by major campaign contributors, but wasn't aware that this was also true in Europe. Is it ? StuRat (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Spanish and Italian bonds yield quite a bit, and even safer governments are paying more than what the ECB charges in interest, no? 66.108.223.179 (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct. To be fair, while the ECB certainly intends to help banks, it also intends to help governments. By flooding banks with cheap euros, the ECB intends to increase the supply of credit to countries such as Italy and Spain, thereby helping the financial position of those governments, and, by keeping interest rates down, supporting the euro-zone economy. The ECB works through banks rather than buying government debt directly (as other central banks do) because its charter forbids such direct action. Is it pure coincidence that its charter forces the ECB to act in a way that benefits banks? Marco polo (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

politcal eating

what does tony blair eat? Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Food, I would imagine. --Tango (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There were a lot of jokes about Old Labour's steriotypical working class "beer and sandwiches" (see [28][29][30]) being replaced by New Labour's "Perrier water and wild rocket salad" (supposedly a Yuppie staple). See [31][32][33][34][35] Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well Peter Mandelson famously ate pea guacamole with his fish and chips... --TammyMoet (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Peter Mandelson never actually confused mushy peas with guacamole dip. It was originally an American intern, working in Jack Straw's office but drafted in to help in the 1986 Knowsley North byelection, who did; the story was applied to Peter Mandelson afterwards. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes the link did say the story was apocryphal... --TammyMoet (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Something politicians very rarely eat is humble pie. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

His Sedgefield constituency leaflet, along with an interview in the Sun, claims fish and chips are his favourite foods, the Islington cookbook he contributed to says fettucini with sun-dried tomatoes, capers and olive oil. They're probably political choices though - unsurprisingly, Islington is upper middle class, Sedgefield is working class. He's also claimed meatballs in tomato sauce are his favourite. People who've eaten with or served him say his favourite foods are steak and chips, BLT sandwiches and Beck's beer, pistachios and bananas - probably more likely what he actually eats on a day to day basis. Smurrayinchester 22:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Gustave Le Bon and Plato

Were Gustave Le Bon's ideas on propaganda influenced by platonic philosophy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

tulpa

Is it true that tulpas can become stron enough to take over the host body? 93.12.151.111 (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about this? Falconus^{p t c} 19:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

How long would it take a wealthy student to reach New York City from Princeton, New Jersery, in the year 1772?

How long would it take a wealthy student to reach New York City from Princeton, New Jersery, in the year 1772? 82.31.133.165 (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)