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

January 27

Curse of Timur

As our article, various books and websites state, apparently there is some kind of curse linked to the opening of the tomb of Timur. The exact description differs somewhat between sources but generally contains these elements:

1. The tomb contains an inscription warning whoever disturbs Timur for great suffering. In some versions it isn't an inscription but something Timur said close before his death.
2. Mikhail Gerasimov opened the tomb on either 19, 21 or 22 June 1941 and -according to the curse- caused the Great Patriotic War.
3. The reburial coincided with Operation Nordlicht/the Sinyavin Offensive.

I want to add something about the curse to the Dutch article on Timur, but I'm having trouble verifying most of it. The most important ones are the date, three possibilities are mentioned.. and the text of the inscription, is there even an inscription or was it lost/did it never exist? - Berkoet (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No. 2 is absurd. The German army was planning and moving into position to invade long before that date. You can't launch a major offensive with millions of men at the drop of a hat (or opening of a tomb). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course a causality between the two is absurd, but apparently by some weird coincidence the two events actually are only a few days apart. - Berkoet (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There was always going to be something connected with it. Pick a random date: 15th June 1978, say, and you find within a week there's an earthquake killing 45 in Greece, and IRA shootout in N. Ireland, and Tito, one of the world's not-the-nicest people, becomes President for Life. Of course, that is ignoring the fact that he was probably more likely to do that because there was a war on, or that both the war and the opening were caused by an increase in technology. Either way, you could make a curse up like that about anything - they do work well at keeping people away.

Well, anyway, I'm afraid to say the exact curseis unlikely to ever be certain, alothough I think the reason you're having trouble finding the exact date was a) that it wasn't well recorded and b) there wasn't an exact date. They seem to have been working through the succession of kings over a fairly long period of time. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re the inscription, yes, there are two. I suspect the best sources are in Russian. But anyway, here's a start: this pdf, page 79 refers to the inscriptions on the tomb without actually saying what they are (annoying!), but describing them generally as a semi-mythical geneology and a religious text. The original source (with, I'd hope, the full text of the inscriptions) seems to be a paper by AA Semenov (Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Semenov), called "Inscriptions on the tombs of Timur and of his descendants in the Gur-e Amir" in the journal Epigrafika Vostoka Volume II page 49 (no year given). You might ask at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request page if someone can find that Semenov paper. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your answers, I'll be sure to ask on the WikiProject Resource Exchange (I didn't even know it existed until now). - Berkoet (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Senate under the French Third Republic

What was the means of election or appointment to the Senate under the French Third Republic? Was it the same throughout the period, or did it change at some point to give the public more of a voice, as happened in the U.S. under the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution? As far as I can tell, neither our article Senate of France nor French Third Republic contain this information, nor does either lead in any obvious way to an article that would. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you want the text of the French Constitutional Laws of 1875, which unfortunately is not linked from our article. Algebraist 00:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure suggests a lot of work that could be done in Wikipedia in that area, huh? Our topic-specific article isn't linked from either of what seemed to me to be the likely starting places, and it doesn't contain this reasonably substantive piece of information. - Jmabel | Talk 01:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a good French-language article, if someone feels like taking on a translation. I'll read that & find out what I need, but I'm backlogged for translation tasks. - Jmabel | Talk 01:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The document providing for the selection of senators was the "Loi du 24 février 1875", the first document on this page containing the constitutional laws of 1875. My French is not strong enough for me to translate the legalistic French of this document reliably, but it certainly spells out the method for selecting senators. Perhaps someone with stronger French can review it and answer your question. This law provided the constitutional basis for the Senate throughout the Third Republic. (The Senate did not exist before 1875.) Since France was a unitary republic, with departements and territoires all subject to the jurisdiction of the central government, the departementes, colonies, and territoires would have been unable to provide for more popular input into the selection of senators, as U.S. states were able to do within the federal structure of the United States. This suggests that the method for selecting senators didn't change during the Third Republic, though I'm not an expert and can't offer assurances. Marco polo (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are the main points of the law linked above:

• The Senate is comprised of 300 members, 225 elected by the départements and colonies, and 75 elected by the Assemblée nationale (House of Representatives).
• Each département elects between 2 and 5 senators, depending on its population. The Belfort Territory (the part of Alsace not lost to Germany in the War of 1870) and overseas departments and colonies elect one senator each.
• The départemental senators are chosen by an electoral college composed of local elected officals; they are elected from lists for a 9 year term, renewable by a third every three years.
• The Senators elected from the National Assembly are "inamovible" (cannot be removed) except by death or resignation. --Xuxl (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Senate comprises 300 members. The Senate is composed of 300 members. —Tamfang (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

American/British Legal System Question

Hi, first off I tried to read the articles and I did it but I don't know English very well much less the 'legal language', I want to know.

-A jury finds a person guilty or innocent, but do the jury also sentence the defendant? (I mean do the Jury impose the punishment?)

Thanks, I would like to know it in both American and British legal system. --Maru-Spanish (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that in all the various legal systems existing in the USA and in Britain, sentencing at a jury trial is done by the judge, not the jury. Algebraist 00:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

According to our article Criminal sentencing in the United States, "In the United States, a judge sentences a person convicted of a crime." --Thomprod (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Although, the judge can't impose a death sentence (even where allowed by law) without the recommendation of the jury. --Tango (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and also the jury may have a choice of several verdicts, from manslaughter to murder 1, perhaps, with different sentencing ranges available for each. In some jurisdictions, the judge may have very little leeway in sentencing, so the jury will essentially decide the sentence. StuRat (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

But the jury is not permitted to be told the penalties associated with the verdict, and they are supposed to evaluate guilt without regard to penalties which might be imposed. If it comes to light that a jury has researched or considered the sentences, it could be grounds for a mistrial (though it probably happens all the time, it's not supposed to). - Nunh-huh 05:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The jury would have to be idiots to not know that murder 1 carries a more severe penalty than manslaughter. StuRat (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's customary to exclude non-idiots from juries, as far as is practical. —Tamfang (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"In the US justice system, guilt is determined by 12 people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty." StuRat (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not that they don't know, it's that they are instructed not to take the penalty into account. They may follow or disregard that instruction, of course. -Nunh-huh 07:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A jury can include a recommendation for leniency in any guilty verdict. Re: Tango's reply: Fifty states in the US, and each may have different procedures regarding when and how the death penalty may be imposed. With all due respect to Nuhn-huh, a jury knows when it is trying a capital offense (possible death penalty); in fact, one of the questions the prosecutors often ask potential jurors is whether they would be willing to find a defendant guilty, knowing that the death penalty might be assessed. Those who express qualms, or opposition to the death penalty in general, the prosecutor will want to dismiss from the jury. With all due respect to StuRat, the judge still has the final say in most cases (theft, burglary, robbery, etc. etc.), except where there are mandatory sentencing laws (e. g. "Murder 1 with aggravating circumstances: If not death, must get life without parole"). Again, variations from state to state within the US. Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Fifty states in the US, and each may have different procedures regarding when and how the death penalty may be imposed". Many US states don't even have the death penalty; of those that do, only Texas uses it frequently. StuRat (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, there are two separate jury findings - really two separate proceedings with the same jury - in death penalty cases: the first decides guilt, while the second (if the defendent is guilty) makes or does not make the recommendation for the death penalty. Guilt is supposed to be evaluated without regard to penalty.With all due respect. - Nunh-huh 09:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

According to our article on US sentencing, linked to above, the decision that required a jury's recommendation for the death penalty was made by the Supreme Court, so presumably it applies to all states. --Tango (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This might seem like pedantry (Ed: No, really?), but in most jurisdictions the defendant is not found "guilty or innocent", as the OP suggests. The jury or judge can hand down a verdict of guilty or not guilty, the latter taken to mean, not proved guilty under the law of having carried out the crime in question. Finding someone innocent is an entirely different matter. I believe the Scottish legal system has provision for this option. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The Scottish legal system has an additional verdict of not proven. It is no more possible to find some "innocent" in a Scottish court than it is in England and Wales. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. Thanks for the clarification. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Statue of Limitations on Debt

I received a letter from a collection agency saying I owe Bank of America around $9k that my ex husband put on a joint credit card more than 10 years ago (original debt was around $3k). It was never even on my credit report last time I checked. They said they tried to subpoena me, but I was never served and never received any letters from anyone. Now they are saying I have to pay them within 30 days and all that, but isn't there a statue of limitations on debt in California and don't all negative items fall off your credit report after 7 years? I understand it was a joint credit card, but it was my ex husband that used the card and not me.

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/statuteLimitations.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.202.12 (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You need a lawyer's advice. We can't give you any advice here; we're not qualified. - Nunh-huh 05:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with above reply, but would like to add that what is or isn't on your credit report has nothing to do with the statute of limitations on collecting a debt. They're two different things. Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a scam to me, but yes as always the advice is to consult a lawyer. Dmcq (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, it's a statute of limitations, not a statue. "Statute" is basically just another word for "law". --Sean 13:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a minor correction: The Statue of Limitations is an award which has been proposed to honour the humble fallibility of our great political leaders.

Due to obscure circumstances, this plan could not be realised in the last eight years, as the designers repeatedly had to increase the size of the statue to reflect the outstanding limitations of the clear winner of the award. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Homicides by Juveniles

How is a homicide by a juvenile treated in the Judicial system, is the juvenile sent to a juvenile detention center or prison? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.38.88.252 (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

They can be tried as an adult if a court hearing decides that they had the mental capacity of an adult, to understand the act, the wrongness of it, and its consequences. Otherwise, juvenile. This is US-only, and procedures vary among states. Hope you weren't planning on committing one. Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you appear to be in Queensland, try Young people and crime from the Australian Institute of Criminology. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

words of Bush talk with Helen Thomas

Hello, I would like to read the exact words of the press conference which is linked to from the Helen Thomas article where she had a go at Bush. There's only a short citation in the article, and the reference link to the WH goes into nirvana. I'll refrain from speculating as to possible reasons for this. Can you help? --Ayacop (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This [1] seems to be a transcript of the exchange. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Birth of art according to ancient Greek mythology

"The Ancient Greek tradition associates the birth of art with a Corinthian maiden who longing to preserve her lover’s shadow traces it on the wall before he departed for war," according to Hrag Vartanian. Anyone know what Wikipedia article covers this myth? Alientraveller (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

See Butades, which, however, doesn't make the claim that the story explains "the birth of art." Deor (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hindu castes in West Bengal, Tripura and Bangladesh

What are the surnames that identify a Bengali-speaking Hindu a Brahmin, a Kshatriya, a Vaishya and a Shudra? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.165 (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We have rather extensive articles on Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudra, as well as on Varna in general. I am not versed enough in Hindu culture to know or comment on what the relationship between surname and caste is; I suspect that the surnames for each caste are likely to number in the thousands and probably it would be infeasible to list them all here. However, if you read our articles, you may find additional information and/or links to other resources which may help you answer your question. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that the Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaishya/Shudra distinction is varna (a very loose and broad general overall way of classifying castes), while the actual specific groups that govern intermarriage and social status and collective political action are far more numerous than four, and known as jāti? There may not be any very good answer to your questions at the varna level... AnonMoos (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Foreigners campaigning in USA elections: espionage?

I have the impression, especially from The Guardian's Operation County Clark, that foreigners campaigning in elections in the United States of America can be prosecuted for espionage. On the contrary, I have heard several British Labour politicians (who did not seem to have USA citizenship) boasting about campaigning for their Democrat counterparts in the USA. Has anyone ever been so prosecuted? Could there be some clarification please? Cheers. – Kaihsu (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"campaigning"? There's nothing illegal about citizens of foreign countries campaigning for American politicians. They have free speech rights, too. AnyPerson (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There are, however, limitations on financial contributions that are allowed to political parties and candidates by foreigners. Perhaps that's what you heard. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Espionage (aka "spying") involves gathering information. I don't see how campaigning in an election could be considered espionage, regardless of who you are. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Federal Election Campaign Act "prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly." --- OtherDave (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I read (in The Guardian) that Operation Clark County was met with almost universal derision by the local inhabitants, who really did not appreciate foreign interference in their democratic process. Astronaut (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The specific link for that is The Guardian#Since 2000. --Anon, 22:47 UTC, January 28, 2009.

You know, I skimmed the Guardian article for just that info and somehow missed it :-) Astronaut (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the US should be more cautious on this issue and limit intervention by foreign agencies or individuals in elections. There is incident where the Indian espionage agency Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) gave illegal campaign money to several candidates of the Democratic Party. [2] Alouatta palliata palliata (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps they have to register as foreign lobbyists under the Foreign Agents Registration Act? I recall an earlier episode where the American Institute in Taiwan tried to get out of having to register because it was handling a property in Taiwan on behalf of the British government. And can campaigning or endorsement be considered as donations in kind? And nobody has heard of anything that has gone to court? – Kaihsu (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the term "espionage" sometimes has been used in a rather broad, derogatory sense. I remember official information from the Swedish Defence during the cold war. Among the many kinds of "espionage" it enumerated was something perhaps translatable as influence espionage. This consisted inter alia in the spread of selected false or true statements (with no further specification of the kinds of statements), in order to try to influence public opinion.

The official brochures did not state from where these "influence spies" came. On the other hand, in interviews and background articles in the largest newspapers it was made very clear that the main danger was agents from the USSR. The local office in Sweden from the (official) Soviet news agency were named together with the Soviet embassy as the main "spy centrals". I remember that I thought about the irony of the situation; if even the spreading of true news items is construed as espionage, then how could possibly a news agency perform its work without "spying"?

I'm fairly sure that during the cold war, the US restrictions on internationally supported Communist activities also influenced the ability for the organisations or foreign governmental representatives defined as "communists" to support candidates in US election, not only by economic means, but also by "influense". This does not answer the question whether or not the support of political candidates in itself was judged illegal. I'm also not at all sure of to what extent the old cold war legislation is still in force in the US to-day. I strongly suspect that persons acting on behalf of Cuba or North Corea caught supporting certain political candidates in the US would be found guilty of something, but perhaps not of precisely that.

Also, this represents just one side of the coin. You might wish to bear in mind that the Cuban authorities explicitly forbid their citizens to accept money from foreign government agencies for the purpose of influencing the Cuban people politically; and in fact have sent a number of "dissidents" to prison with precisely the motivation that they broke those laws. JoergenB (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A link from the Guardian, already cited above, contained a letter that said "As a US citizen, I want to advise you that you and anyone that participates in subverting the US presidential election can be criminally charged and perhaps even charged as spies. California", along with more vague legal threats such as "Please be advised that I have forwarded this to the CIA and FBI. United States". I wonder how trial-worthy the first suggestion is. – Kaihsu (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

existence of a non sexist society?

Does the world contain any societies, big or small, that are essentially non-sexist and truely equal in terms of rights and treatment of the members of that society? I once heard of some small Asian society existing as such, but I am uncertain of the details or the validity. 75.34.180.97 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say British society is pretty non-sexist these days. I think it ends up being quite a subjective questions - no society is going to treat men and women the same, since there are pretty major differences between the sexes, so you have to decide if those differences make the sexes unequal or not. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong. I don't know much about British society in general, but a quick fact check tells me that in the UK women earn 79% of what men do for the same job and that there's more than four times as many male MPs as female. Not that 125 is bad number, but British society is most certainly not "truly equal" (I could dig up more interesting little factoids, but you get my point).

The fact is that there's not a single country in the world that doesn't contain some amount of sexism. Generally speaking, the Scandinavian countries rank highest when it comes to gender equality (the World Economic Forum puts Norway, Finland, Sweden and Iceland as the top four, with Denmark at seven). Sweden, for instance, is the best country to be a mother in and women account for 47% of the Riksdag (the Swedish parliament), but even they aren't perfect. A wage-gap of only 9% is pretty good, but it's still a wage-gap, not to mention the 79% of Swedish CEOs who happen to be swinging pipe (if it wasn't obvious already, I'm Swedish).

I believe strongly that a gender-equal society is possible, but lets not kid ourselves: we have a long road row to hoe. Feminism is not just a dirty word, it's a struggle worth supporting and fighting for. Belisarius (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Swinging pipe"? DuncanHill (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, isn't that a wonderful little expression :) It means "are equipped with male genitalia". Belisarius (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, thank you. Now, while we're all here, why would you want to hoe a road, whatever its length? A vegetable plot certainly, or a flower bed, but a road? DuncanHill (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A common mishearing/misreproduction of "a long row to hoe." Deor (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Man, I hate it when that happens. Belisarius (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It would still have been a new phrase to me, but it does make sense now, thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoes aside, so far we've been talking only of gov't and corporate positions. What, if any, restrictions are placed on women in the military of the Eden named Sweden? Surely feminism would have women in combat positions, right? Dismas|^(talk) 03:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't intend to sound jingoistic, I apologize if I came off that way. My point was more that even though we've all made some advances, everyone still has a long way to go.

To answer your question, Sweden has mandatory conscription into military training for all men that reach 18 years of age. Today, the "mandatory" part is pretty much only a formality, as most people don't get to go through their military training (funding has been heavily slashed, so if you say "I don't really wanna" to your conscription officer, you get relieved of that particular patriotic duty). Women aren't automatically conscripted, but if a young woman chooses to go through military training, she absolutely can and she would have a high chance of being accepted. There has been some debate about the inherent inequality in the current state of affairs (people are arguing that either we should get rid of the mandatory conscription all together or extending it to include both sexes). Not a lot of debate though, it's not high on the agenda.

As for women assuming combat positions, I have no idea. We haven't been in a war in a while, so the question is essentially theoretical. Women can certainly go through their military training in the position as a soldier, so I imagine that if we were to go to war with someone, they would serve in combat positions.

To get back to my point: I'm not saying that Sweden is some sort of paradise of equality, I'm saying the exact opposite. It might be marginally better here than in other places (a fact we are very proud of, because, really, we don't have much else), but sexism still runs extremely deep. I only used Sweden as an example because that's the country I know best. But we're still guilty of having a sexist society, of not having done enough, just like the rest of the world is. Belisarius (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually Dismas there is no restriction on women serving in combat positions (or really any postions) in a number of countries. See History of women in the military for more. The same is of course true in a number of former or current communist countries. Somewhat OT but openly LGBT people are also allowed to serve without problem in a number of countries as well, see Sexual orientation and military service. Point being if you're comparing things to the US, it's probably a bad comparison Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Salary differences are largely explained by women taking time off work to have children - that's a matter of personal preference, not sexism. The remainder can probably be explained by men being more ambitious when it comes to earning money, while women have other goals in life (obviously, this is a generalisation, but we're talking about averages). The number of women in parliament is a meaningless figure unless you compare it to the number of women that want to enter politics - I would guess (although I don't have any statistics to back this up) that more men want to be politicians that women. It is also possible that men make better politicians than women (although how you would measure that fairly, I don't know). Would you consider it sexist that 70% of primary school teachers are female? (As with 95.4% of statistics, that number is made up, but you get the point.) --Tango (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I belive that compared to the past and many other countries today, the countries of northern Europe (Scandanavia, UK, Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium, etc.) have certainly made great moves in the right direction regarding equality.

