Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 November 14

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 14

US State Legislature Control

I was looking for updated information on which parties control which legislatures. Most of the information on Wikipedia does not seem to have been updated since the election, and it's been difficult to find a concise summary of the results on Google. Maybe I'm missing an obvious source, but any help would be appreciated. NoIdeaNick (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you try the National Council of State Legislatures? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, that's exactly what I was looking for. 24.136.14.105 (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

famous schools for the gifted

first of all, we don't seem to have an article school for the gifted. secondly, are there any famous ones, with like famous alumni. did any really famous people in the world originally go to a school for the gifted. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 03:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See Talented and Gifted, a disambiguation page that will likely lead you to where you want to go! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you had to tell me how to get to the article seriously reminds me of http://www.uttyler.edu/faculty/amendoza/Pictures%20and%20Stuff/Far%20Side--gifted%20school.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

what's the wrongest anyone's been?

What's the wrongest anyone's been. I don't mean like understandings that are so off they're "not even wrong". Instead I mean, like Columbus thinking he was in India. That type of wrong. I'm thinking of candidate answers that killed 3,000,000 people. Any takers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 03:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Like a single person, or perhaps an entire societal attitude? Cuz leeching and blood letting were accepted medical practices for hundreds of years, and likely killed more people than the disseases they were supposed to cure. Famously, George Washington died after an intesive combination treatment that involved leeching, bloodletting, and highly toxic levels of mercury treatment. There is some speculation that poor people in the 18th century may have had longer lifespans because they could not afford such "medical treatments." --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

World War I was supposed to be "over by Christmas", they were pretty wrong about that. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone predict that Tommy Atkins would play football with the Hun by Christmas? —Tamfang (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

List of incidents famously considered great blunders may be of interest. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What a great article. It gives "further reading" references to some books on this very subject, too, such as Wrong! The Biggest Mistakes Ever Made by People Who Should Have Known Better. --Masamage ♫ 08:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed a great article, but don't tell the deletionists, or they'll be onto it in a flash. One of my favourites, not listed there, is the affair of the Hitler Diaries. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Last words of General John Sedgwick at the Battle of Spotsylvania (1864): "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..." Antandrus (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, Terry Kath, original guitarist for the famed band Chicago, noted to his friends "Don't worry, it's not loaded". He pointed the supposed empty gun at his own head and, well, he was wrong... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Some general, I've forgotten sent his supply train across a big river where the enemy was, so that they enjoyed all his supplies. A military plan devoid of any hint of correctness. Edison (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

More recently, George W Bush being so sure Iraq was involved in 9/11 he was prepared to order an invasion, leading to a pointless and almost unwinnable war that has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, and seriously damaged the USA's reputation around the world. Astronaut (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily say that the reasons for the Gulf War arose out of a mistake. Bush wasn't the sharpest knife in the box, sure, but he was surrounded by advisers and there are plenty other geopolitical reasons for the war. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Embarassing declarations include the British Prime Minister in 1930's, Neville Chamberlain who irrepressibly waved a peace agreement signed by himself and Herr Hitler containing the resolution to commit to peaceful methods, calling the moment "peace in our time". And the salesperson who told me a few (hundred?) megabytes were all the memory my first computer (and I) would ever need! (though that doesn't involve a squillion deaths, the computer didn't live long). Julia Rossi (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Its worse than that MS-DOS, the original precursor for Windows, had a real limit of 640 KB of memory access (that's 640 KILO bytes). The reason supposedly was that Bill Gates believed, quote "Nobody will ever need more than 640KB RAM" see: [1]. The quote is possibly apocyphal, but the 640 KB ceiling was real. It was so rediculous, that for generations of MS-DOS and early versions of Windows based off of it (like Windows 3.1) developers had to work some pretty silly kludges into the software to access any memory over 640 KB. Meanwhile, Mac-OS and Unix were happily accessing any amount of memory you had on your machine. Its probably the earliest example of how MicroSoft could create an inferior product with rediculous limitations, and yet through sheer force of market dominance, force it down our throats. The company has been doing things like that now non-stop for 20 years. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

