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

April 29

how to (not) throw out a tenant?

Yes, I know that this is not a legal service, that nothing is binding, etc. etc. etc. That being said, I still have a question: My friend has lived without a lease (= oral agreement) in an apartment in Massachusetts for 4 years now. Now her landlord wants her to move out and already has a new tenant. She has paid the rent on time, there's no problem with the apartment etc. Is it "legal" nonetheless to throw her out? And if so--what does the landlord really need to tell her, so it's all correct? ... and if he doesn't, does she still have to move out?

[She wanted to move out in a few months anyways, but it's ultra-inconvenient for her to move right now. So far, the landlord was unwilling to even talk about it, so "negotiations" seem difficult or impossible.]

I'd appreciate any advice or link to more information etc. (incl. links to relevant Wikipedia articles of course!). As she isn't American either, she's pretty clueless about what's going on! Thanks so much!!! --72.242.67.89 (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.76.89 (talk)

Try here, especially chapter 13 - evictions. Offhand, a landlord can't just throw a tenant out without giving a certain amount of notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is relevant, but in the UK the landlord needs to give 8 weeks' notice, but the tenant can still appeal if he/she does not want to move out yet. This is to prevent homelessness (and, on a side note, homelessness itself is borderline illegal in the UK - work that one out!).--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Homelessness is illegal? Are you referring to vagrancy laws? You can quite easily be homeless without being vagrant. --Tango (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I didn't mean just NFA, but actually getting ASBOs for constantly sleeping in the same bus shelter or airport or other public place, as if not having your own private place precludes you from sleeping in a public place. Silly, really.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is the landlord flat out throwing the tenant out instead of requiring the tenant to sign a written lease, requring a rent raising, etc. as an alternative? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Most jurisdictions in the USA require written notice and 30 days, regardless of whether there is a written lease or not. If your friend is not getting either of those, they may want to seek legal help. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Your friend is what is called a "tenant at will" in Massachusetts, and the landlord can legally end her tenancy in writing with 30 days' notice. That said, a landlord cannot legally evict any tenant in Massachusetts; only a court can do that, and the court process typically takes a few months. This does not constitute legal advice, and your friend should consult an attorney if she wants it. (That said, it so happens I used to be a tenant organizer in Massachusetts.) Marco polo (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• This question is too specific and answering it borders on legal advice. Look up information on tenancy or find materials on Massachusetts law, but people here cannot answer real world legal scenarios for people. To do so violates WP policy and possibly violates the law. Shadowjams (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I might recommend contacting a lawyer who specializes in tenant-landlord disputes. If you don't know any, contact your state's chapter of the American Bar Association. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind anything you do at this point with the landlord needs to be put in WRITING. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Northern regiments and recruits for Confederate military

What are the statistics for non-CSA volunteers in their cause? I have seen a couple of Wikipedia biographies of individual northerners having participated on the CSA side, but I am curious more about the state origins and proportions. Catterick (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Surprised no Civil War buff has answered yet. I don't know any numbers myself - but you may need to clarify your question. There were several regiments of Confederates from the border states so you get units designated 5th Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry (CSA) and 5th Regiment Kentucky Volunteer Infantry (Union). You can look through the Lists of American Civil War regiments by state for more of these. On the other hand, you can see the opposite, for instance, List of Arkansas Union Civil War units. Rmhermen (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There's also Confederate units of Indian Territory. Oklahoma was not a state, of course. Its role in the war was complicated, see Indian Territory in the American Civil War. Although our article does not say so, I am of the understanding that at least some of the Confederate Indian units changed sides during the course of the war. Pfly (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for statistics of Copperheads and other Doughface participation on behalf of the South, by military service, or independent regiments other than Maryland (e.g. those from NY or New England or Midwest), which was normally accounted for as Southern. Were there any foreign regiments fighting for the South too, such as from Canada, Mexico or overseas? Gadsden, Arizona 01:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

King of the Franks

The Kings of France stopped calling themselves Kings of the Franks around the reign of Philip IV or Louis IX. But when did the Kings of Middle and Eastern Francia stop calling themselves King of the (East/Middle) Franks?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they called themselves that to begin with, they are just modern conventions to describe what they ruled. Middle Francia, which was very short-lived anyway, was similar to the later Kingdom of Burgundy, and East Francia later became the Holy Roman Empire, which also included the titles of King of Bavaria and King of the Lombards. But I doubt they used the title "rex mediae Franciae" or anything like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've always been kind of fond of the names Austrasia and Neustria (which were used at the time). AnonMoos (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah those are good, and since they are the Merovingian names, we could also say they stopped using those titles when they were overthrown (although the Carolingians seem to have used them too). Adam Bishop (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Kingdom of the Middle Franks was Lotharingia. It lasted only a few decades, but our article seems to indicate that it was known by that name, or its latin equivalent "Lotharii Regnum" during its existance. West Francia was a general geographic name which constantly shifted borders and kingdoms. Neustria and Aquitaine and various other "subkingdoms" likely existed througout the area. Our article Duke of the Franks, or dux francorum indicates that the name "France" itself likely evolved from a later version of the title, which was dux Franciae or literally "Duke of France" which as a title preceded the King of France as a title by some years. Originally, "France" only referred to what is now "Ile de France", i.e. Paris and its environs. The transformation from "Duke of the Franks" to "Duke of France" came about apparently by decendants of Robert the Strong, Margrave of Neustria. His son Odo apparently used the titles "King of West Francia" and "Duke of France" and a Great Grandson of Robert the Strong was apparently Hugh Capet, who inherited the Duke of France title from his father Hugh the Great and when he became King, he simply combined the two titles into King of France, so Hugh Capet is probably the first to think of himself as "King of France" rather than "King of West Francia". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as the Eastern Franks/East Francia, it seems likely that transition occured with Henry the Fowler who successed Conrad of Franconia as King, and seems to have been the first to use the term King of Germany or rex Teutonicorum rather than King of East Francia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Grunwald

I am searching the year the Israeli Scholar Kurt Grunwald died. He was born in 1901 in Hamburg, Germany and migrated to Palestine in 1921 and later live in Jerusalem. He wrote some books on economic history. I wanted to include this information in an article about his father, the rabbi de:Max Grunwald. --Catrin (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

He lived to be at least 80: [1] (if that's the right person). An editor who reads Hebrew might have more luck than I did searching the website of his university, Hebrew University of Jerusalem - there seem to be a few scholarships in his name and there might be a date there. If no luck here you could try the language desk. Sorry, that's where I stuck. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

He died at 88 in 1989. Here's an obituary in the Jerusalem Post.John Z (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That was the idea i didnt had. :-). --Catrin (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

d-day

Why is june 6 1944 called as 'd-day'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.138.93 (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the article D-Day and the article D-Day (military term) for the answer. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The articles don't quite make this point explicit: Although D-Day is a generic term associated with many military operations, this particular one was so important and so strongly anticipated that everyone wanted to know when it would happen. To borrow a phrase from another war, this was the "mother of all D-Days", so it still gets called by that phrase today. In the same way, people also sometimes talked about "V-Day" (victory day), the day the war would end, before it happened. When it became clear that the war in Europe would end before the war against Japan, people talked about VE-Day before it happened. --Anonymous, 05:10 UTC, May 1, 2009.

disintegration of soviet union

I am making a project on what indias policy should be after disintegration? Should india change its forein policy and focus more on friendship with us rather than with traditional friends like russia?118.95.66.220 (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the reference desk can't answer the title questions to whole projects - advising the Indian Foreign Office is a big job :-) Is there a narrower question we can help you with? 78.33.187.170 (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What you could do, 118.95.66.220, is start with the article Soviet Union, which explains how the Soviet Union broke up in 1991. That should help you clarify whether you want to write about India and the Soviet Union 18 years ago, or whether your project should be about India and Russia today. Next, read India–Russia relations, which gives an overview of India's foreign policy towards both the Soviet Union before 1991, and towards Russia after 1991. Then read India – United States relations so you can compare and decide if Indian relations with Russia are the same or different with Indian relations with the US. Finally, look at Foreign relations of India for other ideas about India's policies towards other nations. Then, as 78.33.187.170 said, come back if you have a specific question that you need help finding references for. Good luck, WikiJedits (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"focus more on friendship with us rather than with traditional friends like russia". Depends who you mean by 'us'. We have no idea where you are from.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I should think the OP probably means the US. That's what you get for not using capital letters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.251.196.62 (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You might focus the project on what the status of the Non-Aligned Movement is in an era without two superpowers. Does it even make sense? In the West it is common to see the NAM as being a way to play off of the power of each side (flirt with one so the other one tries to win you back). Does losing a side change that dynamic? (Or have the sides switched around? Or...?) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nowadays, the "Non-Aligned Movement" is really just another "G" group, like the G77, G90, etc. etc. (and it's not even the most important non-major-power G-group). AnonMoos (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Goliath (WW2 weapon)

Was the 'Goliath' (a little tiny tracked remote control device that seems to serve no purpose whatsoever in the game I am playing) an actual WW2 'weapon'? And which side produced it and used it? In the game Company of Heroes both the Germans and the Americans seem to have the exact same machine.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

See Goliath tracked mine. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

King Otto of Greece

Could he speak Modern Greek? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Amalia of Oldenburg article says that after their exile "they determined to speak in Greek each day between 6 and 8 o'clock to remember their time in Greece." If that's true then they may have learned a little while they were there; or maybe they knew some Attic Greek, assuming they were relatively well-educated ninteenth-century European nobles. I think it's pretty unlikely that they could speak Greek fluently, especially considering that Otto's article says the Greeks called his reign the "Bavarocracy". (By the way, Googling this turns up a lot of nonsense from Macedonians and Albanians about Greek not being spoken at all in Greece at the time, so apparently that problem is not unique to Wikipedia...) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Modern Greek is counted from the fall of the Byzantine Empire (1453), although of course many new words have come into it since. However, the official written language of law and government was much closer to Ancient Greek than to Modern, being more formal and complex in grammar. Modern was made the official language of Greece in 1976. As Otto became King of Greece in 1832, he lived well into the Modern language period. However, at only 18 years old, with no prior diplomatic experience, it is likely that he spoke NO Greek at all when he arrived. He reigned for 30 years, so had opportunity to learn some. What he DID speak would undoubtedly have been Modern Greek. KoolerStill (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Heiresses apparent to peerage titles