If it is somewhere in Asia you were thinking of, a few years ago I read some good things about Kerala state in India. You might find the Kerala model provides some explanation. Astronaut (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: the 79% of earnings figure, when you account for the higher proportion of female population working limited-hours the difference virtuall disappears. The biggest trouble with your question is equality is not a static thing. Example...If I earn $10m and you earn $10,0000 - should we both pay the same tax amount? If we did that would be 'equal' tax-contribution wise, but unequal because I would pay much less tax (proportionally). If we do it proportionally then is it 'equal' that I pay significantly more than you? Both ways are 'equal' in a sense, and i'm sure most would fall on the side of the second being 'fair' but therein the problem lies. Equality and fairness are very different things. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Men's rights is quite an interesting read in regard to this topic. As a male when I think of sexism I think of an inequality in treatment between males and females, with females coming off worse, but the article addresses some of the perceived(?) inequality suffered by males in comparison to females. Lanfear's Bane | t 10:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I skimmed through the article and while it provides some food for though, as I expected it missed a lot of areas as it concentrates on the areas which most 'men's rights' campaigners emphasise (and as such for which it hases sources). Having done an assignment on gender equality a long while back and it being something I've always been interested there is IMHO a lot of other stuff. For example while the wife of a family can often choose to work or to stay at home and raise the kids (depending on the family income) it's still (IMHO) a lot more difficult for a husband who wants to do the same thing both in terms of the support available and in societal expectations and perceptions. Or as I mentioned below, the way the husband of a high profile women is often treated. On the same tangent, while there's often nothing wrong with a female displaying some traits considered 'masculine' a male displaying traits considered 'feminine' tends to have far bigger problems (unless perhaps he's gay). Or the way a male nurse is more likely to raise eyebrows then a female doctor. The article, while arguing over how common domestic violence against males by females is, it doesn't mention the problems male victims of domestic violence are likely to encounter. Similarly, it speaks of rape accusations but doesn't mention the problems male victims of rape have and indeed if the rape is commited by a female, it may not even be classified a rape in a number of jurisdictions. On a related note, there's the way an underage female who sex with a male is likely to be seen as a victim and the male an evil sexual predator whereas the same is far less likely of an underage male and female which often has 'wink, wink, nudge, nudge' acceptance and the male seen as a sort of 'hero' as well as the difference in prosections of such crimes (indeed in some countries the laws are unequal anyway) and in media potrayal of such crimes (there's a few cases in the US where this has been dicussed, e.g. the way some female teacher who was found guilty of raping her male student had media interviews and stuff whereas the same would be very unlikely where the sexes reversed. (Of course this can be seen as unfair to both sexes, indeed in most of the examples I've discussed.) In other words, in terms of men's rights there is IMHO a lot more that tends to be missed. Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

For the purposes of this discussion, does a hypothetical society where men and women have completely equal rights and privileges count as an "equal society"? Or do equal numbers of men and women need to choose to exercise those rights?

For instance, imagine there was an overall average pay gap, but it was caused entirely by some percentage of women (or men) not pursuing their carears as aggressively, and instead choosing to be "homemakers", mothers, etc.

Alternatively, what if men and women are equally agressive in their carears but women (or men) tend to go into traditionally lower paying jobs? Does that count?

I think you need to define the question more narrowly if you're going to get a meaningful answer. What do you mean by "essentially non-sexist and truely equal"? How would you know it when you saw it? What measurement can we take that would tell us how far from "non-sexist" our society is? APL (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

To answer the main question, [3] is a good read IMHO. According to the list, the top 4 are indeed Scandinavian with Sweden coming in top. New Zealand is fifth followed but Phillipines being 6th. As with anything of the sort, the methodology/ranking system is going to be disputed. One of the things I heard is that there is a resonable effect if you have or have had a female leaders for a length of time, one of the reasons NZ has increased. Coming from NZ, I can definitely say that while we do have a decent level of equality, we're far from perfect. To use one example, I've seen lot of things said about Helen Clark the now former PM and her husband which never would have been said about a male PM and his wife, e.g. people questioning and joking about Peter Davis's sexuality, masculinity, and their married life. Indeed Peter Davis probably hasd it lucky in that he at least has a resonable successful career. To a lesser extent I've seen the same with some of our high profile female CEOs (of which we've had a number). Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

January 28

Does 'God' start wars? No opinions please

Is there any evidence to show that nations that believe 'God' is on their side are more likely to engage in warlike acts against other nations? No opinions please.--GreenSpigot (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It only covers a short period, but Lewis Fry Richardson's Statistics of Deadly Quarrels probably contains a discussion of this. I might have a look at it myself tomorrow. Algebraist 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Before I press send I just want to point out that I'm terribly ashamed of myself, because I'm speaking without sources, which is exactly what you asked us not to do (bad Belisarius! No treat for you!). But I want to caution against assuming causation from correlation here. I very much do imagine that countries that are heavily religious goes to war more often than countries that aren't (and would very much appreciate if someone could provide a source to relieve the shame I have brought upon myself and my family), but that doesn't necessarily mean that religion somehow "incites" war. Less religious countries tend to be more liberal and they tend to more often be democracies, and liberal countries and democracies generally tend to go to war less (wow, that's a lot of "tends"). As much is claimed by the democratic peace theory, anyhow. But that doesn't mean necessarily mean that it's the religion that gets people all frenzied and warlike. Greece is much more religious than the UK, but you don't see and Greeks as part of the Iraqi coalition forces. I'm just sayin'. Belisarius (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The question was not about religiosity, but rather about believing God to be on one's side. The one does not necessarily imply the other. Algebraist 03:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at that, I totally misread the question! Even more shame on my family... I have to go sacrifice a steer or something. Still, I do believe that the concepts are related, and my caution against assuming causation from correlation still stands, I think. Belisarius (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Does any religious person ever go to war not thinking god is on their side? --Tango (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. All the religious people who don't believe in an entity called 'god', for a start. Algebraist 18:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn. I make two replies, in one I remember to explicitly exclude that case and the other I don't, so you respond to the latter... typical! --Tango (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Your second reply had not yet been made when I began composing the above. Algebraist 21:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A good excuse, I suppose! I could, of course, have claimed I was using one of the definitions of religion that requires deism, but that would have been untrue... --Tango (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you've read it, but for the sake of those lurking, The True Believer by Eric Hoffer is worth a look. I don't remember how much actual evidence he cites, though. Also, there might be something you can use in the article "Angels of Mons". --Milkbreath (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Until the last few decades, pretty much all countries were very religious, as far as I know (although you may wish to exclude Buddhist countries, since they have no god to be on their side), so finding non-religious countries in order to make a comparison may be tricky. If you restrict yourself to just recent history, then there are far too many other factors that will skew your data (not because modern history is particularly different to more distant history, but just because it's a shorter timescale so things can't all average out nicely). --Tango (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

On the flipside of this, I am unaware of any nation that actively believes God is not on its side. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Those Westboro Baptist Church folks, while not an entire nation themselves, certainly do not think God is currently on America's side. (Any other sufficiently crazy American church will likely think the same.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but they still think their god is on their side. They aren't particularly likely to take part in any wars that the US is fighting, so that doesn't help answer the OP's question. --Tango (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why the assumption that there IS a god?--Artjo (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, always in history, whenever a government decided to engage a war, it used religion to convince his people that it was right, saying that 'God' was on their side, while the enemy was atheist/heretic/unfaithful. So maybe I don't have enough evidence that believing to have God's support is, in itself, a cause of war, as you ask, but I see a lot of evidence that this idea has been used as a weapon in every war. I suspect that some religions were even expressly invented for this use. It is what Swift, Voltaire, Russell said, just to quote three great ones. Hints for evidences of this use of religion: Torah, especially the book of Kings; and of course a lot of Christian and Islamic religious writers. Clear in all Crusades. Before, Constantinus I device of the cross in year 312 ("in hoc signo vinces, a voice told him in dream). Benedictions of all cannons, like they were church bells, as soon as they were invented. Religious propaganda along all fronts of WWI. In the crucial moments of the Great Patriotic War, atheistic Stalin was very ready to replace the red star with a christian cross over all his tanks. On the other side, the atheistic nazi soldiers still had "Gott Mit Uns" written on their belt buckles. And what about the bunch of Talibans? They were indoctrinated and military formed by USA and Saudi Arabia to fight USSR in Afghanistan; as a small detail, it seems that even their holy book was directly made by the CIA --pma (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

name the novel (fantasy trilogy)

name the novel (fantasy trilogy)

It's a fantasy trilogy novel series... I can't seem to remember its name though. I read it like 5 years ago... In the first book, there is a family (a mother, a father, twin son and daughter, and a baby) and the book starts off with the family moving within the city into a lower hierarchy region. (in the fictional universe of the novel, everyone is divided into different social caste status, with each caste represented by different colours) I don't remember much, but the father takes some kind of an exam to make a living or something, and at the end, the twins do something heroic to save the townspeople. in the second book, the twins are now teenagers, and an evil and sinister force lures in millions of innocent children and brainwashes them to form a mind controlled army. It's rather reminiscent of the chinese army in the korean war: in one incident, these children army literally fills a trench with their bodies to get across it. one of the twins' friends gets recruited into the army against his(/her ??) will and eventually the children manage to save them. (or was all of this in the first book?? i really don't know lol) the army keeps on chanting "Kill! Kill! Kill!" Also in the second book, the twins run away, and the girl twin disguises as a servant of a princess. the princess is rather lonely, so she really likes her servant and they become close friends. However, the princess needs to take dancing lessons so that she can dance with a prince in a ball, but she sucks at it. But the twin girl realizes she is quite good at it even though she has never had any dancing lessons before. So, the girl poses as the princess in the ball, and dances beautifully with the prince. Also, the princess falls in love with the twin brother (she hasn't even met him yet) , just from hearing stories that the twin sister told her. In the third book, the family and some of the townspeople migrate from their homeland to an unknown paradiseland. during their trip, they encounter an unusual creature or more of a mental parasite that latches onto a particular person and makes them act strange. for example, when the parasite was inside the father (the leader of the pack) it makes him snappy and aggressive, and when the parasite resides inside the princess (she actually left her kingdom to follow the twins' family) it makes her less shy and kisses the twin brother. the twin brother has some kind of a psychic ability, and is able to get rid of the parasite (in the princess's case, he kisses her to understand the parasite better, and to drag the parasite out of her) and in an alongside story arc, there is this round looking hermit that bounces, and it recruits the twin brother as his apprentice or something. the bouncy thing teaches the brother how to do supernatural stuff, including walking on air. the twin sister lives with her brother and this hermit on a boat. she learns to do stuff on her own just by watching the hermit give lessons to the brother. near the end of the book, the twin brother must sacrifice himself to save the world or something so he goes to this island where all kinds of strange mythical sorcerers and creatures meet (including the bouncy). but in the end, the bouncy tells him that it wasn't him that was meant to be sacrificed, it was his sister. He doesn't accept his sister's fate, so he fights with her sister (with mental telekinesis or something) but he realizes she is stronger than him, so the sister sacrifices herself in the end. In the epilogue, the family and the townspeople have found their paradiseland, the twin sister is dead, but her mind resides inside the brother's head (they had this special mental connection since they were children). the brother is now happily married with the princess from the second/third book and they have children.

I read this series while i was in adelaide, australia. I borrowed it from the children's books section in the marion library centre (park holme). I'm not sure if this is an australian novel or an american or british, or even if it went international. I know that my description of the series is quite poor, but any help with remembering the name of these novels would be appreciated. Thanks.Johnnyboi7 (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wind on Fire trilogy. Chaosandwalls (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanx a lotJohnnyboi7 (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Taiwanese and Koreans in the Japanese Imperial Army

How many Taiwanese and Koreans were recruited/drafted into the Japanese Army in World War 2? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

For Korea, the first source i find claims 230,000 were drafted from 1938 on, about 150,000 of whom died. From 1939 on, 140,000 were conscripted as workers in the war zone, 60,000 dying during the war. Further, approximately 2 million were sent to Japan as labourers, 1.44 million of whom returned to Korea after the war, with 600,000 remaining. There were also as many as 100,000 (410,000 according to Wikipedia's article) "comfort women" forced to serve as prostitutes for the armed forces. Another source claims 2.5 million total were conscripted during the war.—eric 16:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "enslaved" would be a better word than "recruited/drafted" to describe the relationship, as I doubt if "no" was an answer they could give and survive. I would guess that any who were used by the Army were used as slave labor, not given weapons. StuRat (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Of those drafted into the military,the majority of the Formosans, and i think a significant proportion of the Koreans were employed as guards in POW camps.—eric 16:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no documents exist that detail the methods involved in the training and indoctrination of Formosan guards. However, Utsumi Aiko of Keisen University, Japan, conducted extensive research on Korean POW guards and found that more than 3,000 young Korean men were "recruited" (that is, press-ganged or otherwise forced to "volunteer") for the prison guard corps. Many of these men feared they would be shipped to Japan as indentured servants if they did not join the corps. Others were perhaps attracted by the high pay rates offered—50 yen per month, a large amount at the time. Those who served in the guard corps were classified as civilian employees rather than members of the military, and many hoped this status would prevent their transfer to the front line and would allow them to be demobilized when their two-year contract was concluded. However, on joining, the new recruits were issued with uniforms, and their basic training was very much military in character, including weapons training. Despite the difference between the promise and the reality of the guard corps, few deserted, possibly because potential deserters were threatened with court-martial.

from Hidden Horrors below.—eric 17:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Conscription in Formosa began September 1942, more than 200,000 total and more than 30,000 were killed. Tanaka, T. (1996). Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II. p. 38. OCLC 34651501.—eric 16:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As for Taiwanese, see our article. And this is the article at Japanese Wiki. En Wiki says 207,183 and ja Wiki says 207,083 which is cleary a typo. You can see if you add 126,750 and 80,433. According to the ja article, the number of the Korean serviceman is 242,341 and 22,182 were dead/mia. Japanese Imperial Army recruited volunteers from 1938 to 1943. 2496 Koreans/Taiwanese applied and 406 passed the test in 1938. See the chart #3. Oda Mari (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Awaji-shima, Japan

What does the -shima mean when something like 'Yuji Horii was born in Awaji-shima, Japan' is said? The article on Awaji didn't say anything. Evaunit♥666♥ 04:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It means island. Oda Mari (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

On other words, it sometimes appears as -jima. The character is 島. Steewi (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Poetic gibberish

I recall an english teacher in high school referring a couple of times to a strange form of poetry that consists entirely of gibberish, but flows so smoothly you can't tell unless you pay close attention. Anyone know what she was talking about? Someguy1221 (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Literary nonsense and Nonsense verse (for example: Jabberwocky)? Astronaut (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If the above isn't what was meant, but if not you could look at Sound poetry (often associated with Dada), which comprises entirely meaningless sounds. French Symbolist poetry, e.g. Stéphane Mallarmé, was among the more conventional poetic movements that privileged the sensuous quality of words above their meaning. --11:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltelauridsbrigge (talk • contribs)

You seem to be confusing poetry and verse (the second of those, unfortunately, is a poor stub). In my view, gibberish can't be poetry, although it can be verse. However, as you say "you can't tell unless you pay close attention" I don't think 'gibberish' can be quite the word you want. If by 'gibberish' you mean only something with nonsensical elements which are hard to spot, then that isn't gibberish, and poetry can be like that. Strawless ^(talk) 01:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll would disagree with you on that point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Lots of poems seem like gibberish to me. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway - suicide or murder?

I just recently saw a documentary film about Hemingway which states that he believed that the FBI is going to try to kill him and that few days before his "suicide" he claimed to be followed by the FBI. One of his friends(cant recollect the name) states that when he heard of Hemingways death he thought that "FBI finally got him".

Well,since Hemingway was indeed close to Fidel and its already known that the Kennedy government tryed to kill Fidel,where can I find out more information about Hemingways death and is there a site which reveals the truth about this?

Or is it possible that he just plainly killed himself?

87.116.154.181 (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hemingway tried to commit suicide several times; he had a family history of depression, and a personal history of depression for which he had received shock treatments; his father killed himself by gunshot; his sister Ursula, his brother Leicester, and his granddaughter Margaux all killed themselves. It strains credulity to blame his death on the FBI: he shot himself in the forehead with his own rifle. And the FBI didn't go around killing everyone who knew Fidel Castro: what would be the advantage to that? - Nunh-huh 09:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the FBI anyway, it would be the CIA. They did have some plots to kill folks in Cuba (their success rate was dubious), but I agree that it was very much "in character" for Hemingway. SDY (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The CIA assassinated people to accomplish geopolitical goals, not because they didn't like them. How would assassinating Hemingway accomplish anything worthwhile, like bringing about the downfall of Castro ? StuRat (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? As we all know from the James Bond documentaries, secret plots for world conquest are a frequently occurring hazard in our times. Hemingway must have been the ringleader of one of these, but in this case, it was one the CIA were able to shut down (by killing the leader) before Bond had to come in and do it by blowing up a whole island or something. Hence they were able to maintain the secrecy, and as far as the public knows, it was just as if the whole thing never happened. There, will that do? --Anonymous source (in an undisclosed location), 22:56 UTC, January 28, 2009.

If you're curious, the FBI has posted its files on Hemingway online. They're pretty dull, like most FBI files.[4] --98.217.14.211 (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There! You see!!! That proves there was a cover-up!!!!! --Anonymous source (at an undisclosed time and location).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. --Sean 00:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know where to find ratios of skilled/unskilled workers in UK industry types?

I'm looking for the ratio of skilled to unskilled workers employed in UK industry sectors such as 'construction', 'IT', 'mining' etc., and also the same data for the population as a whole. Data for other countries would be welcome as well. Google searches have failed to find me anything, anyone got any ideas? Thanks for any help, LHMike (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What sort of 'skilled' are we talking. In an less economically developed country, 'skilled' means literate, whereas in the UK, practically everyone meets these criteria. Number with a university degree or equivalent? The Office for National Statistics is probably the best place to start. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is a representative sample, but the ratio of skilled to unskilled workers, at the company I work for, is exactly 1 to 46. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewBristol1983 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty useless information if you don't say what that company does... --Tango (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's also quite clearly a joke. Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all, I haven't found any specific details from The Office of National Statistics but it's useful nonetheless. BTW I meant 'skilled' workers in the sense described here. 77.99.21.181 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Political Parties based on Arab and African nationalism

I notice that Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Djibouti, Somalia and Comoros are both members of African Union and Arab League. Is there any political party in these nations they on which is based on Pan-Africanism and other based on Pan-Arabism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.118 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well first off, I'm not sure that abstract pan-Africanism has ever really amounted to much in terms of the practical internal domestic politics of African countries (as opposed to Arab states, where Nasserism and Pan-Arabist qawmiyya قومية ideology was a major factor in causing political turbulence during much of the 1950s to 1970s). Second, it's somewhat mysterious as to why Djibouti and Somalia are members of the Arab League at all, considering that there are few Arabs there.

However, friction between Arabs and black Africans has been rather prominent in the recent history of Sudan and Mauritania, and was a strong factor in the mid-20th century History of Zanzibar (until the Africans won there). AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

While Morocco is technically a member of the African Union, it has been boycotting the organization for decades, ever since it admitted the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic as a member. To getback to the actual question, Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi has gone back and forth between calling himself a pan-Arabist and a pan-Africanist. In most other North African countries, the Arab identity is much stronger than the African identity, because of ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural factors. Pan-africanism has never really had much popular support in places like Egypt or Algeria, in spite of some official gestures in support of the notion. --Xuxl (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In Mauritania there is the leftwing-Nasserist Progressive Popular Alliance. There are also Baathist groups. In Sudan there is a Sudanese Baath Party. In both Mauritania and Sudan there are movements with a more African national orientation (FLAM in Mauritania, SPLM in Sudan), but i'm not sure whether they would classify as 'pan-Africanists'. --Soman (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Prison break

In a jurisdiction where escaping from jail is illegal, I would expect that you could still be imprisoned for the escape, even if you are cleared of the original offence - because, even if you weren't guilty of the original offence you were still lawfully imprisoned. So, for example, you were imprisoned for 1 year for shoplifting, but then immediately escaped from prison (and were sentenced to 5 years for escaping), you could still expect to serve those 5 years. Is that right? Are there any real cases were this has happened, and what was the outcome? Thanks LastBusHome (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is (at least in my USA knowledge) correct. An example of a recent case is described at 2008 prison break in Clovis, New Mexico. As stated under the "Criminal Charges" section, two of the inmates who were recaptured are facing more than four additional years in prison for the escape. Incidentally, inmates who helped the escapees, but did not themselves escape, also face a penalty. Many more prison escapes are listed at Prison break; many of these likely will describe the penalties for escapees who are subsequently caught. jeffjon (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if there have been any cases where a person was convicted, went to prison, then escaped, and then were definitively cleared of the original crime, like the fictional case in The Fugitive. Being convicted and then found factually innocent is usually grounds for compensation, and I'd like to think that regarding the escape they would either be pardoned, or not prosecuted, or at worst sentenced to "time served" (meaning they still get to go free at once), at least if that the original charge was a serious one. But real life has a way of going differently than what one would like to think. Anyone have a real-life case to cite? --Anonymous, 23:08 UTC, January 28, 2009.

thanks for the spoiler... i'd been looking forward to watching that film, guess i have one less thing to do

You think a movie starring Harrison Ford could have an unhappy ending? Trust me, it's worth seeing anyway, if you like that sort of movie. --Anonymous, 06:34 UTC, January 31, 2009.