</soapbox> --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the 640k thing was somewhat reasonable within the parameters of the original Intel 8088/8086 chip hardware architecture -- the chip had 20-bit memory addresses, which only allowed for 1 megabyte of directly-adddressed memory. Of the sixteen 64kbyte "segments" in this 1 megabyte range, the IBM-PC architecture reserved two segments for ROM-BIOS, two segments for device BIOS, and two segments for memory-mapped video, leaving ten segments (640k) for main memory. The problems started when PC operating systems continued to be based predominantly on a "real-mode" 8088/8086-compatible architecture for over ten years after the introduction of the IBM PC (despite often running on 80286 and 80386 chips), so that programs ran up against the inherent limits of the 8088/8086 architecture. Reserving fewer segments within the 8088/8086's 1 megabyte for BIOS and video memory (i.e. establishing a 704k limit or 768k limit or 832k limit in place of the 640k limit) would have delayed the day of reckoning only rather briefly.

The real problem was that the Intel 8086 could have rather easily supported 24-bit addressing, which would have allowed a 16-megabyte addressing space. This decision to have a 4-bit shift between memory "offset" and "segment" on the 8086 (and so 16-byte memory "paragraphs") instead of an 8-bit shift between memory "offset" and "segment" on the 8086 (and so 256-byte memory "paragraphs") was apparently made by relatively low-level people at Intel ca. 1977 for immediate narrow technical reasons, but has had very major consequences for the history of microcomputers (see http://groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.computers/browse_thread/thread/11741a79f76a671a etc.) -- it's very dubious whether there would be a Microsoft operating system oligopoly today, if the 8086 had had 24-bit memory addressing instead of 20-bit... AnonMoos (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Confession time here: in my first job I had to write a report comparing the then newly-released 8086 and the Zilog Z8000 microprocessors. My report contained the immortal words "I can't think of a reason why any microprocessor would need more than one megabyte of RAM". DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of humanity today and throughout history has believed and acted upon a belief in a god or gods.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And they'd all be wrong, would they? I'm interested to know how you can be so sure. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That discussion cannot take place here (and such discussions rarely bear fruit) but if you really want to know, we should do so by email. Even your or my talk page would be a poor place if this was going to be discussed in any detail.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The world's religions serve a vital purpose ... keeping hatmakers employed. If not for the bizarre headware dictated by many religions, the whole haberdashery industry might collapse. And perhaps the mercury fumes emanating from the silly hats of "His Eminence" and others might explain some of the insane and sadistic decisions religious leaders make. StuRat (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Midgley, Jr. probably indirectly killed more people in the last 90 years than many others in history. Nanonic (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This was not the "wrongest" anyone has ever been, but it makes the list somewhere and it was fun to watch: The Mystery of Al Capone's Vault. cheers and happy weekend to all, 10draftsdeep (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

He also saved an impressive number of lives: CFC-based refrigerants were much safer than the ammonia-based refrigerants they replaced. --Carnildo (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We must include the blunders of Mao Zedong, who, between the The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, killed tens of millions of his own people. During the "Leap", he encouraged farmers to abandon farming and build backyard steel mills. This resulted in starvation due to a lack of food, and useless, low quality steel being produced by melting down existing high quality steel products like plows. Then, during the CR, he encouraged mobs to execute anyone with an education, thus draining the nation of a generation of potential scientists and teachers who could have improved China's economy, status, and power. Only after Mao died and a new generation could be educated could China climb out of poverty. Stalin also killed tens of millions, but most were intentional, the result of genocide committed by starving ethnic groups he considered to be of questionable loyalty. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. In the history of enormous, colossal, catastrophic blunders, very few things can measure up to good ol' Chairman Mao's absolutely idiotic Great Leap Forward. I've been racking my brains, and while I can think of a number of other mistakes that have changed the course of history forever (Pompey's decision to force Ceasar to stand trial, thus bringing the Roman Republic to an end, for instance), but nothing has the quite the combination of being A) preventable, B) predictable, C) mindnumbingly stupid and D) unimagniably catastrophic like the Great Leap Forward. 83.250.202.208 (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's decisions in 1941 to expand World War II have to rank highly. First he went to war against his former ally, the USSR, even though he had not, as he originally intended, defeated Britain first. Then after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, he decided to get in on this as well by declaring war against the US, while still at war against both Britain and the USSR. The three opponents together did a far more effective job of finishing off his regime than any one of them might eventually have managed to do alone.