I'd like to know more about female heirs apparent to lordships, baronies, and earldoms created by writ of summons. Let's say that a certain woman is the only child of a man who is the eldest son of a peer (whose title has been created by writ of summons). In theory, if her father dies before her grandparent, then she could not be displaced in the order of succession by any possible birth, which would make her heir apparent. I would like to know if something like that actually happened. I've came across the example of Georgiana Maxwell, 27th Baroness de Ros, who was the eldest daughter of the eldest son of the 26th Baroness de Ros. Then I remebered that she was never heiress apparent because she had sisters and the titles fell into abeyancy. A good example is Frances Ward, 6th Baroness Dudley, the only daughter of the eldest son of Edward Sutton, 5th Baron Dudley. However, Frances Ward, 6th Baroness Dudley redirects to the article about her husband and there is little I can find out about her. So, it's possible for a woman to be heiress apparent even when the succession law prefers males, but could you think of any other examples that would confirm this theory? Surtsicna (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A living example:Queen Elizabeth II who succeeded to the throne despite her father having two younger brothers Duke of Kent, Duke of Gloucester). The phrase is heiress presumptive, since there is always the possibility of a male heir appearing.--TammyMoet (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. Please read more carefully. Elizabeth II would have succeed to the throne regardless of how many uncles she had. She was indeed heiress presumptive, but I'm not asking about that. I know that a daughter of a peer can never be heiress apparent, but a granddaughter can. Imagine this situation: a man who is heir apparent to a title dies leaving behind one daughter. Since he was the eldest son, it doesn't matter how many brothers he has (or gets after his death), because his daughter now represents him and his line. Obviously, she can't have any more agnatic siblings because her father is dead (presuming that her mother is not pregnant at the time of his death, of course) and her uncles are behind her because her father was older than them. That makes her heiress apparent. I just need some examples besides those mentioned above. Surtsicna (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go right ahead and doubt your premise. If we have Father (holder of the title), Son 1 (Heir apparent), Son 2, and Daughter of Son 1 ... and Son 1 dies before Father dies, then surely Son 2 will inherit? That does mean that yes, I'm doubting your examples. However this is just an expression of doubt; I'm not knowledgeable in this area. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That's right only if we are talking about Salic law which excludes all females, but I stressed out that I'm talking about succession to peerage titles created by writ of summons (which can pass to females and through females). Take George III of Great Britain for example. He became heir apparent to his grandfather when his father died, although he had had an uncle. If the Prince of Wales dies before his mother, Prince William of Wales would become new heir apparent. The new heir apparent would not be his uncle, the Duke of York, because William is the eldest son of the eldest son of the Sovereign while Andrew is a younger son of the Sovereign. That's what primogeniture is all about. Since Son 1 doesn't have any sons of his own, his daughter is his heir and therefore his father's heir too. Surtsicna (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thomas (4th Baron Wentworth, 1st Baron Wentworth of Nettlested, 1st & last Earl of Cleveland of the 1626 creation) married Anne Crofts and had an only son, Thomas. The son married Philadelphia Carey, daughter of Sir Ferdinando Carey, had an only daughter, and died in his father's lifetime. The daughter, Henrietta Wentworth, succeeded her grandfather in the Barony of Wentworth.

So she was heiress apparent to the barony between March 1664/5 (her father's death) and March 1667 (her grandfather's death). - Nunh-huh 22:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Similar situations can also occur with Scottish peerages in remainder to heirs-general. In either case, a male heir apparent must die and leave female issue. Since peerages conveyed by writs of summons can fall into abeyance, a daughter becomes a heir apparent only if she is the only daughter. In the case of Scottish peerages, the eldest daughter of the deceased heir apparent will become the new heir apparent. Choess (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Choess! Do you have any examples? Surtsicna (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Actress from 'Slumdog Millionaire' (the older girl)

What's her name and is there some information about her anywhere?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Imdb.com is your friend. They have a full cast list on their site. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1010048/ I haven't seen it so aren't sure which is the 'older girl' character but should be easy enough to figure out if you've seen it. ny156uk (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Freida Pinto? --Tango (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Or Tanvi Ganesh Lonkar, the second of the 3 actresses to play her? (Pinto was the 3rd and oldest.) Since there are 3, I'm not sure to whom "older" refers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltelauridsbrigge (talk • contribs) 14:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it was the middle one. Thanks!--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

And for my article I am actually trying to find out her birthday, which does not seem to appear anywhere. Can anyone provide me with some links here?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Japan's Civil War

I'm doing a report on the civil war in Japan between 1333 AD and 1392 AD, and I can't find information anywhere. Can anyone help? <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Muromachi period and more specifically Nanboku-chō period are good starting points. The second one, particularly, has a big list of books you can look for, either in print or parts of them in GoogleBooks, and the other has a link to the public domain source for the article. Japanese history is fascinating. Good luck on your report! Steewi (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on the Kenmu restoration might be a good place to start; it seems to talk about the background and has links to other events and people of the period. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

See also Genkō War. Oda Mari (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

April 30

Cream of the cloth

Catholic priests must be celibate, but are they allowed to donate sperm? Let's assume that the spermatorium in question complies with all relevant standards: its clients must be Catholics in good standing; under no circumstances may they be lesbian, unmarried, or Unitarian. Assuming all these things, would an ordained priest be allowed to make a donation? If not, why not? LANTZY^TALK 06:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, because celibacy also means no masturbation. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Allowed by whom? I don't see why the spermatorium would object. And the Catholic authorities would just give them a slap on the wrist and assign them to a different diocese. As for whether the priest's conscience would allow him.......--86.25.194.171 (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

But if they must under no circumstances be unmarried, then Catholic priests would automatically fail that criterion. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the OP was suggeting Catholic priests should be the clients of the spermatorium, simply the one time contractors (or whatever you want to call them) Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that kind of client. I was thinking of "client" in its broadest meaning. Occupational hazard of being a big picture person, I guess. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to Adam's response. There are also techniques of surgical sperm retrieval, and spermatozoa can be retrieved from the morning urine, though I couldn't find any reference that these samples are or can be used for fertilization. (This paper says no.)---Sluzzelin talk 07:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic prohibition of masturbation (which is unrelated to its requirement that priests be celibate and applies to all Catholics, not just priests) is because it is wasting sperm rather than using them for procreation. If the semen produced was donated specifically for the creation of a child, that argument disappears. If that argument were used to ban priests from donating sperm, the ban would apply to all Catholics - is that the case? While there may never have been a ruling on priests donating sperm, I expect there has been on Catholics in general doing so. --Tango (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is: [2] "2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."166 " Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Also [3] "all techniques of heterologous artificial fertilization,22 as well as those techniques of homologous artificial fertilization23 which substitute for the conjugal act, are to be excluded. On the other hand, techniques which act as an aid to the conjugal act and its fertility are permitted." Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This also means a spermatorium like you describe wouldn't exactly be a succesful business model Nil Einne (talk)

That answers that question - well found! I particularly love the euphemism, "conjugal act"! --Tango (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me that the Church opposes artificial insemination in general, but it certainly sucks the fun out of my hypothetical. I was hoping I had discovered a juicy loophole that would allow priests the Darwinian pleasure of perpetuating their genes. So, according to the Church, a child has a right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage, but not the right to remain with that father and mother, since the Church supports adoption agencies, which exist for no other purpose than to place children in the hands of strangers. Perhaps I can anticipate the Church's response: adoption merely rectifies a greater evil, while artificial insemination is "gratuitous" and therefore a sin in the eye of God (a money shot, if you will). So the church's position on Catholic couples who cannot physically conceive is that they may acquire a child only by "grave immorality" on their own part (if they choose artificial insemination) or on the part of someone else (if they choose adoption). But I suppose they should have thought of that before choosing to be infertile. LANTZY^TALK 10:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The last time I saw someone take that particular tone toward the Catholics' attitude toward procreation, it was to condemn them for opposing birth control. To breed or not to breed, that is the question, but someone's gonna complain no matter whether Catholics choose to reproduce or not. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Tango's reference, masturbation is forbidden on the grounds of wasted sperm. So, Catholic women can masturbate, as orgasm in women has nothing to do with reproduction, but not men, it would seem. Interesting! // BL \\ (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting perhaps, but completely inaccurate. Masturbation is a sin because the only "proper" sex occurs between a man and woman within a marriage, not because it "wastes sperm". If you believe the Catholic church deems female masturbation anything other than a sin, you are mistaken. - Nunh-huh 18:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

What reference? Tango didn't provide a reference, because Tango was just repeating one of those often-repeated 'facts' that people assume are true because so many other people say them. Just because some comedians wrote a song doesn't make it accurate. 80.41.15.80 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Church supports adoption agencies; that does not mean it advocates leaving your child at an adoption agency. The idea of an adoption agency is to care for children who, for whatever reason, cannot be looked after by their parents and to find them families. I have heard it suggested that infertility can be part of a calling to adopt a child. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 18:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sedlec-Prčice

Is it true that the Czech government gave permission to destroy the Jewish cemetery at Sedlec-Prčice as your article claims? --212.73.96.111 (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up, that page needs work – it does not read like an encyclopaedia article and there are no references. I've posted asking for help finding some references on the WP:WikiProject Czech Republic page. To attempt to answer your question, the assertion may very well be wrong. The only website I could find in English is this one from a Jewish geneological society, and it says "the Jewish cemetery is located at 1.5 km N. of town… the present owner of the cemetery property is the local Jewish community of Praha. The cemetery property is now for Jewish cemetery use only…" Hopefully a Czech-speaking editor can confirm or provide more info.(PS anyone can edit Wikipedia, so when you find errors do feel free to fix them.) Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Czech WP seems (I do not speak the language) to have two pictures of the Jewish cemetery, the gate and a shot of a couple of grave stones. Assuming there may be no Jewish community in Sedlec-Prčice, it seems to be reasonably well maintained. I tried some zooming in on Google maps, but could not locate it there. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Soviet politician replaced by stack of books