I can comment on "TIME SERVED" as being anything from 0 to six months actually serving time inside before being released on the points system in the U.S. for a first time offence with no prior criminal record.After a period of 3 months inside a federal Prison while being investigated,this person was then released.He also did not escape! Time served does not mean they go free at once! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.86.15.15 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

January 29

Nigerian women

I've been talking to this Nigerian girl I know at work. She's about the same age as me (23). She introduced me to one of her friends who is also from Nigeria and she went to the same school as her in Nigeria at the same time, and she's interested in me very much so in recent weeks, and I'm a white Britsh male. I wouldn't mind trying it on with a black girl, but not to be politically incorrect or anything, but apparently AIDS is rife in Africa; I know it's more so in Southern Africa, but it remains an issue at the back of my mind that I really don't want to bring up. I went out for a drink with her last weekend and went back to her flat and kissed her, but I'm unsure about sex, although she did give me a blowjob without a condom one night... I dunno, it's really plaguing my mind right now.--Nope, try Again (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We can't give medical advice, but you might take a look at our article on safe sex. Africans do not have a monopoly on AIDS or any other sexually transmitted disease, and it would be wise to adopt safe practices if you are involved in non-monogamous sexual relationships, regardless of your partner's race. That said, according to our article on AIDS, the prevalence of HIV among Nigerian adults is 2%–5%. This is higher than in any European country, but only slightly higher than in Russia and lower than in many other African countries. Marco polo (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I've already had sex with a few Eastern European women but they always abandon me, despite the fact that I'd love them as my wife, so thanks.--Nope, try Again (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As Dr. Phil (I think it is) might say, "how's that working for you?" Seems a good indication, through trial and error, that the idea of dating them for months, then sex after marriage - or at least after knowing them for many months! - would be the way to go, doesn't it?209.244.187.155 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it indicates that at all. There is no reason to believe there is any connection between the sex and the relationships not working out. --Tango (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The areas of Africa with extremely high AIDS rates are mainly in the south and east of the continent (especially in the south). Botswana was kind of a model progressing developing country before AIDS... AnonMoos (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The worst human being ever (pre-Hitler)?

Okay, so if you took a random selection of people in the West and asked them who they considered to be The Worst Human Being Of All Time, Ever (excluding people that they knew personally), I'd hypothesize that the majority of them would answer 'Adolf Hitler'. Some might say that Stalin was worse - but yes, most of them would probably say it was Hitler.

So - supposing I were to travel back in time and ask a random selection of people in the West from 100 (or maybe 200 years) ago whom *they* considered to be Worst Human Being Of All Time, Ever. Whose name would they be most likely to give in reply? In other words, before Hitler's image and exploits were indelibly inked upon the mass consciousness, who was the person that was generally reviled (rightly or wrongly) in public as the absolute nadir of humanity? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon maybe?--Nope, try Again (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Countess Elizabeth Báthory. Any Person (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Judas Iscariot? Vlad Tepes? --84.69.145.92 (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you took a random selection of people in the East they might go with Timur. In the West, perhaps Attila the Hun? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite a hundred years ago, but the Kaiser was fairly widely detested. DuncanHill (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought Genghis Khan was better known in the west than Timur.-gadfium 02:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How about Caligula? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.145.92 (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you'd asked people in the West -- i.e. Christians -- more than a couple hundred years ago, before the Enlightenment, as jarring as it is to us in the present day, I think you'd get a large group that would answer Eve, since it was through the woman that sin, suffering, and death came into the world. A secondary group may answer Judas Iscariot, as 84. above suggested, although without Judas, there could have been no Christ dying, therefore no Savior. (See the brilliant Three Versions of Judas by Jorge Luis Borges for an analysis of the full theological consequence of this; it's worth reading -- the story, not our tiny article). Christ sacrificed only his earthly body, but Judas sacrificed everything, even his immortal soul, so that mankind could be saved. (Didn't think of that, did you?) Antandrus (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That begs an interesting question. If Christ hadn't died on the cross (or by any violent means), would people even know about him today? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Christian beliefs, probably; he would still be the Christ. Jonathan ^talk 16:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think some of the responses are on who the responhiders think should be regarded as the most evil as of the 1900s. Would the average person walking around in 1909 (in the glow of the recent Cubs world championship no doubt) know about Elizabeth Bathory or Vlad Tepes? The OP is asking for a name that would be as ready to the lips of the people of that time as Hitler is to ours. This is a question that has a chance of a good answer, rather than speculation, as someone well-versed in the media and literature of that time might be able to come up with someone. I don't know where you would find it in academia though, as it is kind of a popular culture question. Maybe quiz a social historian? TresÁrboles (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Like some of the above commentators I'd go with Judas. He's the one right in the center of the Ninth Circle of Dante's Hell. Some medieval writers also really had a bee in their bonnet about Emperor Julian and, now that I think about it, perhaps that is because he was essentially guilty of the same thing as Judas. He was baptized and intimately familiar with Christianity and then he turned against it. That really got their goat. Haukur (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For me, it's Joseph Stalin: we can call him "pre-Hitler" as he came to power first, and his reign of terror lasted a lot longer. If we overlook the OP's "pre-Hitler" qualification (a bit arbitrary, perhaps?) then Pol Pot should be added to the list of nominations. Xn4 (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Stalin is more or less a contemporary of Hitler, though he did get off to a quicker start and could arguably be called "first." Pol Pot is clearly later. SDY (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I see I added to my comment just as yours was arriving, SDY. Xn4 (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's one 18th century view: "Among the detestable villains that in any period of the world have disgraced the name of man, it is impossible to find a greater than Moses, if this account be true." - Thomas Paine [5] Interesting that even a non-Christian at the time would come up with a Biblical character as the answer to this question. I think that tends to confirm our hunch that the Bible is the right place to look. Haukur (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's much the same as the rhetoric the English-speaking Protestants of the 17th and 18th centuries aimed at Popery and all its diabolic machinations. They were sadly tempestuous when it came to the leaders of other religions, in those days. Xn4 (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted criminals like Gilles de Rais and Jack the Ripper might be in with a chance (other criminals like Dick Turpin and many pirates might have had more popular sympathy). Random use of Google books for the late 19th century gives a few references for the Zulu leader Shaka, known for his brutality and his opposition to the British Empire. Madhi Muhammad Ahmad would have been similarly unpopular in the British Empire at a similar time. With the popularity of classics and histories of ancient Rome, Nero and Caligula would be bywords for villainy. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Jack, IMO - he only killed like four people. Killed brutally, yes, but I'd wager that Nero, etc. are worse...more deaths caused. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that the average 'man in the street' back then would be far, far more familiar with JtR's crimes than the actions of Nero or Caligula and far more likely to have a strong opinion on them, in the same way that the 'man in the street' would today, if Myra Hindley, Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe or Fred West were mentioned. Sure, people might know who N and C *were* and that they were considered to be evil men who did cruel things - but Ancient Roman emperors didn't and don't tend to have their actions described in lurid detail in the newspapers and 'popular crime' books. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the Middle Ages as Haukurth mentioned, some medieval writers might say Muhammad. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it would also depend on the country that you were asking the question in. Oliver Cromwell still to this day stirs up people in Ireland. BigDunc^Talk 17:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Among the Rastamen in Jamaica (where I'm from originally), Henry Morgan is seen as one of the worst men who ever lived. If not the worst. Infact, they sometimes refer to other 'bad men from history' as "The Pirate <Whoever>" (even Hitler) in his honor. It amused me a bit to come to England and see that people here drink the guy's rum. --81.76.82.108 (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Atila the hun ?

Diocletian – see also Diocletianic Persecution (303–311). About Henry Morgan -- the article says he was the most dangerous pirate etc, but a referenced note about his lasting reputation would be nice added extra. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone said Moses but surprisingly no one has said that going by the bible particularly the old testament I would say God. Okay perhaps God is not a person but his son was and according to Christian doctrine they're all the same person anyway. In more general terms, I find slavery and the genocide (which I believe was at least partially intentional) of the native Americans abhorent although it's difficult to fault one particular person there. Nil Einne (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Children's book identification

I'm looking for a book I had when I was quite young (<5), so probably late 80s. I think it was a book with three short stories in, the first of which featured two boys playing in the front garden of a terraced house. They hear a fire-engine approach (I loved fire engines at that age), and it pulls up outside one of the boys' homes down the road – to cut a long story short, his mother has caused a chip pan fire. Second story is VERY vague, something to do with a derelict building (I can only picture the illustrations) which is being torn down; the whole side wall is gone. As for the third story, I can't remember anything – perhaps there were only two?

I know this is a bit of a stab-in-the-dark, perhaps one of the regulars here has a penchant for children's books? Cheers. Cycle~ (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

United States Supreme Court building and police

I've just translated both articles United States Supreme Court building and Supreme Court Police on the French Wikipedia but I remarked a date mismatch :

• the United States Supreme Court building article said the building construction completed in 1935, and the police established the same year
• the Supreme Court Police said 1949 for the building and the police.

What's the correct year ? Thanks. TCY (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The court naturally has its own web site, at www.supremecourt.gov, and a page about the building says it was completed in 1935. I've fixed the Supreme Court Police article. --Anonymous, 07:40 & 07:45 UTC, January 29, 2009.

How many people did Hitler kill personally?

Did he ever actually kill anyone with his own hands (or gun) while he was Fuhrer? I guess that he might've shot some enemy soldiers in WWI. --84.69.145.92 (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, although his main role as a soldier was actually as a messenger, wasn't it? In any case, you can sort of say he killed Eva Braun. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is, at least, one. Date: 30.04.1945, 15:30. Weapon: Walther PPK 7.65 mm pistol. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hitler killed himself with the same weapon favoured by James Bond!! Astronaut (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a well-known fact that James Bond is, in fact, just a rip-off of Good Hitler. --140.247.243.29 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered the same thing myself. AFAIK:

- He might have killed enemy soldiers during WWI but I've never heard any confirmation of this.

- He might have killed his neice Geli Raubal but it was ruled a suicide.

- Four policemen were killed in the Beer Hall Putsch but I don't know if Hitler even fired his gun.

- I don't think he ever personally killed anyone while in power or during his rise to power.

- He did kill himself. And a dog. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't he kill a couple of dogs, testing the cyanide? --140.247.243.29 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was wrong. According to Blondi, Hitler ordered a doctor to kill his dog. And it wasn't just one dog. Blondi's 4 puppies were killed, along with Eva Braun's two dogs and the doctor's dog. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly hard to imagine Hitler ever getting his hands dirty once he had people to do it for him; that would rule out everything post ~1925 (apart from the bunker incidient, obviously). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Its hard to imagine any head of state actually going out and ending lives when you have millions of loyal citizens to do it for you.Livewireo (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't suppose that the "Bring the prisoner before me - I'll deal with this one personally!" thing ever really happens that much outside of the movies... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What about Iraq Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's reported cold-blooded shooting of six prisoners in the head in 2004, according to journalist Paul McGeough[6] [7]? (Allawi's office denied the truth of the news reports). Edison (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William L. Shirer, there was an incident in the immediate aftermath of the Beer Hall Putsch, when Hitler, Ludendorff and their detachment were making their way through the Residenzstraße towards the Feldherrnhalle, and found their way blocked by about a hundred police armed with carbines. Having attempted, unsuccessfully, to talk their way through, shooting broke out, and Hitler subsequently fled the scene in a car. The book states that, according to an eye-witness, Hitler fired the first shot on that occasion, although another onlooker attributed that act to Julius Streicher. There were casualties in that exchange, but the confusion would make it difficult to lay the blame with any certainty. Pavel (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How many nonwhite minority heads of government have there been?

A similar question was asked earlier, but most of those people mentioned there are not correct answers for my particular question. I am looking for people of a minority group (so not just black as in the earlier question), but also nonwhite (as there are many examples, due to 19th century European imperialism). I already knew about Alberto Fujimori. The jury is still out on Toussaint Louverture as there is a question if whites were the majority in Haiti at the time. The only other person I can think of is Mahendra Chaudhry, the Indo-Fijian prime minister of Fiji who was deposed in a coup a year later. And now of course, the newest member of this elite club. (I have to say... Chaudhry, deposed in coup; Fujimori, in jail in Peru; Obama better keep on his toes!) TresÁrboles (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Evo Morales is from a minority ethnic group in Bolivia, although indigenous people as a whole are a majority there (and incidentally I suppose that would make any white president a minority head of government). How about Philip the Arab? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Flag of the Aymara

I didn't know that about Morales, but going by the "newspaper standard" (see below), his being Aymara as opposed to Quechua obviously hasn't been as a big a deal as just his being of Indian descent.

But I want to thank you for indirectly leading me to their nifty flag! TresÁrboles (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What the hey?! That image shows up in preview, but not when I save! TresÁrboles (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The question is unclear as to whether it refers to racial or ethnic groups, so I don't know if what follows is relevant. Burundi and Rwanda have both had Tutsi heads of government (Paul Kagame in Rwanda, Louis Rwagasore in Burundi) despite both countries being around 85% Hutu. I imagine many other African countries made up of different ethnic groups will have had similar situations. For example, Ethiopia was traditionally ruled by the Christian Amhara people who made up about 1/4 of the population, Haile Selassie was of this group; I can't find much on Mengistu Haile Mariam's ethnic background but he is described as looking different to most Ethiopians. Under the constitution of Lebanon, the president is always a Maronite Christian, despite the nation now having a Muslim majority (you can argue about whether Maronite Christians are white). --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that many countries have no majority population, whereby all individuals (including politicians) are from minorities. Also, how to define ethnic/racial groups differ widely in different countries. --Soman (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely yes: If you want a precise answer, TresÁrboles, you should start by explaining what you mean with "white people". Are you referring to the degrees of skin pigmentation by individuals (and if so, how do you consider the Ainu people); or do you mean someone completely descendant only from dwellers in Europe (put like that, an empty set), or what? JoergenB (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Race is one of those things that seems apparent to most people, but then eludes definition the closer you look into it. I added that "nonwhite" criterion because of course there have been any number of people of European descent who have headed countries in Asia, Africa, the Americas... Of course you could say Obama, for example, wouldn't count because he is also of European descent. Maybe there is no way of asking what I thought I was asking. :) But let's face it, all those newspaper headlines that say "U.S. elects first Black president!" could just as legitimately say "U.S. elects another white guy!" But of course they don't. We might have to resort to saying what that Supreme Court justice said in another context, "I know it when I see it." TresÁrboles (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Septimius Severus was from a mixed-race Berber background at a time when most of the Roman Empire's citizens were southern European, Arab, or assorted kinds of Semitic peoples. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Moors ruled part of what is now Spain for quite a while and the Mongols ruled over a couple of areas with different ethnicities. Egypt had a couple of Nubian leaders our article mentions Taharqa. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

My question was partly motivated by the "fuzzyness" in applying "races" to the Roman empire. Actually, I have read claims that the Romans were not making any sort of theoretical or practical distinction between people of "European race", "Asian race", or "African race" (nota bene, referring to the parts of Southern Europe, Western Asia, and Northen Africa within their empire). They also moved around quite a lot, (inter alia since the legions did). This was also a fact before the time of the Roman empire. Recall that Carthage was founded as a Phoenician colony, and Marseille as a Carthagian one!) Therefore, there is no great idea to make some kind of race distinction between, say, North Africans and South Europeans in the first centuries of the present era. A distnction of "gens", yes; distinctions between Roman citizens, free non-citzens, and slaves, definitely; but "race", in itself, no; neither conceptually nor (clear-cut) genetically.

I think that the later brandishing of the Moors as of another race was largely a political thing. Recall that it also included numerous Spanish-speaking people, of mainly or fully Spanish decent (back to the time of the Roman empire), but having converted to Islam.

Thor Heyerdahl got famous (or in some circles infamous) not only for his tavels with ancient vessels, but also for his speculation of "white people" forming many of the ancient sea-faring people. He claimed e.g. that "white people" arrived to America from the East, as told by Aztec and similar legends (interpreted by Heyerdahl). However, I saw him in a TV documentary, where he clarified that these "white people" quite possibly - and quite likely - in fact belonged to the Berbers or some closely related group. JoergenB (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(PS: Possibly, you might want to consider "the firt known monotheist in world history", Pharaoh Akhenaten. I once read an amusing story about infurious reactions from some African dignitaries visiting an exhibition about him and his time. Now, in most of the Pharaonic time, Egyptian art was rather symbolic when representing the rulers; but among Akhenaten's innovation was a "naturalistic" art. He and his family were presumably depicted as they really appeared. In the exhibition, there was the usual comments about these distorted rulers; not very different from this quotation from our own wp article to-day: "Artistic representations of Akhenaten give him a strikingly bizarre appearance, with an elongated face, slender limbs, a protruding belly, wide hips, and an overall pear-shaped body." The dignitaries protested that what they saw was a perfectly well-shaped black man.

The book suggested that the 18'th dynasty was of Nubian origin. This is not mentioned in our wp article, however, and thus would at least be controversial, possibly rejected by a scolarly consensus. You absolutely should not use this example, unless you do find some corrobation. JoergenB (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Dilbert

I'm looking for a strip from Dilbert. Where is it from and where can I find it? I's is a picture of Dilbert in his cubicle with a wastebin, and the text is: "This is my magic box. I put my work there, and by morning, it's gone." prefix:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.241.207.221 (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Dilbert.com is the place to go. Astronaut (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Some Googling found a text page (possibly copyright violation and no images) where a conversation included "it's a magic cylinder. I put my work in there and by morning it's gone". PrimeHunter (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I found the quoted strip at http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/1998-08-30/ but it doesn't match your image description. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Desert´s son

Is calling an Arab ´Desert´s son´ insulting? Is it like saying he comes from the woods?--Mr.K. (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure calling any person something he doesn't call himself should be thought of as insulting; and even then one should be careful in the terms one uses. Groups of people often have terms used internally amongst themselves which are highly insulting when used by outsiders. You're best off using whatever term a person prefers to be called by you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if Arabs call themselves "desert's people", so I still don't know if it is offending. I have never heard it, but it doesn't mean that they don't it. Mr.K. (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The phrase was actually usually "sons of the Desert"; I don't know if it's really insulting, but it's more associated with Rudolph Valentino Sheik movies and Lawrence of Arabia than with the contemporary usage of any recent decade... There's also a 1933 movie by that name: Sons of the Desert (film).

By the way, you should be aware that a significant proportion of Arabs are urban dwellers, who may have never seen a camel outside a zoo, and the majority of whose ancestors in 631 A.D. were probably Monophysite Hellenized Syriac-speaking or Coptic-speaking settled inhabitants of the Byzantine or Persian empires (not Arabic-speaking nomads or bedouin), and who may not particularly consider themselves to be "sons of the desert"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

STARVATION

Hi Everybody, Does anybody know the stages and effects on the body of starvation? I presume that death will eventually occur when the heart fails.

Our article starvation may be useful. Algebraist 15:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Origin of Half-Breeds and Stalwarts

Where did the Half-Breeds and Stalwarts (factions of the Republican Party in late 19th cent) get their names? For some reason, I can't find this information anywhere. - Hargrimm | ^Θ 15:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary has both names:

• From The Nation (N.Y.) XXXII, page 415: "The epithet ‘Stalwart’ as applied to a class of politicians was first used by Mr. Blaine in 1877 to designate those Republicans who were unwilling to give up hostility and distrust of the South as a political motive." That Mr. Blaine was undoubtedly James G. Blaine. It seems ironical.
• The OED says only that "Half-breed" was "applied in derision to certain Republicans of New York who in 1881 wavered in their party allegiance", without saying who first applied it. The implication of the name is clear enough, meaning that they were only half Republican in ideology. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you pronounce Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, likely first openly gay PM of Iceland?