Also in World War II, consider the US decision to develop nuclear weapons. It made sense from the perspective available at the time -- there was no question that if Hitler got them first, the war was lost. But in retrospect we know that there is no way Hitler was ever going to get them, and the US was the only country that could have afforded so much money in wartime for a project that might come to nothing. We can't know how history would have unfolded if they had not decided to try it, but there seems at least a chance that nobody else would ever have been willing to. Now, the number of people killed by nuclear attacks has not yet reached into the millions, but there are still a helluvalot of those things out there waiting to go off. --Anonymous, 05:15 UTC, November 14, 2008.

It's hard to tell if the US nuclear weapons program was a blunder or not. Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union were all working on them, and although nobody would have had weapons in time for WWII, the Soviet Union would probably have produced their own weapons in the mid-1950s. With only one side having nuclear weapons, the most likely outcome would be Soviet domination of Eurasia, with a strong possibility of a large-scale nuclear war at some point. --Carnildo (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Mother of all battles. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean that invading Kuwait was an error for Saddam, as it led to both Gulf Wars and his eventual trial and execution. The first Gulf War seemed successful for those nations which opposed Iraq, in that they evicted Iraq from Kuwait and weakened Iraq's military, with minimal casualties on their side.StuRat (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the computer memory infills because I couldn't find it in the pedia and it's interesting to see how people such as the salesman simply carried/y on imparting the authoritah of hearsay. Does misleading millions of people count? Re Great Leaps Forward, there's also Robert Mugabe (allegedly) and others who claim progress at the expense of millions of lives. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

To avoid Fuhghettaboutit's mistake above, I'll nominate as most wrong any religious belief other than the beliefs you, dear reader, hold. Big mistakes the lot of them (except that one, of course) due to the incredible cost, uncountable waste, deaths, incredible number of wars and zillions of hours of silly practices resulted from them. All for nothing. --Psud (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking about taking on an overly strong opponent in a war, Francisco Solano López, President of Paraguay, declaring war on both Brazil and Argentina, and being sufficiently hostile to Uruguay that they declared war on Paraguay. The War of the Triple Alliance proved a disaster for Paraguay, with perhaps 90% of the adult male population being killed. Warofdreams talk 10:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Capital Adequacy Ratio

Am searching for the differences of Bank of International Settlement (BIS) ratio/Capital Adequacy Ratio(CAR)/Risk based capital (RBC) ratio. No clear answer to this question tru Google or en.wiki, anyone here can help me out? Tks. --Loihsin (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much time to check this myself, but you should try to find the original prescribed regulatory documentation for each of these (google would be the best place to start) and bear in mind that it will differ depending on where you are in the world. In South Africa, for example, the CAR ratio is (in my experience) used in the insurance industry and is a formula prescribed by the regulator and determined by the actuarial society and is very similar to that from Solvency II. If you used the expression "Risk-based capital ratio" I would imagine it being the Basel II prescribed formula for banks. The BIS's website seems like a good place to start for that one. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

the shifting sands of the census

I'd like to get the US census numbers that were used to determine representation in each cycle. I suspect that most listings of state populations in today's reference books do not reflect the 3/5 rule, nor the exclusion of "Indians not taxed" where that was applicable. Where should I look? —Tamfang (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Any source which has the separated-out demographic Census tabulations (not just a simple overall total population count) would enable you to perform your own calculations. Why not start at the official site http://www.census.gov/ ? AnonMoos (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have 1800 or 1810 at all. —Tamfang (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the verb 'To stonewall'

Hello Wikipedia,

I've leart a new word today courtesy of an american friend -to stonewall, meaning to refuse to cooperate ("I stonewalled to buy some time"). I'm just wondering what the origins of this word are? Is it a reference to the stonewall riots adn the gays who refused to cooperate or walls made out of stone i.e. immovable objects)? Also, do we know when it first entered the language so perhaps we can deduce some sort of motivation (i.e. why not 'to brixton' or 'to brickwall'). Hope this all makes sense!