Who was the Soviet politician who was replaced in photographs by a stack of books after he was purged? I've tried googling this all sorts of ways but without success. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Censorship of images in the Soviet Union does not mention anyone replaced in this way, but it might have some links you can follow.--Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No luck there, but the before/after pictures of Trotsky etc are... interesting. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have heard the story that librarians were told to remove the page with the article about Lavrentiy Beria from a certain encyclopedia, and replace it with a page with a nice photograph of the Bering Strait. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That's mentioned in Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

History of Voting Qualifications

After reading about American exceptionalism in the negative sense I am struck that there is no article summarizing or explaining the qualifications for voting in the U.S. vis a vis other countries. There is a good article on women's suffrage but no equivelent article on universal suffrage or universal male suffrage. One has to page through detail country by country. England after the third Reform Bill of the 1880's still denied at least 40 percent of adult males the right to vote from the until 1919. I believe most of the European countries - except France - didn't give working men - that is non property holders - the right to vote until the turn of the 19th century...but I would have to do research on that. In contrast, the U.S. states...because it was individual state law - eliminated most qualifications for voting except age, gender, and race, long before the Civil War --- but again I would have to do the research on that...Maybe you should farm out this article - It surely wouldn't take much to tie the data together - at least for western Europe and the British commonwealth. Name: Jeff Fiddler Godofredus (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Suffrage and Universal suffrage appear to have much of what you seek. If these articles are incomplete, you might want to join in the Wikipedia fun and add your referenced research. Except in the sense that someone volunteers to start a topic, we don't "farm out" anything. (I have removed your email address to help prevent spam.) // BL \\ (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S., qualifications were determined at the level of each individual state, of course, but the strong tendency by the time of the presidency of Andrew Jackson was for all white male citizens 21 and older to be permitted to vote (with only relatively few exceptions). Rhode Island didn't fall in line until the aftermath of the Dorr Rebellion, and South Carolina voters weren't allowed to influence the selection of that state's presidential electors until 1868. Some non-whites were allowed to vote in the 19th century, but this varied strongly from state to state; and in some cases non-citizens were allowed to vote in local (municipal) elections. AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a movement to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ch. 11 bankruptcy...-

I don't get it, I see that Chrysler may be going into Ch. 1 bankruptcy, and people see this as a bad thing, but why? It sounds like they will just restructure the organization but it will still be operational. I don't get what the big deal is. Same with Abitibi Bowater, it is in bankruptcy but its still operating and hasn't laid anyone off yet..--Standis9 (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Bankruptcy is certainly better than liquidation, but it is not a great thing. For the first thing, it destroys a company's bond rating which means that it will be very difficult for the restructured company to raise capital on the bond market. Also, it hurts both the shareholders, since the restructured company is worth MUCH less than prior to the bankruptcy, and bondholders, since the company's creditors are often paid off pennies on the dollar for their bonds, likely costing them more than if they were just paid off in liquidated assets. The pensioners and employees hate it, because it allows a bankruptcy judge to change the terms of their contracts with the company without their say, often slashing their priorly agreed-upon benefits. If the options are only two: bankruptcy OR disappearance, bankruptcy comes out better. If the options are three: bankruptcy OR dissapearance OR anything else, anything else usually wins. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case, as I understand it, the shareholders are losing everything. Most creditors are getting paid in shares, bondholders are getting $2 for every $6.90. Everyone except some hedge funds agreed to the deal without bankruptcy, I think, so the bankruptcy is just to force those hedge funds to accept it. The company will still be operational, but a lot of people will lose a lot of money (I believe $4.9 billion of debt is being written of). --Tango (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not that going into Chapter 11 is a bad thing itself (or no company would do it). But when it happens it's an admission of how bad things actually are. Up until then everyone may have hoped that things weren't bad enough to require Chapter 11. But when it happens, clearly they were that bad. Therefore customer confidence, share price, etc. all plummet. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I blame Wheel of Fortune. Recury (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Changing the spelling in an article's name

In particular, I'm referring to a couple of articles referring to Canadian history circa War of 1812. To whit, DeCew House (presently DeCow) and John DeCew (owner of said house). I'm desirous of changing the article names to reflect modern-day spelling in these cases as I feel this would make the particular articles more useful to casual users of wikipedia as they're less likely to be familiar with the alternate manglings in terms of spelling of the name DeCew. The alternate spellings of DeCew are included within the articles cited and I'm wondering as much how one goes about correcting the spelling of the name of the article itself so as to make it searchable.

Have I, in doing what I have thus far, created a grave wikifauxpas?

TIA Natty10000 (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, a minor wikifauxpas. The article has been at DeCou House, and you've changed the spelling at the beginning of the first sentence to "DeCew", thus introducing a discrepancy between the article title and the boldfaced name at the beginning. If the consensus of editors is to use "DeCew", then the article should be moved to DeCew House, which is currently a redirect.

There's no problem with correcting a clear error. In this instance, however, given that the article text already mentions the alternate spellings, this is an issue that's known to the people who've been working on the article. Under those circumstances, the best thing to do would be to revert your own edits and prepare a post explaining your proposed change, putting it on the talk pages of both articles. If no one objects after a few days, go ahead and make the change. Whatever the outcome is, all plausible alternative spellings should be redirects. JamesMLane t c 19:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This would be better discussed on the talkpage of the article itself, or on WP:Help desk. Alternatively, you can place the template "helpme" (with two curly brackets at each side of the word) on your own talkpage, and a knowledgeable person will talk you through your question. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, that is {{helpme}}, written on your talk page. 80.41.15.80 (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

T'is (as per suggestion of BrainyBabe). As long as I'm helping make the article more and not less accessible for those looking to use the contained information, all else is secondary.Natty10000 (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

shareholder voting

At a company shareholder meeting, usually shareholders get to vote on certain ballot items. Does this include children who might own shares, or do you have to be a legal adult? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not directly. There's always going to be age restrictions on the participation of those who are below the age of majority. Their shares will typically be voted by an adult proxy (one parent or the other most usually).Natty10000 (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This is because children who are below a certain age do not have capacity to contract. The right to vote on certain ballot items arises as a result of the contract of buying shares. Children do not own such shares directly: they are usually held in trust for them by a trustee, e.g. the parent. That trustee is the legal owner of the shares and so holds the right to vote. If, depending on the jursidiction, the child owns the share outright (i.e. at law) then they would also have all the benefits of the shareholding, including the vote attached to it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been to an annual general meeting at which a young person participated, so I don't know what the basis is for Natty's assertion. My understanding is that all common shareholders get one vote per share, no matter who they are. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to what I said above: the actual mechanism by which children who are below the age of capacity to contract are prevented from holding shares is usually by the company's own constitutional documents. Since a child below age cannot be held to a contract, it is in the company's interest not to enter into a contract with such a person. Of course, a company could choose not to put such a provision in. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably depends on jurisdiction. In UK company law there is no minimum age for a shareholder, and minors may own shares in their own name - see [4], [5]. The company's articles will determine whether a shareholder who is a minor is entitled to vote directly or by proxy. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• It should be noted that some minors own shares in the United States pursuant to the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act or the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act, under which those shares are held for them by a custodian (such as a parent). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

May 1

Merovingian bloodlines

Are there any descendants of the Frankish Merovingian dynasty. I know that there aren't any male heirs left but is there any descendants through daughters of the Merovingian kings. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how true it is, but this says that Pepin the Short was a descendant of Clovis I. It that's true, then about half of all Europeans are descended from the Merovingians, through Charlemagne. [6]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no documented descendants; speculative descendencies have been postulated; the person doing the most active publication on the matter is Christian Settipani. The reliable paternal ancestry of Pepin the Short effectively fails at Arnulf of Metz, his 3G-grandfather, whose parentage is uncertain at best. A speculative line continues back to Clovis the Riparian, Frankish king of Cologne, who is said to have been a "kinsman" of Clovis I. So: [1] no actually documented descent; but [2] speculative descents exist from Clovis the Riparian, who has a nebulous assertion about his kinship to the Merovingians; and [3] most likely there are descendants, simply on a statistical basis, but no one alive has an enumerable descent from the Merovingians. - Nunh-huh 02:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC with above, roughly the same ideas). That article you city is a mathematical analysis, which shows that if we go back about 1000 years, about 80% of all Europeans are direct ancestors of every person of European descent alive today. The problem is that its not lineage-based, so we need to tie the Merovingians to, say, other European royalty, via a parent-child chain. The best shot is via Arnulf of Metz, who compiled his own genealogy where he claimed his paternal grandmother was the daughter of the Merovingian Chlothar I, who was a son of Clovis the Great. His own account is the only existance of such a daughter, so the claim is tenuous. If taken on its face value, it presents a clear descent, through Arnulf, from the Merovingians to the Carolingians. From there, its a fairly straight shot to Louis the Pious who is fairly reliably, by that time, clearly an ancestor of all of the Kings of Germany and France. Most of the early Kings of Germany/Holy Roman Emporers of the Ottonian Dynasty trace through Gisela (Giselle), a daughter of Louis the Pious. Giselle's brother was Charles the Bald, who provided a long line of French Carolingian kings. Of course, the Carolingians went entirely extinct after Louis V, but Hugh Capet was a grandson (via his mother) of Henry the Fowler who himself was a descendant of Giselle (and thus Louis the Pious and the rest of the main line Carolingians). From there, the rest of the Kings of France fall in line. See German monarchs family tree and French monarchs family tree. Once we have those two monarchies tied in, the other major monarchies fall in line quite nicely as well. The lynchpin in this is of course the dubious claims of Arnulf of Metz, however. Still, there are likely other more indirect, but better documented, claims which tie the Carolingians to the Merovingians. That's the key in answering the OP. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Found another possibility: Bertrada of Prüm is clearly the grandmother of Bertrada of Laon who was wife of Pippin the Short, and thus an ancestor of Charlemagne. The problem is that Mrs. of Prüm may be the daughter of the Merovingian Theuderic III or she may not be. If true, she provides another Merovingian-Carolingian connection. Her claim does not appear to be much better than Arnulf's however. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Another Merovingian tie-in, this time to the British Isles: Emma (or Ymme) an apparent daughter of Merovingian Theudebert II married King Eadbald of Kent. Given the confused nature of British kingdoms at this time, and the frequent intermarrying, that that bloodline likely continued for some time, and may have survived to the conquest. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a considerable literature on the subject. Christian Settipani in Les ancêtres de Charlemagne has offered a plethora of lines of descent from the Merovingians to the Carolingians, only to conclude that none of them should be regarded as certain. There is too little documentation from the Dark Ages to substantiate any line of descent. Any genealogical reconstruction of a Merovingian descent still involves a good deal of speculation. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

