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

June 20

a quotation attributed to Maxim Gorky: really his?

There might be different translations but as I heard it it was "Man, how beautiful the word sounds!". Can anybody tell in which work of Gorky this appears? Any other version? Is this quote attributed to somebody else also? --Thirdmaneye (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The original is "Человек! Это звучит гордо." It is from Gorky's play From the Depths, and is variously translated. A probably more accurate version is "Man! How proud the word rings." This is "man" in the sense of human or person, not "man" in the sense of male, as I understand it. (And to my American ear the Russian word, pronounced "chelovek", does not sound all that beautiful.) Looie496 (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Looie. I had a vague notion that it belonged to Lower Depths which is full of such bombastic utterances. In this part of the world where left has a strong political clout for the last sixty years this quote has been rehashed in many forms and attributed variously to Marx, Tolstoy and Gorky himself. The question came to me this morning because a school girl of in the neighborhood had this question in her assignment. --Thirdmaneye (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Compared to a lot of Russian words, Человек sounds not too bad. Compare to, say, bread: Хлеб (Khleb -- but get a bunch of phlegm in the back of your throat ready before saying it, so you can really hock out the "Kh" sound). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Who is the oldest author still writing?

Who is the oldest author still writing? Just curious. Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps K. D. Sethna. --Viennese Waltz 07:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

...although the question needs tighter definition, i.e. what is an author? Someone who has had written work published by a reputable publishing comnpany, probably. Self-published or vanity work would not count. What if someone had a single novel published at the age of 25 and is now aged 100, would they still count as a living author? The bibliography of KD Sethna in the above article is not very detailed on the dates of his published works. --Viennese Waltz 08:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The question did specify the oldest author still writing, so Harper Lee (now 85, only work published 51 years ago) wouldn't qualify. Pais (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, G. Szabó Judit is no longer among us. She has died in the age of 85, and was still an active writer. – b_jonas 13:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Jewish cities in Europe

Does anyone know of European cities which were predominantly Jewish on the eve of the Second World War? The only one I've found so far is Pinsk; going by Wiki, it appears that Jews comprised a majority in most Belarusian cities at the time of the 1897 census, but that they had generally fallen below 50% by 1941. --71.162.67.219 (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Does Shtetl or Category:Historic Jewish communities help? --Jayron32 12:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

According to our article on Bialystok, Jews were a majority in that city before World War II. Marco polo (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This article may help Pale of Settlement. μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Of the larger towns in the Pale, some Wikipedia articles quote numbers from the 1897 Russian Empire census, others have later numbers. There were some fairly major population transfers in the former part of the 20th Century (not least the movement of some Jews from the Pale to Germany, ironically one the places with fewest restrictions on Jewish life), so the census numbers all seem a bit higher than the late '30s numbers, but based on the latest numbers quoted in the articles (prior to the formations of ghettos, such as that at Łódź, which really reflect populations collected from elsewhere in the Pale) I get:

• Balta: 55-82% (from the article; it doesn't explain the wide range)
• Białystok: ~63%
• Gomel: ~55%
• Minsk: ~52%
• Mogilev: ~50%
• Kishinev: ~43% as of the census
• Brest Litovsk: ~42% (that's a pre-WW2 number; it had been ~50% in 1897)
• Dnipropetrovsk: ~40%
• Łódź: ~33%
• Częstochowa: ~26%

Of large towns and cities with in the Pale, Kiev, Nikolaiev, Sebastopol, and Yalta were generally barred to Jews (who required special permits to live there). I don't know numbers for Konotop, Pereiaslav-Khmelnytskyi, or Kirovohrad. Niall Fergusson's The War of the World also lists towns called Ananayev and Sedlitz for which I cannot find an English Wikipedia article (but which may have articles under other names I can't find). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You might need to come up with an encompassing definition of "city" though. --Dweller (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Carthaginian parrot tattoos

I’ve read in a couple of places that interpreters in ancient Carthage had yellow parrot tattoos on their arms. It sounds a bit like some sort of urban legend though. Can anyone find a good academic source to back it up? — Chameleon 06:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to this out of Gustave Flaubert's Salambo, although that article says he did painstaking research, so maybe he found it somewhere. Where did you read this? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It’s mentioned no fewer than three times by Valerie Taylor-Bouladon in her Conference Interpreting : principles and practice, ISBN 1-4196-6069-1. She’s even got a yellow parrot on the back cover. It’s a very helpful book, but the woman has an infuriatingly chaotic and unprofessional style of writing, such that I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out that she has no evidence for her claim other than having read that novel. She’s certainly into French literature.

I’ve googled a bit, and found a few people mentioning these parrots, but I get the distinct impression that these people have just read the novel too. I am an interpreter and translator, and I rather like the idea of getting such a tattoo (small, and hidden away), but only if it is authentic. — Chameleon 08:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Parrot#distribution has no indication that parrots would have been known to the ancient Carthaginians. It talks about southern Africa, but not north Africa, Europe or western Asia. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, there is a "Cambridge Companion to Flaubert", haha. I can read some of it on Google Books. Apparently Flaubert likes parrots and uses them elsewhere in his work, as a symbol of meaningless language...and despite his painstaking research, there was plenty of criticism about the historical accuracy of Salambo. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Pliny the Elder has a short paragraph about parrots (as part of a longer section on talking birds in his Natural History, book X, chapter LVIII, line 117ff), but he does not mention anything about tattoos. I would have thought that if it was mentioned anywhere in the ancient literature, it would have been just the sort of curious factoid that he would have included in his work. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I subsequently saw that the ancient Europeans (ergo North Africans too) did know of parrots. They must have been regarded as very exotic. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Another question that may shed light on factuality is: could the Carthaginians tattoo skin in yellow? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Romans knew of the parrot from India (according to Pliny), but it was not yellow but green with a "red circlet at the neck". And while they probably were deemed exotic, Pliny uses far more space to describe talking magpies, ravens and crows which apparently according to him "talks more articulately". (btw this is from the Loeb edition, vol. 3, pp. 367-373). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I’ve just had a look through the full text of Salammbô, and it’s a bit disappointing. The only bit about interpreters or parrots seems to be, ‘Apparaissait ensuite la légion des Interprètes, coiffés comme des sphinx, et portant un perroquet tatoué sur la poitrine.’ But I’ve read people on line saying it was yellow, that it had one wing spread if the interpreter did one foreign language, and both if he knew more. Plus it’s supposed to be the arm, not the chest. There must be some other source. — Chameleon 13:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not that it's relevant, but since Flaubert's been mentioned a few times, I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Flaubert's Parrot. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is an article by a J.M. Bigwood in the Classical Quarterly 1993, vol. 43, no. 1 called "Ctesias' parrot", about parrots in Ctesias' work Indica. Bigwood does not mention any Carthagenian tattoos, but he does provide a good deal of citations to works that probably include everything mentioned of parrots in classical literature. The article "Papagei" (German for parrot) in vol. XVIII,2 pp. 926-934 of Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft (which is cited in the article) seems a good place to start looking for sources. Unfortunately German Wikisource only contains up to volume 13. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Character Variants and Section Headers (Radicals?)

I have just puzzled out how to search through the variant character dictionary at this site: http://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/suo.htm. One issue I am having, though, is that I am unable to specifically locate certain characters based on how the section headers appears as a standalone character and how it appears as part of another character; compare 水 and 氵, for example. Is there a way to determine how section headers (or are these actually radicals?) will look when they are part of another character and when they are by themselves? There are some characters that I can't find because I can't match their section headers to the original character. Any resources would be appreciated.CalamusFortis 10:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

For the character 水, it is a 4-stroke character. I clicked on the first link on the page you linked. I then clicked on the 4-stroke link at the top of the page. Then, I clicked on 水, which took me here. For the second character,氵, that is a radical. I looked on the three-stroke character list and it isn't there. However, there were a lot of radicals on those lists. Perhaps they omitted that one. -- kainaw™ 17:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Click "部首検索", then click the number of the strokes of the radical you want to know. As 水 is a 4 stroke character as mentioned above, you click 04畫. Then you can reach the page kainaw linked. If you click 水 on the page, you can reach the 水 and its variants/異體字 page. [1] If you want to see other characters related 水, click the number of the strokes of the character you want to know on the left. But please be sure do not count 4 strokes of 水, the number should be the strokes of other components. For instance, if you click 01 on the left, you can see the list of 水 related 5 stroke characters. [2] Then select the one you want. Remember bold characters with 正 are the standard character. Oda Mari (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I've more or less figured out how to use the site that way. The issue I'm having is where the section header doesn't resemble the original character. For instance, 水 does not resemble 氵, 心 does not resemble 忄, and 犬 does not resemble 犭. I'm having difficulty searching through the dictionary because 1) I can't always identify which part of a character is the section header and 2) I can't match the section headers to their original character(犭->犬 ; 氵->水) , which is how they are listed. I need some kind of a list that shows how characters are modified when they turn into radicals.CalamusFortis 08:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Try Wiktionary. -- kainaw™ 12:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think these sites listed as EL on Chinese character are helpful. [3], [4], and [5]. See also [6] (if you cannot see the animation, reload the page), [7] (click the page. The top page is here), and [8]. Oda Mari (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A Question of Etiquette

Obviously, A gentleman should hold open a door for a lady and allow her to enter/exit through it first. However, a recent discussion with a friend brought up this point: What does one do about sets of doors, where there is a narrow hallway? There seems to be 3 ways to approach this.

1. Open the first door, let the lady enter and get the second door herself.
2. Open and enter the first door, hold it open for the lady, then open the second door and let her enter first.
3. Open the first door, let the lady enter, try to get in front of her in some non-awkward way, then open the second door and let her enter first.

None of these really seem ideal - is there standard that has been set for something like this, or does old-fashion etiquette not keep up with modern-day architecture? ^Avic_ennasis @ 12:01, 18 Sivan 5771 / 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Assuming this lady is able-bodied I'd go for (1). If she has a one iota of common sense she will realize the impracticality of your trying to open both doors.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

From my experience... in today's world of gender equality, etiquette has changed somewhat. Instead of: "A gentleman should hold open a door for a lady and allow her to enter/exit first" we have a more gender neutral: "Holding doors open for others is considered polite". So... to apply this to your two door scenario... which ever person comes to the door first should hold it open for the person who follows, where upon the positions are reversed. If the gentleman holds the first door open for the lady, then she would enter and hold the second door open for the gentleman. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Doorway Assist Mode (DAM) can be deployed in such a circumstance, in which the gentleman grabs the door from behind, facilitating the distaff walker's forward motion, containing the clumsy etiquette problem to mere meters of forward motion. Bus stop (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that etiquette has changed, but is it not today: "Holding doors open for your visitor is considered polite"? Bus stop's method works best, I think. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem I always have is when I approach a door opening outwards with someone else just behind me. In this scenario the two options seem to be (a) hold the door open but don't go through it; this can be physically difficult especially if it's a heavy door; or (b) go through it before the other person and then hold it open for them from the other side. This is easier than (a) but does mean that one has gone through the door first! --Viennese Waltz 13:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh good question - I remember having a similar debate with a friend about Revolving doors. Do you...

1. Let the lady in first (lady's first principle) and then go in after her (though inevitably she'll push and you'll get a 'free' ride round the door - not very manly)
2. Let the lady in second (ignoring lady's first) and then you push (that way you push and she gets the 'free' ride)
3. Let the lady in first (again lady's first) but then make it clear you'll do the pushing (the best and worst of both world's?!)

Of course it was all a bit tongue-in-cheek, but i'll admit it - it's always good to get a 'free' ride through a revolving door! ny156uk (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course proper gentlemen and ladies would simply assume that there were servants behind any door they wanted to go through, and would let them hold open the doors... that's what servants are for after all. :>) Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Aha, so if you have a visitor at work you need to ask your PA to be present. (If you're an academic you need a research assistant or rope in any unsuspecting postgrad.) Itsmejudith (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me to the Caliban Trilogy where robots are used for menial tasks like this. – b_jonas 13:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In a case where it's not practical to open both doors, I usually open the outer door, assuming it to be the heavier one with possible wind to work against, unless I know the inner door to be trickier in some way.

An even worse etiquette problem is due to high security areas. Since you aren't allowed to let anybody else in with you, once you swipe your badge, it's necessary to close the door in the face of the woman standing behind you in line. StuRat (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The Reference Desk is not an advice column, but my advice is to do whatever seems most natural. What will seem most natural will depend on the specifics of the situation, for which there are many more than three possibilities. Awkwardness is usually best met with a polite sense of humor and a smile.