She is likely to become Iceland's next prime minister,[8] but I can't find any reference on how to pronounce her name. Revelian (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Don;t know. But here's a link to her article (which also does not know): Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Which article also states: "Jóhanna's spouse is the author and playwright Jónína Leósdóttir (born 1954). The couple have three adult children". I rather appreciate that, particularly in the context of the above thread. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking (and I agree with the opinion). I'll continue to monitor this section if anyone finds or knows the pronounciation. Revelian (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can read IPA, her name is pronounced 'jouːhanːa 'sɪːɣʏrðartouhtɪr. This is very difficult to render with a "phonetic English" transcription, because it includes several sounds that just don't occur in English. Marco polo (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me a rough-and-ready transcription, please? Like Yoh-HANN-ah Sig-ur-WAR-doh-teer? (My guess.) I found Help:IPA, but it's literally a foreign alphabet to me, which makes it difficult to grasp and decode the symbols. By the way, did you find that IPA pronunciation somewhere or are you fluent in it? Revelian (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Using sounds from English will result in a mispronunciation, but here is about the closest you can get: YOE hahn nah SIH gur thar dough deer. In each part of her name, the accent is on the first syllable. "YOE" rhymes with Joe. "SIH" uses the same vowel sound as the first syllable of signature. The g in "gur" is softer than an English g and actually closer to a French guttural r. The syllable "thar" is pronounced with a voiced th, as in them thar hills. The syllable "dough" is pronounced almost like the English word dough might have been pronounced in the Middle Ages, ending with a sound somewhere between a heavy h sound and the ch sound at the end of the Scots word loch. The vowel in this syllable is the same as the (diphthong) vowel in the modern English "dough". The d in both "dough" and "deer" is actually unvoiced (like English t) but unaspirated (like English d). Marco polo (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to answer your last question. I didn't find the IPA transcription, I composed it. I would not say that I am "fluent" in IPA, but I am comfortable with it and recognize most of the symbols. I have done some amateur study of Icelandic in the past, and I confirmed the pronunciation that I thought would be right by checking our article Icelandic phonology. Marco polo (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much for what I asked for and more! Revelian (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Psychology of Fightclub

Is there any psychological movement that endorses the attitude of Fightclub? Is that a kind of positive psychology on steroids?--Mr.K. (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nihilism? That seems to drive a lot of Tyler's motivations, although maybe I just dont understand your question. Livewireo (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you ask about the philosophy of Fightclub, nihilism could be the answer. So as existentialism or any other kind of individualist self-liberating philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.97.125 (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the principle "Lex superior derogat legi inferiori" used under this or another name in anglophonic countries?

I've been searching for the juridical expression Lex superior derogat legi inferiori ("a higher law beats lower ones"). There are articles about this principle in the Norwegian wp's; seemingly, the Norwegian Supreme Court explicitly applied it in a number of cases. I found either articles or references in a few other languages, e.g., an Italian article and a short German explanation. The Norwegian items examplify with constitutional rules invalidating (common) law, and the German with federal law invalidating state law ("Landesrecht"), in the Federal German Republic.

Now, I found no reference to this principle in the English wp, neither in List of legal Latin terms, nor in article titles; and a search mainly gave a number of references to Lex Luthor claiming to be superior to Superman... On the other hand, it is common knowledge that similar principles are applied in US jurisdiction, e.g., numerous laws considered void if they contradict statues in the federal constitution (or the appropriate state constitution, for state laws). So, what I'd like to know is if the same or a rather similar principle is invoced under another name in e.g. the US, or if instead a principle named "Lex superior derogat legi inferiori" indeed is invoced in some English-speaking countries, but for some reason no one got around to mention it yet.

Sorry if this sounds complicated; it really boils down to the simple question To what English sibling shall I link the handful of "Lex superior derogat legi inferiori" artticles in other languages? JoergenB (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The phrase in the U.S. constitution is "supreme law of the land"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at Preemption (law) (which is linked in the "See also" section of the article linked by AnonMoos). But I was under the impression that, in general, interwiki links shouldn't be created unless the linked articles are on exactly the same topic. Deor (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What does "exactly the same topic" mean? The trouble is, (a), that sometimes a word or expression is translated to another language; is it then about "exactly the same topic"? Moreover, (b), often the articles in different languages are more "on different topics" than they IMHO should be, according to our global view policy. The en:wp article will be concrete only about examples from English-speaking countries, the no:wp and nn:wp only from Norway, et cetera. Does this make it to "not exactly the same topic", or not?

Apart from that, thanks! JoergenB (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know; I'm not really familiar with the intricacies of interwiki links (or the intricacies of the law). But I'd personally be reluctant to link an article titled "Lex superior" (with or without "derogat legi inferiori") to an article not so titled. I may be being too fastidious, however. Deor (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice that Supreme law of the land (since yesterday) is a link to Supremacy Clause, while Supreme law (more or less an English translation of "Lex superior"?) links to Constitution. Preemption is somewhat closer to the general subject, but very much limited to US legislation.

I discern a conflict between the "Principle of Least Surprise" and the "Global Principle"; I'm not sure which of them is the superior one:-). I'm afraid these articles indeed may be too specialised. I would like to know what the corresponding "Lex superior" applications are called in e.g. Engish, Scottish, or Australian legal tradition. Ideally, either an expanded "preemption (law)" or a new article (perhaps "Lex superior" or "Supreme law") would deal with the general concept, and refer to the US law articles as examples. The general article would be apt for iw linking. Since I don't have an education in law, I don't think I'm up to this, however. JoergenB (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The UK situation is complicated; matters for devolved administrations are explicitly delegated, and I'm not sure how issues of conflict between jurisdictions work out, especially as Scottish law has always been distinct. Moreover, there's the issue of EU law; again, I'm not sure of the details, but EU law doesn't automatically win - it has to be enacted into UK law, as was the case with the Human Rights Act. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The status fo EU vz. national law is one reason why this is interesting. There is some similar rule in Sweden, I think; however, if I've understood this correctly, when the law or charter has been ratisfied by our parliament, then it will be "lex superior" with respect to (ordinary) Swedish law. (As I wrote before, I'm not scooled in this, and may have misunderstood it.) JoergenB (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Zahrani seat in Lebanon

Which Lebanese governorate is the parliament seat Zahrani situated in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.201 (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Switching between Google maps and WP makes it seem that it is in Nabatieh District / Nabatieh Governorate, a few km N of Nabatieh itself. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: List of cities and towns in Lebanon lists it there, as well. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the disposition of Tom Delay's charges?

The main Wiki article still says that "He is still awaiting trial." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.69.36 (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

About Ian Brady's quote.

Last year, British serial killer Ian Brady said "The other patients get paid more than me".

My question is: How dare this scum to say that?. Is it freedom of speech?, why is he allowed to say that if he is in solitary confinement? --201.254.74.152 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Offenders lose some but not all of their liberties. They're as free to say things as the rest of society. They're constrained as to the audience to which they can address their remarks directly. Even in solitary confinement, they have access to legal representation if required. Brady being "scum" does not further constrain him any more than it helps your question. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And on a point of fact, Brady is in a secure mental hospital, not a prison. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of him being kept in solitary confinement either (which is only a temporary punishment in British jails, not a permanent sentence[9], though he may be segregated from other prisoners for his own safety or due to his weak physical condition). In recent years he's been in Ashworth Hospital, a high security mental hospital in Liverpool, but has been petitioning to be returned to a normal prison (he was found guilty of murder and only later showed signs of mental illness); such a transfer would allow him to refuse food and not be force-fed. This article contains more detail of his recent protest. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record I would say that "How dare this scum to say that? Is it freedom of speech?, why is he allowed to say that?" are not really questions, despite sounding like them and having a question mark at the end. They are really rants. Please desist. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Paypal in Contradiction of UK Law?

Paypal has a new policy, introduced in January, that (under direction from e-bay's servers) payments for goods can be held by themselves; paypal(for up to three weeks) until either positive feedback is received or 21 days pass without a dispute being filed. The seller is still required to immediately send on the goods bought. Doesn't this assume that the seller is guilty (of something such as misrepresenting good or fruadulant activity) which would seem to go against the foundation of all UK law that someone is innocent of a charge until proved otherwise. Apparantly, Paypal will automatically hold payment on any item if the seller feedback is less that 100% positive or their detailed seller rating is 4.4 or less. The money with help can be anything from 0.01p (sterling) and on any item from any category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.79.175 (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would very much doubt that it directly contravenes UK law - after all, they've probably got very well paid lawyers who can draw up the right contract. Anyhow, most things need to make it to court to be contested. Whether it should be, I don't know. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of the justice system, not a rule the public have to follow. Sellers using paypal agree to a contract in order to use it, that contract can say pretty much whatever it likes (there are a few restrictions, but I know of none that would apply to this). --Tango (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Innocence, and the presumption thereof, are matters of criminal law. This is a civil, commercial matter, and thus is subject to contract law. Lots of contracts involve partial payments, retention of final payments until some completion criterion, escrow, and so forth. As you say, Paypal has published this policy, and it will surely form part of the contract you enter into with them when you perform a transaction. One of the chief tests a court applies when assessing the lawfulness of any contract is "were the parties properly informed of its terms when entering into it" - this is clearly the case here. So if you don't like the contract, don't enter into it. 87.113.74.22 (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

But how does that relate to people who have joined pay pal goodness knows how many years ago and paypal or ebay or any other company change their terms and conditions at a later date. I don't see how comapanies can change their T&C's so freely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.79.175 (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the original agreement allows them to vary their terms and conditions:

This Agreement is subject to change by PayPal without prior notice (unless prior notice is required by law), by posting of the revised Agreement on the PayPal website. Descriptions of material amendments to this Agreement will be posted in advance on the PayPal website in the "Policy Updates" section that is displayed to you when you log in to your account. You can also set your Preferences to receive e-mail notification of all policy updates.[10]

If you don't read the terms and conditions, you only have yourself to blame. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

One thing that is of concern with regard to payment services (be they Western Union, credit cards, banks, Paypal, or whatever) is "how is this company regulated?". That affects the degree to which your money is bonded or protected by some guarantee, what regulations (and regulator) apply, and what forms of dispute resolution apply (for example some may require binding arbitration). In particular, services like Paypal are regulated as banks in some jurisdictions, and not regulated more than regular companies in others (I honestly don't know what the case is for Paypal in the various UK jurisdictions). Frankly, while such procedures are surely legal, you're not wrong in finding their methods of dispute resolution both a bit summary and arbitrary; but given the small amounts of most eBay transations, and the cost and bother of litigation, you're likely to see such rough-and-ready dispute resolution pertain. 87.113.74.22 (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

How to address an Imam?

Hi, I am doing a lot of work nowadays with the local Muslim community, and in particular the Mosque Committee and the local Imam. Apart from the obvious (hello, how are you?) is there a polite or correct way of addressing the Imam? Also what do I call him in polite company? I know his first name is Abdul, but I wouldn't dare call my local vicar by his first name. So what do I say? -- role^player 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you ask him? Algebraist 21:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't wish to show up how ignorant I am. -- role^player 21:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Think of it this way - you won't be shewing ignorance, you'll be shewing respect and a desire to behave appropriately. DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing ignorant about asking someone how to address them, if you're not sure, or indeed about any point of etiquette. As Duncan says, it's a sign of respect -- not only for the person, but for his customs. It shows that you're not dumb enough to just assume something, and consider your manners and the prospect of getting along with others more important than your ego. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with "Sir" initially, and then ask how he prefers to be addressed. Nobody knows everything - the key feature in intelligent people is that they make the effort to find out something when they don't know it. --Tango (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I love the "just be nice and I'm sure he'll be fine with that" responses, but frankly, cross-cultural exchanges can be a bit more complicated than that, especially with people of authority. Insult someone in a way that you can't quite understand and you might never get off on the right foot. I know nothing about Imams but I know that, for example, even good intentions might get you in the wrong with a Russian professor if you don't perform the necessary verbal bowing and thanking. Much less things like American military etiquette, which is totally bizarre to a civilian but so core to the way their entire organization and ethos operate. If said Imam is an jerk (anyone can be), that won't put you in the wrong, except you've still got to work with a jerk. Better to have some clue what you are getting into rather than relying on good faith and intelligence alone.

My recommendation: ask someone in the aforementioned "local Muslim community." They'll be able to point you in the right direction better than the people on here seem to be able to do. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

When in doubt, ask. I did that when I started working with the imam in my community for the interfaith coalition, and he told me to call him by his first name. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Imam is a title, like Mr or Dr or Professor. In Western appellations, it's usually used with the family name, eg. Imam Abdurrahman. The local use is something you would have to determine. I second DuncanHill, in that you can use a polite form of address, like Sir, until you have an opportunity to ask. As you are not part of the Muslim community, there's no shame in not knowing and lots to gain from a polite question - it shows interest, willingness to learn and willingness to adapt. Kudos for making an effort. Steewi (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment, but it can sometimes be very tricky, though. Years ago, a friend of mine became engaged to a girl whose parents were Serbian immigrants (Yugoslav at that time, but they identified as Serbs). I was introduced to her, and a short time later I was invited to her parents' house for dinner. I went to the house, was welcomed by my friend and his fiancée, and was ushered in to the lounge room, where her parents were. My friend told them who I was, and I went over to the father, extending my hand, saying "pleased to meet you" or words to that effect. He looked at me rather oddly, and somewhat hesitatingly shook my hand. I also shook the mother's hand. All was OK during the dinner, but later I asked my friend whether I'd done something to offend the father. He told me that in Serbian society, a younger man never extends his hand first, but always waits for the older man to do so. I asked him how I could possibly have been expected to know this, and he agreed that I could not have. Even he didn't know at the time, but his fiancée had taken him aside during the evening and explained it to him. With that experience in mind, I'd be very cautious about asking someone from a different culture how they like to be addressed, because it just might be considered offensive. I'd exhaust all other sources of information first. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But surely in this instance the mistake was not that your question was offensive (since you didn't ask one until afterwards), but rather that you didn't ask beforehand if there was any etiquette you should be aware of? Or, more to the point, that your friend -- or his fiancée -- didn't inform you of what is clearly a basic point of etiquette for these people, precisely because they should've known that you wouldn't know about it beforehand. I mean, if you'd walked in and right away very politely apologized for not knowing the the proper Serbian customs and asked if there's etiquette you should observe, is there any reason to assume that the father would've been upset or offended? (Maybe he would've been, of course! Some people are dumb like that. But frankly, I think that would've been on him, not you.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that etiquette issues are rarely resolved by reason. If someone greatly offends you, there's a strong emotional response associated with that. Even if you've been told they don't know better, that doesn't always dampen the effect. Again, if you have the luxury of hoping the person you might inadvertently offend will be reasonable and personable, go for it. If it's someone who you've got to work with regularly, who you need something from, who you will need support from in the future, who will give you a job, whatever, then better to be safe than sorry. Again, asking someone within the same community is probably an easy, sure-fire bet, as they'll know better than an outsider what the rules of the game are.

Just as an example, in the USA the "okay" gesture is totally normal, fine, friendly thing to do. Do that in Brazil in a bar and you'll get punched in the face. Apologize profusely and explain it was a common cultural mix-up, and you'll probably get punched in the face again. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, and in some parts of the world, you're an asshole if you don't burp after a meal or leave a little on your plate. Sure. But let's put this in context: we're not talking about a guy who's likely to smash your teeth in with a bar stool at the slightest provocation here. We can reasonably expect an imam in this kind of a position to have some experience and interest in dealing with stupid infidels who don't know the customs and a vested interest in educating them. Personally, I'd take my chances.

As for Brazil, I'm sure there are bars where everyone is on a hair trigger, always looking for a reason to throw a punch, especially if you open a conversation with the okay sign, but I'm still pretty sure that if a foreigner drops the, uh, O-bomb in the middle of an otherwise friendly discussion, it'll most likely result in awkwardness rather than a knuckle sandwich... but perhaps I'm underestimating the savage and combative nature of the average Brazilian watering hole. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

@Captain Disdain: The odd thing was that the parents were not recently arrived migrants. They had lived in Australia for about 25 years at that stage and they had worked mainly as hostel managers, where surely they would have been introduced to thousands of people who would also have inadvertently breached this unspoken Serbian custom. I can't imagine the father got put out of joint every time this ever happened; but maybe, because I was his precious only daughter's fiancé's best friend, he reserved the right to be a little sensitive about these sorts of things. Who knows. Just on the general question, when it comes to religious leaders, they also meet thousands of people all the time, and they'd be very used to being addressed in not strictly correct ways (e.g. bishops would be used to being called "Bishop" rather than "Your Grace"), so if they get upset about it every time, there's not much hope for them. Imams might be different, though. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two questions rolled into one here: (1) what is the formal style of address of an imam (which seems to be ‘Imam + surname’, as discussed above); and (2) how to address an imam in an informal situation. The first one should be fed back to a Wikipedia article. – Kaihsu (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do some businesses offer 'senior discounts'?

Seems it can't be to promote customer loyalty, since these customers are unlikely to become long-term customers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.165.180 (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you think too short-term. Seniors not only live longer than you think (in business terms, 10-20 years is a long time, and most put the cutoff of "senior" around 65), but they have senior friends, and families, and so forth. They also are often retired and have more disposable time (and fewer expenses like mortgages and kids in college) than "non-seniors". In my experience they also are very big believers in brand loyalty as well. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

However, a lot of seniors are non-working and are relying on a fixed income (pension, retirement plan or social security). Companies often offer senior discounts as a curtousy, and like the poster above me said, many are very, very brand loyal. Livewireo (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, a lot of businesses classify "senior" to start at a pretty low threshhold- 50 or 55 sometimes. Secondly, customer loyalty isn't the reason most discounts are given - the business is simply trying to generate revenue (or grab it from a competitor) that he might otherwise not get. For businesses with a relatively high fixed cost (just the costs of being in business, even if you don't sell anything) then such discounts are generally a good idea. If you run a restaurant then much of your costs are fixed (rent, staff salaries, heat and light) then fallow times like wednesday afternoon are unlikely to be profitable. But if you can incentivise people to come in (such as a seniors special between 2.15 and 5pm) then you'll get business at a time you wouldn't otherwise, and make money to cover those fixed costs. You have to be careful that the discount doesn't cannibalise your regular business (where seniors who would have come anyway at 5.30 instead come at 4:45), but in general for service-oriented businesses such demand leveling is often a wise strategy. It's less clearly advantageous for retail, where the product is transferable and thus the risk of cannibalism worse (I'm not the only person who has sent granny to B&Q on Wednesday to buy me a powerdrill with her senior card). 87.113.74.22 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

businesses offer senior discounts for exactly the same reason as they offer student discounts: to practice price discrimination. Remember, a business's job is to make sure that every single potential customer they have leaves as much money with them as they can possibly be convinced to so. Why do you think Apple has macbook "pros"? Because these machines are professional-strength? Nonesense! They're the same as the normal mac books. It's because these machines are priced for professionals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.157 (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I second this. Everybody values every product slightly differently. Total gross profit for a firm is maximized when every customer (who is willing to pay more than marginal cost, that is) is charged EXACTLY the most that they are willing to pay for a product. If they are charged more, they won't buy, and if they are charged less, the firm misses out on profit. But purchasers have an incentive to hide their true preferences. No one will honestly bid the highest price they are willing to pay for a product, if they know they can get it cheaper. So firms make broad generalizations about customer types (That they CAN discriminate between) and set prices accordingly. An example is: Booking a "next-day" flight with an airline. The airline knows that anyone who is booking a flight in a hurry probably needs to get where they are going, and is more willing to pay. NByz (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Read price discrimination. Basically if you can charge $10 to young people but old people will only pay $7, you would be missing out on customers by charging a uniform price. Obviously it is more complicated because different old people will have different reserve prices, but between that simple explaination and the article you should get the idea.--Jabberwalkee (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Guinea pig vs England

Hi,

Can I go from Europe to the UK with my guinea pig? Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.31.64 (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

DEFRA's rules for rodents is here. 87.113.74.22 (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I read the title of the question, and imagined a very strange boxing match ... ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Or a very one-sided football match. Poor England would have no chance... DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Music

How can you describe the music to have evolved over from the 18th century, say Baroque Period, to what it is today? in terms of people, terms of instruments, in terms of what was music look as...etc. also post a few articles on the same if possible!...thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.240.36 (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a few things you might want to look at. Apart from the changes in the structure of music (i.e. from concertos, sonatas and courantes to twelve tone composition and the works of Philip Glass), there are other things to take notice of. Big changes are things like the amount of improvisation and ornamentation (music) that are acceptable in classical music. Another change is in the use of stylistic parts of playing such as vibrato, musical phrasing, rubato and dynamics. The instruments have changed a lot. There were instruments played in the Baroque era that aren't played anymore, and the instruments that are still played aren't necessarily the same - a Baroque violin and bow sound quite different to a modern violin and bow.