To look at it from another angle, it is reasonably certain that almost every European living at the time of the Napoleonic wars descended from Charlemagne through one or several lines. Since Charlemagne had certainly some admixture of the Merovingian blood in his veins (although we can't reconstruct the details of his descent), we are all Merovingian descendants! --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

British Army - Essex Regiment in 1944

Hi. I'm trying to research the history of the Essex Regiment during WWII, specifically their role in Belgium and Holland during September-November 1944. The regiment was part of the 56th Infantry Brigade, which by this time was under the command of the 49th (West Riding) Division. Can anyone suggest any sources I should take a look at, either online or books etc. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.23.58 (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There's this, which gives a few details about the 2nd Battalion being transferred to the 56th Brigade and fighting in Holland. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You saw this: OCLC 4045659?—eric 17:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

G SUMIT

Recently there was an incident were a civilian was pushed to the ground during protest of the G Summit on the main picture there was minimum of 20 police present at the incident> Is there a law saying even though the police were present in great numbers they can not be a witness to an incident > there was an appeal by the police for witnesses to the incident one can only assume they are either...Un-able to act as a witness or would be un-able to tell the truth of the incident there for deemed untrustworthy...So for clarification is there a law that for impartiality reasons they must try to gain witnesses other than the most honest police department/or is it they do not think the police are honest enough to tell the truth of the incident?Chromagnum (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Assume you mean Ian_Tomlinson. Parts of the incident were caught on video... AnonMoos (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The Independent Police Complaints Commission have announced that, instead of following their normal practice on this and asking another police force to investigate this incident, they will investigate it themselves. They are supposed to be independent of any police force in the UK. This is to deflect or avoid charges of complicity when if they find the police didn't cause Mr Tomlinson's death. I refer you to the last paragraph in the IPCC report.--TammyMoet (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You must be very young and trusting, Chromagnum, if you think that many police officers are so honest that they would willingly step forward to give unbiased, probably incriminating evidence about such an event against a fellow serving officer. In such circumstances, most apparent witnesses would likely claim to have been distracted or unsighted at the crucial moments. If any officers were proved to have witnessed the events and summoned to testify, they would be liable to suffer lapses of memory in the witness box. An officer who voluntarily 'grassed up' one of his or her colleages would find themselves extremely unpopular in the canteen. Most people would behave similarly in similar circumstances, police are only human, and life experience tends to suggest that police are, at best, no more honest that anyone else.

I'm sure it would be different in the case of something considered truly reprehensible, like accepting bribes or committing theft, etc (and getting caught at it), but in demonstration crowd control, the police are trained to and expected by their superiors to deploy physical force on anyone they think is involved, as necessary. This incident, while regrettable, will be seen by most officers as an understandable mistake. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Put simply, an investigator will always try to get evidence from someone other than a member of the group suspected of the crime. Given that the investigation at hand is into the police's role in the death, the investigators will want to have third party eyewitness evidence if possible. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ancient ruins- location and/or name?

All I've got is a general description. I'm not sure exactly how long ago it was, but I believe I came across the picture I saw somewhere in wikipedia. It was a series of rather large and pretty well-preserved ruins scattered across a rolling green field, for some reason my mind wants me to believe it was somewhere in Eastern Europe, or possibly even Central/Western Asia? I recall the article specifying that the (what once was a) city was a major crossroads and trading hub, and I think there was some Byzantine influence in the architecture. Apparently the location thrived for quite a long time and then faded into obscurity. It's been haunting me, and any suggestions as to the location or name of this place would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.1.254 (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Could be lots of places...how about Iznik? It's pretty minor today but was once extremely important. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ani ? --Xuxl (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Or Ephesus? Iblardi (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This sounds very much like a place in Turkey I saw a doco about just recently. It was definitely on a major crossroads and trading hub, and there was certainly some Byzantine influence in the architecture. It was in a high place, and extremely well fortified against invaders, which required special architectural skills due to the hilly terrain in which they chose to have their civilization. They flourished for a long time, but then dwindled into such obscurity that the name is all but forgotten today. The ruins are still there for all to see. Do you think I can remember it? Sorry. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunno if this is any help at all, but JackofOz's answer reminds me of somewhere Michael Palin visited in a recent series. --Dweller (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

ancient indian quilt image search

Hello, In 2008 I was on a page regarding quilting and there was an image of 15th century indian quilt which had a red background and white embroidery of a family, a tree and small animals. I am desperately trying to locate this image - I have searched the history and cannot find it. Is is possible to source old images used on wikipedia pages?? The page title was likely - ancient quilting or indian quilting. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Emily —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.123.238 (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you certain you have the date correct? Textiles from the 1400s are a bit rare. And Native Americans or India Indian? Rmhermen (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a modern quilt in the section on the tree-of-life motif in the article on Indian quilting. It has a bright red background and white embroidery with figures as you describe. // BL \\ (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

famous literary writers of the 16th century and before

What names come to mind when you read the subject heading? - I'm especially thinking of Italy and France, but classical writers will do too. If you were a C16 Italian, what writers would you most admire?

Thanks - Adambrowne666 (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Renaissance thinkers were very into classical texts, so you're on the right lines with that. For example, Machiavelli (with Leonardo, often considered the epitome of Renaissance man) wrote extensively about the works of Livy. --Dweller (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Also Caesar, Ovid, Virgil, Seneca...the big names from classical Rome. A 16th century Italian would also know their own medieval authors, especially if they were also classicists, like Dante and Boccaccio, and probably someone like Guido de Colonna who wrote a Latin version of Trojan War epic. I would suggest searching for "reception of the classics", which is a fascinating field of medieval, Renaissance, and early modern studies. Also, check out medieval literature for pre-16th century authors in general. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As you specifically ask for Italians there are three obvious choices: Giovanni Boccaccio, Petrarch and Dante Alighieri. Pietro Aretino and as Dweller mentioned Niccolò Machiavelli who wrote some popular plays would also be probable. But they would most likely also have been following some international authors like Desiderius Erasmus and François Rabelais. That is of course only mentioning the major writers. You could check the categories to explore some of the lesser known writers of the time which would probably have been known by a man of letters of that day though largely forgotten by now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if you had any reasonable education in those days, you'd be very, very familiar with the complete works of a certain author. --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting. I'm not being sarcastic, I am genuinely ignorant, or misinformed, on this point, and seek to learn. I thought that the Catholic Church generally didn't encourage close study of the Bible at this time in its history, and that this focus on access to the holy scripture was a major reason for, and part of, the Reformation. "If you were a C16 Italian, what writers would you most admire?" Was the Bible available in Italian five hundred years ago? (The Italian language was standardised only relatively recently.) Or was it only available in Latin? What proportion of Italians with a "reasonable education" could read Latin? Or are we getting into No true Scotsman territory here? How many C16 Italians were in a position to admire any writers at all -- both in terms of levels of literacy of the populace, and the ability of writers to convey their meaning through other media (dramatic performances, for instance)? I think the King James Bible has had an influence on the development of literary English in a manner that has been traced and studied over the centuries, but the same might not be true for a less sonorous translation. Likewise, whatever version was available, C16 Italians might see it as a source of wisdom, or of historical truth, but not necessarily as a literary model, a writer or group of writers to admire. [Sorry, forgot to sign, it is BrainyBabe, but I don't want to do tildes now and mess up the timestamps.]

All educated Italians of the Renaissance (actually all educated people anywhere, up to very recently) learned Latin; Italian isn't that far from Latin anyway, although by then they did recognize that there was a difference (Dante's De vulgari eloquentia for example). Some of them were especially good at it, and since this was also the time when many classical texts were being rediscovered, this marks the difference between Medieval Latin and Humanist Latin. The church always encouraged close study of the Bible, as long as it was in Latin (and Bible Latin is relatively easy). So how many people does this actually apply to? Well, in Italy as in any other pre-modern place, very very few. But Italy had more cities and more continuity with ancient culture so there were more educated people there than elsewhere in Europe, which is one of the reasons why the Renaissance began there. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam, I live and learn! One item I have to take exception to: "all educated people anywhere" learned Latin -- tell that to the Chinese (etc.)! BrainyBabe (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, yeah I thought someone would notice that. Of course, I meant Europeans. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all - all extremely useful and interestingAdambrowne666 (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

why don't jews eat pork?

why dont practicing jews eat pork? I mean why is it forbidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.137.4 (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu. Muslims, too, not just Jews don't eat pork. Swine have diseases. Not just Swine Flu, but uncooked pork may have this brain parasite (forgot the name but this is a real pathogen).

Anyway, just remember the Swine Flu. 63.19.77.8 (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't do that 63. You'll have a mob of angry pig farmers round at your door. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a statute, ie no reason is given for the Biblical instruction found in Leviticus and in Deuteronomy.

Pig is actually one of many, many animals Jews can't eat. The Bible singles it out (along with certain other animals) because it possesses one of the two signs of being kosher - it has cloven hooves, but does not chew the cud.

Down the years, many people have alleged lots of reasons for this prohibition (see Pork#Judaism), but at the end of the day, the big man upstairs didn't explain Himself on this one. --Dweller (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I used to glibly assume it was to prevent the possibility of disease, but recently read a suggestion (being one of the alleged reasons mentioned by Dweller) that it was because pigs compete with humans for the same foods, and so are impractical to keep in a difficult habitat. Adambrowne666 (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

@63.19 Trichinosis.