See also our article on Etiquette. WikiDao ☯ 16:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

One possibility is to attach a strong string to both doors and give explicit instructions to your female companion to pass through both doors when the first is opened. Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol :) WikiDao ☯ 21:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If the doors have "handicapped" opening devices, hit those and then everyone can go through unimpeded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What a male chauvinist pig type premise! Obviously each person holds open every other door, depending on who got where first. Read Robert Heinlein. μηδείς (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't a true neo-feminist reach up on her little high-heels and thump you on the jaw for being so patronising? In reality, in the UK its usual for the person in front to hold open the door as they pass through it for the person following, regardless of gender. 2.97.210.205 (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In crowds, I hold the door proportional to how much of a hurry I am in. When I need to be somewhere fast, I sometimes do as little as give the door a shove to keep it open for the next person, and I have been known to hold the door for a dozen or more people. It all evens out, I suppose. Adam Berman (talk) (contribs) 10:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Immigration Officer in Inception

Morning-- this may betray a profound ignorance on my part, but at the end of the film Inception, Leonardo DiCaprio's character arrives at the immigration gate at LAX and hands his passport to the officer there, who has eagle military insignia on his shoulders, normally denoting a rank of US-O6 (colonel in the Army, Air Force, or Marines; or captain in the Navy or Coast Guard). The next officer that he meets seems to have silver oak leaves on his shoulders, denoting a rank of US-O5 (lieutenant colonel in the Army, Air Force, or Marines; or commander in the Navy or Coast Guard). My question is this: what branch of military service would these officers belong to? My guess would be Coast Guard....? However, (and realizing that it's a film, not reality) are coast guard captains and commanders often assigned to immigration desk duty at airports? It would seem (pardon the expression) a bit beneath their pay grade.... Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 12:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably U.S. Customs and Border Protection (see the section on insignia). The U.S. federal military is prohibited from normal police functions so it would not be the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines. Coast Guard is a special case but they handle law enforcement on the water, not in the air. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Must be it. Thank you! All you globetrotters out there-- is it normal for higher-ranking officers to be assigned to the passport desks like that? Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The insignia you describe could designate a GS-14 and a GS-13 according to this section of our Customs and Border Patrol article. That seems plausible, especially as it was supposed to have been a sensitive and "arranged" border crossing. WikiDao ☯ 16:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Booker possibilities

Is there any way to know what are some novels that are considered to be favourites for being nominated for this Booker Prize this year? Every time the shortlist is announced I've usually only even heard of a few of them, let alone read all of them. Just once I'd like to be able to knowledgeably say which one deserves it, instead of saying that The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet deserved it last year, despite not actually having read the Finkler Question. Or any of the others for that matter. 123.243.54.85 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Booker prize also announces a longlist, is that what you are asking about? They do not seem to have announced the longlist for 2011 yet, but last year's was announced in July. WikiDao ☯ 16:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Until the list is announced, you can always pick up the novels that gather a lot of "buzz", which is a bit of a subjective criteria, but includes a) novels by former winners/short-listed authors that receive good reviews in influential places; and b) novels by new authors or unheralded authors that receive unusual attention from these same places. This won't allow you to pick out in advance some of the dark horse nominees (there are usually a couple), but you should be able to get started on at least a few of short-listed books: well-established authors tend to dominate both the short list and the long list, and they receive a fair amount of publicity when they publish what is seen as a major work. Also, someone working in a good bookstore should know which books are being pushed for major awards, and which are not and would likely love to talk to you about the subject if it's ing to result in your buying a few titles. --Xuxl (talk)

It's easier to enter a book by a previous winner or previously shortlisted author in comparison to a non-shortlisted author - there are restrictions on how many books by non-shortlisted writers a publisher can submit[9] so looking to see which past winners have eligible books would be a good guide (although recently there has been a greater tendency to give it to younger writers). Many authors are nominated repeatedly (e.g. J. M. Coetzee, Ian McEwan, Peter Carey, and of course Beryl Bainbridge) and several winners had been nominated in earlier years (e.g. John Banville, Alan Hollinghurst). --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I actually work in a bookstore myself, which is part of why I wanted to know. I'm surprised the longlist was announced in July though, I recall it being much closer to the award date, although maybe it's because I was backpacking in Asia last year and couldn't really buy whatever book I wanted whenever I wanted. The award is given in October, right? (And does that mean that books published in October, November and December are eligible for next year's?) 123.243.54.85 (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Does not at least one of the bookmakers in the UK offer odds on the Booker winner? That would indicate what the more likely books are. 92.28.251.178 (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Voice Types in Articles about Singers

Why isn't this something you do? For example, your articles about opera singers (as well as some from the theatre) include voice types (soprano, tenor, etc.), but your articles about contemporary singers don't; Adele, Colbie Callait, and Stevie Nicks could all be listed as contraltos. I understand that it's not always easy to tell, especially without the obvious differences in terms of repertoire that help to keep things delineated in classical music, but there are plenty of contemporary musicians who are very obviously whatever voice type they are; Amy Lee is obviously a mezzo-soprano, for example, just like Adam Levine is obviously a tenor. I know that this isn't so much a question, at this point, but I didn't really know how else to get in contact with anybody about addressing this. Nobody except people like me care, I'm aware, but I still think it'd be a nice way to expand on your artciles (about singers and musicians), and would offer you another tag by which to categorize various entries.

Thanks for your comments. I suspect it's because modern music critics don't consider it appropriate to use another form of music's categorisations to describe pop. I do amuse myself by trying to categorise singers by classical voice type: for example, Jon Anderson (singer) - is he a male alto, counter-tenor or falsetto? I'm sure he couldn't be a castrato as he has children!

--TammyMoet (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you've nailed both reasons:

1) It's not always easy to categorize singers.

2) Most people don't care. I suppose we could categorize singers based on location of moles on their bodies, too, but most people don't care about that, either. StuRat (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And note that unless we can find a reliable published source that says that this or that singer is a contralto or a baritone, we may not put that information in the article. --ColinFine (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's more to the point. Categorising singers by their voice types would at least have the advantage of relevance (they are singers, after all, not nuclear physicists), but they just don't seem to do this with popular singers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the categorization connected with the type of voice needed in a specific piece of classical music? For example, in The Mikado, the Grand High Executioner "Ko-Ko" is stated to be a "comic" baritone.[10] So, technically, it doesn't matter who plays the role, as long as they have that particular style of singing voice. Groucho Marx once played Ko-Ko in a TV production. Nobody really cared about his range when he was doing "Hooray for Captain Spaulding", but they did care in The Mikado. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"Comic baritone" seems to be a term confined to G&S. There are lots of other baritone roles in comic operas (Don Pasquale, for example), that aren't called "comic baritones". The thing is though, to be a comic baritone, you must first be a baritone. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no "you" here who do things, unless you also count among them yourself. Add the material if you can find a reliable source for it. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

trademark for "the (generic)"

sometimes I see companies whose names are "The (generic)" where Generic is whatever they're selling, though maybe not quite how they've done it. How does that work??? Is it that they're claiming trademark on whatever it is EXACTLY that they're doing, when it is referred to as "the (generic)"? Or what is going on there? Same as calling their company something like "the (generic) company" TM. Really?

not asking for legal advice here, just curious...--188.28.194.120 (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Xerox, Hoover, Biro, and the like? In those cases, the company's name was applied to the item and not the other way round. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry. In your particular examples, it would mean if there were a company called "The Photocopier Company (TM)" or made a product call "The Photocopier (TM)" or a company called "The Vacuum Cleaner Company (TM)" and made a product called "The Vacuum Cleaner (TM)". I believe in these particular product categories there is no company/product of either name - but in many others there is. How does that work? --188.28.194.120 (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you refering to a Genericized trademark? --Jayron32 17:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm referring to "The Photocopier Company (TM)" if it existed. That means I couldn't start my own "The Photocopier Company" as they hold that trademark (or think they do). Does this make sense? Note that the quotation marks are important in the previous sentence. I'm not talking about a photocopier company, I'm talking about The Photocopier Company (TM). See? --188.28.194.120 (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that it could be trademarked, but that only prevents other companies from using it as their name, others could still say things like "We are the photocopier company that's best for you." An example of what you're asking about might be The Band. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, The Band seems to be a perfect example, as brand is completely generic. How did that trademark work out for them? Any info or background on this aspect of The Band would be much appreciated! --188.28.194.120 (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, simply put other musical acts cannot call themselves "The Band" as an official title; however the band "The Band" does not have any recourse against people using "the band" genericly; that is refering to Led Zeppelin as "The band with Robert Plant and Jimmy Page in it" or calling Kansas "The band that sang "Carry on my Wayward Son"." It just stops other musical acts from using The Band as their own official name. --Jayron32 19:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You can take a trademark on anything — like Orange for the telecommunications company, who has also trademarked the color orange for all telecommunications purposes. The trick is, as Jayron32 points out, the trademark is only applicable to their specific industry, and only in the context of products where there might be some way in which the consumer would be mistaken or mislead. (When you file for a trademark, you claim which domains you want it to apply to.) So I can certainly have an orange car, or even sell orange baseball hats. But if I was AT&T and started running all orange ads, or calling myself "Orange AT&T", I'd probably get sued for infringement. Trademarks are in a way much more broad than copyrights or patents in the issue of what can be declared protected, but the actual protections are relatively narrow. It doesn't prevent others from using or saying the name generally, just in the context of selling products or services. Trademarks are just ways so that companies can call themselves or their products something and not worry that people are going to confuse them with another company or product. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

When I was younger, I came up with what (at the time) I thought was a sure fire get rich quick scheme... I would start a band with the name "And Many More"... didn't care if we were any good, as long as we put out one self-produced album... the point was to enable me to sue the companies who created those compilation albums sold on TV ("Songs of the 70s", "Hot Hits of the 80s", etc) for false advertising... after all, they said their album contained "and many more"... but none of our songs were on it. Then an adult explained how trademarks actually work. Blueboar (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A better adult would have made you make soup out of that stone. You'll have taken the stone back out before consumption, but you'd have a band with good music and a published album. Oh well. --188.28.194.120 (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

United Parcel Service calls itself "Brown" in its advertising ("What can Brown do for you?", but that's probably more of a slogan than a trademark. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the USPTO, UPS did take a trademark on the term "Brown" for "Transportation and delivery of personal property by air, rail, boat and motor vehicle" in 2002, but abandoned it in 2005. (Serial number 76377164 if you want to look it up on the USPTO website trademark search; it's not linkabke unfortunately because of the way they've set their site up.) --Mr.98 (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In Blueboar's example, a better name for a band might be "The Original Artists." That way, you could release a CD of cover songs, and on the label note that they were recorded by The Original Artists. — Michael J 15:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Etching/engraving style

What's the name of the style of etching or engraving shown at right, on his forehead, neck, and collar? I mean in particular the way that the lines follow the form, as opposed to cross hatching or just stippling alone. Is there a specific name for that sort of technique? --Mr.98 (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that this is Intaglio (printmaking), specifically Line engraving type of intaglio printing. --Jayron32 20:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the technique you are asking about is merely called "curved hatching", as opposed to cross hatching. See for example the second series of cylinders here, or this article (on Annibale, "light curved hatching excavates the concavity of the niche"). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I also found the relatively frequent usage of "contour hatching" (defined, e.g., as "curved lines that follow the turning of form" in Mendelowitz and Wakeham's A Guide to Drawing, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, 1993, p 73). ---Sluzzelin talk 04:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

landlocked nation

Are any landlocked nations used as flags of convininece? Is there anything preventing say Austria or Afghanistan from doing so? Googlemeister (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read it myself, but you can start with this: Landlocked Mongolia's Seafaring Tradition —Akrabbim^talk 20:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Our list and map suggests both Mongolia and Bolivia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Of the list List of flags of convenience, of the official "blacklists" two are landlocked, Bolivia and Mongolia. So presumably it would be possible for other landlocked countries to do the same, if they wanted in on the game. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A reasonable follow up question would be to ask what, given such land-locked flags of convenience, is a ship's port-of-registration? The answer for Mongolia appears to be (e.g. for MV Hodasco-15) the city of Ulan Bator, a city on a river that's frozen half the year, located on a dry steppe nearly a mile above sea level. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Switzerland has 32 flagged ships in its merchant fleet. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Attitudes by GW Allport, 1935

1) Is there any copy of this paper available to read online for free please? My Googling has not found one, but perhaps someone has better nous than me. 2) Where there any other similar papers or articles about attitudes published in the 1920s or 1930s? Thanks 92.24.186.129 (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

politics in the home counties v. new england

The Home Counties and New England are stereotypically the most genteel middle class regions of their countries. However, they sit on very different ends of their national political spectrums.

New England is left of center and the Home Counties are right of center. I know a Conservative voter in Britain will likely share the same views as a left of center voter in the US on social issues affected by religiosity (abortion, marriage, etc.) but it seems Home Counties voters are more conservative than New Englanders on fiscal issues and other kinds of social issues (environmentalism, multiculturalism, etc.) Why do these two places seem to share such a similar cultural position in their countries yet diverge so much in politics?

34solid (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think your stereotypes may be off... the tidewater areas of Virginia and the Carolinias are arguably far more "genteel" than New England. And not all New Englanders are left of center. Blueboar (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

New England? Genteel? Have you been to South Boston? Or like, anywhere in New England? Certainly, there are places that have their gentility, but mostly its washed up irish boxers and lobster fishermen who can't be bothered to give you directions anywhere... --Jayron32 04:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Its a common habit to subsume social actuality, in particular working class actualities, behind a pseudo-bourgeois hegemonic culture standing in as the "national" representative and hegemon. I think this is what's happening here—in fact 34solid asks explicitly about "stereotypical" views. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still trying to decide if Good Will Hunting or Dumb and Dumber as films, TV shows such as Family Guy or Cheers or novels such as The Friends of Eddie Coyle or the works of Stephen King that contain that display the stereotypical New England pseudo-bourgeois culture. Certainly, there exists in New England an upper class (see Boston Brahmin), and there are cultural works which explore it (John Irving comes to mind), but stereotypical New Englanders are the guys standing at the urinals in Fenway Park. I'm still not sure where the source of the belief is that New England is stereotypically more genteel than other parts of the U.S, moreso than say The Hamptons or Savannah, Georgia or somewhere like that which exhudes aristocracy. --Jayron32 04:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got no idea either; to this Australian, the American New England is weird free staters, NEFAC, "Is New York part of New England Again?," and the war of 1812. Rich Americans are Frick, MacNamara, Taylor, American Psycho, The Ice Storm, and anyone in Futurama wearing a monocle except Bender. Completely different stereotypes. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I used to think of New England as, well if not genteel, at least as sophistication and affluent. Then I began visiting there a lot. Now I've come to see it as a few pockets of affluent sophisticated surrounded by a kind of northern Appalachia--but without the gentleman-like behavior you find in southern Appalachia, even among the dirt poor. Pfly (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Without bothering to go into details, there's equally huge variation in social and political character within the Home Counties in the UK. Compare, for instance, Essex, Brighton, Slough and Buckinghamshire. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Come friendly bombs Fifelfoo (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've lived in New England (U.S.) for most of my adult life. It is certainly diverse, especially in terms of class. Still, its largest states by population, Massachusetts and Connecticut, are much more affluent than the national average. So is New Hampshire. I believe (without having time to research it) that Vermont is also above average. Maine and Rhode Island are not so affluent, and there are sizable pockets of the better-off states with high rates of poverty, particularly the old mill towns and former industrial cities. Still, the level of income and education in much of New England is high by national standards, though not more so than the New York, Washington, or San Francisco metropolitan areas. These areas do all arguably share a tendency toward social and political liberalism. They also share a degree of residual economic liberalism, by global standards, though by comparison with the radically economic liberal U.S. Republican Party, they appear left of center. I think that the reasons Northeastern (and Northern California) liberals tend to reject the radical economic liberalism of the Republican Party are quite complex. It might seem to be in their personal financial interest to adopt the Republican low-tax, small-government philosophy. However, Northeastern liberals I think recognize that they live in complex urban economies that really depend on a degree of state spending to function smoothly. Also, there is a bit of an attitude of noblesse oblige, especially in New England. Liberalism is a quintessentially bourgeois philosophy, and I think that the bourgeoisies of New England and Southeastern England would actually agree on a lot, in classic liberal terms. I think that the main difference is their political context. The state has a much larger (non-military) role in the United Kingdom, and its bourgeoisie may therefore be more focused on reining it in. By contrast, the state has a relatively small role (aside from military spending) in the United States, particularly in the Northeast with its neglected infrastructure and aging cities. Consequently, the Northeastern bourgeoisie tends to support a larger role for the state. Marco polo (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