This is just an overview. I've kept it within classical music. If you include popular music, then of course the differences are much greater. Steewi (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Another thing that has changed is musical temperament, that is, tuning. Today's common equal temperament did not really become the norm until the mid-1800s. In earlier times meantone temperament was common, and Bach's famous Well-Tempered Clavier was composed to demonstrate well temperament. The effect of this is still present in the notion that different keys have different moods. This doesn't make a lot of sense in modern equal temperament, but it does in older systems, in which different keys really did have slightly different pitch relationships. So when one hears that Beethoven found the key of C to be "heroic", for example, it can be confusing until one remembers that in Beethoven's day equal temperament was not yet established, and the key of C really did sound different from other keys. Pfly (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That notion extended way past the time when equal temperament became the norm. Transposing a piece into a different key might not be noticed by the great bulk of people, but to some people it's virtually a different piece. Composers of the 19th and 20th centuries chose the keys for their works very deliberately, sometimes for reasons such as orchestral music in E flat minor or C sharp major is difficult for many instruments to grapple with (and even good old C major is one of the most difficult keys for violins to play), but sometimes for mood-related reasons. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(Random tangent) Singing in amateur choirs, I've found there are some keys people find very difficult to stay in; they 'drift' into a more comfortable key. It isn't that the notes are too high or too low, but that there still seems to be some different feel to the keys. Not really sure where that comes from. 79.66.71.197 (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither of these things has really changed since the Baroque era though. Excepting of course the evolution of instruments, which has changed to some degree (horns have changed, violins haven't really). That certain instruments sound different is certain keys is definitely true--but is true today more or less like it was a couple centuries ago--for those instruments still in use anyway. I'm not sure about choirs, but if true the same idea ought to hold there too. Pfly (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

We're drifting off the OPs question here, but the "mood" of keys has always interested me. Because I can't detect it at all. I found the musical temperament article and discussion by Pfly very interesting, and could see how that effect would result in a pretty clear distinction between the moods of each key. I suppose I can also see where Jack is coming from on the classical side. Considering the limited optimal ranges of orchestral instruments, I suppose I could see how the key would have to influence the assigning of parts to each instrument, and the passing back and forth of melodies. But, for example, I sometimes make orchestral songs using MIDI. Maybe I'm just spoiled by the fact that the MIDI voices that I use sound pretty great playing nearly any note (on a "strings" voice, the lower the note, the more the feeling of the bassy instruments or Cello comes out, for example). Is is just that I am spoiled by the wide range of the electric guitar and modern synth voices? NByz (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think part of it has to do with how an instrument makes sound. Take a guitar for example. If you want chords with that full round sound that comes with lots of open strings you will find it easier to do in keys like A and D rather than Bb and Eb. Wind instruments tend to have distinctive qualities over their ranges. Clarinet comes to mind, with its chalumeau register, throat tones, etc. And yes, these things don't matter when using synths--although other similar things might enter into it. A synth I have has a nice "choir" patch that I like quite a lot. But it sounds increasingly fake and shrill as you approach and pass a high C. Another synth I used to have had complex filters that sometimes made individual notes sound quite wrong compared to the rest of a patch. So if composing for that patch one would want to avoid keys that made heavy use of such notes. But in general--yea I'm spoiled too. :-) On the other hand, synth sounds, no matter how nice, have to be sent to an electronic amplifier and loudspeakers--probably using some kind of paper-like cone pushed by magnets. This, plus other things, limits the sound. Although the piano-like synth I have is more enjoyable to play than a lot of real pianos, it can never come close to the sound of big pieces of wood resonating, as in a real piano. Naturally the difference between a real instrument and a synth is lost when one listens to recordings of real instruments through loudspeakers. Pfly (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The process is the punishment

My exposure to marijuana-related news items has exposed me to the idea of the DEA/law enforcement/whoever entangling marijuana users and dispensers into complicated and expensive legal procedures that they know will end in acquittal. In other words, they are using the legal process as a punishment and to disuade the citizenry from involving themselves in illegal marijuana. My question is: what sort of protections are there in place to prevent/punish this sort of abuse of power? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Malicious prosecution might be a starting point, offering civil remedies. In most countries you can complain to authorities over police misconduct e.g. police harassment. The press/media also play an important role in combatting abuses of power. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, thank you. With marijuana, it seems like it's a little different from the strict set of qualifications because it's technically illegal (so probable cause is present) but it's still an abuse of process because there is "an improper purpose that is collateral to the proper object of the process". — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 16:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Explaining death to a child.

My wife's mother recently passed and we now have the unfortunate task of explaining 'where grandma has gone' to our 2 year old daughter. We are not religious and don't believe in an afterlife so we don't want to use words/phrases like 'heaven' or 'a better place'. Our dilemma is that although we believe that life just ends when you die, it seems a little harsh to tell someone who is just getting to grips with existence, that someone she is very fond of has simply stopped being here.

I'm sure Richard Dawkins had some suggestions in his God Delusion book but can't remember any of the phrases he put forward. Any suggestions welcome.91.109.221.91 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

With great respect for your beliefs and great empathy with your current situation - for which I have no immediate suggestion - I noticed you said your wife's mother "passed". Passing usually refers to going from one place to another place. I know it's a common euphemism for dying; but maybe, somewhere in your psyche, there's a little voice that's telling you she's not just ceased to exist period, but has in some sense gone somewhere, where in some sense she still exists. Maybe? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your loss, and I don't envy you the task of breaking the news to your daughter. However, to be honest, I would just bite the bullet and explain her that her grandma has died, and then tell her what that means -- if she's not familiar with the concept, you may have to break it down for her in pretty simple terms, like "she got very sick and her body doesn't work anymore." You're absolutely right to not use euphemisms, I think; if you just say that she's "gone away", for example, she's going to ask if you can visit her -- or worse, start worrying that when someone else who goes away, that might also mean that they die. And when she has questions about all this, you answer them gently, but truthfully: grandma is dead, she's not coming back, and it's all right to feel sad about that and miss her, and it's nothing to be scared about. At two years, she's probably not going to grasp these things right off the bat, but that's all right. She'll get it. One of the most fundamental facts of life is that it ends, and there's no getting around that, but what you don't want to do is make it into some kind of a secret and scary thing. I really don't think you have a lot of choice but to talk about it fairly openly, if you're going to break the news to her. (The alternativly would be to just kind of keep her in the dark, which is probably doable, but I really wouldn't recommend that.)

Also: you find it hard to talk about this with her, which is understandable. You may want to consider, however, if your apprehension comes not only from the thought that this might distress her, but from your own reluctance to go through the ordeal of explaining this to such a young child, because you don't want to get it wrong or simply because you'd like to avoid dealing with it? If so, I certainly wouldn't blame you. I mean, that's exactly what I would be feeling. But kids are pretty tough, and they can deal with this kind of stuff. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We were in your position when our oldest daughter turned three and my husband's father died suddenly. Our daughter was sad when told that Grandad was dead, but children are very good at accepting things (better than adults, in my experience). Once told that it was OK to be sad, and we were all sad too, but that we didn't have to stop loving Grandad just because he was dead, she coped just fine. And yes, we used the word "dead" - I don't like euphemisms and my own experience is that they tend to confuse children. When my mother, who was religious, attempted to discuss another relative's death with our younger daughter some years later, she nobly avoided the "gone to heaven with Baby Jesus" theme because she knew we'd prefer her to, but the mixture of bodily burial and hints of vague spiritual resurrection she provided instead got our daughter so confused that she apparently worried for some time that Auntie Eileen had been composted at the bottom of the garden and would come back with the snowdrops in the spring. Which isn't such a bad image, I suppose, but not helpful for the very literal, as children are at that age. I'm sure your daughter will be fine, and my best wishes to your family at this sad time. Karenjc 15:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A similar question was asked before. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008_March_25#Need_help. 132.206.22.11 (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We've had rather quite a few instances of the same kind. My daughter is six and her family tree has been pruned four times since she was born - and both mama and I have fairly small families! I am an atheist and wanted to give my girl the straight story without traumatizing her, so I greatly sympathize with your situation. My experience is that telling the child honestly and candidly what has happened is the best thing; the trauma a child can feel is only enhanced by trying to sugar-coat the situation. My wife's mother died when my daughter was about two (synchronicity?) and to be honest at that age their conception of things is much more plastic than ours is. I'd like to say that she accepted the loss well, but in truth I'm not sure she really grasped that something had been lost at all; not because we didn't let her experience the situation, but rather because she just wasn't socially or psychologically developed enough to really appreciate what had happened.

Since you've asked for advice and we seem to have a common background in some things, I'll give it: tell her honestly but compassionately and pay close attention to how she reacts to what you say. You know your child as well as anybody; try to read what she's feeling (she won't be able to express herself verbally) and deal with what she wants to deal with. At a more neutral time, you may also want to sit her down and ask her plainly whether she has any questions about death or dying. I found myself in that situation and was somewhat surprised at the range of questions and concerns even a young child can have, from "what happens to my toys when the sun explodes?" (actual question) to "what do you see when you're dead?" (also real) to "who will look after me if you and mommy die?" (again, real). Stay calm, be reassuring, but plain-spoken. Kids hate being lied to. Matt Deres (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on the Golden Rule of fiscal policy

The article about the Golden Rule of fiscal policy states that "the Government will borrow only to invest and not to fund current spending". My question is about the extent to which spending can be considered as 'investment'.

Would spending money to build a new road or school be an 'investment'? What about disaster relief? These both seem to be investments in a way. But are welfare payments? Is there any rigid guidance?

Any help appreciated, cheers. 77.99.21.181 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The definition of "investment" is in the mind of the politicians finagling preparing the budget. As U.S. Senator Richard Russell (among many others) said, "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the fellow behind that tree." By the same token, you'll find people talking seriously about protecting their investment in their car, which lost 20% or so of its value when they drove it new from the dealership.

A road might seem like a good, long-term idea (the payoff being the service it provides, and possibly an increase in commerce or quality of life). The bridge to nowhere was touted (endlessly) as an investment, though most non-Alaskans saw it as the biggest pig Ted Stevens ever tried to bring home. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As per GAAP, IFRS and economic thinking (the latter, IMHO) investment is a use of capital designed to "produce a long term benefit." Usually this is interpreted as > one year. For example, under GAAP and IFRS, with certain exceptions, capital investments of this nature are capitalized (turned into an "asset") then depreciated over their useful life. If the benefit is deemed to last less than one year (again, with certain explicit exceptions, but generally speaking), it's an "expense." I think that this one-year rule approximates economic thinking about what constitutes an investment vs. spending.

It should be noted, that this "golden rule" certainly isn't universal. You'll notice that the Fiscal Policy article doesn't link to it. Traditional, Keynesian fiscal policy is just designed to stimulate short-run aggregate demand to artificially flatten the wild swings in the business cycle by encouraging companies to maintain inventories and production throughout. Keynes, famously (because it was mentioned on Colbert last night), said something to the effect that, during a recession, government ought to borrow money (or actually he said "pay from savings..." savings... yeah right...) to pay people to dig holes and fill them in if needs be. Naturally, something that actually generates utility would be better, but the point is, that government has the power to take a hit to its' balance sheet and keep people spending money during recessions. The flip side of this, of course, is that the government needs to be accumulating savings (or paying down debt) during times of expansion. I'm proud to say that Canada has been doing this, and can best afford to use this sort of fiscal stimulus now. NByz (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so by that "one-year" definition, roads and schools, done correctly, would have obvious one-year+ benefits to discount to present value. Disaster relief would have a pretty strong argument too, especially if it's in the form of capital goods. It would also count if, by providing water and food, you're saving lives, and those people are going to do something productive in the next year+ range. Welfare payments are a little tougher to justify as an investment, but it's possible: Firstly, not having an income sufficient to maintain health (food, medicine etc.) may result in a long-term loss (and providing them, a long-term benefit). Also, having no welfare payments forces people to take jobs that may not be commiserate with their skills. If a person has the resources to wait for a fitting job to come around, they will produce more long-term value for society.

Again though, traditional fiscal policy ideas just tell us to increase spending or decrease taxes (make the "G - T" term in the macroeconomic identity as big as possible) to stimulate short-run aggregate demand as much as possible during a recession. In my view, all things considered, tax breaks are the best option because they maintain what economists call "allocative efficiency." By releasing the same value of funds that would otherwise go into a spending stimulus to the public, the public will naturally allocate the funds where they see the most personal (present value) benefit. Bureaucracies - especially political ones - don't tend to be very efficient allocators.NByz (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

January 30

Finnish humour

Not sure if this is the right desk, but my question is about Finnish humour. Once in an ad there's a couple who pole walk in their backyard, trick their dinner guests with store bought sauce, and refer to Finnish humour. After reading the origins of the name Molotov cocktail and what they called the Russian bombs in response to propaganda, I'm wondering if there are more examples and references, preferably historical, but anything really. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Geez, that's a good but awfully broad question, Julia! I'm kind of racking my brains here, trying to figure out a reasonable answer to it. I mean, I could come up with examples, but I'm a little hesitant to do that simply because it wouldn't be a very comprehensive answer -- it'd be a little like saying that Friends is an example of American humor, which would definitely be true, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Friends is representative of it, you know? There's plenty of Finnish humor on the internet, of course, but the language barrier is a kind of a problem here, and humor is always difficult to explain.

But! Don't despair, Wikipedia to the rescue: of course we have a helpful category, Finnish comedy and humor. Unfortunately, the articles under it aren't that great and the selection isn't necessarily terribly comprehensive, but I figure if you check out the entries there, you'll have at least some idea of what this entails, and if you have additional or more specific questions after that, I can probably be a little more helpful. =) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Julia, you asked for "anything, really", so... as a neighbour, when I mentally combine "Finnish" and "Hilarious", the first performer that comes to mind is M. A. Numminen, especially with this song, which I can understand, because it is sung in Swedish. The lyrics go "like a rubber ball, I come back to you", over and over again. I realise that to an outsider this just seems somewhat weird, but I can assure you, there are lots of people (yours truly included) who find this song absolutely hilarious. There is a lot of humour in the Moomin universe. Then there are the Pekka and Toivonen jokes, which, I suppose aren't really examples of Finnish humour, but rather humour at the expense of the Finnish. Otherwise, to a neighbour who is old enough to have endured Finnish TV theatre in the early 1970's, a time when there wasn't a lot of channels to chose from, humour is not the first thing that comes to mind... It's more like "suicide, booze, sauna, more booze, murder, booze, making your own coffin (best to be prepared), booze, sauna..." --NorwegianBlue ^talk 20:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Finnish entertainment... [here]'s an example with subtitles. 84.239.160.166 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cap D, NorBlue, 84.2, that's wonderful and unexpected. Thank you, I just love it – quirky, larrikin, spoofy, cool stuff. Even the rubber boomeranging ball breaks me up. The eaten pie offering. The wrong house and the unfazed neighbour. Sorry about the bigness of question, but you nailed it. Of course if you are inspired further, let it loose here. There had to be something special about people returning a joke under pressure – grin from this ear to this other ear You're too good. :)) PS I'm starting to get the stubbornness too. Is there anything like the American, the Englishman and the Australian using Finns, Swedes etc? As Pekka and Toivonen, everyone seems to like a pecking order ... Julia Rossi (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely -- Swedes and Russians are favorites in addition to the Finns in those jokes, I think, but we're not that picky. (Content-wise, they're pretty much the same as every other "X, Y and Z walk into a bar" joke you ever heard. =)) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

summary of human affairs (present day)

can someone give me a brief (one hefty paragraph) summary of human affairs (present day)? I had good luck previously here at the reference desk asking for a summary of human history. I am now looking for the same length and depth but with attention to present human affairs. Thank you!

for your inspiration you can use the summary of human history:

“ The story of the human species is one of expansion from Africa to the rest of the Old World and the Americas and the mastery of ever more complex technologies that brought ever more complete control over the human environment. Recorded history is but the most recent stage in the story of humanity. It documents the development and expansion of complex societies that made use of new technologies with an increasingly detailed division of labor. The most recent chapter of human history has been one of accelerating scientific discovery, technological advance, use of nonliving sources of energy, economic activity, and population growth. These trends have coincided with the spread of technologies and ideas from western Europe around the world such that the entire world is now more or less part of a single civilization. These trends have also for the first time raised the possibility that humanity could bring about its own demise, through the use of technologically advanced weapons, through the exhaustion of limited natural resources, or through the pollution of the environment with the wastes of human material and energy consumption. Marco polo (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC) ”

Well, let's give it a try, shall we :) A very short, very abridged (and badly written) summary of the state of the world:

Today, the dominant power militarily is the United States and economically, the United States along with Western Europe. In East Europe Russia, after 50 years of being a superpower and a subsequent collapse, is once again ascendant, although they have quite a ways off until they reach superpower status.

The future, however, lies in Asia. The two mos populous nations in the world (India and China) are pulling themselves up from the relative poverty that afflicted them during the 20th century, and are becoming economic powerhouses due to adoption of more liberal market policies. India has also adopted democracy which will only help them in the future. It should be noted that they are not alone, they are just the most powerful; there exists today a number of rapidly developing economies, former third-world countries that are pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and as a consequence will enormously expand the economy on the timescale of a few decades (Brazil and Eastern Europe being good examples).

It is not all good news. Many parts of Africa are still starving and in desperate need of aid. The AIDS epidemic has devastated the continent and is currently the leading cause of death in developing countries.

Currently, we are suffering through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. It has severely (if temporarily) contracted the world economy. Experts predict that it will last to around 2010-2011, before the things get back to normal.

In addition to (or perhaps in response to) this world-wide liberalization of markets, there is developing a large grassroots movement for religious fundamentalism, especially in the Arab world. Unlike the enemies of the previous century, these are rarely entire governments or leaders of nations, these groups come from below. With the USs involvement in middle eastern affairs and Israels continued attacks on the Palestinians, these groups show no sign of weakening.

The world have shown signs of polarization in the last decade, following the 9/11 attack and the hard line taken by former US president Bush. The US has become hated in many parts of the world, much more so than previously. President Obama has promised a more conciliatory and diplomatic approach to foreign policy, however it is unknown at this time whether it will have much of an impact, but hope (as they say), is on the rise.

Finally, the world faces not only geopolitical and economic difficulties, but scientific ones as well. After the industrial revolution, the world has been releasing huge amounts of excess greenhouse gases, causing the average temperature of the world to increase faster than it would have naturally. This will lead to a rapid increase in famines, droughts, rising of sea levels and possibly many other problems. This is a recognized problem in the world, and most developed countries are taking action to slow it down, yet thus far there has been little noticeable effect.