Dietary restrictions are based on a concept of "natural" configuration for foods, and those which are "abominations".......as mentioned by Dweller, an animal which has a cloven hoof but (unlike the "normal" cloven-hoofers, does not chew the cud; or lobsters, which live in the sea (therefore "should" swim) but have legs and walk etc etc. Speculations about health/hygiene reasons are just that - modern speculations (albeit they may have served health-improving functions). The main functional purpose of food taboos is to foster community cohesion, by preventing them from sharing food with (therefore accepting hospitality and friendship from) outsiders. KoolerStill (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

See food taboo. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A muslim friend of mine told me it was actually because pork spoils faster than other meats, and they didn't have fridges thousands of years ago.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

They did not have Muslims thousands of years ago either. I don't think a lot of religious practices have a basis in logic. Religions often make rules that say you can ignore logic. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am saying. The idea was there long before it became a religious edict.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In Old Testament days, could it have been Cognitive dissonance? Maybe they could not afford pork, so it was comforting to say "It is UNCLEAN and we do not want it." Like The Fox and the Grapes. Edison (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That sort of suggests that pigs were more highly prized, and therefore more valuable, than other animals. If the general populace didn't eat them, why would they have been valuable? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Pinker suggests, in How the Mind Works that the purpose of food taboos is to control the young and impressionable members of your tribe by making it impossible for them to eat with outsiders. I don't recall that he gives very much supporting argument. --ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I side with Pinker; I'd say it applies not just to food taboos but to all arbitrary religious edicts - still, I suppose the question is why that particular taboo was chosen by the early abrahamic religions. 00:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As an interesting tangent, eating pork is allowed in the Jewish faith, but only under very specific circumstances. If you are in danger of death through starvation I understand that you MUST eat pork if it is available. To not do so could result in your death, which would be suicide and is seen as the greater evil. I have also heard that the flesh of humans is remarkably similar to the taste of pork, and that during the holocaust, the smell of cremation could be compared to that of cooking bacon, although i cannot remember where I heard this. Interestingly, if u buy pet food, none of it is ever pig based. Perhaps this is something to do with all parts of the animal being used for human consumtion, but also perhaps to ensure that pets do not turn on their owners? russ (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In the beginning, god created all the animals and beasts of the field and said that they were all GOOD. God also tells Noah when the ark lands on Ararat, all the animals are good to eat. God then changes its mind and declares some animals less and some more clean than others. Does this not mean that it is for us to choose what we eat?

french women -- urban legend?

okay so I searched the Internet but couldn't find whether this is an urban legend, it sounds like it, but then again it sounds like it might have a basis. The allegation is: there is a practice among Parisien women (I guess on the theory of like pheromones) that the women will uh like rub their private parts with their finger and then behind the ear (to transfer to 'scent', pheromes, whatever), so as to be sexualy enticing, have the same sex appeal and mystique that, uh, a v****a does?. I mean it sounds vaguely plausible that htere would be something to that, but on the other hand it sounds like an urban legend that they'd want to smell like v****s. So which is it? Thanks!94.27.137.4 (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored, feel free to say vagina

vagina vagina vagina

You mean they don't use kippers like British women do? Or was it haddock?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Decorum and censorship are too utterly different things. If some people still wish to display decorum, please respect that. Mowsbury (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of accuracy, I should point out that you are also allowed to type "vulva". (The vagina is the internal structure: a little anatomy goes a long way.) We have an article on vaginal secretion, which may guide you. The last sentence of Pheromone#Humans states, "no pheromonal substance has ever been demonstrated to directly influence human behavior in a peer reviewed study.". Assuming that children and the sexually inexperienced will be reading this at some point (e.g. when it is archived), I feel the need to point out that the fish comment above is a joke, a red herring if you like. Human sexual variety is wide, and in all probability there are individuals, in Paris nightclubs or elsewhere, who do as the OP suggests. But then again, not everything that has been imagined has yet come to pass: no homoerotic spelling bees yet, for instance. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Red herring. Very good, very good. I never expected that sort of humour from you, BrainyBabe. You have surpassed me and yourself. Makes me embarrassed, now. I'll just go and bang my head on the floor for a few minutes. Well done.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the reference was to the automobile -- the volvo. Bus stop (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't ya love that "new car" smell! Edison (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I first came across a reference to this practice by Alex Comfort in The Joy of Sex. I don't know whether any research was carried out in order for it to appear in there! --TammyMoet (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I first heard of it in (i think) Even Cowgirls Get the Blues. —Tamfang (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

yeah okay it doesn't have to be about pheromes, it could just be for the smell of what's new ___ cat. 79.122.87.75 (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, you don't need to dance around the word. Colloquially, you could just say vulva, vagina, pussy, cunt, lady parts. Either way, there's no need to construct coy hints in this sort of discussion. Anyway, the practice sounds unlikely to be widespread, given the lack of references we've turned up. 80.41.127.59 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Jokes and witticisms aside, the practice is not necessarily as ridiculous as one might initially think. As BrainyBabe points out, humans pheromone are thought not to exist (and certainly have not been demonstrated, despite what the emails caught by your spam filter might have you believe). However, humans can still have involuntary, physiological responses to odors, both attractive and aversive. One might well be attracted to the smell of vaginal secretions if one has been previously exposed to it in a favorable context. And for many men, a previous sexual encounter many well serve that purpose. This concept - olfactory conditioning - occurs all the time. That said, I have no idea whether it does occur. Rockpocket 01:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Frenchman living in Paris so now I better understand why I'm so excited by women in my city... More seriously, I always feel surprised by urban legends I heard in the US about the Frenchs and sex. Is that an urban legend that American people have a trouble with sex ?  ;-) . TCY (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That hurt. But Alex Comfort was a good guy--80.137.202.2 (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Mongols

The Mongols were hilarious. They were completely unknown for thousands of years, and then suddenly they ended up raping and pillaging and annihilating every living creature in their path across half the planet for a short time, until they all went home again. What happened there? I've read all the articles and everything, but what I really would like to know is what caused a previously peaceful people to turn into the Devil's own horde?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Who says they were peaceful before? They were one of the steppe peoples, like the earlier Huns, who had been invading and pillaging China and India and Europe for at least a thousand years already. For the Mongols in particular, perhaps it has something to do with Temujin's wife being abducted, and his quest to get her back, which involved lots of exciting murderous revenge (although I don't know how true it is because it certainly sounds like a legend). Maybe from there it was a short step to conquer the world. But certainly they were not peaceful before. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm playing Mediaeval Total War II and the Pope keeps telling me to go on a crusade, but I can't because the Mongols have killed everyone before I even get there. I just turn up and there's all these undefended cities. Plus they've just massacred Poland. What is it with these people? I haven't been able to fight a battle for days, because there is no-one left to fight, besides the Mongols, whom I can't find anywhere, because they don't take over the cities and stay in them, they just massacre everyone and go and live in the forest. I'm in the 13th century now, so they should be going home soon, unless the game is not historically correct and they just massacre the rest of Europe, in which case I will have to change my capital city from London to Jerusalem or Accra or somewhere where the Mongols seem to have stopped attacking, presumably because there's no-one left to attack....besides me.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As noted, the Mongols were not unknown (ask the Chinese about them!) and were hardly unique. While the original Mongol tribe was confined to a small area before Ghengis Khan took them on their 'round the world tour, there were other central asian tribes which had been pillaging the Eurasian landmass for quiet a long time. Consider the Avars, the Huns, the Bulgars, the Khazars, the Tatars, etc. etc. Interestingly, from a gaming perspective, the same problem occurs in the Paradox Interactive game Crusader Kings where the best strategy for dealing with the Crusades is to let the Mongols take care of it for you, and then go in and mop up afterwards. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the XiongNu! DOR (HK) (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That's actually what I am doing, but it's making the whole idea of a 'wargame' irrelevant, because there is no-one left to kill besides the Mongols who are hiding in the trees. I haven't had a battle for days. I'm sure, as we speak, they are getting ready to attack my small force of a couple of hundred troops with millions of swarming barbarian hordes. Bloody annoying, this. Why can't I just slaughter the French again?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried going to the games website/forums and looking for threads that deal with this problem? There may be mods or other ways of dealing with this. Its been a while since I played any of the Total War games, but the Paradox games I play generally have a strong modding community where if there is a problem like this, someone has come along and tweaked the game to fix it. There may also be an official patch released by the publisher which tweaks the Mongol AI to stop this problem. I would really recommend surfing those forums and websites if this is becoming a problem... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In MTW, since you already know they are coming, you can build up eastern Europe with millions of your own best cavalry before they get there. Or leave the Poles or Hungarians as a buffer state and they will generally not advance any further west before disappearing again. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, getting back to my original question. Why was Europe so attractive?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it was there? They were also depressing real estate values in the Middle East and China (no doubt so that they could pick up property WITH NO MONEY DOWN), so it's not like Europe was somehow special. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, everything was plunderable until they found an ocean (an even then that didn't stop them from trying. And China was much more attractive; they stopped invading Europe and the Middle East because of the situation there. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The steppe grasslands extended basically along a line of latitude a little south of 50°N from Mongolia to Hungary; it was only within the grassland steppe zone that horse nomads could fully maintain their ancestral nomadic lifestyle, and breed horses in the large numbers needed for military uses without impinging on settled agriculture. So the most natural direction of movement for horse nomads was actually in the east-west direction -- though they generally had to go south of the steppes to find rich civilizations to plunder... AnonMoos (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, they didn't differentiate "Europe" from "Asia". It was all one continuous land mass (and remains so to this very day). The western Russians were also not troubled by any artificial barrier (the Urals) when deciding to conquer territory all the way to Vladivostok. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. It just happened. My troops were slaughtered by a ridiculous number of Mongols, somewhere in Persia (how the hell I got that far I can never say) but what I am interested in is what actually started all this, besides the Temujin legend.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the computer game. In real life, try population pressure. Goths, Visi-goths, Franks, Vandals (not our kind), Vikings......all nomadic tribes keep moving because they need fresh pastures (if they are herders) or fresh supplies of game (if they are hunters). Normally they would move about over a large range, seasonally. Changes in climate and increased populations mean they have to go further afield, which means treading on another group's territory - and toes. Hunting weapons easily become weapons of war. The losers have to move on, putting more pressure on the people next down the line. Fast-moving peoples, especially if equipped with horses,would find just taking what they need from other people more profitable than herding and hunting.(This requires that there be enough other people within reach to make this a consistent reliable source of food and property). In Europe, most of these people settled down,initially as overlords exacting "taxes", eventually becoming the agrarian populations that some of today's countries are named for. In post-Mongolian times, population pressure caused people to move south into Africa; most of the southern African tribes have been there for less than 500 years. Similar pressures much earlier caused people to move into the Americas. They were all trying to survive; killing, looting, and pillaging were successful survival strategies for them. I don't know of any settled peaceful peoples, with enough to eat and nobody attacking them, suddenly "deciding" to turn vicious just for the fun of it.KoolerStill (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