To summarize my main point, I think that the views of the affluent in New England and in the Home Counties are probably not very far apart. It is just that those views are left of center in the United States and right of center in the United Kingdom, because the "center" in the United States is so much farther to the right. Marco polo (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

One last thought on this. The bourgeoisie of New England is really not "genteel" in the same way as the upper classes of the South is or were. The New England elite have never shied away from commerce and have been resolutely republican (in the sense of rejecting aristocracy and monarchy) since the 18th century. This attitude contrasts with the Tory tradition that prevails in the Home Counties. Marco polo (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Massachussets has several formerly industrialised, now de-industrialised areas which naturally tend to be leftist and pro-labor, as in the north of England, Scotland, the midwest, etc. There's a strong tradition of libertarianism in New England, running back to the Revolutionary War, which has no parallel in the home counties; this leads to support for some liberal/leftist issues like gay rights as well as some anti-statist feeling. Cambridge, Ma and Cambridge, England seem to be politically quite similar (centres of higher education tend to be left-wing). Also, large areas of the home counties in England are frequently filled by people rich enough to move out of London, rather than people who grew up there - in contrast New England is seeing depopulation in many areas. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Greece's debt to Germany and France

How much does Greece owes to countries like Germany and France? 88.8.78.155 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about Germany and France in specific, but if you look at the whole world the answer would be on the order of -$60 trillion (negative sixty trillion dollars), which is the world's GDP, nearly all of it owed to ancient Greek creation of Western Civilization. That is just a single year's GDP too (really we should consider several years), to say nothing of the compound interest over a period of 2000+ years. A more reasonable figure would be -$8000 trillion (before you balk at that amount, consider the 100,000 years that humanity has existed in modern form, and the number of years into the future it will continue to exist. From a discounted present value perspective, I think -$8000 trillion is just the right amount to value the world's debt to Greece at). But you asked about Germany and France. Well, one year's GDP for them is something like $4trillion, so let's say 50 years (which means not paying any interest at all to speak of on the Greek contribution): then they owe Greece something like $200 trillion. --188.28.194.120 (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would the Western world owe Ancient Greece? They get credit enough. Mingmingla (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that they received too much (financial) credit. Flamarande (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Really very funny, Greeks as a kind of patent holder on Western Civilization? So, every time you behave like a civilized Western person you'll have to pay. That means Germans would have to pay less than the French, I suppose... 88.8.78.155 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Patents don't even last 50 years, and Greece didn't even file, so I think your calculations are a bit off. Googlemeister (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

According to an article from The Independent, "French banks hold Greek debt worth €56bn, the German exposure is €34bn". Looie496 (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You see? Being less civilized pays off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.78.155 (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Being a bit less reckless pays off. Flamarande (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" Blueboar (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're resorting to a quote, I would to answer with another quote by a barbarian chieftain (as reported by a Roman historian). He said something about how the Romans always love to say that they are here only to make peace and bring order but then devastate the land and kill a lot of people. However I don't know the name of the barbarian chief or of the Roman historian. Perhaps someone could help me? Flamarande (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It was Calgacus, he was quoted by Tacitus. Solitudinem faciunt pacem apellant - "They make a wilderness and call it peace". I think Byron used it somewhere too. DuncanHill (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the one: "Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. - To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace." Thanks DuncanHill. Flamarande (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"Conan, what is best in life?" 91.85.140.182 (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hot water, good dentistry and soft lavatory paper. Tevildo (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No crushing of enemies? Googlemeister (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

June 21

Thurber question

What color were James Thurber's hair (before it went whote) and eye? I can't find it in any of his biographies. Wiwaxia (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had no luck finding color photos of him, least of all from before his hair went white, but if these drawings are accurate, his hair was dark brown or black. The second drawing linked also seems to give him brown eyes, but it's so low-res it's hard to be sure. Pais (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hitler's mustache

Was Hitler's mustache peculiar at his time? 88.8.78.155 (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say no, based on the evidence provided by such notable figures as Charlie Chaplin (who wore it before Hitler did) and Oliver Hardy. I also have photographic evidence of a great-grandfather of mine who also wore it (and who curiously enough bore a striking resemblance to Roderick Spode as portrayed by John Turner in the 1990's BBC-series Jeeves and Wooster). --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

See Toothbrush moustache. 93.95.251.162 (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Martin.

...which mentions the theory that AH was ordered to trim his "Kaiser" moustache into a "toothbrush" during WWI to ensure a good seal under his gas mask. So, the theory goes, to British and American eyes, a toothbrush moustache equated with a comedy buffoon, but in Germany, it was the mark of a war veteren. Alansplodge (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a Facebook App game that lets us play on a simulated stock market?

I'd like to learn how to trade stocks by playing a stock market game. Is there any app on Facebook that lets us do exactly this?

If nowhere on Facebook, what site has the best stock market simulator you could ever come across? (Please make sure it doesn't cost any real money to join. Thanks.) --65.64.190.134 (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to learn to trade stocks, you don't want a "stock market game" or a "stock market simulation", as they will invariably not reflect the real market. Instead, just pretend you have $10,000 (or whatever amount of money you decide you want to play with). Pick stocks. Write down how much of each stock you're buying. Track their values. A spreadsheet works wonderfully for this; free options include OpenOffice and Google Docs. Consider running several parallel money pools so that you can evaluate different strategies at the same time -- for instance, $10000 each in an index fund, a self-picked "safe" fund, a self-picked "risky" fund, a self-picked targeted fund (e.g. tech, medical, etc). But no, you don't want a Facebook app or other "game" if you want to evaluate your real chances of making or losing money. Just try the real market with fake money. — Lomn 15:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yahoo Finance has a free application for doing this, complete with stock picker and stock screener. It's a good place to get your feet wet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.186.80.1 (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That would not be particularly realistic. Apart from trading fees, the important difference is that the price you buy or sell at is probably not going to be the price you expect, as the actual spot price can fluctuate from second to second, and sometimes your buy or sell is delayed by a long time. The OP may also want to read about the Efficient-market hypothesis although the Wikipedia article is currently more critical than it used to be. 92.23.38.244 (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Although, if you are really set on some form of game, http://www.updown.com would be your best bet. ^Avic_ennasis @ 04:51, 20 Sivan 5771 / 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Tracking trading fees and being aware of the vagaries of buying and selling delays is certainly worthwhile, but I don't think this dramatically impacts the accuracy of evaluating the real market. I think it's fair to claim that the ability to identify "buy low, sell high" scenarios is the foundation of investing, and this skill can be tested without any need to model trading fees or the like. Day trading, however, demands a different skill set entirely, and fees and delays play a much larger (perhaps dominant?) role in that field. I'd expect the first step in learning about day trading would be to research the average annual return of an amateur day trader versus an amateur long-term investor. — Lomn 14:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you've never done it for real then. The difference in price between what you see and what you get can be large; sometimes the trade never happens because the price difference is too great. Prices suddenly make big unexpected movements up and down. Its more or less impossible to identify what is cheap and what is dear - if you could then you'd become extremely wealthy. Trading costs mean that on average you lose money. I suggest the OP tries it for real with a small amount of money they can afford to lose. Then lesson learnt, they can move on to something more worthwhile. 2.97.218.142 (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I used to have lots of fun on Hollywood Stock Exchange, which is a stock market game based on movies, TV and actors. Basically, people would speculate on how well a movie would do at the box office, and related actors would get a boost (or loss) in value based on that. I do believe they tried to run an actual stock market game at one point, but I don't know how well it was received. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"British" as an exclusive nationality

I remember reading a column in which David Mitchell asserted a British, rather than English or Scottish, identity. That is, British instead of any regional identity, not in addition to one. Off the top of my head, he's the only (non-Northern-Irish) public figure that I associate with this position, but he can't be alone, considering the continuing viability of unionist politics. Is the "British-as-nationality" position at all widespread in Great Britain? If so, how is it distributed geographically? Also: does the UK census provide "British" as a bona-fide alternative to English/Scottish/Welsh/etc, or is it not officially recognized? LANTZY^TALK 14:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It is far from unusual for people in Britain to identify as British and not as English/Welsh/Scottish/Cornish etc. I am one of them. An opinion poll a few years ago showed 31% of people across Britain, offered the chance to define themselves as English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish or Other, or some combination, said they were British only.

Question 15 in the 2011 Census asked people "How would you describe your national identity?" and gave options: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, British, or Other (which respondents were asked to write in). See [11]. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

See Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom and British nationality law. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, whether I'm "British" or "English" (or a "sarf Lund'ner") depends on the context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

See also Britishness. Being born in England, living in Wales, one parent born in NI of originally Scottish ancestry, most of my other ancestors originating in Wales, I usually describe myself as British except when it's more convenient to describe myself as either English or Welsh. (And if the IRFU came calling, I'd be Irish.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a similar issue over here on this side of "the pond"... as society becomes more and more "multi-cultural", people begin to wonder whether they should stop describing themselves with hyphenation (Irish-American, Russian-American, Anglo-American, Franco-American, African-American, etc.) and simply call themselves "American"? Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The debate on hyphens has gone on for more than a century now, I don't see it disappearing. See Hyphenated American. As per "British" nationality, there was a similar situation in SFR Yugoslavia. Around 10% of the population, often from mixed marriages, identified themselves simply as 'Yugoslav'. Also, in Britain you have a substantial number of people who are children of migrants (from Caribbean, South Asia, etc..) who might be more inclined to identify themselves as 'British' rather than 'English' (which is a more ethnic term)? --Soman (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Besides, it is much more interesting to be a Irish-English-German-French-Belgian-Danish-Spanish-Dutch-American rather then plain old American. Googlemeister (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(I'm sorry for the lack of references.) Whilst the proportion of people answering "British" remain significant, it has declined somewhat. Scottish nationalism is at a height unreached since the 70s, and some people in England have reacted to his (as well as devolution in general) by identifying solely as English. It remains to be seen whether the normally "wavy" Scottish nationalism or the one-way-only devolution is the cause, and thus whether it will ever reverse. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that there is only one nationality available to nationals of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: British. English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish or whatever else is a descriptor of where you were born. If you choose to identify yourself as English, there is nothing stopping you - but on official forms, your nationality is British. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between 'nationality', which is a legal concept, and 'national identity' which is (as the UK Census illustrates) a question of how you see yourself. Interestingly, the census also allows you to have a self-identified 'ethnicity'. Though this is all rather arbitrary, it does allow a little leeway for the complexities of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the (ex) Prime Minister of the UK talks about the multinational UK state here: 'We must defend the Union. It is important to remember nationality can refer to membership of a nation (which can include stateless nations such as the Kurdish nation, Cherokee nation and Basque nation, for exmaple) as well as membership of a state or a citizenship --120.16.138.2 (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There was an interesting book on the history of "Britishness" a while back by Linda Colley, called Britons: Forging the Nation 1707–1837. Gabbe (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

David Mitchell is a Protestant born in the Republic of Ireland to staunch pro-British folk (see his episode of Who Do You Think You Are? I'm sure his Britishness was drummed into him as a counter to the surrounding Irish Catholics. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Weak countries leaving the Euro - could it work at all?

I have been reading here and there that some financial specialists argue that certain countries (PIIGS minus the UK) should leave the Eurozone (ie: ditch the Euro and (re)adopt a national currency). Then the theory goes that countries would be able to seriously devalue their new currency which would make the national products and services cheaper in the international market. So goes the shiny theory, but could it work in practice? Because IMHO it wouldn't work at all:

Just imagine that you live in one of those weak countries. You hear that your government is going to follow that plan very soon. You have some average savings at the bank, and its currently in the form of Euro. So basicly your government is planning to change your savings into a new local currency which then will be devalued. In effect: they are going to devalue your savings. E.g.: Formerly your savings in Euro could buy you a car and afterwards your savings in your local currency can't buy you a car.

So how would the ppl of such countries react? IMHO as soon as they truly believe (hear it in the news) that their government is going to leave the Euro they are going to RUN (Bank run) asap to their local bank and withdraw nearly EVERYTHING they have and put it somewhere away from the hands of the state, if needed be exchanging it into a stable currency (like Swiss Franc). IF a considerable portion of the ppl do that, the banks are bound to collapse (no bank in the world has enough money to return the savings of its clients) and then the local economy is really screwed (The medicine killed the patient).

WHAT I find strange is that no 'financial specialist defending a ditching of the Euro' explained how this fear-reaction could/would be avoided. I know that emergency laws could be passed that temporally forbid the withdrawing of savings. But we are living in a world with ATM's everywhere. How would the people pay their bills if they are suddenly unable to withdraw their own money? To cut things short: would/could the plan work at all? Is there any article about this issue? Does any financial specialist explain this detail? Flamarande (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC) PS: IMHO the only countries which could leave the Euro without this reaction are the stronger ones exactly because they wouldn't devalue their new currency.