Does that do? Don't quite know what you'd want it for, though, but there you go. Belisarius (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a much more difficult assignment than a summary of world history, because we lack the perspective on the present day that history affords. Belisarius has done an admirable job, but others can and will differ on what should be included in or excluded from a brief summary of current affairs. Others would also differ on the significance of particular current events. I don't want to quibble or compete with Belisarius, nor do I feel confident of my own ability to present the current situation. There is so much that we don't know! So I am not going to attempt my own synopsis. Marco polo (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How about giving a go at summarizing Belisarius, then, Marco polo, because the above is way way more than a paragraph? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.157 (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

In the miniseries Oppenheimer, it is suggested that the US decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not made to bring Japan to its knees, but rather because Russia was planning to enter the war. The committee making the decision concludes that a land war in Asia would be catastrophic and deems the atomic bombing a necessary sacrifice, even though they don't believe that it is the only way to bring Japan to surrender. The official make several statements to the effect that if Japan had shown their willingness to capitulate (even if not unconditionally) earlier, the bombings would not have been necessary.

This isn't mentioned in Wikipedia's article on the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so I was wondering if this is theory has any weight among contemporary historians. Is there any evidence that Stalin made it clear that Russia wanted to 'help' the US fight Japan? risk (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

See this article. Oda Mari (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet Union had agreed, with the US, to attack Japan on a specific date, after Germany had been defeated. At the time of the agreement this was considered necessary, by the US, to defeat Japan in a timely manner. However, with the atomic bomb, and the lesson of how Russia just ignored it's agreements to allow a free and independent Poland, the US no longer wanted Russia to be a major player in the war with Japan, since they would presumably keep whatever Japanese territory they conquered. So, yes, one of the reasons to drop the bombs was to secure a quick surrender, and thus deny Russia the ability to take Japanese territory.

As far as the US accepting less than an unconditional surrender, there was some support in the US for adding a surrender clause that would state that the Emperor would retain his status. As it happened, there was an unconditional surrender, but the Emperor was allowed to remain, anyway. The Japanese had in mind more of a "cease-fire", where both sides would stop fighting and Japan would withdraw from the conquered territories, but the Japanese government would remain intact. This was completely unacceptable in the US. StuRat (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Americans were very afraid of the war ending while the Russians were in Japan and could make territorial/jurisdiction claims. The US had gotten the USSR to agree to enter the war earlier on, as they thought they'd need the help. By August 1945 they no longer wanted it anymore. The Russians, on their end, were somewhat desperate to try and get into Japan as well before it ended, as they did want a postwar say in the country.

The argument that the bombs were really a "warning" to Russia or a way of trying to keep Russia out is definitely common enough in scholarly work that it should be part of that page. Gar Alperovitz made this argument fairly explicit in his revisionist work. Overall the "debates" page is missing a lot of stuff. -98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the insights. In case anyone is interested this page contains a great deal of primary sources on the whole matter. risk (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd point out that if the USA hadn't had the 'atomic weapon' card to play, it may well have needed the USSR's help; so it was only when a nuclear strike became apparent that a 'neutral' (i.e. non-active) USSR was preferable. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the US (here in the figures of Truman and Stimson, as not very many people actually knew about it) certainly felt empowered by having the bomb. It's up for debate (and, as the page indicates, has been debated and debated since 1945) whether the US could have done it alone, whether it would have been hard or not, whether the estimated dead are inflated, whether Japan was basically willing to give up anyway, etc. It's not a simple thing, not the least because of the counterfactuals involved. --140.247.242.36 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The United States lost almost 9,000 troops killed at Iwo Jima. There is utterly no reason to believe that the Japanese would not have fought even more fiercely to defend the Home Islands. While some US Presidents have been profligate with the lives of American soldiers, Truman decided to drop the bomb and lost none in invading Japan. You may notice that even after the first bomb and the Soviet declaration of war against Japan, it took a second bomb to force the surrender.

Was anyone suggesting that the US not drop the bomb scheduled to be in the first wave of landings on Honshu? I rather think not.

B00P (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Japan was seeking peace and the USA knew it. Read this section and the next one. Oda Mari (talk) 05:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Winston Churchill was in Potsdam with Truman when news of the Trinity test arrived. In his book Triumph and Tragedy, the last volume of his Second World War set, he reports that at their meetings on the matter "there was never a moment's discussion as to whether the atomic bomb should be used or not", and "There was unanimous, automatic, unquestioned agreement around our table; nor did I ever hear the slightest suggestion that we should do otherwise. To avert a vast, indefinite butchery, to bring the war to an end, to give peace to the world, to lay healing hands upon its tortured peoples by a manifestation of overwhelming power at the cost of a few explosions, seemed, after all our toils and perils, a miracle of deliverance." Any hand-wringing came after. As for the Russians, he says quite a lot, as you can imagine, and the issue was particularly germaine at Potsdam. "Moreover, we should not need the Russians" and "We had no need to ask favors of them" seem to be the prevailing notions. The atomic bomb was not used to forestall the Russians, but that was certainly a welcome bonus. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The Queen's sense of humour

Does wikipedia have an article or pointers on this? Kittybrewster ☎ 13:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Prince Charles (who is friends with Stephen Fry and Billy Connolly and a fan of The Goons) she doesn't seem to socialise with comedians or be a particular devotee of comedy. Perhaps she takes more of her humour from life; her consort Prince Philip is known for his "mischievous sense of humour"[11] and a former aide reported: "The Queen has a wicked sense of humour and is a great mimic. She can do all accents - including mine."[12]

Her taste in TV runs more to dramas and soaps like Coronation Street[13], EastEnders, The Bill, Kirsty's Home Videos, and horse racing[14]. Since Kirsty's Home Videos was in the same vein as You've Been Framed or America's Funniest Home Videos that lends support to the idea that her sense of humour involves some mischief or delight in people falling over. She is also reported to like Meera Syal, watching the TV adaptation of Life Isn't All Ha Ha Hee Hee[15]. However, this sort of thing can be overanalysed, so I'll stop here. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Name that Icelandic landscape painter

I'm looking for the name of a painter of Icelandic landscapes who had a exhibition in some reasonably significant galleries sometime around 2003 or so. His paintings were notable for their titles, which were all very precise latitudes/longitude coordinates of the location depicted. Their presentation was unique, as they were mounted in large boxes ("cartographers cases" or some such term was applied), and hung from the ceiling. I've Google searched a large number of combinations and permutations of the obvious words, but haven't been able to finding anything. Anyone have a lead on this? Thanks, JamesLucas (" " / +) 16:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's this chap Húbert Nói. DuncanHill (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Spot on. Thanks. JamesLucas (" " / +) 17:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for asking - I hadn't seen his work before, and it looks very interesting. DuncanHill (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm doubly impressed with how quickly you came up with the name. How did you find it so fast if you were unfamiliar with the work? JamesLucas (" " / +) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I highlighted 'Icelandic landscape painter' in the header to this thread, right-clicked, and searched Google for it. An article [16] about him was about the fourth or fifth result! DuncanHill (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My hat's off to you for sharp eyes. I note that this conversation is now one of the top-ranked returns for that search. JamesLucas (" " / +) 02:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Google loves me, it gives me the results I'm looking for and notices my posts here! DuncanHill (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Arab World Religions

Besides Sunni Islam, Shi'a Islam, Druze, Alawites, Maronites of Lebanon and Syria, Chaldeans of Iraq and Copts of Egypt; is there any other Christian or Muslim sects that is found in Arab World, practise by Arabs? Excluding Armenians and Kurds. Do each Arab nation have their own census of their own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.14 (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There are all sorts of Catholic (Roman or otherwise) and Protestant Arabs. Christianity in the Middle East is probably a good start. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Historically, there were the Arab Jews, or Mizrahi Jews, such as the Baghdadi Jews or the Palestinian Jews. A very strong case can be made that these Jews were just as much Arabs as their Muslim neighbors. Very few of these Jews live today in Arab lands. Many live in Israel. Some of those in Israel still identify as Arabs despite being Jewish. Among Muslims, in addition to those you have listed, there is the Ibadi sect. Among Christians, besides those you have mentioned, there are various Oriental Orthodox churches and the Assyrian Church. Marco polo (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tariq Aziz, Saddam Hussein's deputy PM and Foreign Minister, was a Chaldean Catholic. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

carboniferous plants

where is a good site to researh carboniferous plants besides wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.127.1.217 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the Carboniferous period, there are links at the end of our article which may send you off in the right direction. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

St Edwin

In this image of St Edwin which is on all the medals of him there are two people pictured. Who is the other person (child?) in the image and what do they represent (like the dragons in the image of St George for example). Thanks. EdwinHJ | Talk 23:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

At a guess, I'd say Paulinus of York. The image shows two people; a king and a bishop. Edwin was a king, and Paulinus was an archbishop who our articles tell us converted him and is often depicted baptising him. You might want to look more into it though. 79.66.71.197 (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

January 31

Law question

A hypothetical case: Tom beats up Dick. Dick is left badly injured, but for his own reasons, does not press charges against Tom. Harry, a friend of Dick's, wants Tom punished. These are my questions: (1) Is it even necessary for someone to bring charges, or will Tom be prosecuted anyway? (2) If yes, would Harry be able to bring charges against Tom, or would he lack standing? Lantzy ^talk 00:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly possible for charges to be pressed in certain scenarios even if the victim refuses to do so or co-operate with law enforcement - this is a major strand of domestic violence law - the legal system recognises that victims may be reluctant to press charges but has the ability to do so anyway. Exxolon (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Battery (crime) is a felony and is prosecuted by the state against the perpetrator. Harry can go to any police station and report the crime. Battery (tort) is a tort aagainst (in this case) Dick. Dick can go to a lawyuer to raise a claim against Tom. Harry has no standing. This response is general: for specifics in any particular jurisdiction, you nee to ask a lawyer. -Arch dude (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In most common law jurisdictions crimes are almost always prosecuted in the name of the crown (or "the people" in the US) and there is no need for a complaint or someone to press charges. However, for many crimes it is generally the practice of local police and public prosecutors to not bring charges unless a complaint is made or the victime "presses charges." There is nothing stopping them at law, however. For an interesting application of the "no complainant needed" idea check out BDSM#Legal_status--Jabberwalkee (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

What others have said is correct, but it is important to note that without the testimony of the victim it would be very difficult to get a conviction. I think that's why such cases are rarely brought - I imagine there are exceptions, though, where other witnesses are sufficient. --Tango (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for the quick replies. Lantzy ^talk 00:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

New paintings in Oval Office

29 January, 2009

2008 November 2008

Could someone knows what this two shrill colour paintings are ? There were not in the Oval Office during the last days of G.W.B and seems to have replace his personal Texas paintings. Did Obama chose it ? TCY (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

They look a little generic to me (a flag on the left, the statue of liberty on the right). I wouldn't be surprised if they were just stand-ins for the moment. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, apparently those two paintings were in Bill Clinton's office as well: [17] --98.217.14.211 (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In the first picture, according to our article on the Oval Office, the painting on the left is by Childe Hassam called "Avenue in the Rain" (here's an excellent link). The other item is the Statue of Liberty. Underneath the statue appears to be a bronze sculpture by Frederic Remington called "The Bronco Buster". --Blue387 (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this answer. I've heard about the Avenue on the Rain painting was in the White House (as I partially translated on the French Wikipedia the Childe Hassam article) but i did not recognize it. The statue of Liberty painting is a little colorful for the actual shade of the Oval Office.

Some of the Obama Oval Office paintings changes noted in the english wikipedia Oval Office article are wrong. It said

"Barack Obama has also installed the portraits of two Presidents: George Washington has been placed above the fireplace and Abraham Lincoln to the right of the Resolute desk.". But the Abraham Lincoln painting was not really at the right of resolute desk and this two portraits, as shown below, were already there during Bush presidency. I'm going to correct it. TCY (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• 
  George Bush in the Oval Office in october 2006 with the two paintings on the wall, George Washington placed above the fireplace
• 
  January 8, 2009 with Lincoln portrait during the last days of Bush administration
• 
  January 29, 2009 with Lincoln portrait at the same place

name the novel (children/young adult book)

name the novel (children/young adult book)

I read this great novel a couple of years back, and I want to read it again but I can't seem to remember its title, so please help me

It's a story about a young man named David (I think... i'm not too sure). It's set in modern times (as in the 21st century). david has recently moved to the city, and he is looking for a place to stay. He finds a great place, an inn owned by a single mother and a daughter (aged roughly 8-12). the mother is an artist, and she makes ceramic dragons in her own studio upstairs at the inn. the mother and the daughter make one for David as a welcoming gift. What he doesn't know (and this is the basic groundwork of the story) is that the tiny dragons are alive and sometimes come to life. He once tried to go into the studio but is shocked and burnt when he tries to turn the doorknob, as if it was heated from the inside. ...... hmmm I can't remember the rest, but david decides to write a short story as a thankyou gift to the young girl (daughter). It's about a squirrel who ventures to the city. My memory's quite blurry, but i think that the squirrel story actually comes true and one of the squirrels gets hurt and they call the wildlife care center. the female wildlife carer is named sophie (i think...), and david and sophie begin dating. Also, sometimes the mother tells a special bedtime story to her daughter about a dragon and a girl named (guineviere ?? im not sure) Later on, David begins to realize that his ceramic dragon may be alive. sometimes when david is writing and cannot think of anything, when he pictures the dragon in his mind, the dragon sometimes gives him a hint or a keyword to help him. But after a while, he begins to dislike the dragon: and the dragon, needing his master's love to survive, begins to die...

That's pretty much everything I could remember about the book. Could anyone help me remember the title of the book? Anything would be appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyboi7 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Answered on the Entertainment reference desk. Please don't post the same query to multiple reference desks - thanks. Karenjc 13:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Zambo

Which Latin American nations, besides Venezuela, has zambo population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.154 (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

See Zambo#Population_today. However, if the term is taken to mean any mixed African/native American group, I'd expect those to exist in pretty much every county in the Americas. StuRat (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make clear. I know that Brazil, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Uruguay, Dominican Republic and Cuba and Puerto Rico have significant black population, but do they have Amerindian population in order to produce a Zambo child? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.154 (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, almost every nation in the Americas still has a significant "Amerindian" population (although many will have blended with Europeans). Haiti might be an exception, where the Spanish seemed to kill them all off before importing blacks as slaves. StuRat (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's the figures I found here and in the CIA Factbook:

Brazil:             Amerindian 0.4%
Colombia:           Amerindian 1.8%
Costa Rica:         Amerindian 1%
Cuba:               mulatto and mestizo 24.8%
Dominican Republic: mixed 73%
Ecuador:            Amerindian 25%
Honduras:           Amerindian 7%
Nicaragua:          Amerindian 5%
Panama:             Amerindian 6%
Puerto Rico:        Amerindian 0.4%
Uruguay:            Amerindian 4.5% here but practically nonexistent in CIA
Venezuela:          Amerindian 5%

Cuba and the Dominican Republic don't report Amerind figures, but do have mixed races, which likely include Amerind/black mixtures. For some reason the CIA Factbook says Amerinds are practically nonexistent in Uruguay. I find the figures we have to be more believable. StuRat (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bolivia would rate high in the Amerindian stats, at 55% according to our article. Whether there is a significant zambo population is another issue though. Pfly (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Gypsy And English Romnichel

Are there any reference anywhere that gypsies, and or Romnichel might be Jewish decent, and or 1 of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Also has any DNA been done to confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlr1957 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

DNA testing has been done. They aren't descended from Jews. See History of the Romani people Dmcq (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As for whether it's been suggested, it's not mentioned in our article on the lost tribes of Israel. There's a small industry of such baseless claims, though, so I wouldn't be surprized if someone had suggested it. Algebraist 18:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

But what DNA would one use to make a comparison, in lack of the ancient Jewish DNA? Can one really distinguish between the DNA of modern european Jews and of any other european people? --pma (talk) 20:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The standard methods for tracing long-distance genealogical connections involve Mitochondrial DNA (matrilineal) and Y chromosome DNA (patrilineal), which each give information about only one ancestor in each generation. For potential kinship relationships traced through any of the other ancestors (i.e. not exclusively matrilineal or exclusively patrilineal), the effects of Chromosomal crossover mean that usually only approximate statistical estimates of relatedness can be made.... AnonMoos (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Naval Armada in Pirates of the Caribbean?

At the end of Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End, there was a extremely large British naval armada, at war with the Black Pearl. Are there any real life examples of a naval force that large being deployed at a single time?

Additionally, can you guide me to relevant pages concerning these ships?

Thanks in advance,

PerfectProposal 15:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

From largest naval battle in history, the largest fleets deployed in battle seem to have numbered a few hundred ships. For a British force of roughly the right period, the Battle of Cartagena de Indias involved 186 British vessels, of which about 50 were warships (the rest being troop transports). Algebraist 16:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There wasn't much in the way of an opposing naval force, but the Invasion of Normandy did involve a fair number of ships (6,939, including 1,213 warships). And none of them were CGI. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The British force that came to try and put down the rebellion in New York in 1776 numbered several dozen ships. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Arab butt dancing videos

Where can I get free videos of this Arab butt dancing videos like this one [18], [19], and this [20]? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.117.154 (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Parliament of Scotland

Where do I find a list of members in 1700? Kittybrewster ☎ 16:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In "External links" there is The Records of the Scottish Parliament. Once there, Browse by Reign / William II (1694-1702) Translation. Expand tree in left pane, and pick May or October 1700. Click on the "next page" icon in the main pane. Will that do? --Milkbreath (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

History of waving (the hand gesture)

It suprised me to see that Finger gun had its own article whereas waving only has it's own subsection (and a small one at that). I'd like to know more about the origins of the wave (ie the hand gesture). Somebody once told me it was related to the English monarchy (something to do with monarchs waving to their subjects), though this could have been a joke. I'd appreciate any info particularly and with regard to the English monarchy 'theory'. Thanks, --217.227.86.219 (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dollarizing Zimbabwe

What are the advantages and disadvantages in dollarizing? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

An economist would be able to say more than I could, but the big advantage is that you have a relatively stable currency which doesn't keep inflating away almost to nothing. One big disadvantage to the situation right now is that many people in Zimbabwe who don't have access to hard currencies are pretty much screwed. AnonMoos (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The other disadvantage is that the Zimbabwean government/central bank now have next to no control over monetary policy. Interest rates and money supply are determined by the US central bank. (Of course, given their history of controlling monetary policy, you could argue this is actually an advantage!) --Tango (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Lack of monetary policy is a biggie (Tango mentioned that), but, judging how Zimbabwe-an (?) officials have managed their... haha I was just going to cynically say pretty much the exact same thing Tango said about them being better off without their own monetary policy! Haha

Also, having a freely-floating, independent currency acts as an economic stabilizer, of sorts, allowing total economic output to respond less harshly to external shocks. Under an independent free-floating currency regime, when external demand for one of Zimbabwe's export goods (say: platinum) falls, the price - or exchange rate - of the Zimbabwe-an currency will similarly fall. This makes Zimbabwe's other export goods (say: grain) relatively less expensive on world markets. This means more volume of grain will be produced at any given (domestic) price, partially offsetting the GDP effect of the drop in demand for platinum.

Under a fixed exchange rate, currency board or foreign currency system, a drop in the demand for platinum will likely not effect the other (usually much larger, or at least differently structured) country's currency significantly, and the decrease in demand will not be cushioned by a partially offsetting increase in another sector, leading to a much greater GDP loss. NByz (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about the Hall of the Maggior Consiglio in the Ducal Palace in Venice

Can someone tell me what the floor is made of in the above room please?