To expand upon KoolerStill's answer, an example of the above effect during Roman times can be found at the article Migration Period. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. A lot of it makes sense. And as an update on the game - not that you need it, I just find it fascinating, even at the grand old age of 36 - my five surviving knights from the previous massacre are walking around Europe trying to find these Mongols and they all seem to have gone home.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The 1976 novel "Steppe" by Poul Anderson (minorly notorious among some SF fans) is about a future society playing an ultra-elaborate game simulating Mongol invasions etc. AnonMoos (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll bite. What makes the novel minorly notorious? (I've likely read more words by Anderson than by any other single writer, and I've never heard of it before; I guess I'm some other SF fans.) —Tamfang (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, it's actually by Piers Anthony, I guess (much more typical of novels by him than those by Poul Anderson, so I should have known). Anyway, because so much of the novel is a straight up medieval history lesson recast into a rather puerile form... AnonMoos (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"Why was Europe so attractive?" As I understand it, Europe was not a high priority target for the medieval Mongols. China was. Central Asia and the Middle East were. But China was the real prize. Anyway, lots of info at Mongol Empire. Pfly (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Children's Laureate

Children's Laureate is without doubt wrong when it says that ther is a £10,000 biannual bursary. It may be the case that there is a £10,000 biennial bursary. However all the ghits I have found just say "The biennial post has a bursary of £10,000" and I don't feel that that is clear whether the £10,000 is for the entire 2 years or is an amount per year (thus £20,000 total). Can anyone provide a categoric reference of what happens please. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Critques of Status in Anthropology

Does anyone know of an anthropological (or otherwise) critique of the idea of status on the basis of it not being monotonic? That is, high status and low status people only exist relative to a ranking, but it is not obviously the case that the ordering has to be consistently ordered (a>b, b>c but a<c, for example). Anyone come across this idea before? --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Superficial search led me to Finding an appropriate order for a hierarchy based on probabilistic dominance, which applies to animal (not human) behaviour. According to the abstract, "methods of ranking individuals in a dominance hierarchy that use transitivity of relationships may obscure irregularities" and the paper suggests a procedure using paired comparison analysis. I don't know how helpful this is, but it might be a start. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Outstanding, thanks, that is much closer than anything I was able to turn up. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2

re: Robert Williams (psychologist)

The article on Robert Williams (psychologist) states: "He earned a M.Ed. from Wayne State University in Educational Psychology in 1955 at a time when all graduate programs in the South remained segregated." Although it is a medical school, he's not listed at List of Wayne State University people, and the University is in Michigan, not "in the South". Does anyone have any information if it is in fact Wayne State College that Robert Williams attended? If so, he should be added to the notable alumni list and his article edited for clarification. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 01:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

As I read it, the implication is that he had to go north for grad school because the southern grad schools wouldn't admit him (since they were segregated). I'll check for verification that his degree is indeed from Wayne State. Deor (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Harder to pin down than one would expect; accounts of scholars tend to focus on where they got their doctoral degrees rather than their masters. However, I don't think that the information given here, which does indeed specify Detroit as the location, would have passed unless it were accurate. So it's Wayne State University, not Wayne State College. Deor (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh I see thanks. I'll add him to List of Wayne State University people. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 13:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

IIPA (Institute of Incorporated Public Accountants) Ireland www.iipa.ie

Are IIPA Registered Auditors allowed to practice in the UK as statutory auditors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iunajam (talk • contribs) 12:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Checking credentials

Hi, how can I check if someone indeed have a Phd? Specifically, I want to know if James_Herndon_(media_psychologist) has a Dr. --83.59.232.115 (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

He claims a Ph.D. in Educational Technology from Arizona State University. You could ask the university to verify this. Algebraist 12:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

does any country accept israeli citizens as their own?

are there any countries where israelis can just go and live + work the same as the country's own citizens? (i'm talking visa problems etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.41.137 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe so. If there is, it will be mentioned in Foreign relations of Israel, but I don't see anything. I don't think there are many places that have agreements like the EU's granting any EU citizen the right to work in any EU country - in fact, the EU might be unique (I've just looked at our articles on a few other large free trade areas and none of them mention a right to work). --Tango (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

so what does the iranian president want israelis to do after dissolving their country, which he wants back off the map? (seriously). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.41.137 (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You're assuming that the current president of Iran was/is serious in his statement of destroying Israel. You have to realize that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an elected politician and (like most politicians) is truly interested in gaining votes. Therefore he (like most politicians) is a populist and keenly interested in giving a proper show to his voters. Then you have to weigh in the fact that Israel is considered the common and public enemy by the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the Middle East. Any politician in that area is well advised to make popular statements against Israel. Destroying Israel is currently impossible and will remain so for the foreseeable future. The Israeli military seems to be more than able to defend their country and Iran is too far away. No rational person will use nuclear weapons because of the inevitable retaliation and that is ignoring the fact that bombing the Blue mosque is political suicide. Ahmadinejad is simply and merely making such statements to narrow the mind of the Iranian people (not a great challenge). Instead of concerning themselves with governmental corruption and incompetence, economic problems, and the lack of political, social, and religious freedoms the Iranians concern themselves with the "evil Israelis", "the American Satan", and the "international Western/Zionist plot to rule the world". Therefore many Iranians will vote for Ahmadinejad who was "so brave in telling the truth". In the bitter end Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will do nothing besides some inflammatory statements and backing some terrorist organizations. Flamarande (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC) PS: This is merely my humble and honest opinion. I don't claim to know the whole truth.

Not to be curt here, but what did the Israeli's do with the Palestinians when they formed Israel?!? The question of how to handle such displaced people has been up in the air for 60 years by now. Other nations didn't want to accept the Palestinians as their own. Its why most sides accept the two state solution as the most workable solution to the current problems. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to Jayron32, above): The residents of the newly formed State of Israel became citizens, regardless of nationality or religion. Of the resident Arabs, those hostile to the Jews before or during the war was declared and waged by neighboring Arab states, either fled or were expelled, which is described to some extent on the page titled: "1948 Palestinian exodus;" note citations and POV advisory. According to that page, Arabs who fled were not readmitted. Israel to this day has within its borders Arab citizens, some of whom identify as Palestinians, who vote in local and national elections (if they so choose); the Ministry of Education supports an entire primary/secondary school system with instruction in Arabic and the schools' day off is Friday for Moslems and Sunday for Christians. The Druze are drafted for compulsory IDF service and Bedouins volunteer. See also Law of Return and Palestinian right of return. -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And the war refugees? The whole area including most neighbouring countries has several refugees camps since 1948. The basic problem is that these refugees can't live in these camps forever. Flamarande (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

sorry for my ignorance, do you mean that there used to be a Palestine (as a state)? I thought there never was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.41.137 (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There was no 'state of Palestine' as that area (between the sea and the river Jordan) belonged to several succeeding larger empires. The Muslims/Palestinians settled into that area since 631 and controlled it more or less until 1948 (don't forget the Crusader kingdoms). However there was no Israel/Jewish state for more or less 2000 years, and that detail didn't exactly stop them of proclaiming the independence of Israel in 1948. Flamarande (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Are there palestinians who have NO citizenship then, either in Israel or in any of the "several larger empires" it was carved from (per your description)? 79.122.41.137 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There are Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship, some of them accept this citizenship while others despise it. There are Palestinians which have received legal citizenship in whatever country they are living in, some of them are happy to live in the respective country while other long to return to a free Palestine. There are Palestinians who have Palestinian citizenship who live in Gaza currently under the rule of Hamas. There are Palestinians with Palestinian citizenship living in Israeli-occupied territories with precious little rights at all who are simply waiting for a Israeli withdrawal. I suggest you read Palestinian territories. Flamarande (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

your last two responses confuse the hell out of me. you just told me above that there never was a palestinian state. then you say "...long to return to a free Palestine..." (what does that mean, if Palestine was never a state, but an area under control of different powers, none of which was "Palestine" -- how can your return to someplace that never was?) and you make my confusion even worse when you said "there are Palestinians with Palestinian citizenship".... WHAT?? What can "Palestinian citizenship" possibly mean if there is no palestinian state and there never was a palestinian state :( :( :( :( :( Deeply confused. 79.122.41.137 (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could give you more precise answers but in view of your evident lack of knowledge I must strongly suggest you read Palestinian territories and Arab–Israeli conflict. Educate yourself upon the subject and reach you own conclusions instead of simply asking questions ad nauseam (which isn't the way to true knowledge). Flamarande (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

your links contain no mention of Palestinian citizenship (not even close, I checked every place the letters 'citizen' occur), so I must assume you were just full of bull when you referred to "Palestinians with Palestinian citizenship", but won't admit it. 79.122.41.137 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

Nowadays all Palestinians (except for the Israeli ones, not sure about those, an interesting question if they could get Palestinian citizenship on demand.) are citizens of the State of Palestine and can travel under a Palestinian passport. At earlier times many were stateless ( or had Jordanian citizenship/passports). How much use a Palestinian passport is depends on the recognition of the State of Palestine, about half the world's countries recognize Palestine as a state. Unfortunately the earlier State of Palestine article here was, incorrectly IMHO, merged into another one.John Z (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Read the page on the Palestinian National Authority. For further clarification, try contacting knowledgeable editors who have contributed content to that page (per its "edit history" tab and/or discussion page). -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

East European equivalent of "Frank"

What is the Medieval name for Orthodox Europeans? As I understand it, the Franks were the chief successors of the Western Roman Empire, originally from the border peoples of Roman Germania. I hypothesize that the Eastern Roman Empire was likewise replaced by the Russians, being descended from Roman Scythia, among other former barbarian peoples, but nevertheless Roman in a similar manner. Where am I right and wrong in comparing East and West, with barbarian assumption of Roman identity? Anyways, to the other question...what would be a comparable term for the Slavs, like "Frank"? Latin and Greek are terms used by the "in crowd" of Classical Rome (including the Byzantine), so please don't say that either term applies to post-Classical Roman empires. The Russians consider themselves to have succeeded Byzantium, but there were other tsardoms (e.g. Bulgaria, etc.) from Orthodox Europe, so I'm simply wondering what the catch-all term would be. I know they were not simply referred to as "Slavs". Gadsden, Arizona 13:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catterick (talk • contribs)