What do you mean by "PIIGS minus the UK"? PIIGS doesn't include the UK, it stands for Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain. --Tango (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And, of course, the UK is not and has never been in the Eurozone. *Furtively checks wallet - Yep! Still using Pounds.* {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.203 (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the article clearly mentions that PIIGGS also includes the UK (Great-Britain). I just forgot the extra G (the UK isn't in the Eurozone anyway...). Flamarande (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions that a few commentators added the UK to the list while all the UK banks were going bust in 2009. There are no real fears about the UK defaulting on its debt or needing to be bailed out any more. --Tango (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just for reference, there have been plenty of times when countries have devalued their currencies in times of financial stress, and when most people in the country believed it would happen. In that instance, some people might try to switch their (pounds in 1967) for another currency, and then switch back after. Except they don't. There was no bank run in 1967 (not significantly, at least, I don't know exactly). I suppose because for most people, the car also devalues - or at least everyday domestic purchases do, it doesn't make much difference. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In the cases you are talking about, people converting their money to another currency would, itself, cause the devaluation. That means you need to be one of the first to do it to get any benefit. This case is very different because if the conversion is done before Greece leaves the Euro, there will be no devaluation caused by it - you're just converting Euros in a Greek bank account to Euros in a German, or whatever, bank (or, you could buy another currency, but even that wouldn't cause much devaluation because Greece is only a very small part of the Eurozone). --Tango (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If moving your money out would make things worse, that would make people more likely to do it, one would have thought. Consider the many bank runs caused by the failure of banks due to liquidity problems, both recently and after the Wall Street Crash. People withdrawing their money made it worse, but that only encouraged people to do so. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I'm not sure they did do it. It's self-limiting, though. Only a certain amount of capital can flee the country before the exchange rate drops to the point that there is no point doing it any more. In the case of a country leaving the Euro, there is no limit to how much capital can flee. --Tango (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If Greece defaults then the contagion will probably spread but not all for the same reason. Greece, Portugal, perhaps Spain and Italy would come under pressure. However, the biggest of the bankrollers, Germany may also leave the currency if the pressure from its electorate boils into a froth at bailing out spendthrift economies and there is a real debate going on there. Germany is going to stump up €123 billion as it's share of the Greek crisis. Greece is being asked to reduce its deficit from 14% to around 4% in just 4 years and that is without the weapon of devaluing its currency to make itself more competitive. Remember where this bail-out money is going; its going to banks and bond holders to pay back the interest it owes to these institutions. None of these vast sums are going to develop the Greek economy and the likelihood is that once this latest tranch has gone and no growth in the economy then a default may be its only option because it's probably unlikely that Germany's population would allow its government to put good money after bad. That being the case then the Greek government at some point would probably exit the Euro overnight to provent a bank run and argue its case with the rest of the EU after. The UK not being in the Euro has certainly been helpful to it, but look at the debt it has but the important think is its control it has over its own currency. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

A year ago, Nouriel Roubini argued that the best option for Greece was an orderly default. Most economists agree that some kind of default is inevitable, and the longer it is delayed, the worse its consequences, since, as Greece's debt pile grows bigger, the more harmful its default would be. The way to have an "orderly default" would be to declare a bank holiday (shut down the banks) and to declare that when the banks reopen, euro balances will be revalued at a rate of x drachmas per euro. Meanwhile, some kind of settlement would be negotiated with creditors that would involve a promise to repay 100-y euros for every 100 euros owed, or to repay z drachmas for every 100 euros owed. A disorderly default would involve a bank run and/or a Greek repudiation of the debt or unilateral declaration that it will repay only n% of the debt. However, what isn't clear are the consequences of a Greek default or even partial default. Within Greece, the results would include further austerity, as the government would no longer be able to obtain external credit to fund a deficit. However, the austerity could be counterbalanced by greatly increased competitiveness and export (or tourism) earnings due to devaluation. Outside of Greece, a Greek default would make financial institutions more nervous about the prospects of a default by Ireland, Portugal, Spain, or possibly other European countries, which could result in a larger sovereign debt crisis. Also, since the European Central Bank has a lot of Greek debt on its balance sheet, its functioning could be impaired. Likewise, some banks in Germany or France could be in trouble if forced to write off all or part of their substantial holdings of Greek debt. Conceivably, a default could result in a global financial crisis because of the systemic risk involved in credit default swaps and other credit derivatives linked to Greek debt, which could conceivably jeopardize the solvency of financial institutions on both sides of the Atlantic. Because reliable statistics on the amount of such derivatives are not collected or published, it is impossible to know in advance what the consequences of a Greek default might be outside of Greece. Marco polo (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

From a Greek contributor: When I hear people in Germany calling Greece "PIGS", while Greeks never use the term, I can only think "Hitler, Hitler, Hitler". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.78.155 (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't Greece which is called PIGS. It's an acronym for Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. And I don't live in Germany. Flamarande (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, it's not only Greece being called 'pigs', there are other countries in the groups. And it's not only Germans using the term, but when they use it, it contributes to their already tense relation. Wikiweek (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Greeced PIGS? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There was an article in The Economist a while back on the question of how a country would go about to stop using the Euro: "Breaking up the euro area: How to resign from the club", 2 December 2010. Gabbe (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Finally a reasonable answer. December 2010? Got to look it up. Thanks. Flamarande (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The article suggests compelling banks to convert savings to the new currency, but unless this was done, there would be no need for banks to convert existing savings - any bank wanting to avoid a run could simply announce that they would continue to offer Euro savings accounts. Such accounts are already available in many countries which do not use the Euro. Warofdreams talk 11:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what would be the point of introducing a new currency in Greece without compelling people to use it. Gabbe (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If they were paid in the new currency, they would use it (even if just to convert it into Euros at the earliest opportunity). It's just a question of whether their savings should be devalued. Warofdreams talk 08:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

When does a winning lottery ticket count as income?

Suppose I won a $10 million lottery prize (I have not or I would not be on the computer at this time). When does it count as income for tax purposes, as soon as it becomes a winner, or only once it is cashed? The hypothetical scenario I envision is that a person who live in a state with a high income tax, like Massechusetts finds he has a winner. So to save a large amount of $$$, he moves to New Hampshire which has no state income tax, gains residency there, and then cashes his ticket. Hypothetically, this would probably be worth a couple hundred grand for him to do, but I would be surprised if Mass didn't send him a bill for unpaid income tax if they could prove he was a resident of Mass at the time he won. Additionally, if the prize was large enough, I could see a scenario where a person might renounce their US citizenship and become a resident of a country that does not tax lottery prizes, like the UK, in order to avoid paying many millions of $. So I guess are there any kind of safeguards the tax departments implement to avoid these kind of schenanigans? Googlemeister (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What any particular governing body counts as taxable income is unique to that governing body, so it entirely depends on the specifics of the situation. Tax evasion can be a serious crime (its what they got Al Capone on) and playing games without the advice of a competant tax attorney is a bad idea. So, the answer to your hypothetical scenario is that a person would be unwise to try to avoid paying taxes on the lottery ticket as you describe without first consulting with a well qualified tax attorney to find out the difference between legal tax avoidance, and illegal tax evasion. --Jayron32 19:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point, so let me ask a related question. Has anyone who did not claim their lottery prize for a long time ever get charged for tax evasion? Googlemeister (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Logic would suggest not. There is nothing in holding (owning) a winning ticket that obliges one to cash it in at all. Usually, one has a year, after which the ticket is void. Bielle (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Then logically an unclaimed ticket would not be considered taxable income, or the IRS would want penalties and interest for not claiming it on an earlier return. If an unclaimed ticket is not yet income, then no tax is yet owed, and anything the individual would do such as changing residency would thus be tax avoidance and not tax evasion, provided the law is logical, which is not always the case. Googlemeister (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That is not necessarily the case, and it would not be illogical even if it worked the opposite from how you have described. For example, if a state specifically had written a law which outlined how winnings are taxable (for example, by your state of official residence at the time of the drawing, regardless of when you come forward to claim it) then its perfectly "logical" and since a law specifically and overtly deals with the taxation of lottery winnings, there's not much you can do about it. In fact, I would expect that every state with a lottery has laws which specifically govern how it is taxed. Writing vague income tax codes which don't specifically deal with lottery winnings, and which are so blatantly open to dodging, doesn't sound much like what lawmakers do. I would expect that the law is specifically written to prevent you from doing exactly what you describe, since I would expect that lawmakers wouldn't leave ignore lottery winnings when writing tax codes, and would instead specifically deal with them. --Jayron32 01:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It would also depend on if there is an expiration for the ticket. Some lotteries increase until there is a winner, others cap off at a certain prize value until someone wins. Once there is a winner, though, they typically reset down to a lower value. If the lottery resets to $1 million USD, but you claim a winning number from when it was $25 million USD a year ago, that presents a problem. A quick Google search shows many US news stories about lottery tickets expiring one year after they were issued. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Reason #1536 for living in Canada vs the U.S.: no taxes on lottery prizes. You get the full advertised amount. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This is of course offset by a higher tax rate for regular income that most people earn. Googlemeister (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line as said above is that it depends on local law, consult an accountant. You may find this interesting: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43091952/ns/us_news-life/t/million-lottery-winner-still-gets-food-stamps/ μηδείς (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In general, income tax is on calendar year cash basis. So if you turned the stub in last year and took the winnings by December 31, it would be in 2010's taxable income. If you get the money on or after January 1, it would be 2011's. And if you never turned it in, it wasn't income to you at all, so it's nothing. Here's the real kicker: Upon receiving your winnings you would need to make an estimated tax payment on or before the end of whichever quarter you got the money in. I think the form is 1040-ES. (I'm talking federal here - state laws may vary). Otherwise, on next year's return you would probably get a whopping penalty for not having done so. See the IRS and your state government for details on the requirements. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The lottery winnings are taxable upon when they are received. They are considered marital property the moment the ticket is purchased, so a divorce between the time the ticket is purchased and the winnings are received could result in half of the winnings (or more) going to the former spouse. All states tax income that is sourced in the state. In your example, Mass. will tax the winnings regardless of the origin of the winner, be it foreign or domestic. The same goes for the federal government. Living in a different state can result in double taxation. The owner of the Campbell Soup Corporation, John Thompson Dorrance, died during the depression and left a substantial fortune to his heirs. Both the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania taxed the estate claiming that Dorrance was a resident because he owned property in both states. Each of the two states have a law which says that you can only be a resident of one state at a time. The survivors appealed and lost in both New Jersey and Pennslyvania[12]. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case and let the judgment stand. The Dorrance cases are taught in American law schools today under the subject of conflict of laws. Conflict of Laws is the procedure and argument of which law should apply when the answer is not that clear. Our Supreme Court has held that real property (real estate) is only taxable at the situs, that is, in the state in which it is located. Intangible property, such as stocks, bonds and lottery winnings are not protected by this Due Process right. A state will decide the issue through its own common law. Because of this, nearly every attorney would recommend not attempting to change residence after winning a lottery ticket, but attempting to sever any ties with other residences prior to claiming the prize. The exact course of action will be determined by the actual state in which the winner resides and the facts which each state court would consider as establishing domicile. Double taxation still exists today and it is easier to be double taxed rather than avoid a tax. Gx872op (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Donegal Ireland / Enya

Wasn't Enya born in Donegal Ireland, and can that be listed in your information about Donegal on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.145.140 (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Throughout history, millions of people were born in County Donegal. Even counting only people who are notable enough for Wikipedia articles, there are 300 or so people listed. In general, its not a great idea to say that Enya is important enough for getting special note at the Donegal article, ignoring the others who were born there, and it makes for a badly written article to take up so much of it listing every person born there. So, its best just to not worry about listing everyone. --Jayron32 19:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Donegal can refer to either the town of Donegal or County Donegal. Enya was born in the Gweedore area, which is in County Donegal (rather than the town). She is mentioned in the notable people section of the County Donegal article. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Japanese school schedules

What would be a typical schedule for a Japanese high school year, other than starting in April, school on Saturdays, and having three semesters? A typical school day schedule would be useful as well. 72.235.230.227 (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Freeview (UK) for graduates

Which channels on UK Freeview have content that graduates may find more interesting? Thanks 92.23.38.244 (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

BBC4 seems to have content aimed at a more intellectual audience. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Film 4 offers a mix that might appeal, but really, if I think about British people I know who are and aren't graduates, they have much the same tastes in entertainment. In fact, I'd say it's probably more influenced by class than anything else. --Dweller (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean PhDs are on the edge of their seats agog watching Deal or No Deal (UK game show)? 92.24.177.159 (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Some, yes. I know plenty of well-educated people who watch all manner of TV. Certainly, fewer do than perhaps the wider audience figures would suggest, but that is, as Dweller says, more attributable to class or the nature of their job than anything else (mid-afternoons being impractical for long commuters, or late city workers). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Not sure that I know anyone with a PhD well enough to know their viewing habits, but I know a load of graduates (which was what the question was about) who love to watch that programme if they're not at work. They also watch all kinds of other crap TV programmes, just like the non-graduates do. And while we're at it, many non-graduates I know like to watch "intellectual" programmes.

Given that huge swathes of the British population now get degrees, the enduring dominant popularity of mainstream channels and the marginal position of "intellectual" channels in the viewing figures (even those that are on terrestrial TV, such as BBC2 and Channel 4) suggests that the people I know are fairly representative. --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The OP will be concerned to hear that, although I watch television extremely rarely, when I do watch it is often Road Wars (TV series) or Judge Judy. I despise game shows and all other daytime television (even other shows that ape the Judge Judy format), although I guess some would argue that Countdown (game show) has an mental agility element to it, even if not an intellectual element as such. I guess the cause of this is that I don't watch TV for intellectual stimulation, since intellectual stimulation is more readily available elsewhere. Even serious documentaries tend to be somewhat intellectually vapid compared with proper scholarly coverage of the same topic in a reference book. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree about tv documentaries - knowledge that you could read in less than a minute padded out to waste 60 minutes of your life. 92.24.177.159 (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also a fair amount of Open University broadcasting during the night - though I doubt it appeals to graduates, unless they've got an assignment due and it's required watching! The channels with 'up-market' shows that are on freeview I suppose would be (most mentioned already)... BBC Four, Film 4, Quest (a freeview discovery channel) and regular old BBC One, BBC Two and Channel 4 - all of which show a mixture of news, factual, entertainment, comedy and drama.ny156uk (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What channel number is Quest on UK Freeview please - I have not heard of it before. And similarly, where can I find out more about OU Freeview broadcasts? Thanks 92.24.177.159 (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Quest is on Freeview channel 38 according to this. You can also see their listings. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Quest doesn't seem to be a "discovery channel" at all, unless you count "American Chopper" as being highbrow. As for the OU broadcasting during the night, I think this was consigned to the dustbin a long time ago, at least since the advent of video recorders - I last did an OU course in 2001 and even then we had videos, cassettes and CDs as course material. The OU does partner with the BBC still and produces documentaries such as Coast, Atom and Wonders of the Universe. The OP might like to check out the Yesterday channel (no. 12), which used to be called UK History which gives you an idea of its content. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

So in summary the more intelligent channels are BBC2 and BBC4? And that the less trashy would be BBC1, BBC3, ITV1 (ITV2?), C4? Any others? 92.28.251.178 (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Royal Marriages Act 1772

If I understand correctly, any marriage of a British prince contracted without the consent of the monarch is null and void. Therefore, a person could marry a Roman Catholic and retain their position in the line of succession only if the monarch refused to consent to the marriage because then they wouldn't really be married, right? So, for example, the Prince of Hanover would've still been in the line of succession after marrying the Hereditary Princess of Monaco had the Queen of the United Kingdom refused to consent to their marriage, while their child would be out of the line of succession as a "bastard"? Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

But is "the Prince of Hanover" a British Prince? Just being in the British Line of Succession does not make one British. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

From 1705 to 1948, it did. The prince of Hanover "Missed it by that much." Under the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 he would have been an automatic British citizen - if only he had been born 6 years earlier before it was repealed. Rmhermen (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