Thanks, 82.22.4.63 (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a possibility:Stonewall Jackson, cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It almost certainly is; the term derives from Jackson's tactics in one of the early battles of the American Civil War, if I recall correctly. the skomorokh 14:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)The Online Etymology Dictionary says "Metaphoric use of stone wall for "act of obstruction" is first attested 1876; stonewall (v.) "to obstruct" is from 1914" so we know it's not related to the 1969 riots. I have not located anything with a more specific etymology, and nothing pointing directly to Mr. Jackson; you might want to move this question to the Language Reference Desk. --LarryMac | Talk 14:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ec) The evidence in the OED suggests that the word's use as a verb was originally cricket slang, "to block balls persistently, to play solely on the defensive," with the first citation being from 1889. It rather quickly came to be used to refer to a political tactic, "to obstruct business by lengthy speeches or otherwise" ("orig. Australian, now chiefly N. Amer.", says the OED, with a first citation from 1914). It's clearly a reference to behaving like a literal stone wall, with its capacity to block access or movement and to cause missiles to rebound. It's now used in the general sense of "to obstruct", of which I suppose obstructing by refusing to cooperate could be considered a specific form. Deor (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) The Wiktionary entry on it (here) has a Wikipedia reference box to the Stonewall riots. However, I think the use of the term dates back much earlier, and the current use of the term dates back to the events of 1969. Of course, I could be wrong. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

According to First Battle of Bull Run#Battle, footnote 19, Brig. General Barnard Elliott Bee, Jr. said "There is Jackson standing like a stone wall", giving Stonewall Jackson his nickname. So, the term was definitely in use from then on that to mean "a person providing an obstruction". The term may have been in use before that, as well. StuRat (talk)

Before the Civil War, "Stonewall" generally referred to a wall made of stone. During and afyter the war, it typically recalled Jackson. Sports figures named Jackson often used it as a nickname. The use of "stonewalling" as a description of withholding information from a legal inquiry achieved great prominence during the Watergate investigation of abuses by the Nixon administration in the early 1970's. Nixon himself was ultimately heard on tape telling his aides "to stonewall it." "Stonewall" became a "catchword" of the Watergate case [2]. Edison (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A comment on "stonewalled to buy". I've never heard it used quite like that. Maybe "They wanted me to buy it, but I stonewalled", or "I resisted buying it", but not "I stonewalled to buy it". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You're mis-analysing the sample sentence. Is the idiom to buy time unfamiliar in Oz? —Tamfang (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks guys, thats really interesting. jackofoz, i was referring to buying time (i.e. delaying) so surely that would be correct usage?82.22.4.63 (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord! It's the end of life on Earth as we know it! I somehow misread "time" as some other word for a physical object. Please disregard my comment. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, my first reaction after glancing over this thread was that whoever said "I stonewalled to buy ______" is using the expresison wrong... so you're not alone :)