Actually, the term Franks only applies to a single Germanic tribe which established Hegemony over modern France and Germany. Slavs is a term like "Germanic" which applies in a very broad sense to a large number of ethnic groups from Eastern Europe. The Slavs do not seem to have been as well organized as the Germanic peoples, as they seemed to be much later in organizing themselves on the same level as the Franks and Visigoths and Lombards did. In the east, it was not the Slavs who were the first to organize states in the absense of Rome, but groups like the Bulgars (a Turkic group related to the Huns) who established a large Khanate in the balkans during the dark ages, and the Kievan Rus (a Germanic people from Scandanavia). However, still most of what we think of as Eastern Europe (Poland, Lithuania, Russia, Ukraine, etc.), excepting the Roman Balkans, were several hundred years behind in terms of state organization vis a vis Western Europe. The earliest Slavic states which compare to, say, the Merovingian kingdoms are likely the Kingdom of Poland, established in the early 11th century, and the various Russian dukedoms and states organized in the 12th century or so. Remember that the Roman Empire still ruled the East (Byzantine Empire) until the 1400's. It was only at that late date that Russia began to be called the "Third Rome", however the Franks began to set up successor states to the Western Empire way back in the Ninth century (Carolingian Empire). Also, your presupposition that the Russians are modern Scythians does not appear to be supported by our articles on Russians or Scythians, which has very different stories on the origins of the Russian peoples. The Scythians spoke an Iranian language, and so were likely related to Persians. The Russians are unambiguously a Slavic people. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Western Europeans were generally known as "Franks" from the Carolingian period onward, since inhabitants of the area that is now France were the most likely to meet non-Westerners; during the crusades, for example, the Muslims called them Franks partly because that's what the crusaders collectively called themselves, but also to distinguish them from eastern Europeans, who they called "Romans". From the perspective of Western Europe, those in the east, who were fellow Christians even if they followed a strange and possibly heretical form of Christianity, were referred to either by their specific nation, or simply as "easterners". And yeah...as Jayron said the Scythians have nothing to do with anything. But for some reason the Scythians have been romanticized so heavily that, at least in the west, they must necessarily be the ancestors of everyone in the east. Even the ancient Greeks thought so. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So, what you're telling me, is that there was no comparable, catch-all term for Romanized barbarians in the East, as there was for the West (Latin Germans called Franks, thus Greek Scythians called Russians)? Perhaps then, the Russians were simply the chief tribe in a similar sense to the Franks? Maybe Western studies don't have this all assimilated into our "knowledge radar". As to the usage of Scythia, e.g. Scythia Minor, one could just as easily use "Sarmatia" for this purpose of defining ancient Greek-influenced East European barbarians, on par with Latin Germania in the West. I'm not trying to split hairs, but assess a general, regional consciousness. Scythia could not be considered any different from the Slavs, really, for the Slavs' history of expansion pretty much retraces the same area and they both would have satem version of Indo-European speech. The descent of Scythia to the Slavic nations is what has changed the former, erroneous theory that "Aryan" culture went to Germania, when there was a group of peoples geographically in between the Germans and Persia. Since the Germans and Scythians were two regional peoples which lived side-by-side, there is no cause to dismiss the Persian-influenced roots of Eastern Europe. Just look at how the Greeks and especially, the Macedonians were influenced by the Persians, even if they are categorized separately. I just don't see how the modern Eastern Europeans can be any more separated from older peoples in the same region, when this act of denying the past is not established for the modern Western Europeans, who claim lineal descent from antiquity.

Yes, I am trying to understand the nature of the Greeks as the seed of Eastern Europe, on par with the Latins being origin behind Western Europe. It appears that barbarian peoples on each frontier, Germans and Scythians respectively (I'm just using Roman provincial administration and related jurisdictional toponymy to account for this), were responsible for changing the defining nature of what is Roman, to be represented by those who were once excluded, by their distance from the Mediterranean, but had "kept the faith" of Roman-hood by adopting its mantle in the vaccum of the original Rome, East and West. I fully realize the time delay for the East to catch up with the West. Basically, the Russians were the assimilationist linchpin of the East, as the Franks were for the West? That's not wrong, is it? Gadsden, Arizona 01:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your pretty much right about that, that is the Russians being the Hegemony in the east in the same way that the Franks were in the west, except about 500 years later. Remember that the Russians were still paying tribute to the Golden Horde until 1378 or so, when Dmitry Donskoy of Muscovy refused to pay tribute. The major powers in the East before Russia was probably Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania both of which were much stronger than the various Russian principalities probably until the 1400's or so. For any time close to contemporaneous with the Franks, there just was no non-Byzantine eastern European power with the possible exceptions of the Kievan Rus and the Bulgars, neither of which were "native" eastern Europe peoples. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Legality of preventing sports fans of rival team to attend games

I was reading this. Basically, can owners legally prevent sports fans of rival teams from attending the games of their own team ? Rachmaninov Khan (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the sport and the jurisdiction, really. For example, professional soccer in Western Europe, largely in response to hooliganism, has a number of restrictions on who can buy tickets and where they can sit. If you are a fan of a rival team and have a ticket for an area of the stadium that is for home fans, then you will not be permitted to enter. However, most professional sports regulatory bodies have rules that ensure at least of small number of visiting fans are always permitted to attend. Rockpocket 01:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sports teams and arena owners are private businesses. In many countries, there are certain legally protected reasons they can't deny you admission for (for example, skin color or race or being in a wheelchair). However, beyond that, since they are privately owned businesses, they can refuse to serve any person for any reason or for no reason at all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Arenas are rarely owned by teams and individuals these days, but by the local governmental authority. A team which tried to prevent access to a publicly-owned facility due to the area code of origin, could probably be sued. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the jurisdiction. Arenas in America are often owned by private individuals/corporations who have recieved government assistance in building them. For example, Gillette Stadium is owned by Robert Kraft. He is a private citizen, and free to operate his businesses however he chooses. He may have received incentives from the government in the form of tax breaks and free infrastructure improvements (roads, sewer, water, etc.) but he's still the owner. Come to think of it, in America, I am hard pressed to think of any stadium used primarily by a professional sports franchise which is NOT privately owned. There are, of course, stadiums owned by public universities which could be said to be owned by the government, but in pro sports in America such stadiums seem to be exceedingly rare. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Verizon Center is owned by the ownership of the Washington Wizards (not the Capitals), but it's on city-owned property, with a 30-year lease. At the end of the lease, the arena ownership reverts to the city. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

May 3

Song about kisses

Move to Entertainment Desk

How to get displayed in an Art Gallery

So, I've got about a 50 photos on a wide range of subjects that I think are display-worthy, how should I go about getting myself into a gallery? What about publishing, etc.--Elatanatari (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's some ideas, worth exactly what you paid for them: start with smaller galleries that may be more willing to take a risk on an unknown artist. Ask to see the owner and show her what you've got. Or, how about starting with a trendy, artist-friendly restaurant and offer to split any sales receipt with the owner? DOR (HK) (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't done so I would recommend joining a photographic club. They often have exhibitions of members works, and you can find out what other people think of your photos. You will also meet other photographers near you who have trodden the same path, and probably some who will be able to recommend suitable venues to you - and probably recommend you to them, if they like you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A friend of mine approached local cafes and asked if he could hang his stuff there.Most gave him some wall space provided he did all the work and he even sold some,..hotclaws 03:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bank interest rate

Hello. You probably know that when the bank lends to you, the lower your credit score, the higher the interest rate. If you have a low credit score, that means you're risky, and may be less-likely to repay the loan. Why then do banks charge higher amounts for riskier investments? Doesn't that increase the risk? Don't they want a low risk person to loan to? Please explain. --Under22Entreprenuer (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The idea is that the higher risk person is at a higher risk regardless of the interest rate. In other words, if you loaned to them at even 0% interest they are almost as likely to default as if you loaned to them at 20% interest. Thus, from the banks point of view, its far better to get the money from you up front in the form of higher interest rates, since statistically speaking, you probably aren't going to pay them back in full anyways. If you are a good credit risk, then the banks want to compete with each other for your business, since they are going to get the full value of the loan back. Thus, they will give you as low a rate as possible to get your business away from other banks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that in theory the higher interrest rate is also intended to compensate for those who will default on their loans. The higher risk persons pay more to compensate for the other high risk person who for whatever reason is unable to pay (plus a sizable profit for the bank of course). Flamarande (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Try to think of it not at the individual level. Think of one group of low risk people. And of a different group, which is high-risk. If the bank is trying to get the same amount of money out of each group, they have to charge higher interests for high-risk people (because quite a few of them won't pay back in full; and besides, whenever someone doesn't pay back on time, it also costs salaries for the employees working to get at least some money back). For the low-risk group, where most people are expected to pay back in full, no such "make up interest rate" is necessary.

In addition, as Jayron32 pointed out, low-risk customers are a better deal, so banks try harder to attract them. I wouldn't say though that banks are trying to give "as low a rate as possible" because banks are trying to make profit. So it's more a mixture of "possible and necessary." You can easily see that if you look at the rates of smaller, local banks--they're often much better! Nonetheless, bigger banks aren't trying to rival them, but rather make more profit as long as their customers don't care to switch banks... --Thanks for answering (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

finding out the year of publication

I've just gotten an old copy of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, published by Donohue, Henneberry & Co (illustrations by Tenniel). I'd like to know how old the book is, but I can't find a year of publication. By the looks of the book, I'm speculating it could be beginning of the 20th century or possibly even earlier (though the hard cover still looks pretty decent, so maybe not). Any suggestions how to find out more? --Thanks for answering (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: Okay, so this website says the publisher was in business from 1871 to 1903 and this website says from 1871 to 1899. Now, how can I find out when my copy was published? Thanks!!! --Thanks for answering (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea about this particular book, but in general, an image helps to identidy things, especially old things. That way an expert could identify it by visual features. BrainyBabe (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

A poster on this site [7] talks about owning a copy from 1899.--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Which Nowe Miasto?