He uses the title "Prince of Great Britain" though he is not considered to be one. He is affected by the Act, however. Otherwise I am not sure why he would ask the Queen to permit him to marry or why the Queen would bother to permit him. Surtsicna (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"British prince" is a generic description here, not a legal title: As far as the Royal Marriages Act is concerned, any legitimate descendant of the Electress Sophia in the male line (or in the female line exclusively through marriages to British subjects) is deemed a "prince" or "princess", and is subject to the Act. Descent matters, title does not (that's why the marriage of Lady Louise Mountbatten in 1923 to the future King Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden was lawful despite Sweden's law banning its royalty from marrying commoners: it was deemed sufficient that Louise was in the line of succession to the British Crown, howsoever distantly). As for the original question, the answer is yes: if Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover had wed Caroline, Hereditary Princess of Monaco in 1999 without permission of the British sovereign, the marriage would have been legally void and their child a bastard in UK law. (Ironically, in 1999 Monaco's Franco-Monegasque Treaty of 1918 was still in force, which meant that for the marriage to be dynastic the permission of France was also required. This is a unique case, on the eve of the 21st century, of a marriage only being fully legal between a member of a pocket-principality's "royal family" and an aristocrat whose family lost its kingdom nearly 150 years ago if two of the UN Security Council's permanent members approved the nuptials in advance!) That is why the marriages of sons of George III to Roman Catholics did not bar George IV and some of his brothers from succession to the throne: they married Roman Catholic women unwilling to become (or remain) their mistresses without first obtaining permission from the Sovereign or (in case of refusal and a year's wait) Parliament, knowing that the marriages would be legally void under British law. FactStraight (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't see why your analysis isn't correct. However, I doubt that any person likely to be in that position would see the positive side of such a move ("I get to be King!") as greater than the negative sides ("My 'wife' isn't Queen and my descendants are excluded from the Throne forever."). Proteus (Talk) 13:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought: Could an heir to the throne marry a commoner and a Catholic and keep his right to the throne, if the monarch did consent to the marriage and gave permission to it? And could the monarch him/herself marry such a person? They would then give consent to their own marriage?--Aciram (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, a valid marriage to a Roman Catholic means loss of all rights to the British throne, forever (even after the marriage ends). The monarch's consent, however, means that the children born of that marriage (being legitimate) will have their place in the line of succession if they're not raised as Roman Catholics. Surtsicna (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

So a future monarch who really didn't want the job could "opt out" by marrying a Roman Catholic? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As Treasury Tag points out, that does require consent from the Monarch (and, in practice, the Government) if they're high up in the succession. If they're actually monarch already, I'm pretty sure they need Parliamentary approval before they can marry. So, not so easy, but potentially could perhaps be done. More reliable, and more under their control, would be to convert to Catholicism, even though they'd have to go through the years of preparation: as we've seen with Charles, it can take much longer than that for those responsible to allow a marriage. I've long suspected that, if the Queen should die before Charles, he planned to convert and thus remove himself from the succession without abdicating. However, I also suspect that recent sentiment would mean a rush job through all the parliaments of the Commonwealth Realms, allowing Catholics into the line of succession: not because people particularly want him King, but because it would seem unfitting. And then he'd be stuck, his ace unexpectedly defeated :( God save the Queen. 86.164.66.52 (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The OP seems to miss the point: if the monarch doesn't consent to a marriage, it cannot legally take place, ie. no vicar or any other sort of clergyperson would carry it out. So the issue of them 'marrying' a Roman Catholic in defiance doesn't arise. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 21:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

They could go to Las Vegas and get married. Although if the future monarch really doesn't want to be monarch, there are probably more direct ways of addressing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there aren't: people often say that Prince Charles should relinquish his place in the line of succession and let Prince William be the next King. But there's literally no mechanism to do that. Abdication can only happen once one is the monarch. ╟─TreasuryTag►Odelsting─╢ 09:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's one mechanism - become or marry a Catholic. Under current law, that would instantly disqualify him and Wills is home free. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

He's already married to an Anglican, so that just leaves converting. From reading Charles, Prince of Wales#Philosophies and religious beliefs, it seems that if he wanted to convert to anything, it would be Greek Orthodox, which wouldn't spare him the throne. If he really does decide he wants to give up the throne in favor of William, the easiest way is probably to abdicate immediately upon becoming king. Pais (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Although not very easy... ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 11:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, but it's not impossible to contemplate. It was necessary to create a special amending law to enable Edward VIII to abdicate, and it would be no harder to create a special amending law to allow Charles to back out of the line of succession before ever becoming king, if that was his express wish. There's no precedent for such a thing, and it itself would create an undesirable precedent - but hey, the idea of peers renouncing their peerages was pretty unthinkable before they allowed it to happen. In many ways it'd be far better to back out beforehand than become king and then abdicate, or remain king but without his heart in it. The monarchy only really works when the monarch is fully committed to the job. That's why QEII is personally so highly respected by so many people, including those who detest the very idea of monarchy. But this is all fluff: I've seen nothing to indicate Charles does not want to become king. I've seen plenty of stuff from people who do not want him to become king. Tough. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, I did not miss the point. Royal marriages have taken place without the Sovereign's consent. Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, married twice without permission and Prince George, Duke of Cambridge, married once without permission. Their marriages were invalid and as such did not exist but they did say "I do". Surtsicna (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Debt

According to this op-ed, the dept-to-income ratios of most companies is greater than one. My understanding of economics is limited, to put it generously, but how are these companies making profit if they're earning less than they're borrowing? 74.15.136.219 (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That the companies have borrowed more than their yearly revenue doesn't mean that they do so every year. When you buy a house, for example, you might borrow an amount that is much higher than your yearly salary, but it doesn't mean that you can't have an income higher than your expenses (thus making a profit) in a typical year. Gabbe (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) The debt is how much you owe. The interest on the debt, which would be taken out of any profits, is likely to be very much smaller (depending on the type of borrowing), and so this does not impact the ability of the company too much. In some corporate instances, the mere interest on the debt has had too much of an effect, but these are the exception not the rule. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, of course; the question was kinda stupid in retrospect. Thanks. 74.15.136.219 (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't blame you. The article you linked is somewhat puzzling. Gabbe (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Could be a Ponzi scheme...Smallman12q (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gabbe. The article utilises the present tense "borrows" which is confusing. In actual fact, governments go through a constant system of paying off and borrowing the same money through the bond markets, so a present tense would be justified. However, in normal parlance, if I'm "borrowing" money, that would be adding to my debt. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

films based on Latin American wars of Independence

Is there films based on Latin American wars of Independence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.119 (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There's Category:Mexican Revolution films. Gabbe (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a 1969 film called Simón Bolívar about the Venezuelan war; it stars Maximilian Schell in the title role. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Henry VIII on trial

If Henry VIII of England was put on trial for murder in the UK in 2011, would he be found guilty? What about other British kings and queens? Thanks 92.29.113.106 (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean, if he were the present King? Would he not have sovereign immunity? Or do you mean, if he invented a time machine and travelled from the past to the present, where he is no longer King? Edison (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And which acts of his are you talking about - the executions of his wives? the martyrdoms of people like Thomas More and John Fisher? other sundry killings he authorised? Could those events possibly have even taken place if Henry were monarch in the 21st century? Or is he being put on trial in the 21st century for acts committed in the 16th century, under laws that were for the most part very different than today's laws? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This kind of thing is why the US Constitution specifically forbids ex post facto laws. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Does and did the UK legal system allow prosecution under laws passed after the act in question? If so why did the writers of the US Constitution add a rule against such ex post facto prosecutions? If it were part of common law, and if they had not suffered from the practice, why bother to put it in the constitution of the US? Edison (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It does raise a different question, though. What if a current or future monarch of England were suspected of having committed a felony. What would be done? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It also raises the question of whether current leaders of Western nations, and their predecessors, might be put on trial for "war crimes" by some future administration or world authority, but I don't want to start a discussion on the rights and wrongs ... Dbfirs 07:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That subject was pretty well beaten to death a week or two ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that, but I don't want to start it up again, so please ignore my comment. Dbfirs 20:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I imagine he'd respond in much the same way that Charles I of England did, when he was put on trial. See Divine right of kings. --Dweller (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

First, we must distinguish between committing "murder" and ordering a legal "execution". The first is committed in violation of the law, the second is committed in accordance with the law. For example, those executed by Henry VIII were all tied and convicted of the crime of Treason, which (at that time) was punishable by death. Henry could not simply order someone beheaded... he had to put them on trial first. Granted, Henry was powerful enough (unlike today's monarchs) that the outcome of most Treason trials were essentially pre-determined... but at least the formalities had to be observed. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Henry had another advatage; it was legal to torture suspects until they confessed. Alansplodge (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The case of General Pinochet might be instructive. The House of Lords ruled that (a) the English courts _were_ competent to try "international crimes" (including torture), despite Pinochet's sovereign immunity, but (b) torture was only (officially) illegal in the UK after the ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, so Pinochet couldn't be tried for any acts of torture before then. So, Henry (as others have said above) could be prosecuted for anything he did that was illegal by the laws of the sixteenth century, despite his being King. (Only King of England, as well, not the UK, which I'm sure would be a material aspect of the case). Tevildo (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Henry VIII didn't murder anyone. He may have ordered the executions to occur, but he didn't put his hand to the axe. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not germane. If they were unlawful killings, the person who ordered them to be carried out is as much guilty of murder as the person who wielded the instrument of death. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

June 22

Jackie Kelly MP Marijuana Smokers Rights Party

Could I have the history of the Marijuana Smokers Rights Party (or similar) created by Australian Federal MP Jackie Kelly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.175.114 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This, fwiw, is all I can find about this matter. I suggest there is no "history". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Documentaries regarding Canadian history

Are there any documentaries or films regarding the: Canada-America Free Trade Agreement which became the big issue in 1988 election? Are there any documentaries or films regarding the: 1980 and 1995 Quebec referendum? Are there any documentaries or films regarding the: Meech Lake Accord and Charlottetown Accord? Are there any documentaries or films regarding the: Burnt Church Crisis of 1999? Are there any documentaries or films regarding the: Oka Crisis of 1990? Are there any documentaries or films regarding the: 1981 Restigouche raids? Are there any documentaries or films regarding the: Ipperwash Crisis? Are there any documentaries or films regarding the: Gustafsen Lake Standoff? Are there any documentaries or films regarding the: Grand River land dispute? Are there any documentaries or films regarding the: Haida land dispute in the 1980s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.119 (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

IPPERWASH: A CANADIAN TRAGEDY[13] Rmhermen (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The answer is yes in almost all cases. For the Quebec referendums, a lot of the documentaries are in French. On the 1995 one, there is "Point de rupture"; "Référendum Prise 2/Take 2" [14]; "Référendum 1995: le Québec face à son destin" [15]. On the 1980 Referendum, "Le confort et l'indifférence" by Denys Arcand [16]. A famous one on the Oka Crisis is "Kanesatake 270 ans de résistance" by Alanis Obomsawin [17]. The National Film Board and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Société Radio-Canada websites are good places to look for documentaries on the other issues you are interested in. --Xuxl (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

China gender gap vs. Government stance on pr0n, prostitution

Has anyone (sociologist?) ever written about the implications of China's rapidly worsening sex ratio and the government's aggressive anti-pornography, anti-prostitution stance? Call me crazy, but this seems rather counter productive. Yes, I realize porn and ladies of negotiable morals are still widely available in China, but the State position is one of official opposition (as opposed to, say, the Netherlands) and these things are largely kept underground. With 1/3 of Gen Y's Chinese men potentially being involuntarily single, wouldn't a vast and thriving sex industry obviate some of the feared negative social impacts? Surely I can't be the first person to consider these two policy points...? The Masked Booby (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sidenote, the sex ratio is only worsening if you happen to be male. Females might find that it is improving. Googlemeister (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

They might. Or there again, they might object to the increased risk of bing kidnapped as brides. Last year the China Post wrote on the China gender gap fuelling human trafficking: report. "Police in China have freed more than 10,000 abducted women including 1,100 foreigners since April last year as the widening gender gap fuels bride trafficking and prostitution." The China Daily reported in 2010 (Brides and prejudice in China):

Experts warn that the gender gap not only threatens social stability but could also put more women in danger. "The sharp rise in the number of men of marriageable age who fail to find wives will become a big hazard," said Tian Xueyuan, deputy director of the China Population Association. "It will increase incidences of women being bought as wives, as well as abduction and trafficking, and prostitution and pornography."

The Utne Reader reported on this 15 years agoThe Lost Girls - China may come to regret its preference for boys:

For some time, experts have been predicting kidnapping of women for personal use and for marriage, slave, and prostitution markets. Richards reports that the abduction and trading of women actually is widespread, especially in rural areas. “The trade is worth over 700 million a year,” she says, “and the problem is likely to escalate as men find it increasingly hard to find a wife.” A report in Asiaweek (March 3, 1995) also notes that “in one region police captured more than 1,000 such traders and rescued 5,000 women in the last decade.”

Sources, gentlemen! BrainyBabe (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak as to whether anyone has written a study of it, but China is not the only country with politicians who find it politically favorable to take a stand against pornography, despite there being little (by my understanding; if someone has some contradictory evidence, do post it) evidence that it is harmful. Adam Berman (talk) (contribs) 10:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that China's antipornography policy is often used as a means to shut down government dissenting media, as well, and improve the Great Firewall, and things like that. So their ostensible goals may not be antipornography at all — it may just be whatever they think "plays" well with "the people" as an excuse for censorship. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why being more permissive with regards to pornography and prostitution would help involuntarily single Chinese men finding life partners. Possible ways to fix that might include polyandry, male-male relationships, immigration of women into China, emigration of men out of China, and so on. But if being single is a problem, I honestly don't see how prostitution and pornography are any kind of "solutions". Gabbe (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

More of a stop-gap measure or a band-aid fix. The underlying problem would still be there. Googlemeister (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Philosopher's essay on diachronic conception of personal identity

Hail, refdeskers. I am trying to track down an essay I read online sometime in the past year. It concerned two different ways of conceiving the self – as one stable/evolving entity, and as different successive entities (I *think* this one was called "diachronic"). It was written for an intelligent layman's audience, but by a contemporary philosopher of some renown (think Galen Strawson/A.C. Grayling/David Chalmers stature), and in the context of the challenges of personal identity in an online environment. The publication was something like The Philosophers’ Magazine – some low-circulation intellectual periodical; it was linked from an intellectual-oriented net portal like Arts and Letters Daily, 3 Quarks Daily or The Daily Dish . Can you help me track down this essay? Skomorokh 09:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Chinese restaurant

Hi. Can I have two questions?