Demographics of the Market Street/Civic Centre area of San Francisco

In this article about the distribution of votes for and against the recent California Proposition 8 (2008) in San Francisco, CA, the San Francisco Chronicle shows this map. The article's point (which didn't come as a surprise to me) is that support and opposition for this proposition was much more strongly correlated with race and religion than with the traditional (economic) divide of opinions. I understand why Chinatown and Visitacion Valley (which have high proportions of Asian Americans) are strongly in the yes camp, and in general one can say that the SE area (below 280) has a higher proportion of African, Asian, Hispanic, and Pacific-Islander Americans than do the other parts of the city. That leaves two anomalies. The first (the big block out west, at Lake Merced south of Sloat) seems largely to be the zoo and golf course, so I'm not concerned about that. What I don't understand, and what I'm hoping someone can explain, is the Precinct 6327 block (Civic Centre / Market / northern SoMa). From my (not terribly recent, not terribly detailed) visits to that neighbourhood it seemed to be an odd mixture of retail, highrise high-end residential, and yet homeless shelters, drug dealers, and porno stores. So what demographic characteristic does this precinct have (and what differentiates it from its much more "no" oriented neighbours)? Or is this, like the zoo precinct, just an artifact of a precinct that has very few voters? Thanks. 87.115.8.152 (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• The highrise high-end residential towers there are probably the bulk of the voters in that precinct: the Four Seasons, the Museum Tower, the Paramount. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that there are also less glamorous apartments at the Folsom Street end of the precinct that probably have a large Asian (especially Vietnamese) population. Though I agree that most of the actual registered voters probably live in the luxury condos. Marco polo (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it vandalism?

In which jurisdictions is it considered vandalism to destroy one’s own property in anger? Bwrs (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC) (Moved from Talk:Vandalism)

Aside from being specific to a jurisdiction, it may also be specific to the type of property. If I set my house alight, even if I don't want or don't call the fire department, someone will, if for no other reason then to protect adjoining lands and property. Arson is arson almost everywhere. In fact, if my means of destruction of almost any personal property is fire, I'd better have a permit, or that will likely be illegal, too, though I don't know about a specific charge for vandalism. Blowing things up -even if owned by you- is generally frowned upon across the world.៛ Bielle (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It may depend on how you do it. If you set it on fire or blow it up, the authorities would obviously have an interest. But if you dismantle it brick by brick, as long as you do it in a way that doesn't render it structurally unsound and in danger of collapsing and killing any occupants, that might be more acceptable. Not legal advice, just a private thought made public. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Another possible issue is that some kinds of property are protected by law. Here in Toronto the city has strict regulations about the destruction of large trees. Many places have protection for buildings designated as having historic status. And so on. --Anonymous, 02:40 UTC, November 15, 2008.

What is meant by Bhakthi yoga?

What is meant by Bhakthi yoga ?Definitions,general principles, philosophy&practice.Now a days what is the importance of yoga?“ —Preceding unsigned comment added by GEENA SAJITH (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See Bhakti yoga and the other articles linked therein. Deor (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference - Nonverbal communication - psychology

Hi everyone, does anyone know of a psychological study where people would disregard any negative verbal information as long as the visual information was positive eg smiling? Any help would be much appreciated, many thanks! 82.47.58.246 (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hindostan, BS

What does BS stand for? Kittybrewster ☎ 21:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the context? I tried searching that term and didn't get many hits. Is it notation in a genealogical record? Laenir (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It is in 1881 English census. Presumably British Something. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

British subject, perhaps? Algebraist 22:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes. Of course. Silly me. Thank you. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Spiriting informants

What is a “spiriting informants”? I need for translate Counterintelligence Corps (United States Army) in it:Counter Intelligence Corps. Sorry for my bad english. Thanks.GJo (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the sentence. The full text is 'One of CIC's operations in post-war Europe was the operation of a "rat-line" - a conduit for spiriting informants and defectors out of the Soviet Zones of Occupation to safety in South America, via Italy, with false identities paid for by CIC.' Here 'spiriting' is a verb and 'informants' is a noun. An informant is someone in eastern Europe passing secret information to the US, while to spirit, in full to spirit away, is 'to remove without anyone's noticing'. Algebraist 21:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you.GJo (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Drugs to fight boredom at work?

Are there any known drugs that increase how long an employee can work before their productivity drops off due to boredom, and that do not lower baseline productivity? NeonMerlin 22:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Caffeine. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The article Uppers is an eye-opener. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A good night's sleep. Solid lunches. Some snacks, to keep your bloodsugar up. Also, Desktop Tower Defense. 83.250.202.208 (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Nicotine. Though someone has slapped a forest of fact tags onto the Psychoactive effects section. Time to ref-hunt..... Fribbler (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ritalin. --Sean 16:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

ettiquette differences?