Ta Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

notable people with a low agerage IQ

I hope this is the right category for a psychology question. I am wondering if there is a list of famous or notable people who accomplished great things (e.g. artist, poet, scientist, politician, etc.) even though he or she had an IQ that was average to low average. I have a client would just completed a psycho-ed and she falls into the average to low average range in most areas. She now thinks she is "stupid." I am hoping to help by showing her that there are many people who fall into the same range yet are not "stupid" and are able (via hard work, proper supports and sheer determination)to accomplish great things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.213.192 (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If I were counseling this person -- not knowing the exact nature of the professional relationship you have with her -- I think I'd try a different approach. Ability to love has no correlation with IQ. Plenty of people have low IQs, but rather than discover scientific laws or design famous buildings, they may have gifts invisible to people with Nobel Prizes. Do you need a high IQ to have courage, integrity, and compassion? And maybe Dostoyevsky was right when he said that "to think too much is a disease." I hear Andy Warhol had a low IQ, but I don't know if it's true or not. Having a low IQ is not an impediment to being a good or even a heroic person. The ability to love is a far greater gift than the ability to visualize a universe in 11 dimensions. Just my two cents. Antandrus (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! I'd be careful with that. Maybe that approach would work on you, but I know plenty of people (myself included) who would find it patronising and, effectively, saying that they are stupid. 79.66.98.145 (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How about the reverse. Christopher Langan (IQ of 195-210) was a bouncer and now owns a horse ranch. Marilyn vos Savant writes a newspaper column; nothing to sneeze at, but not exactly groundbreaking. IQ measures how well you do on IQ tests. It does not measure creativity, drive, etc. Tell her that a number does not dictate her future success or failure. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if he ever had an IQ test, but I always thought of Thomas Edison as someone of limited intelligence who still made major contributions to science and technology. He was a "plugger", who did massive trial and error, as opposed to deeply theoretical work. For example, to find the best filament for a light bulb, he just tried many things and chose the best. A brilliant person, on the other hand, would have identified the characteristics needed and reasoned which material would have those properties. He also never quite seemed to understand A/C electricity.

One other comment, failing an IQ test doesn't necessarily mean you actually have a low IQ. It can just mean you think very differently than the people who designed the test. And, since the ability to think "outside the box" is important, doing poorly on an IQ test may actually mean you are more intelligent than those who give the expected answers. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stu: In many of the R and D efforts of Thomas Edison, there were no reference books to use, such as to look up the correct formula for a light bulb filament. Where formulas and reference material existed, he used them. "Dust-bowl empiricism"and parametric experiments have been productive in science in getting away from the thought experiments and invalid assumptions to be found in reference books. His teachers are said to have considered him "addled" but his deafness or even above average intelligence could have led to lack of classroom success. The controversial Arthur Jenson said that the accomplishments of Thomas Edison would not have been possible "without superior general intelligence."Edison (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to insult your namesake, but I could reason that a filament must not be flammable and must have a high melting point, and much info on such material properties already existed back then. Yet I believe he tried filaments which failed both of those tests. StuRat (talk)

Dexter Manley of the Washington Redskins couldn't read. Neither could hockey coach Jacques Demers. Tenzing Norgay, one of the first two men to climb Mt. Everest, was illiterate as well. Doesn't mean these people were inherently stupid, but then, few people are. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Remember that intelligence is what is measured by intelligence tests. There are theories that we have many intelligences, and you might like to point your client in the direction of Emotional Intelligence and Multiple Intelligence. Your client might also like to consider people who have learning disabilities, and especially the sentence in our article that says "A learning disability is not indicative of low intelligence. Indeed, research indicates that some people with learning disabilities may have average or above-average intelligence." What about actresses such as Susan Hampshire and Zoe Wanamaker who have dyslexia? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

People Autism and Aspergers often test badly or inconsistently on IQ tests, and achieve surprising feats. This doesn't make them unintelligent, of course. It means the test doesn't cover their intelligence. Some people make a living out of having (or seeming to have) a low IQ, mostly celebrities. Steewi (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

February 1

I'm looking for the artist of an image, of which I have no information whatsoever

I recently came across this image online, but there was no information regarding it whatsoever. I downloaded it, and now I'm wondering if there's anyone who can help me identify the artist, and give me any other information possible. here is the image:

Unkown image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.94.43 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It's by Zdzisław Beksiński, but I don't know the painting's name. Cycle~ (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

USS Connecticut (BB-18)

I'm one of several editors working to bring Connecticut up to FA by 22 February (only 22 days...-_-) for the anniversary of the Great White Fleet's return to the U.S. (we plan to get it on the main page on the 22nd). However, I need a/some reliable source(s) that cover the court-martial of William Swift. Can anyone help? (And if you find a good RS that does not pertain to Swift but does pertain to the ship, feel free to list it here too...we'll need all the RS' we can get! :) Thanks everyone, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the convergence theory, and who were some of its advocates?

What is the convergence theory, and who were some of its advocates? I'm referring to the mid-20th century idea that the capitalism of the USA and the West, and socialism of the USSR, were becoming closer and closer and would eventually become identical systems. --Gary123 (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A little bit at State_capitalism... AnonMoos (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The theory seems to be in the process of happening. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and China turning towards capitalism, there are very few purely communist nations left, perhaps North Korea, and, to a lesser extent Cuba and some others. On the other side, there are very few purely capitalistic nations left. The US, for example, seems headed towards something more moderate, with socialized medicine perhaps coming sometime soon. StuRat (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Gays in Iran

Ayaz Marhoni and Mahmoud Asgari were two boys who were executed in Iran and some said they were executed because of their homosexuality. Is it REALLY true?, is it PROVEN that gays are executed or senteced to death in Iran?. --Ahmed987147 (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about this case except what's in our article. But even in Iran, people are not executed merely for having general feelings of sexual or other attraction to people of their own sex. They get into trouble with the law when they act on their feelings and engage in proscribed sexual activity. What the specific activity was that led to the executions in this case is a matter of considerable debate, to say the least, but supposedly the 2 boys did something they weren't permitted to under Iranian law. (I am truly shocked to read that the victims of sexual assault are deemed as guilty as the perpetrators in Iran. What sort of thinking could lead to that policy?) -- JackofOz (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the idea is that anyone who was raped must have somehow tempted the rapists. For example, a woman not wearing a burka in public is considered to be inviting men to rape her. StuRat (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, if they don't strongly adhere to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" then the fact that there will probably be significant evidence of the sexual activity but very little evidence that it wasn't consensual (because such things are normally just one person's word against another's) could result in there being no conviction of rape, and that being taken as proof that the activity was consensual. This is particularly aggravated by the fact that a woman's testimony doesn't count for much in Iran, as I understand it. --Tango (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a TV show on these issues in Iran on this Wednesday: [21]. It's on at 10:01 PM (a 1 minute content warning first ?). It's in Ontario, Canada, Jack, so you'll need some extra long rabbit ears. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... very long indeed. It might qualify for the world's tallest structure. Thanks for the heads up, but I doubt I'll be tuning in, somehow. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack, the idea that the victim of a sexual assault is as guilty - or even more guilty - than the perpetrator is by no means confined to Iran. [22] Karenjc 17:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How terribly sad. And even sadder that it was done in the name of a religion. That's the sort of thing that gives religions generally a really bad name. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The article does not provide evidence that the girl was stoned in accordance with the laws, neither Sharia or secular.

As to laws for punishing the victim as well as the perpetrator, I know of at least two formal grounds for such. Both are horrendous, but also note that both have been considered as valid in "western, Christan lands".

1. The law automatically considers the victim as not quite unwilling, unless otherwise clearly proven. An example of that attitude is the rule, that if a maiden was subjected to sex in the desert, the man would be stoned; but if it was in populated areas, then both should be stoned, since she didn't cry out to get other people stop him. (The possibility of a strong man threatening her or having her hands around her throat is not considered.) In the legislations that incorporated Old Testament laws as valid, like the Swedish in the beginning of the 17'th century, this became valid law - although I think executions in Sweden never were done by means of stoning. (I remember reading of a case of a man having abused his daughter. The case, the name of the man, and the day of execution was reported; and then there is a brief notice that his unnamed daughter was executed the same day.)
2. There was a real scare of the possible outcomes of "unnatural" sex. People of course new very well that there was a close relationship between sex and getting offspring, both for humans and (other) animals; but the true biology was unknown. In Sweden, a man having sex with an animal was promptly sentenced to death; but this was not an early animal protection measure. The animal was also slaughtered. I suppose that the religious abhorrance for this deed was connected to a real fear of there being monsters born as an effect. JoergenB (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked into this specific case a while back including discussing it with an Iranian living in the US for 20-30 years. The evidence that they were executed for homosexual acts is very slim. Most evidence suggests that they were executed for repeatedly raping a 13 year old boy. As I understand it they repeatedly raped the boy until one day he couldn't stand it any more and told his father. The rapist probably would have gotten off with a lesser sentence were it not for the fact they were also guilty of some other crimes including robbery. As a number of commentators have noted, the executions were still a violation of international law which forbids the execution of people for crimes commited as juvelines so regardless of your views of the death penalty, the executions were still disgusting IMHO (although the US also executes people for crimes commited as juvelines). However as with HRW, I'm also disgusted at the way certain people and groups have tried to make this a gay issue, they do a great disservice to both rape victims worldwide and gay people in Iran (and elsewhere) who suffer real harrasment and do risk being put to death if they are caught by linking rapists to people who engage in consensual sex. In terms of your general question, IIRC when I looked into this sometimes last year according to HRW, the last execution that they know of for consensual homosexual acts was in Iran was in 2005. It's possible there are some they are not aware of but it's worth remembering these executions are not something the Iranian government/media tends to hide. The greater difficulty is determining (when an execution occurs) whether it was for consensual acts or rapes but from what I can tell, it's not necessarily impossible if you actually look into the case. Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Christianity white?

To what extent was Christianity, in the form of current major denominations, formed by white people? NeonMerlin 04:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You could try beginning with Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, Protestant Reformation, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Methodism, Baptist, and Unitarianism. In general terms, all major denominations except those of Oriental Orthodoxy were formed by white people – indeed, it might be better to say by white men - but remember that the more Evangelical churches, such as those of Fundamentalist Christianity, base themselves firmly on the Bible, in which European influences are rather limited. If you've also been set a text to read, it might be worth giving an hour or two to that. Xn4 (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it all depends what you mean by "white". Jesus certainly wasn't white: he was a Jew from the eastern Mediterranean, and one wold imagine having a skin tone similar to modern Jews and Arabs from that area. That goes for everything up to the advent of Protestantism, i.e. most of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. From that time, the other denominations mentioned above were founded by Europeans, who may be "white" in the sense of "paler than Arabs"! --TammyMoet (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Are cabbages white? Is rice really yellow or brown? Is corn red? Are yams black? If I knew the answer to these then I think I'd be able to answer if Christianity is white. Dmcq (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I'd also need to know what colours figs and chillies are as well Dmcq (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea of being "formed" by whties is also tricky - to what extent do you mean? Martin Luther was white, and mostly Europeans were involved in many denominations, but the influence of other races on some denominations has been great. (Lessee...influence has...yeah, that's right.) They may have their own worship style within these denominations, which further distinguishes them, but instead of asking if a relgion is white, I would instead look at the similarities and differences between the worship styles in the different denominations in white versus non-white churches. And, as noted, if this is homework, that is a good lead without giving you too much

Also, as noted, Jesus and all the early apostles were certainly of Middle Eastern origin, and this is where it truly has its beginnings..Somebody or his brother (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In ancient and medieval times, when the major Christian denominations formed, there was no concept of race as such. So, in a sense, nobody was "white". They were Greek, Egyptian, Jewish, whatever. Today, definitions of racial boundaries vary from one culture to another. User:TammyMoet above says that "Jesus certainly wasn't white." I'm not sure where TammyMoet lives, but in the United States, I think that most Middle Easterners would be considered white. They might be mistaken for Latinos, and some of the most dark-skinned Middle Easterners (from Egypt or Yemen) might not be considered white, but I think that most would qualify as white. (Note that "qualifying as white" is merely falling within the bounds of a cultural category based on skin tone rather than possessing any meaningful biological distinction.) I'm guessing that in some parts of Europe, Middle Easterners do not qualify as white. Marco polo (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Marcopolo, I'm in the UK and Middle Easterners aren't "white" here! Just to clarify. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things might contribute to the idea that it's Caucasian or Europeanised. One, that Europe spawned the Christian missionary movement that tailgated European expansionism throughout the "new world". And two, portraits of Jesus based on this guy generated the impression (see the section "Evaluation" where Alexandre Dumas, père states that some pictures of Jesus Christ produced around then were based on him, "and that this in turn has influenced images of Jesus produced since that time.") Jesus tends to be imaged according to the dominant culture. My two bits, Julia Rossi (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Christianity didn't come to be somewhat based in Europe until following the Muslim invasions of the 7th-century A.D., 600 years after the death of Jesus. Of the five Christian patriarchates of ca. 400 A.D., only one (Rome) was unquivocally in Europe, while one was in Africa (Alexandria), two were in Asia (Jerusalem and Antioch), and the fifth was on the Europe-Asia border (Constantinople). It wasn't really until several centuries after the Arab invasions, when Christian communities were starting to become population minorities in many regions of the middle east, the Byzantines lost Anatolia, and major progress startted to be made on the Christianization of northern and eastern Europe, that Christianity could really be called a predominantly European religion... AnonMoos (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Mythology - Yokai for the Dying

I have been wondering about a certain Yokai I've seen in a movie, animes, and mangas for a while.
They are very small green lizard humanoid creatures, that appear when some one is dying. Usually they have chains, but sometimes they do not.
They can usually only be seen by Buddhist Priests, or Shinto Priestesses.
The first time I seen them was in Conan The Barbarian, when they attack his body. The other times I've seen them are from Inu-Yasha, when Kikyo saves the lives of folks close to death.
Can any one name these creatures? They do not appear on the List of legendary creatures from Japan found in Wiki, nor am I having any luck Googleing different references.
Please forgive me if I make Wiki formatting mistakes, I am new at this style. --RLS0812 (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen of the references you listed above but perhaps since they are depicted as appearing when someone is dying they may be shinigami which are Japanese psychopomps. You also may want to take a look at the illustrations of Toriyama Sekien which are divided into four sections in Wikimedia commons here. [23] He attempted to illustate all the yokai who participate in a supernatural parade called the Night Parade of One Hundred Demons. Maybe it's illustated in there somewhere.
Your formatting is pretty good for your first(?) wiki post. You don't need to use the line breaks after every sentence although they are appreciated when faced with a wall of text. Kudos to you if you spent the time to look up how to do a line break. Wikipedia:How to edit a page will help you with your basic formatting questions. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Identifying people and the picture

Does anyone know the origin of this picture?[24] Or can anyone provide a list of all the people in the picture? Thanks! 99.226.138.202 (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, and no. But here are some that are clearly present: Albert Einstein, Shirley Temple, Charlie Chaplin, Audrey Hepburn, Queen Elizabeth II, Elvis, Shakespeare, Karl Marx, Abraham Lincoln, Mao Tse Tung, Gandhi, Adolf Hitler, Bruce Lee, Lenin, Bill Clinton, Napoleon, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Marilyn Monroe, Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher, Prince Charles, Salvador Dali, Toulouse Lautrec, Mother Teresa, Gorbachov, Luciano Pavarotti, Marlon Brando (as the Godfather), Osama bin Ladin, Sigmund Freud, Lewis Carroll, Pele, Beethoven, Vladimir Putin, George Bush, Dante.

And here are some that are likely present: Lao Tzu, Confucius, Tojo, Gengis Khan, Moses, Thomas Paine, Jesus, Mozart, De Gaulle, Ernest Hemingway, Julius Caesar, Georges Braque

- Nunh-huh 06:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Confucius, Genghis and Mozart are all there. As are Steven Speilberg, Bill Gates, Nietszche, Tamerlane, Stalin, Columbus, Sun Yat-sen, Mark Twain, Ferdinand Marcos, Tolstoy, James Cook, Wilt Chamberlain, Eisenhower and Henry Ford. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

click here for picture key

I've posted a partial key on the image description page; others can add to it. - Nunh-huh 07:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that 76 is Salvador Dali. The piece around his neck looks like a pocket watch... I've filled in some of the others as best I can. Dismas|^(talk) 08:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Me too. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

8 is maybe Pol Pot. I'll second 27 and 29 as Hemmingway and Guthrie. 37 maybe Syngman Rhee? 46 does look like Darwin, but it could also be Socrates or another similar Greek philosopher. 78 maybe Khublai Khan or Ghengis Khan or someone like that. 81 looks like Deng Xiaopeng. 85 maybe Ho Chi Minh (going by the hat here, I've seen Ho in a hat like that). 71 maybe Bruce Lee. 88 looks like Yul Brynner. 100 is NOT Wilt Chamberlain. Its definately Michael Jordan. 103 Maybe Ghengis Khan or someone like that. I hope that helps some. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Googling a combination of the names, I find this website, which says that the painting is Discussing the Divine Comedy with Dante by “Dai Dudu", painted in 2006, and has a nearly complete list of people depicted (including non-person Dolly the Sheep), though they are uncertain on some of the identifications. Googling again on the name of the painting, yields this page, which says there was once an image-mapped version with links to Wikipedia, but it seems to have disappeared. I haven't compared their list yet with ours, or found the image-mapped version. - Nunh-huh 12:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

An even better answer key is located here. Should we have an article on this painting? - Nunh-huh 13:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

29 is J. Robert Oppenheimer, no question (see image here). 21 is Alexander Pushkin. 60 is Marie Curie. And while we're at it.. image on the TV at far left is Ivy Mike. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your answers. 99.226.138.202 (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

52 is Kant. Llamabr (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Disabled monarchs

I came to think of something. I have never heard of any monarchs, kings or queens in history, who were blind, deaf or mute. Have anyone else heard of such examples? It would be interesting! --85.226.41.66 (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

John the Blind of Bohemia is one... - Nunh-huh 11:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you extend it to mental disabilities, Charles VI of France (aka Charles the Mad) was likely schizophrenic and George III of the United Kingdom also suffered from serious mental illness, necessitating his temporary removal from power during the Regency period. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Re George III: That's what they thought at the time, but consensus these days is that he suffered from porphyria, a physical, not mental, condition. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the reasons there aren't many are: 1) A fair percentage of blindness/deafness was (and is) caused by problems that cause other symptoms that were lethal then but can be treated now - eg. head trauma - and so there were few people living with blindness particularly in the royal classes who did not engage in particularly dangerous activities; 2) The percentage now is fairly small - probably under 0.1% in people under the average life expectancy then of around 40 to 50 years. Since there may have been a couple of thousand monarch at the very most, there are only likely to have been a very few who had these sort of disabilities; 3) moderate disabilities may not have been noted for fear of making the monarch look inferior. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is worth remembering that disabilities may disqualify a royal person from acceding to the throne. John, the son of George V of the United Kingdom, was never likely to rule, as he had four elder brothers, but even if he had been eldest, his epilepsy would still have meant that he was hidden away in shame; he died young. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

PS, I realise this is still not about being blind, deaf or mute, but cf Haemophilia in European royalty for another significant disability. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Be careful citing historical life expectancies - while the average life expectancy may have been 40 to 50, that's because of a high rate of infant mortality. If you made it through infancy, life expectancy wasn't that different to today (living into your 60s or 70s was pretty common, as I understand it, at least for the higher classes). --Tango (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Baldwin IV of Jerusalem was a leper and eventually went blind. There was a Holy Roman Emperor Louis the Blind but the article doesn't say if he was literally blind. Enrico Dandolo was probably also blind (though I suppose he is technically not a monarch). Isaac II Angelos had been deposed and blinded, not out of the ordinary for a Byzantine emperor, but he was briefly restored as sort of a puppet emperor while blind. Mughal emperor Shah Alam II was also blinded during his reign. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the expectation now is 70s or 80s, it used to be 60s or 70s. There is a definite difference, but it's nowhere near as big as many people think (once you exclude infant deaths). --Tango (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the original questioner, but can anyone think of a monarch who took office while blind, deaf, or mute rather than simply becoming during his/her reign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.15.23 (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Vasily II may marginally qualify, as he both "took the office" and had to flee Moscow multiple times. He ultimately regained the throne already after he was blinded, and reigned until his death. --Dr Dima (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In general, though, men with obvious physical defects, and specifically blindness, were considered unfit kings and were skipped over in lines of succession; its for this reason that various Eastern emperors contented themselves with blinding, rather than killing, their rivals. - Nunh-huh 04:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Until relatively recently deafness, at least profound deadness, meant a life without language--a condition much more debilitating than blindness. I'm not sure what common conditions cause muteness, other than profound deafness in the past, but wouldn't that make it difficult to be the head of state? Of the three presented, only blindness seems viable for rulers in pre-modern times. Others have already given a number of examples. Pfly (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Baldwin IV's leprosy was probably considered far worse than blindness, since it implied some great moral (especially sexual) deviancy being punished by God. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Would Ivar the Boneless qualify as a monarch? --TammyMoet (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Though it's more of an impairment than disability, there's Kaiser Bill with a withered left arm due to Erb's Palsy. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a Louis the Blind, of Provence & Italy, and a John the Blind of Bohemia & Luxemburg. Also Robert the Bruce King of Scotland had Leprosy. AllanHainey (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Richard III had a clubfoot, and possibly a hunchback - though this may be apocraphyl. There is also a slew of disabilities associated with the Habsburg royal dynasty[[25]] due to their in-breeding, in particular the Habsburg Lip which 2was characterized by a protruding lower jaw, which often led to difficulties chewing, speaking and keeping one's mouth closed." You may not class it as a disability but I think the sufferers may have. AllanHainey (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Chip Implants

Are we even close to getting forced to have RFID tags implanted in us? What I mean is this probably going to happen like in the book Barcode Tatto or is the majority of the world and the US against it? --Melab±1 ☎ 18:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the books you are talking about and I don't know what timeframe you mean by close, but I doubt that humans will be mandatorily implanted with anything like an ID chip within your lifetime. RFID tag implants would require surgery which would predispose people against it because it would cost money and could cause complications. That doesn't rule out implants for convenience, but it seems more likely non-invasive solutions like cards of some sort would be preferred instead. Human biometric monitoring in the present and the future will likely advantage of already existing and conveniently accessible physical features like fingerprints, iris patterns, or facial structure (which are used currently). Once the technological hurdles are jumped, DNA is a logical target, but I wouldn't rule out something bizarre like a "smell fingerprint" (I mean something like a profile of the vaporized molecules your body gives off by virtue of your metabolic processes).