1. I can't find an article on "chinese restaurants" or "chinese takeaway" specifically those in the west. Seems an odd ommision (at this stage)? Is there a reason?

2. In the UK Chinese Takeaways generally (more than 50%) have large Jade plant in the window.. Is this a worldwide thing, and do they do this in china? Is there a reason for the choice.

3. The "jade plant" is from South Africa - why the chinese name? Is it because chinese restaurants use them a lot (china=jade) ;) . Seriously does anyone know the name origin.. Thanks.83.100.232.49 (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I can answer #1 and #3. There is no article specifically on "chinese restaurants" or "chinese takeaway" because nobody has written it. There is an article on American Chinese cuisine; perhaps, if you can find some sources, you could write an article on English Chinese Cuisine or British Chinese Cuisine or Chinese Cuisine in the United Kingdom, to clarify some of the finer points of adapted chinese cuisine in your locality (I realize "American Chinese Cuisine" is somewhat small consolation; it's like saying "well, there's no article on Foosball, but there's an article on American Foosball!"

as for your 3rd question, Jade plants almost certainly derive their name from the deep green colo(u)r they share with the gemstone jade.

As for your second question, certainly many (probably a majority) of the "Chinese" restaurants I've been to in the United States have some form of plant, generally either a Jade plant or some domesticated form of Bamboo, in the lobby. Adam Berman (talk) (contribs) 10:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As to the question about "jade plant" - I don't see anything uniquely Chinese about the name "jade". Jade is not unique to China. In fact, the equivalent Chinese name (翡翠木) refers to jadeite, which is the traditionally less common type of jade in China (as opposed to nephrite, which was more common), and was historically mostly imported from south-east Asia.

Chinese wikipedia explains the auspicious connotation of the "jade plant" in Chinese culture by saying that the leaves are thick and round, thus being regarded as reminiscent of coins, and is why they are nicknamed in Chinese as "getting rich trees".

They are not commonly seen in mainland China and are certainly not found in most restaurants. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to know what such an article could say except that they serve Chinese food. They have little else in common. For example if I eat at a restaurant in the Chinese Quarter, Birmingham (I'd recommend it) it is a completely different experience (and menu) to eating at a Chinese restaurant in the suburbs.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've created an article at Chinese restaurant, I think there's enough to say. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• The article can distinguish between "Chinese Restaurants" in different countries. Guidebooks and experience tell me that in London, one pays extra for rice with a main course at a Chinese restaurant, while in the US it is usually included in the price of the main course. They may have real Chinese food for Chinese customers in addition to the bogus Chinese food expected by Americans. Edison (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

While you obviously don't want a trivia section, there are some "cultural references". I hope a quick mention of Sour Sweet by Timothy Mo is seen as appropriate. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Our article Cantonese restaurant claims that most British Chinese places are of that style but I can't tell from the article what is distinctive about a Cantonese restaurant. Rmhermen (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Chinese restaurants in the UK are nearly all run by people whose other base is Hong Kong, so they are Cantonese in that sense, but British people just think of them as "Chinese restaurant", "Chinese takeaway". They tend to serve a similar range of dishes, based in Hong Kong cuisine but with much adaptation for UK tastes, and with some dishes labelled "Beijing", "Szechuan", etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies and creating the article, I've added a bit more about the "Chinese Takeout" in the UK. There still appears to be a lot to say - some books talk about the majority of UK restaurants being founded by people from a single village in Hong Kong (the 'Man'), though others talk about chinese ethic refugees from vietnam .. I didn't add that because I'm not certain how true it all is. I guess the bit about the Jade plant in chinese takeaways is WP:OR but if anyone can prove me wrong please do. 83.100.210.89 (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There is academic research about the "Man" clan in Hong Kong, so a reliable source should be available. Hong Kong people started setting up restaurants and takeaways in large numbers from about the 1950s. The Sino-Vietnamese connection is from the late 1970s, a smaller group, mainly in London Boroughs like Hackney, Lambeth and Lewisham. There should be some sources for that too. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the aritcle "Chinese restaurant" needs to be "Chinese restaurants outside China" or "Overseas Chinese restaurants", since there is little to be said about Chinese restaurants in China that can't be covered in Chinese cuisine (mostly, that there is a great variety of them). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it not be possible to cover chinese chinese restaurants and overseas chinese restaurants in the same article - (the article chinese cuisine says nothing about 'chinese restaurants'.)83.100.210.89 (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you move the page back so I can cover both topics, I have no idea how to move the page.83.100.210.89 (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a discussion for the article talk page. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Cost of transportation

What would be the cost of transporting 100 000 tons of Russian diesel fuel oil (MDO) (D2) from the port of Rotterdam to Varna (Bulgaria) and Istambul (Turkey)? Kittybrewster ☎ 12:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any kind of pipeline connecting those places, so tanker trucks would be the only way (short of putting it back on a boat and shipping it through the Mediterranean). 100,000 tons would mean around 4 or 5 tanker loads, but I don't have any idea what the going rate for that kind of transport would be. --Daniel 13:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you including the cost of the oil itself ... or just the cost of transpiration? Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This would almost certainly have to be done by ship, 100,000 tons is more then 2000 tanker truck loads, and I imagine a ship would cost a lot less then 2000 truck in terms of transport costs. Googlemeister (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

My back of the envelope estimate is that using trucks, it would cost in excess of $5 million to haul 2000 truck loads from Rotterdam to Istanbul. Now since the only data I had was US trucking rates, European ones are almost certainly going to be higher, and I don't know if trucks can run that heavy in Europe, so $5 million is probably underestimating by at least 50%. Googlemeister (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

As an aside - the N American rail rate should be ~ 2.9 million dollar at 0.01 € per tonnekm over 2000km.Imgaril (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

For that quantity I would expect to use rail, or sea, or a pipeline - I found it difficult to get shipping costs for any of these methods - however using this http://ec.europa.eu/ten/transport/studies/doc/compete/compete_annex_01_en.pdf page 24 I used an estimate for Euro per tonnekm of 0.1 (note this is 10x the USA cost..) - you have 100,000 tonnes and the distance is (~2000km , using a road estimate from http://www.distance-calculator.co.uk/distance-from-rotterdam-to-istanbul.htm)

Your rail cost is 0.1x2000=200 euro per tonne (~27 euro a barrel?) so that's 20million € before profit.

I'm fairly certain that shipping would be cheaper. This http://www.themanufacturer.com/uk/content/9920/Freight_efficient quotes a euro price of £30 per tonne thats €33 per tonne ie 3.3 million € (after profit).

As I said I couldn't find hardly any figures so I don't know how reliable these are.. Imgaril (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(Was there any significance of the two destinations - I just used Istanbul as it's further..)Imgaril (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Not if you go by boat. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly Rotterdam to Istanbul is beyond what is usually called 'short sea', so the figure above is probably an underestimate.Imgaril (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Law re children playing prize bingo

hi can a child under the age of 12 play prize bingo, where they can win bottles of spirits and bottles of wine. Although they have an adult with them they still Mark there own books and if they win and it is bottle of spirit/wine they give it to the adult, is the ok or should the child not be playing.Japkam7 (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The relevant law would be different in different locations. In other words... the answer depends on where you are playing bingo. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, there are different regulations depending on whether bingo is held in a commercial premises (e.g. Gala or Mecca bingo), in a private club (e.g. a workers' social club), or for charitable purposes: see the English Gaming Act 1968, particularly sections 40 and 41.[18][19] Other nations differentiate in law between charity bingo and commercial gambling.

It is common in the UK for children to participate in charity raffles and other games of chance that may have alcohol as a prize, but we can't give advice on the legality of particular arrangements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen a child actually given the bottle of wine they've won on the tombola, though. It's either given to an adult that's with them, or they are given a non-alcoholic alternative. --Tango (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Maps of Windsor, Dearborn and Hamtramck City with borders

Is there a good website that shows the cities of Dearborn, Windsor, Ontario and Hamtramck City with borders? That way, I can tell if I am reading the map right or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.47 (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If I just go to a Google web search (not images or maps) and type "Dearborn, Michigan map", I get a tiny may with boundaries. Picking on it gives me a satellite map, though, without boundaries, and I don't know how to turn that off. The same works for "Hamtramck, Michigan map" and "Windsor, Ontario map". Are those small maps with boundaries sufficient ? (Our own articles have even tinier maps with boundaries.) StuRat (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't finding one good map of Detroit be better? Google Earth with the right feature turned on, Yahoo Maps (although the color are rather pale), USGS [20] for real detail. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Use the reference maps at [21] for the U.S. cities. Use this for Windsor. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Canadian cities affect by Canada-America Free Trade agreement

Which cities of Canada were affected by Canada-America Free Trade Agreement in the negative way or positive way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.32.47 (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

All Canadian cities of note were impacted in some manner. Googlemeister (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The wording does not look like a homework question to me, unless the teacher is a non-native speaker of English. The consensus is that NAFTA and its predecessor, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, benefited Canada generally in terms of economic growth. For a more detailed regional analysis, you might want to track down this paper at a university library. Marco polo (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW the wording looks to me like a homework question slightly reworded (perhaps from memory) by a student with imperfect English writing/speech skills, a suspicion reinforced by a related question having been asked very recently on this RefDesk. Still, no great matter. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.95 (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the scope of the question, the answer would be, all of them. As to how, it depends on the city and the industry. Mingmingla (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

is it true you have to pay taxes on things of value you 'win' by chance? (autos etc)

I heard that if someone of modest means wins something very expensive by chance, they usually can't keep it: they owe a huge amount of taxes on it (on a very expensive car for example) just for having received it! But of course they don't have that much cash, so they have to sell it to pay for it...

.... Well, now my question is: if that's the way the tax law works: what if you 'win' or suddenly receive (from the Gods, in this case) a huge IDEA demonstrably worth millions. Wouldn't you, technically, be on the hook for whatever the idea was worth? If not, what's the difference between the idea and the car? (the word "demonstrably" is pretty important in the first sentence of this paragraph: please assume it is true for the purposes of this question). Thank you.

Please note that I'm interested more from a philosophical than practical standpoint ("Philosophy of Tax Law", now there's an interest that will get people talking to you at parties! I guess there's always brainybabe...) --188.28.141.244 (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the nod, but I have no idea, and certainly no references to hand! BrainyBabe (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you do, generally, pay considerable taxes on the idea in the sense of anything you develop or produce based on it, which changes hands at some point for compensation, will attract taxes. However, ideas are similar to skills and talents: there is no tax on a new song, just on what revenues are earned by the song; there is no tax on a sculpture (though there may be on the material from which it is sculpted) until its ownership is transferred. In order to be involved in a game of chance, like a lottery, you have to have bought a ticket, placed and ante, and what you win, if anything, is "income" from that transfer of ownership, so it may be (in Canada, it is not) taxable at the time of the transfer. There will be other views, no doubt. Bielle (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It just depends on what country you're in. IN the UK you don't pay tax on lottery wins. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The idea is not actually value until you make it into value — you have to actually prove the idea has value, and the way to do that is to... turn it into something valuable. The car is value unless you, say, drive it over a cliff. Ideas by themselves are not valuable unless they act on the material world in some way. It's the acting on the material world that matters to the tax man. There are exceptions to this. One of my favorites is a friend who claimed a few million dollars worth of intellectual property as part of his "contribution" when starting a new company. Donors and investors "validated" the contribution as valuable when they bought into the company. The company puttered out and failed, eventually. The result was that the friend in question was able to claim he lost millions of dollars from the company (all in intellectual property), and was given a massive tax write-off as a result (which apparently he can cash in whenever he wants — it doesn't expire). I thought that was a pretty bizarre situation with regards to the value of ideas! --Mr.98 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That would probably depend on the country you are in. If you trade in property (for example) in UK and the investment was in a property company, the loss would only be offsettable against profits from property. Not necessarily true in other countries. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Even more fun is that the people giving out the prize might inflate the value to make the prize look better, which would probably mean you get to pay more taxes when you win it. Googlemeister (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely any sane taxing authority would base tax demands in such cases on legal accounting records (in the case of monetary transfers) or on independent assessments of market value (in the case of a material prize), rather than on hearsay and publicity hype? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.95 (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The IRS bases it on what is known as Fair Market Value, which may have nothing to do with what it was purchased for. It gets complicated. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You can think of it another way... Assume you have Bill Gates and Steve Jobs sitting at dinner and they want to avoid a hell of a lot of taxes. So, each one starts a new competition: They will pay the next person who says "Hi" to them a billion dollars! They say "Hi" to each other and give each other a prize of a billion dollars. It was a prize, so they don't owe taxes on it. Further, because they obviously are doing this as a charity of some sort - they deduct the billion dollars from their own income taxes. Sounds just as fair as letting some poor schmuck avoid paying taxes on a car because Oprah gave it to him, doesn't it? -- kainaw™ 19:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, in the UK, HMRC is wise to any such tricks by the British equivalent of Bill and Steve, and any such "prizes" would not be charitable and would be taxed as income. Lottery wins are not taxed here because, in total, the value of the win has already been taxed when the tickets were bought from taxed income. Similarly, modest gifts that the giver bought from taxed income are not taxed again. Dbfirs 20:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In Australia, in principle "windfall gians" (examples range from gambling winnings to literally a bag of money dropping out of a tree as you walk past) are not taxable for income tax. The idea is that because it is not the "fruit" of your labours it is not something which under the "philosophy" of the income tax regime is not taxable. However, in reality, it often becomes a matter of dispute between the authorities and the taxpayer whether the income was "windfall" or not. If the whole thing was designed to be some sort of tax avoidance scheme, it would fall foul of tax laws (Part IVA). Or if a person makes his living from gambling, then arguably it's an actual occupation or business rather than mere gamling. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This is something most countries deal with in some form anyway even if not with lotteries. For example even in countries with a gift tax, the gift tax which is usually due on the person making the gift not the receiver and may be less then income tax. And the person receiving any genuine gifts doesn't usually have to report it as income (e.g. for the US [22]). This doesn't mean an employer can make 'gifts' to their employees (paying any relevant gift tax) and no one has to pay income tax. I don't know if the rate difference applies in the US but of course since the gift tax is due on the payer not the payee another alternative is for person in a country without a gift tax (like New Zealand is soon going to be) to make the 'gifts'. No this doesn't work even in the US, our article says as much. Note that the primary reason for a gift tax of this sort is to stop people getting around the estate tax not to stop people getting around the income tax. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

RMS Titanic

How did the Titanic disaster affect the White Star Lines finances. Were they insured against the ship sinking. If so would the insurance be void because the ship was being commandeered recklessly. Also did the White Star Line have to compensate the victims of those who died in the disaster. --Thanks, Hadseys 17:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It was insured (as was standard for ships) by a consortium of insurers; see here for details. The insurance payout does not seem to have been challenged and was paid to White Star in full. Shimgray | talk | 18:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The insurance issue was the basis for the Ship that Never Sank conspiracy theory. --JGGardiner (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

One of your cousins? In effect, the author accuses the White Star Line of committing mass murder in trade for insurance money. It's typically safe to write potentially libelous stuff when the principles are long dead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That's principals, doc. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, principles works pretty well there too. {The poster formerly kown as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.95 (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Among those principals were a number of prominent and wealthy businessmen, and even some White Star executives. So if they were murderous, at least they were willing to take down some of their own. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I was quite surprised to discover that that page doesn't actually discuss the critical issue of whether the ship was actually insured! You'd think it would be a key point of the thesis... Shimgray | talk | 20:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This 1912 report says: "Exciting scenes were witnessed at Lloyds underwriting rooms yesterday. Insurance losses in the last six months have been unparalleled in the history of Lloyds in liners of the biggest class. Since the Olympic collision, both the Delhi and Oceana have been wrecked, and now comes the disaster to the Titanic."