Wikipedia has some excellent "comparison of" tables (lists). Do we happen to have one comparing the etiquette rules of several countries? If not, could I find such a table elsewhere?

I am specifically interested in: United States / Britain / France / Italy / Germany / Russia and Japan. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a table, but you could read individual articles and make your own comparions:

Customs and etiquette of Japan

Etiquette in Canada and the United States

Etiquette in Europe

Grsz^{11 →Review!} 00:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Killed or wounded in Action - information policy

I hope this fits in this category! A good friend of mine is married to a US Army soldier. She is german and he is on duty in Grafenwöhr/Germany. His second deployment to Iraq is imminent. My question: Are there official guidelines how his wife (who is living in Germany outside the base) will be informed if he gets wounded or even killed. By phone? Personally? Thanks in advance --84.56.86.54 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

He probably has better access to that information than we do. My guess would be that they would do it in person, deaths are infrequent enough that it's perfectly practical to visit each widow(er) personally, so why wouldn't they? --Tango (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not a question I would or should ask somebody who is just before his deployment, that's why I ask here. The special thing about my matter is in addition, that she does not live in the United States and is no US citizen. I agree, that she probably will be visited by military officials, but is this really the moment when she gets the message or is she informed before otherwise. Eventually the army is not informed about her whereabouts all the time. Maybe there is somebody in military duty who knows about this issue or how the army normaly proceeds. Nevertheless thanks for your fast answer Tango, greetings from Germany, --84.56.86.54 (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't ask him, but I would expect him and his wife to have discussed the matter. There's a good chance someone her will know the procedure, let's wait and see! --129.234.157.91 (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This link gives some details:

The current Army’s Casualty Notification Process for Notifying the Families of Deceased and Wounded Soldiers

The Army’s policy is to notify all Family members listed by the Soldier on the Department of the Defense Form 93, Record of Emergency Data, in a professional and respectful manner. Notification is conducted in-person, by a two-Soldier team in Class A uniform, between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. local, unless special circumstances arise.

The Casualty and Mortuary Affairs Operations Center in Alexandria, Virginia, directs and oversees Army casualty notifications. One of the Casualty Assistance Centers (CAC), located at 27 geographically-dispersed United States and 6 overseas sites, will be directed to execute the casualty notification.

The goal is to notify the primary next of kin, who is the person most closely related to the Soldier, within 4 hours of the CAC receiving the initial casualty report. The primary next of kin is usually the spouse for married Soldiers and the parents for unmarried Soldiers. This procedure is directed by Army Regulation (AR 600-8-1). The only time this procedure would change is if we have exhausted all avenues to locate the primary next of kin. In such cases, we would seek alternatives (local authorities such as hospitals, police agencies, etc.) then, perhaps, neighbors. In cases where the spouse is the primary next of kin, we would complete these actions before contacting the Soldier’s parents.

The notification team consists of a notification officer and a Chaplain if available without unduly delaying the notification. The notification officer must be at least of the same rank as the casualty, and be at least a Sergeant First Class, or higher, for enlisted Soldiers; Chief Warrant Officer Two, or higher, for Warrant Officers; and Captain, or higher, for commissioned officers. If a Chaplain is unavailable, another Soldier in the grade of Staff Sergeant or higher, accompanies the notification officer.

After the primary next of kin is notified, the Army notifies the remaining next of kin listed on the DD Form 93 (Emergency Data Card). In the event the notification team cannot locate the primary next of kin, notification to the other Family members can proceed on a case-by-case basis.

I googled "army policy notifying next of kin" to find it. --Sean 17:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Greetings --84.56.72.16 (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Such a notification team should have a GPS unit to find the address of the next of kin, so that they never walk up to a house and ring the bell just to ask for direction, thereby giving someone a heart attack if they have a family member in Iraq or Afghanistan. Edison (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)