Even without biometric data, there is a wealth of information about your activities, personality, and movement contained in your credit card purchases, store club cards, and internet browsing habits for example. Heck, your location could be at least roughly triangulated if you have your phone on in an area with decent phone reception. Apple makes a business out of knowing where you are. iPhones provide all sorts of nifty services in exchange for your privacy like offering you close by restaurant suggestions, or figuring out your general location so you can get un-lost. There is more than enough data right now to do the government-stalking-the-citizens job pretty well. Other than legal hurdles, the biggest problem in human tracking is simply getting all the information out there to analyze in one indexed place and getting the computer resources to actually analyze it. The computer resource problem is rapidly becoming more and more feasible: see FLOPS.152.16.15.23 (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it surgery. The tags they put in pets now are basically injected under the skin. However, I still can't see it happening in the US, as people would object, based on the invasion of privacy and perhaps also the discomfort of having a foreign object inserted into your body (and, even worse, in a non-sexual context). :-) StuRat (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The case for doing it to one's own soldiers is pretty good (as a dog tag and a medical ID); this way a badly injured soldier can be wanded when they enter a field hospital and the medics know immediately their blood type, allergies, and any relevant history. From there things in increments. FBI agents get one, and a little computer in their gun prevents a non agent from firing it (limiting the cases where an agent is shot with his own weapon). Then all DHS agents. Then national guardsmen and reserve members of the military. People get them for a swift-traveller program (to speed through airport security). People who drive dangerous loads or fly airliners or navigate large ships get them. From the other end, it's mandated for high-security prisoners, then all prisoners, then everyone on probation, then for everyone on probation or in a diversion programme. Non-landed immigrants (foreigners like skilled-worked and students) get one, then landed immigrants (people with greencards). Then all cops (state, county, local). Then all welfare recipients, and everyone on medicare. Then all truckers. Then all federal employees (and their contractors) get one, and the states are pressured to do the same. Then they mandate it for all driving licences. That's how these things go: mandate it for people that the public have no sympathy for (criminals) and for government employees who have no choice (soldiers), then roll it incrementally forward, where each step itself seems like a reasonable expansion on the previous one. By the time you get to ordinary people who have done nothing wrong at all and have little to do with the government, such a large proportion of the population has one that they can say "only terrorists having something to hide" to objections to further expansion. 87.113.74.22 (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As noted earlier, their are other even better ways to absolutely identify people (biometrics). RFID chips could be removed and replaced with somebody else's (maybe someone murdered for it), so they really aren't all that reliable. Also, putting them in prisoners could make the general population even less accepting of them, the argument being that "now the government wants to treat everyone like criminals". StuRat (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

squatters rights

i have a friend she has five children youngest 5 years oldest 18years.

she has been in relationship unmarried for over 20 year. here partner left the couples home to start a new relationship. then approx a year later insisted she leave with her children. we are aware that she has no claim to ownership of property. however she has been homeless since april 08, when her ex insisted that she leave property. my friend believed he had support of police and balifs heance she left scared.

she still has back door key and could enter the property without causing any damage, as it remains empty. what could she leagley do to secure her self and her children back in property that belongs to her ex the childrens father and has remained empty since she was aggressively persuaded to leave?

would appriciate your promt return with any advice you can give?

thanks sue gillett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.249.50 (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This almost certainly constitutes legal advice, which this desk cannot give. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We can't give legal advice, she'll need to speak to a lawyer. I can give you a link to squatter's rights, though, and tell you that in most jurisdictions that have a concept of "adverse possession" (at least, ones I know of) require a squatter to live there for quite a long time (in the UK, 12 years) and the time spent there with the permission of the owner wouldn't count, so that probably isn't useful in your case (there would also be other hoops to jump through). There may be other methods she can use, though, but she needs to seek professional advice since it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and we don't have the details of the case. She should certainly ask a professional about what child maintenance requirements in her jurisdiction are. --Tango (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Do a search for "Women's Legal Services" in your community. Help should be available. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't enter the property. Follow the above advice, and find some legal help. There are a lot of people who will know exactly how the system works in your area, and they will help.NByz (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I imagine the law may be different depending on which country she lives in. Also there are legal, moral and practical answers which may be different. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Common Professional Examination in/around London

I'm looking for a school in or around London that offers the Common Professional Examination for the lowest price. I'm particularly keen on ones that award the Graduate Diploma in Law. It seems that in searching, there are a hundred from which to choose. Is there an easy way to sort them according to price? Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Openly gay

The front page currently says that the new Prime Minister of Ice Land is the first openly gay head of government in MODERN times. Does that mean there were openly gay heads of governments in history, or just that we're not sure about other heads of governments in ancient times? 99.226.138.202 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Perceptions of homosexuality were very different in certain past cultures. For example, see Homosexuality in ancient Greece. I don't know of any specifics, but it wouldn't surprise me if some ancient Greek leaders were openly involved in homosexual activity (I'm not sure it would be accurate to call them "homosexual" since they didn't divide people by sexual orientation in such a way - applying current identifiers to historical figures can easily result in nonsense). --Tango (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of historical figures who were a country's leader who we suspect (adn in some cases, know) had same-sex relationships. But as Tango says, it's difficult to talk about homosexuality in ancient cultures. But if you want to read about a few people, try Alexander the Great, Hadrian (and Antinous) and Khnumhotep_and_Niankhkhnum. Steewi (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Many Roman emperors are known to have had same-sex relationships. Hadrian was famously involved with Antinous, whom he deified. But Roman age-structured homosexuality was not the same as modern egalitarian homosexuality. Lantzy ^talk 00:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

List of the first LGBT holders of political offices might be useful. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, Charles I of Württemberg may not have been "openly gay" in the sense we understand that today, but apparently he made little secret of his ... appetites. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, the first openly gay head of government in modern times is (arguably) Per-Kristian Foss, who acted very briefly as Norwegian Prime Minister in 2002. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 08:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Edward II of England had a "favourite", Piers Gaveston, whom some people believe was his homosexual boyfriend. As to whether Edward was "openly gay", read the article and make up your own mind. From that article I would say he was. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Henri III of France is another monarch known for his preference for men (the linked article only hints at the amount of debate about this issue). He was childless when an assassin's knife ended his life, prompting a huge succession problem. --Xuxl (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2

How does the US Army go to Afghanistan?

let's say some average soldier or whatever gets orders to go to Afghanistan today? What is the process and the places that he goes before finally reaching whatever part of Afghanistan he's supposed to go to? Like, does he take a plane to europe and then fly into kabul or what? Also, how did the initial troops get into Afghanistan back in 2001? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.234.117 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

For the initial movement of troops into Afghanistan, they went mainly through Pakistan and Uzbekistan. However, recall that the US only initially provided air support for the Northern Alliance, and let them defeat the Taliban on the ground. StuRat (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I can give you the Canadian perspective. I'll try to point out areas that I know are different from the American process. I'll start from the point of view of a reservist because one of my best friends took this path.

In Canada, no reserve units have ever been deployed explicitly to Afghanistan. In order for a reservist to go to Afghanistan, he has to first volunteer for a reg. force unit that has a rotation coming up. Once accepted, he spends 4-10 months (depending on experience and when the next rotation starts) in work-up training with the unit that he's volunteered into. Work-up training familiarizes the soldier with the tactics and rules of engagement in the theater. Most importantly, maybe, it builds trust and ensures that the soldier is mentally ready for the deployment. After the work-up training, he usually gets one 1-2 week leave.

Logistics in Canada are much simpler than in the US. I think most of the US international infantry deployments go via C-5 Galaxy flights from a base in North Carolina and are airborne-refueled over Europe. In Canada, the soldier takes a "CC-150 Polaris" (a converted Airbus A-310) and takes whatever route will be safe. On his last deployment, my friend went Edmonton-Toronto-[something in Europe]-Abu Dhabi-Kandahar. They arrive at the Kandahar Air Field, which acts as the HQ for much of the NATO force in Afghanistan. I think that many of the American units arrive at Bagram Air Base. Once in-theater, they hook up with their next unit, which may be operating out of the air base or a Forward Operating Base (FOB).

As for material (vehicles, munitions etc.), for both US and NATO forces, most of it arrives through Pakistan and is driven, via convoy, through the mountains. There have been some recent news stories claiming that the DoD has been trying to find another Central Asian country to act as a material entrepot, because of the delicate foreign policy relationship with Pakistan. I can't find a news story to quote, but there have been a number of ambushes of US material in Pakistan, by grassroots (Taliban-esque) forces. One attack on a lightly-defended US depot resulted in the burning and disabling of several dozen Humvees. NByz (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be materiel. There should be an ordnance against military terms that are close to normal English words. :-) StuRat (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

See Air Mobility Command (formerly Military Airlift Command) and Civil Reserve Air Fleet. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

name this song

can someone name this song http://www.hulu.com/superbowl/55737/super-bowl-xliii-ads-coke-heist#s-p3-sr-i0

Nice ad, isn't it? And the music (a theme from Peter and the Wolf) brought back a lot of childhood memories for the older viewers - which I suspect was the expected result! - Nunh-huh 08:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, it's Peter's theme from Peter and the Wolf. --Thomprod (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Translation

Can anyone help translate this? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nachkommen

Hermann Billung war vermutlich zwei Mal verheiratet; eine Frau hieß Oda († 15. März eines unbekannten Jahres), eine zweite Hildesuit. Er hatte fünf Kinder:

• Bernhard I. († 1011), Herzog von Sachsen
• Liutger († 26. Februar 1011) Graf im Westfalengau, 991 bezeugt, begraben in St. Michaelis in Lüneburg, ∞ Emma († 3. Dezember 1038), begraben im Bremer Dom, Tochter des Immed IV. (Immedinger), Schwester des Bischofs Meinwerk von Paderborn
• Suanhilde (* 945/955, † 28. November 1014, begraben im Kloster Jena, nach 1028 in die Georgskirche von Naumburg (Saale) umgebettet, ∞ I Thietmar I. († nach 979) 970 Markgraf von Meißen, ∞ II vor 1000 Ekkehard I. (ermordet 30. April 1002 in Pöhlde) 992 Markgraf von Meißen, begraben im Kloster Jena, nach 1028 in die Georgskirche von Naumburg (Saale) umgebettet
• Mathilde (* 935/945 † 25. Mai 1008 in Gent St. Peter), ∞ I 961 Balduin III. Graf von Flandern († 1. Januar 962), ∞ II um 963 Gottfried der Gefangene († 3./4. April nach 995) 963/982 Graf von Verdun (Wigeriche), begraben in St. Peter in Gent
• Imma, 995 Äbtissin zu Herford

Do we not already have an article on Hermann Billung?

Descendants

Hermann Billung was probably married twice, first to a woman named Oda (who died on 15 March in an unknown year), and second to Hildesuit.

He had five children:

• Bernhard I (died 1011), Duke of Saxony
• Liutger (died 26 February 1011) Count in Westfalengau, attested in 991, buried in St. Michaels in Lüneburg, married Emma (died 3 December 1038), buried in the Bremen Cathedral, daughter of Immed IV (Immedinger), sister of Bishop Meinwerk of Paderborn.
• Suanhilde (born between 945 and 955, died 28 November 1014, buried in the monastery of Jena, reburied after 1028 in the Georgskirche of Naumburg in Saale, married 1st in 970 Thietmar I (died after 979) Margrave of Meissen, married (2) before 1000 Ekkehard I (murdered 30 April 1002 in Pöhlde); in 992 Margrave of Meissen, buried in the monastery of Jena, reburied after 1028 in the Church of Georg Naumburg (Saale)
• Mathilde (born between 935 and 945, died 25 May 1008 in Ghent St. Peter), married 1st in 961 to Balduin III, Count of Flanders (died 1 January 962), married second Gottfried der Gefangene (died on 3/4 April after 995) in 963/982, Count of Verdun (Wigeriche), buried in St. Peter's in Ghent
• Imma, in 995 Abbess of Herford

I wouldn't take this at face value: though a wife Oda is well-known, Hildegarde of Westerbourg is attested only in one place, and it's not contemporary. It's not possible to identify the mother(s) of Hermann Billung's children. - Nunh-huh 08:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Crap! I was translating it at the same time. Oh well, I will keep my comment that it looks like poorly organized genealogical data (is there any other kind?), with the sort of jargon you find on hundreds of websites. (I hate when it is added to Wikipedia like that!) Adam Bishop (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops. We should have a little {{working}} template. The text seems to be from the German Wikipedia's Hermann Billung article. - Nunh-huh 09:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Mary II of England

What was her full formal name? It couldn't have just been Mary Stuart. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that was it - I've looked at a large number of documents relating to her: she certainly doesn't use any other name. (She didn't have a signature at all.) It's pretty academic seeing as she was royalty and held title from birth anyway. I'd be interested if she did have any, though, but I doubt it. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're asking about a middle name, no, she didn't have one. In fact, it was very unusual for royalty to have more than one forename until the Hanoverians came over. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hadith about Wolves

What is that Hadith in which talking of wolves is mentioned ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.128.253 (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are looking for the conversation between Jacob (Joseph's father) and the wolf, you can read the story here: [[26]]. --Omidinist (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there is more than one hadith with talking wolves, there is the wolf asking the shepherd "Who will guard the sheep on the day of the wild animals?" DuncanHill (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Co regents

I have heard about co-regents; monarchs who sat on the same throne in the same country and ruled together. Such as Mary II of England and her spouse. I suppose this was more common among married couples. How common was it for two men to rule togheter, and two women? When did this happen the last time (regardless of gender), and would it ever be allowed in a modern country? --85.226.41.66 (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Andorra has two co-princes. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Co-regents may only happen with the expulsion of the monarch/lack of children/illegitamacy to the throne: not only are these considerably rarer, but I imagine the monarchy would be worth the effort, and it may be scraped or a simpler solution found. There are always going to be cases though, as it could conceivably happen and would be 'allowed' (if not 'used'); in any case there are a lot of conditions. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Jarry1250 is referring to quite another thing, a hostile competition between rwo (pretended or partly actual) rulers, where both claim themself to be the only legitimate ruler.

I believe that the original question concerned peaceful co-ruling, where the parties recognised each others. I do not think that this was uncommon, historically. In the Roman empire of antiquity, co-emperors seems to have been more the rule than the exception. This praxis may have been influenced by the tradition from the even older, republican Rome, where the state always was lead by two consuls.--JoergenB (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There were always two Kings of Sparta, two different dynasties each produced a king. There are a few medieval cases where the son of a king was named co-king; Henry the Young King with his father in twelfth-century England, and Philip II of France during his father's illness. It also happened a number of times in crusader Jerusalem, in one case a whole family were all legally monarchs (King Fulk, Queen Melisende, and their son Baldwin III, then after Fulk's death, Melisende and Baldwin, mother and son, were co-monarchs), and in another case Baldwin IV and his nephew Baldwin V were co-kings. And that's only the twelfth century! It happened frequently in various combinations in the Middle Ages. I can't think of any examples of two women ruling together but I'm sure it must have happened. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I ment peaceful co-ruling. When did this happen the last time in Europe? Would it be allowed today? --85.226.41.66 (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As Duncan said, Andorra has two princes (both holders of non-hereditary offices in other countries) as heads of state. Also, San Marino is ruled by two 'captains'. --ColinFine (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

First woman Ballet master

Who was the first female Ballet master in the world? Does anyone know?--85.226.41.66 (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The earliest here on wiki is Sophie Daguin (1827). But perhaps there is an earlier example?--85.226.41.66 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution

Should any considerable act of aggression between two other parties happen (I think the most plausible would be a N. Korean attack or invasion on S. Korea), what are the chances that this article of the constitution would be over-ruled, assuming a unanimous vote in parliament? I know the word 'forever' is used, but is it really certain? Secondly, are there any other countries which are lawfully prohibited from declaring war (Italy is mentioned in the above article, but I don't think their constitution covers the actual declaration of war)? Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You may find neutral country interesting (for some reason, it doesn't mention Japan...). I don't have a specific answer to your question, though - I don't know if the neutral countries listed just have policies of neutrality or actual laws. --Tango (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

They do have a military (the Japanese Self-Defense Forces, and they even have (or had) a contingent in Iraq (Japanese Iraq Reconstruction and Support Group). Maybe another Korean War is plausible but it is also likely that the US would like Japan to have a large army as a balance against China; because of Article 9 they just don't call it an army. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Although some of what Article 9 can be got round by calling them an extention of the police, the actual declaration of war is something rather specific, and that's why I'm interested. I've no doubt that most countries need a very good reason go to war (in the formal sense) anyway, and they may follow neutrality where possible. For example Switzerland's states that (Article 58): The army serves to prevent war and contributes to maintain peace; it defends the country and its population. It supports the civil authorities to repel serious threats to internal security or to cope with other exceptional circumstances. The law may provide for further tasks. but it certainly doesn't rule out the possibility of war in the same way to Japan. Sweden (another 'neutral country') says (Chapter 10, article 9): No declaration of war may be made without the consent of the Parliament, except in the event of an armed attack against Sweden.which means they can declare war. Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In answer to my second question, the Irish constitution (Article 29) states:

3. 1° War shall not be declared

although it does make self-defence provisions. So there's one. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Austria's (Article 40) clearly allows the declaration of war. Finland's doesn't really mention it, save that 'matters of war and peace shall be decided by the President, with the consent of Parliament'. The Constitution of Turkmenistan says that the government can decide the declaration war or peace condition, so clearly they can declare war. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

origin of the meme "yo dawg, heard u like ____ so I put some ___ in your ___ so you can ___ while you ____"

what's the origin of the meme "yo dawg, heard u like ____ so I put some ___ in your ___ so you can ___ while you ____"?

thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.157 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Candidates of The 2005 Lebanese Elections

Where can I find a website wher it shows the Maronites, Sunni, Shi'a, Druze, Alawite, Greek Catholic and Orthodox, Armenians and other Christians, like for example, who were the party Maronites candidates of Beirut 1, Bekaa+Hermel, Zahlah, and JBeil?