This page about Lloyd's says "losses (were) paid of $3,019,400 after the Lutine Bell rang over the rostrum announcing the Titanic disaster" I've actually seen the entry in the Lloyd's of London loss ledger (they still employ a chap with a quill to write down the losses in large copperplate script). [Here's a photo of it]. No responsible shipowner would send a ship to sea without insurance. Alansplodge (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

$3M doesn't seem like that much, what did the thing cost to build? Googlemeister (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Googlemaster, you are remembering that that was a good chunk of money in those days and that it only doesn't seem like much today because of monetary inflation, right? :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

[23] and [24] say it was $7.5 million. Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not unusual for insurance of large risks to be shared - known as co-insurance. Lloyd's share of the payout was $3m (actually Lloyd's itself doesn't insure anything - the $3m would have been shared between a number of syndicates of investors each represented by an underwriter); other insurers almost certainly participated.

When a ship needed insurance, the owner would contact a firm of Lloyd's brokers. They would prepare a document called a "slip" which had all the salient details on it. The broker would go around the various underwriters at Lloyd's and might get each one to sign-up to ("underwrite") 5 or 10% of the risk. If he couldn't get enough cover at Lloyds, he'd walk out of the building and across the road to the Institute of London Underwriters (now called the International Underwriting Association) where all the major marine insurance companies had an office, each with a team of underwriters in it. Also, some of the liabilty would probably hve been retained by the owners in a Protection and indemnity club. In my days working in the London insurance market I once saw a slip for the insurance of an oil refinery; it was co-insured by more than twenty insurers and each insurer was reinsured by at least twenty reinsurers. In this way, major losses are spread around the market and indeed the whole world. I believe that all this is done electronically now. Alansplodge (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it true that, with the big heartedness of robber barons allied with government, the passengers or their heirs were only awarded the funds gained from the sale of the lifeboats, and the crews' pay was stopped the minute the boat sank? Thus no insurance payout to passengers or crew. Edison (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No. The White Star line has agreed to pay $664,000 in settlement of all claims arising for the sinking of the Titanic. It is correct that the crew's pay stopped the moment that their ship sank; this practice continued into WWII when merchant seamen sometimes had to endure weeks in a life boat without even getting paid for it[25]. I believe that it was changed during the war after a public outcry. Alansplodge (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

From which painting is this?

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/126/64797593.jpg

Assuming it's no amateur work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raskolkhan (talk • contribs) 22:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's The Bohemian by William-Adolphe Bouguereau. Gabbe (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

June 23

Late 80s fantasy novel depicting a eunuch's erection

I'm looking for a book of the fantasy genre that was published in the late 80s. There is a scene where a giant - perhaps the guardian of a palace - who is also a eunuch is given an erection by the protagonist through some kind of spell. The other detail I have is that the novel, at the beginning, is set in our contemporary world, where the protagonist lives and is from. The cover features the young man with a sword.

Any help finding the title and author of this fantasy novel would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippe Laurichesse (talk • contribs) 04:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Google Books finds this snippet: The Nebula awards: Issue 24. Michael Bishop, Science Fiction Writers of America - 1990 - 302 pages. "She can stiffen eunuchs, homosexuals, men with knives at their jugulars. Lifting her robe, she lowers herself onto Ham's erection, enjoying his pleasureless passion, reveling in her impalement. A few minutes of graceful undulation, ..." There's also Eunuchs in popular culture. 2.97.218.142 (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that Michael Bishop was the Editor of the 1990-published anthology Nebula Awards 24 (as well as volumes 23 and 25), so the actual story containing that passage was (almost certainly) written by someone else. Regrettably, I don't have the volume so can't say who. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.136 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to look in the book to narrow it down. According to Google books, the phrase "she can stiffen eunuchs", which I assume is pretty unique, appears in the Nebula Awards vol 24 (p 52), Bible Stories for Adults (p 13), and Full Spectrum. Bible Stories for Adults is a collection entirely by James Morrow, so the story in question must be Bible Stories For Adults, No 17: The Deluge, which is the only James Morrow story in the Nebula collection.

However, this may not actually be the story sought by the OP. The era is right (late 80s) and the subject is right, but the story seems to be about Noah's Ark and the Flood, and I'm not sure how that fits with the other story details provided by the OP. gnfnrf (talk) 18:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I should mention further, when I was faced with identifying a science fiction story and the Reference Desk couldn't help, someone referred me to the newsgroup rec.arts.sf.written (accessible through google groups), where they make a game of identifying stories based on the flimsiest of recollections. However, I am not sure if they do fantasy, so you might want to ask first. gnfnrf (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Within the active SF & Fantasy fan community, the large majority read both SF and Fantasy (and SF is taken to be short for SF&F in some contexts), and not a few authors write both, so a question about a story likely to be fantasy would, I'm fairly sure, not be unwelcome there.

Nice sleuthing, Gnfnrf, by the way. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.36 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I know genre fiction gets lumped together all the time, but people on the internet can be very picky, so I wanted to give fair warning. gnfnrf (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Slattery Report on Alaska

Hi, does anyone know where I could read the Slattery Report online? Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 10:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

yellow fleet compensation

Were the owners of the ships of the Yellow Fleet (which did not contain any Yellow Submarines) ever compensated for the imprisonment of their ships? Googlemeister (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The USA and Egypt agreed compensation for SS African Glen in 1976[26]. Egypt agreed to pay US$ 10,000,000 to cover various claims for damages suffered by US nationals from 1967-70. A less reputable source says compensation of 1.4 million GBP was paid for damage to Port Invercargill, one of the British ships affected[27]. A search of newspaper archives may throw up information on the other ships involved. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Marriage After Rejected Annulment

My Catholic father has been divorced two times, with an annulment after the first but not the second. His annulment attempts for his second marriage were rejected twice. He recently got married for a third time by a local Catholic priest. He was privately and discreetly married in a Catholic church, and received the sacrament of marriage. It never has made any sense to me how this was possible, as it doesn't seem like a single priest should be able make a decision above the rest of the church, but it seems like this was done. Does anybody have any information about whether or not the Catholic Church really allows this type of thing? Thanks. 72.159.91.131 (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman had a very high-profile second wedding, in a Catholic ceremony (in a chapel named after a cardinal, no less). I've never seen anything about any church annulment of her first marriage, to Tom Cruise. They simply obtained a civil divorce. According to standard church teaching, they would still be considered married to each other to this day, and Keith Urban would have no standing at all. But apparently the rules were bent. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 13:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

She didn't actually need a formal annulment (Declaration of Nullity) since she was previously married in the Church of Scientology so it was obvious her marriage was never valid under the Catholic faith [28] [29] [30] [31]. The general idea is described at Annulment (Catholic Church)#Lack of Canonical Form. Nil Einne (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It happens sometimes that individual priests do things the Church hierarchy would not approve of. There are certainly cases of Catholic priests blessing same-sex unions, for example. If they get caught, they can lose their job as a pastor, but they don't always get caught, and some bishops are willing to turn a blind eye to it as long as it remains discreet. Pais (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe a Catholic priest can lose his job as a Pastor.Wikiweek (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a case of a priest "being removed from a leadership position", which I guess isn't the same thing as being fired as a pastor. But the point is they can be removed from positions where they might "do damage". Pais (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've always assumed Pastor was more of a job title than Priest, which is more about who the person is (Catholicism teaches that being ordained as a priest leaves an indelible mark on the soul, just as Baptism does, and so cannot be reversed). However, being a Pastor, which I'm taking as more of the job of being a parish priest surely we should have a more specific page for this to redirect to?, is certainly something that a Catholic priest can lose. They can be removed, as Pais says, from positions where they might "do damage", which can mean taking away any pastoral role from them. This is not the same as them stopping being a priest. 86.164.66.52 (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I meant that if someone is a 'pastor' you are not a Catholic Priest, but one of another Christian denomination. See more. Wikiweek (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Pastor: "Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches typically refer to their local church leaders as "parish priests". The term pastor may be used, in a more casual way, particularly in North America." Rmhermen (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Further, one can see it used in the Code of Canon Law, in the links I gave below, to mean the person (ordained person) with pastoral responsibility (if I've understood correctly), which is not always the parish priest. I do not think that can be taken as casual use. 86.164.66.52 (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, in my comment above, I intended "pastor" as a synonym for "parish priest". Pais (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As distinct from the stuff pizzas and macaroni are made from.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

OP here, thanks for the input so far. Just to clarify, the second marriage (that was not annulled) was through the Catholic Church. I guess my primary question is: Although this new 'marriage' was by a Catholic priest, would the Catholic Church as a whole recognize recognize it if the previous one was not annulled? 72.159.91.131 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Logic (and canon law) says NO. If your father's second marriage was a Catholic marriage/ceremony and it wasn't officially annulled later then your father's third marriage is unlawful in the eyes of the church (as a whole). Please notice that we are not lawyers but only amateurs. If you truly want to be sure ask the priest who made the third marriage. Flamarande (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

"Can. 1066 Before a marriage is celebrated, it must be evident that nothing stands in the way of its valid and licit celebration." [32]

We have to be clear that there is a difference between valid and licit (unlawful usually means illicit rather than invalid). This is important as a sacrament can be administered illicitly (against the Canon Law) and still be valid, although it would constitute a sin on the part of those who knowingly partook. However, if there is no annulment for the second marriage, the Church considers that marriage valid and hence it is simply not possible for him to remarry. The third marriage could perhaps be called 'invalid' here, or even a nonsense: it simply cannot exist from a Catholic perspective, because he is already married.

"Can. 1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.

"§2. Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for any reason, it is not on that account permitted to contract another before the nullity or dissolution of the prior marriage is established legitimately and certainly." [33]

But these things can be deceptively complicated: I agree with Flamarande that you should talk to the priest. It might well be that this ceremony wasn't an attempt at actual, valid, sacramental, Catholic marriage, but was simply a blessing ceremony of some sort (which would also be illicit). Or the parties may have lied to the priest, and he didn't investigate properly: "Can. 1069 All the faithful are obliged to reveal any impediments they know about to the pastor or local ordinary before the celebration of the marriage.", in which case (see Can.1085) he has invalidly attempted marriage. Or it might be that something else has happened that you didn't hear about. 86.164.66.52 (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

American attitude towards Japanese during WW2

I recall reading in a Wikipedia article that, towards the end of WW2, something like ten percent of Americans were in favor of the complete eradication of the Japanese people. I haven't been able to find the article, however. Can anyone provide a source? Or am I mistaken about my claim? 74.15.136.219 (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you're right, it's in Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Depiction, public response and censorship; "A 1944 opinion poll that asked what should be done with Japan found that 13% of the U.S. public were in favor of the extermination of all Japanese: men, women, and children." There are two references, but I can't see either of them online. Alansplodge (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! 74.15.136.219 (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Or a megaton. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

They were an enemy who attacked us. Since the war, they have come to be considered an ally. You wouldn't likely find poll numbers like that in American nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that 13% is a good measure of the percentage of idiots in the US. If asked right after 9-11, probably around that percent would have wanted to "nuke all the Arabs". StuRat (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No doubt in the name of the Christian values the country holds so dear. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most likely the Fundamentalist Christians... Dubious Status ^{How's it going?} 16:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a statistic for the percentage of people who lie or give deliberately stupid/wrong answers in public surveys? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be very interesting to see...Dubious Status ^{How's it going?} 16:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A general trend I have found is that in a sufficiently large population, you can find around 10% (+/- 5%) of people who agree to just about anything. I wouldn't be surprised if 10% of Americans currently thought that preemptively nuking Iran would be a good idea, or nuking Afghanistan as a way to "withdraw" would be fine.

Anyway, 14% strikes me as rather low given the sentiment of the times in 1944, when knowledge of Japanese atrocities was common and the basic message being broadcast to the American people was that the Japanese were irretrievably locked into a death cult (the term "brainwashing" had not been coined yet, but if it had, it would certainly have been applied). (And, of course, the blatant racism. It makes it a lot easy to say "kill them all" when they don't look like you, one of the few apparently universal human trends. Of course, the Japanese did look like some Americans — but the other Americans had already put those Americans into internment camps. So it goes.) Note that the news about the Bataan Death March had been broken in America for the first time in early 1944. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Shinto sea gods Ryūjin/Watasumi

Reading the articles regarding shinto sea gods, it's not clear to me whether there's one or three of them. Urashima Taro's tale and Otohime's legend talk about one dragon god who lives in a palace in the Ocean. My confusion comes here: does the god have different denominations or are Ryūjin and Watasumi referring to the same deity?. --Gunt50 (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey map font - Ye Olde writing

Why is the writing on Ordnance Survey maps occasionally in some old-fashioned-looking font? --129.215.47.59 (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ancient human buildings, stones, and other sites - for example see at the OS map for Stonehenge. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Technically the Gothic script means "Antiquity, non-Roman". Roman remains have Latin capitals. See OS Landranger® (1:50 000 scale) Map symbols (page 2). Alansplodge (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

June 24

Nature of ownership and consent

Not a real question
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A restaurant owner has a right to admit only customers who consent to having their private parts groped by any stranger who sneaks up behind them. A restaurant owner has a right to admit only customers who consent to having their wallets stolen by strangers while they are there. I agree with both of the propositions above. THEREFORE if I am admitted to an ordinary restaurant whose owner has not elicited such consent from me in advance, and one stranger reaches into my pants to grope me, and another into my pocket and absconds with my wallet, I must not complain, but rather inquire about the owner's policy. He may retroactively set such a policy, and my presence is my consent. So I am told frequently. If I disagree with that conclusion, I am a socialist who opposes property rights, a nut-case, a crazy person, a person with no credibility. Oh. I forgot. This doesn't apply to groping or stealing. It applies only to ONE activity. But that doesn't mean practitioners of that one activity are being accorded any special privileges. I would abandon all my credibility if I said that. Why do so many people agree with the conclusion following "THEREFORE" above, including the next two paragraphs (at least when it applies to that one activity)? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC) If this "doesn't apply to groping or stealing" then what is the actual activity you are referring to? Bus stop (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Don't anybody tell Michael Hardy about the social contract now! He'll rave on all night about how he could possibly have signed anything in the womb. --188.29.15.168 (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Michael Hardy: If you have a question about smoking in restaurants, you should just ask the question. Disguising the question by false analogy only makes it hard to answer your question. --Jayron32 01:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Oh, is that what the OP's nebulous question is about? Well, here's the thing: Smoking in restaurants would be just fine, IF there was some way to keep the smoke confined to the physical space occupied by the smoker. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Smoking is sometimes banned on the grounds that it's an occupational hazard for the employees. An establishment where patrons could show up and freely grope employees would undoubtedly attract the attention of local officials. APL (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Mister Hardy could be complaining about any number of things, however. For example : People who text, phone, or shout in movie theaters are often surprised that many theaters ban those activities and will throw you out without refund. However, in other theaters making noise in encouraged, and many people are surprised to learn that people aren't being thrown out. Both types of theaters are common, but tend to exist in different types of neighborhoods. APL (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Good point, he might be talking about cellphones. It's not dissimilar to the smoking thing, in that you have to give up some "rights" to balance the rights of others not to be subjected to that stuff. The cellphone issue could also include the problem of camera phones being used to steal images from the film, but that's another story. Now, if it's purely the annoyance factor, the cellphone user could switch it to "vibrate" and then he wouldn't be bothering anyone. Oh, but the whole point of having it ring is so that everyone in the theater will think that you're a big-shot. Although you'd think they'd be over that by now, since most everyone has one now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC) As a bystander, I'll note that both of Michael Hardy's propositions above are probably incorrect, especially the second one, in most or all places in the US. Law overrides contracts. It's illegal to steal a wallet. A restaurant that does what Michael Hardy mentions above is aiding and abetting whatever theft laws exist in that particular state, which is illegal. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC) But ... if the 'victim' goes into it willingly, doesn't it become a skill-based game? A sort of pick-pocketing club with wagers? I would totally join a pick-pocketing club. (Probably not a groping club, but that would depend on who the other members were.) APL (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC) I'm sure some people don't understand what I'm talking about. Yeah. Right. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Maybe you could lower yourself to actually telling us peons what you're talking about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC) "Excuse me, I ordered a Zima, not an emphysema." Adam Bishop (talk) 07:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC) You're probably talking about smoking. That makes sense if you're from one of the states or nations that still allow it in businesses. But, you could be talking about a number of other things. Especially since I've never in my life been to or heard about an establishment that makes up smoking rules on the fly. I find it difficult to even remember that some states still allow smoking in restaurants. It always comes as a surprise when I'm traveling, and it honestly was not the first thing that came to mind when I read your post. The theater example was. Primarily because it fits your goofy metaphor better. (Even though I now see that smoking is more likely.) However, why should we try to guess what you're on about? Especially since you just seem to be soapboxing and/or trolling and/or otherwise wasting our time and not asking a ref-desk question at all? In short: Your parable is poorly constructed and it doesn't belong here anyway. APL (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC) About consenting to have your wallet stolen - you can consent to any number of infringement of your property rights. If the wallet is yours (and doesn't contain, for example, something you are keeping safe for someone else), then it is open for you to invite or consent to someone "stealing" it, because then it is no longer "stealing". About getting groped - in most jurisdictions there is a limit to how far you can consent to have what would otherwise be a crime against your person. In Australia, the limit is "grievous bodily harm", so you can consent to being punched lightly but you can't consent to being repeatedly stabbed in the chest with a big knife. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC) That's a good point. Right at this moment I probably couldn't consent to having my wallet stolen because it contains things that aren't strictly mine to give away. I'm sure there are laws against giving away official forms of ID like drivers licenses and library cards, and I've got a number of other cards that say "non-transferable" on them. APL (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC) To answer your metaphor with a metaphor: Boxers (the pugilists, not the dogs) consent to being punched when standing in a boxing ring. If a journalist interviewing a boxer inside a boxing ring decided to punch him in the mush, the journo could expect to find themselves losing a legal case some time. (If the boxer hasn't actually killed them in retaliation). Someone agreeing to a in circumstances y does not make them a hypocrite for denying them in circumstances z. However, not all jurisdictions recognise this argument in all aspects of their law. If you'd like a straighter answer, you'll need to ask a straighter question, because I cannot understand what you're driving at. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Michael, by your statements you should be "a socialist who opposes property rights, a nut-case, a crazy person, a person with no credibility" if that is your condition for disbelieving that a restaurant owner may not retroactively set such absurd policies. To assume that many people agree with your laboured strawman rhetoric does not make it so. A cursory look at your Talk page convinces me that you are capable of finding for yourself references about "Nature of ownership and consent" if you genuinely want them, without trolling this ref. desk. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC) "Light Current" usually asks better questions than the one posed by the OP here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC) This is what happens when a Mathematician strolls into the Humanities. Read some Bertrand Russell essays. --188.28.47.94 (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

US Presidents and Illegal Drugs

Bill Clinton claimed he didn't inhale the marijuana smoke; Barack Obama said he tried cocaine; and it's believed by many that George W. Bush was a cocaine abuser whilst an alcoholic, though the latter is all speculation (as far as I know).

Have any other US presidents used drugs that were illegal (at the time, if that's necessary to specify)? Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Many of these drug prohibitions are relatively recent. In the cocaine article it says that coke wasn't a controlled substance until 1970! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That's misleading. Recreational, non-prescription use and sale of cocaine was outlawed in 1914. APL (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Alcohol use was pretty common during prohibition, especially among the wealthy. I'll bet many presidents and people who would later become presidents used it.

(In fact there's the Legend that illegal booze importing was what catapulted the Kennedy Family from very rich to extremely rich. Who knows how true it is. ) APL (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what I always heard too, that Joe Kennedy was a "rum-runner". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. article, there was a kernel of truth to the story, but it's significantly off-target from the reality. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's widely rumored that Warren G. Harding kept bootleg liquor in the White House (unsourced claims [34][35]); Harding also had links to bootleggers such as New Jersey crime boss and Republican politician Nucky Johnson, who sold liquor in Atlantic City during prohibition[36]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The analogy to the Prohibition era is a bit off. Consuming liquor was not illegal during Prohibition... what was illegal was the purchase, sale and transportation of liquor. This contrasts with more recent drug laws where both the purchase/sale and the use is proscribed. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Manufacturing was also prohibited, by the Volstead Act, with certain built-in exceptions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So, you couldn't generally buy it, sell it, or make it. What could you do? Could you give it as a present if you happened to have some stored up? Could you drink from your own store of liquor? Could you serve it to dinner guests? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

(On Bush's various substances, see George W. Bush substance abuse controversy.) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably the most doped-up President in recent memory was John F. Kennedy, who was on a slew of painkillers, amphetamines, and god-knows-what-else for many of the most stressful periods of his presidency.[37] However they were all administered through a physician, related to his considerable back pain, though whether the dosages and so forth would pass critical scrutiny, I don't know. (I still find it very disturbing that the Cuban Missile Crisis was being hashed out by a guy on the functional equivalent of speedballs!) --Mr.98 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Why should that worry you? The pilots that drop the bombs today are still flying on "speed"[38][39] (unless the practice has changed since 2003 in Afghanistan). Rmhermen (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A single pilot (or five) on speed poses little danger to an entire country. (Even those who have nukes — and I'm not sure there are any live nukes being purposefully flown around these days — have a lot of barriers between them using them, and nuclear weaponeers have probably the closest scrutinized medical records of any humans on earth. For example, if you work on a nuclear missile base, and your doctor prescribes you codeine, you enter into a status where you are not allowed to come within a certain number of feet of actual nuclear weapons until your doctor says you're out of them. Nuclear weaponeers get no doctor/patient confidentiality.) It's not quite comparable to a drugged out President trying to negotiate perhaps the closest call in human history. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Judgment in the Wilders case

Is the text of the judgement in the Geert Wilders criminal case available online? Apokrif (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Cooking / culture question

Food is a humanity so this is the correct desk, right? Driving around yesterday, I noticed a sign for a typical "cooked food" shop where the most prominent word was "Donair" and lower down was "Jerusalem Food". This sparked a conversation and I checked a few of our articles. Donair is a popular Canadian variant of a Middle East(ish) dish. Looking at our (not-so-great) article on doner kebab, I don't see Israel (or Palestine or Galilee or whatever, don't wanna go there!) mentioned. So question 1 is, is there a connection, or is this a place that mainly sells donairs because people buy them, but also makes other food that you could presumably buy in Jerusalem? And question 2, the one that has me more curious: is the "Jerusalem" meant in a Jewish or Muslim/Christian sense? Specifically, donairs/doners use a dairy-based sauce on a meat dish. I'm not clear after reading about kosher cooking, if a rabbi had inspected this little shop, then would it be OK for an Orthodox Jewish person to buy and eat that food? But they wouldn't be allowed to cook the same thing at home? My own hazy understanding of kosher was that never the twain shall meet, so I'd appreciate some education here. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're keeping kosher, you don't mix milk with meat. Hence you don't have cheeseburgers, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what dairy-based sauce you're talking about and whether it could be essential to doner kebab in any place. At least our article makes it clear that doner kebab varies a lot depending on where you eat it. I tend to avoid it in England, but I do know that it isn't usually offered with any dairy-based sauce. I sometimes eat it in France (where it is made with pieces of meat rather than with minced meat), and you get a choice of sauces, none of which are dairy (ketchup, mayo, chilli sauce, or "white sauce" that has garlic in). Belgium is similar to France. So the straightforward answer is that Jewish people who keep kosher can fill up on the meat, the bread, the salad, the chips, and a non-dairy sauce. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Middle-Eastern version of doner, usually called shawarma, does not have a dairy sauce, so it could be made to be kosher, if all the other ingredients are chosen properly. The Turkish döner sometimes has a yogurt sauce (there are countless variations on the basic concept). A lot of "Israeli" cuisine is actually Middle Eastern cuisine, which has caused Palestinians to complain about Israelis "stealing their food". The interesting thing about the "Jerusalem Food" label is that the place could be either Israeli or Palestinian, would serve very similar food in either case, and the main difference would be the origin of the owner. --Xuxl (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Israeli cuisine is a fusion, or maybe mishmash, of several Jewish and several middle-Eastern cooking styles, so doner kebab would be a likely food. Many Israelis don't keep kosher, so kebab with dairy would be fine. My experience (in California) is like Judith's — kebab is not usually served with dairy, and so could be kosher if all the other rules were followed. Note, though, that dairy and kosher kebab could not be served from the same kitchen: the dairy contaminates everything it touches. My guess is that "Jerusalem" on the sign just suggested Israeli cuisine. Either that or they were serving topinambours. PhGustaf (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Besides the tzatziki sauce (based on yogurt) used in gyros, Iskender kebab mentions the use of melted butter to prepare the pita which would be "un-kosher". Rmhermen (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Where were you driving around? If you see a "Jerusalem Kebab" or "Jerusalem Falafel" restaurant somewhere in the West, 'Jerusalem' likely refers to Jerusalem as a Palestinian city and that the owners would be Palestinians (perhaps having stayed in Jerusalem prior to the foundation of the state of Israel). The statistical likelyhood that Christian/Muslim Arab immigrants run fastfood restaurants is way higher than that the restaurant would be run by Israeli Jews (I've seen "Israeli" fastfood places, with Israeli flags, in NYC, but I think that would be one of very few such locations outside Israel itself). I think there are multiples issues here: one is the centrality of the claim of Jerusalem in Palestinian nationalist discourse, but also that it is a name that has largely positive references in Western public perception that has positive connotations (together with say Bethlehem and Nazareth). If you are a Palestinian entrepreneur wanting to start a fastfood restaurant in Europe or N. America, names like 'Qalqiliya', 'Gaza', 'Khan Yunis' and 'Ramallah' will not really do it. 'Jerusalem' enables the owner to assert his/her Palestinian identity without scaring away subconsciously Islamophobic customers. There are similar phenomena amongst other nationalities. Many restauranteurs of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin will avoid giving overtly Muslim names to their restaurants ('Taj Mahal', whilst being a 'Muslim' name is however not identified as such), the food is labelled 'Indian Food' (inspite that 'Indian Food' as understood in the West actually corresponds to Muslim/Mughal food and is just as Pakistani as Indian), often Hindu references are used in naming and decorations (in spite of that being 100% haram for Muslims) etc.. --Soman (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that Jerusalem isn't just a Jewish city, it has a large Muslim population, and a fair amount of Christians, too. StuRat (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Bangladeshi american enclaves

Which part of New York City does a lot of Bangladeshi-Americans live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.18.67 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Jackson Heights, Queens---Lazer Stein(talk) 22:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

June 25

list of countries which face economical crisis.

I wanted to know the list of countries through out the world which have faced the economical crisis till date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.160.212 (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be pretty much all of them (especially during the Great Depression)? I think you need to refine your search criteria a bit. StuRat (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

How to wear a dhoti/lungi

Hi, is there anyone who can advise me on the proper way of wearing a dhoti/lungi (of this variety) without it falling down at inopportune moments? :) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a dhoti, not a lungi. The tying styles vary by region/socio-ethnic community but all of them hold well. Check Video on YouTube for the Kerala style. You always have the option of using a belt over the veshti/dhoti, or even keeping it in place with the help of safety pins. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Low inflation the cause of our problems?

Would the various world economic problems of recent years and currently have been so bad if there was a thicker cushion of inflation? I'm wondering if trying to hold inflation a knife-edge away from deflation is, in the light of recent experience, a mistaken idea. I've heard the arguement that those who live off capital will suffer due to inflation, but the numbers of these must be tiny compared with the millions with mortgages and businesses with growth/investment borrowing, assuming wage increases roughly match inflation (which they are not doing at the moment at least in the UK). 92.28.251.178 (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)