A post-WWII archival photograph was taken in "Nowe Miasto" in Upper Silesia. As I've found no map or coordinates delineating the boundaries of that region, which of the several localities named Nowe Miasto would fall within its territory? --Deborahjay (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but here's some thoughts: Nowe Miasto (New Town/City; German: Neustadt) is a pretty common name, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's more than one unit of that name in Upper Silesia. Wodzisław Śląski is in Upper Silesia and has a district called Nowe Miasto. On the other hand, Upper Silesian Prudnik was called Neustadt in Oberschlesien (= New Town/City in Upper Silesia) in German [Wikipedia doesn't say if that name was ever translated into Polish], so that'd speak against too many other Upper Silesian places by the same name because shouldn't it then be named after something more local (a river, ford, hill, etc.) rather than "in Upper Silesia"...? - Good luck, Ibn Battuta (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know either, but: The German WP says that Neustadt O.S (= Upper Silesia) was the name of an administrative area between 1816 and 1945. The admin. centre (Landratsamt) of this area was located in the town of Neustadt O.S., which is now called Prudnik. Maybe Nowe Miasto was a temporary place-name which was abolished to avoid any confusion with identically named towns in other Voivodeships. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to your likely leads, iB & C.e.Z, I'm taking this query to the next power. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

What is a criminal?

I'm really confused. What is a criminal?

Is a criminal

1. a human being who preforms an action which is an illegal action in the land?
2. a human being found by a court of law to have commited a criminal action?

For example: Bill Clinton said he smoked weed. Since smoking weed is a criminal action, is Bill Clinton a criminal? Can I call him a criminal in his face on the ground that he did perform a criminal action even if no one has witnessed him doing so? 122.107.207.98 (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In UK media usage, criminals tend to be those who have been convicted. Those who break the law and have not been caught and convicted are "the public". --TammyMoet (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

See Presumption of innocence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd express it this way. If you (1) commit a crime, then you are in fact a criminal. But until you (2) have been convicted of a crime, it is not true that anyone is allowed to legally say that you are a criminal (or otherwise treat you like one, e.g. sending you to jail). That's what "presumption of innocence" is about. And if you ignore it and call someone a criminal when they haven't been convicted, you run the risk of penalties for libel or slander (or false imprisonment, etc.).

People involved with the law or with the news media or are well aware of this and will be careful how they use words like "criminal". They might say "He's not a criminal until he's convicted", but they're talking about what they're allowed to say and do, not about what the facts are.

So what if someone, like Clinton, says he committed a crime and got away with it; and then you say "he's a criminal, then"; and he sues you for slander? I don't know. Truth is generally a defense against defamation, but the law may be different in different countries, and predicting what a court would decide is well beyond what anyone on the Reference Desk should be doing anyway. --Anonymous, 19:00 UTC, May 3, 2009.

But at some level, if your standard is "has broken a law at least once in his life" then it is literally impossible to be a person in the modern world and not be a criminal. Every person who drives a car has let it creep over the speed limit, at least a little bit, even without intending to. Doing so is against the law. Many people have rolled through a Stop Sign without rolling to a full and complete stop. Doing so is against the law. Many Americans have had their first drink before the age of 21. Doing so is against the law. The supposition that "anyone who has commited an act which is proscribed by laws = a criminal" looks fine on paper, but to extend that to treating someone differently because of that action is rediculous because at that level, we are all criminals. So we have to start drawing distinctions. Is smoking a joint worse than rolling through a stop sign? Is speeding worse than taking a ream of paper home from the office? Who is qualified to make such distinctions to say "these are the really important crimes which we should treat people differently for, and these other things here aren't that big of a deal?" You know who is? Courts of law. So we are back to the standard of conviction. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You were doing fine until you brought "Courts of law" into it, especially in connection with traffic violations. Those sometimes lead to convictions no matter how minor they are (note that getting and paying a ticket means you are pleading guilty and accepting being convicted). The distinctions you talk about are a real issue, but "the standard of conviction" does not help resolve them. (Side comment: in Canada, traffic violations are not criminal offenses; they're quasi-criminal.) --Anon, 06:24 UTC, May 4, 2009.

That's not true. Paying a traffic fine does not result in a conviction. Under a common law system you can only be convicted by a court of law. The police, being an administrative organ, has no competency in exercising judicial power according to the separation of powers. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That would not make sense: if there's no conviction there's no liability to pay the fine. As I said, if you pay the ticket without going to court, you are pleading guilty. They just don't require you to attend court in person to do it. --Anon, 14:11 UTC, May 4.

You don't have to pay the fine, you can choose to go to court instead and get sentenced the old fashioned way. There is still no criminal conviction involved, though, since such offences aren't criminal (in any jurisdiction I'm familiar with). --Tango (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite right - breaking the law is not necessary a criminal offence. It might just be a civil one. Breaching a contract, for example, would not generally make one a criminal. --Tango (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line: if someone is said to have committed a crime, either the person is a criminal or the speaker is a liar. If someone admits to committing a crime, either the person is a criminal or the person is a liar. If someone is convicted of committing a crime, the person is a criminal. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The other point is that a certain act may be classed as a criminal act in one jurisdiction, but merely a misdemeanour in another, and not illegal at all in yet another. Being a criminal in one place does not necessarily make you a universal criminal. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A misdemeanor is a type of criminal act, just a lesser one than a felony (equivalent terms in the UK, if anyone is interested, are "summary offence" and "offence triable on indictment" [there are actually 3 categories in the UK - some offences can be tried "either way"]). You were probably thinking of a civil offence. There are, indeed, some offences that are civil in one jurisdiction and criminal in other (libel, for example, can be a criminal offence in the UK, but is only ever a civil offence in the US). --Tango (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think "if someone is said to have committed a crime, either the person is a criminal or the speaker is a liar" is misleading. There are many cases when someone may genuinely believe the other person committed a crime but may be mistaken. Eyewitness identification is notoriously unreliable not primarily because people lie (which they do) but because most memories are far from perfect and people are prone to suggestion etc. To a lesser extent "If someone admits to committing a crime, either the person is a criminal or the person is a liar" it's possible if that the person may be insane, covering for someone else (which would likely make them a criminal but in a different way), the victim of blackmail, an attention seeker, desire a life in prison etc Nil Einne (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "is a liar" should be replaced by "is a liar or is mistaken". --Tango (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayron's comment that "Everyone is a criminal" I would disagree with. The only law that I'm aware of breaking is copyright - and that was because I was too young to realise. If I'd happened to not do that, I'd be a legal angel. Vimescarrot (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You've never broken a speed limit in a car? Never trespassed? Never slandered anyone? Never blasphemed (that's still on the law books in many countries)? Never stolen your sibling's Easter eggs? I'm afraid I don't believe you... --Tango (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't own a car. I see no reason to have trespassed. Can minors be punished for slander or blasphemy? If not, I wouldn't consider a child doing either of those to be a criminal, would you? I've never stolen an Easter egg. This has sparked my curiosity - since it's getting off-topic, I'm going to create a new subheader for it. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

california trespassing

where online can i find the california penal code regarding trespassing. i think its section 201.2, any point me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.67.171 (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/602.html --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Emperor of the Franks

Were any of the Frankish Holy Roman Emperors ever call Emperor of the Frank? I noticed it in the Louis the Pious article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk • contribs)

No, what it says was that he was "co-Emperor", and "King of the Franks". In this case, Emporer is meant to be the Roman Emperor, unqualified. The sentance structure may make it appear to say he was "Emperor and King" of the Franks, but it really should be read as I have indicated above. I reworded it to make it less confusing. Until relatively modern times, the word Empire had one meaning: The Roman Empire. If one was called "Emperor" it was always assumed that the title meant Roman Emperor. Never mind that at this time there were two Empires, think of it more as competing claims for the title, or perhaps as both sides agreeing to be co-Emperors (i.e. the Holy Roman Emperor as the Emperor of the West and the Byzantine Emperor as the Emperor of the East). The generalization of the term "empire" to mean an expansionist state which subsumes other states into its hegemony (that is, empire as a common noun) is a relatively recent idea. For most of history, there was one Empire, and it was Rome. Even when Napoleon crowned himself Emperor, it was that he was laying claim to the legacy of Rome as the unifying force of all Europe. He specifically did not crown himself King of France, but as Emperor, of which there should be only one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

They were certainly not co-emperors at this point. The Byzantine emperors never recognized the HRE's claims; there was some intermarriage between the two, but never a formal cooperation. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No, certainly not any formal cooperation, but begrudging acceptance of reality is more like it. The ideal was still always "One Empire" but in practical purposes there were really two: The Western and Eastern. But both thought of itself as the rightful successor to the "One True Universal Empire" of Rome. Even later empires always maintained this idea that there was only One Empire. The Russian "Tsar" (aka Caesar) was supposed to replace the Byzantine Emperor as the One Emperor, and remember that the German Empire of Kaiser (aka Caesar) Wilhelm I was declared only after the defeat of the French Second Empire under Napoleon III. In general, a new Empire only was declared when a) The old Empire is defeated or b) The old Empire was declared invalid. Of course, this system eventually broke down, and we end up with things like the Mexican Empire and Empire of Brazil which had no claim to, or made any pretext to, descent from Rome, but those were rather late comers to the game. The ideal in Europe for a centuries was that there was only One Empire. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Empress Irene recognised Charlemagne's claim shortly after he began claiming the imperial title, if I remember right; but she wasn't seen as the steady sort of personage that should be on the throne, and she was overthrown a short while later. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

squeemish ancient history question

you can skip this if you're easily offended.

my question is: did the greeks have lube? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.148.139 (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand the issue is anal intercourse as the rectum isn't lined with mucous membranes to provide natural lubrication? Start with Anal intercourse#Ancient and non-Western cultures. A pertinent question in the context of sodomy in pederastic relationships: in cases of unequal social status, if penetration was forced on a young partner unable (or unwilling due to unfavorable consequences) to decline the act. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That page also says that intercrural sex was more common. Of course, you can also use lube for plain old heterosexual sex...I don't know if they had, but I do remember reading about all sorts of ancient condoms, so it wouldn't be too surprising if they did. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

See also vaginal lubrication and personal lubricant -- the sources listed there may have more leads. Also educational is History of erotic depictions. Or, from the opposite end, read that very raunchy Roman poet (whose name escapes me -- anyone?) and track down scholars of his life and work. Coincidentally, just yesterday I picked up an old copy of a book entitled something like Sex and the Roman Empire. It was so old that what it meant by "sex" was the role that women played in that society. Sadlly, no odes to intercrural sex, which they no doubt had lots of lovely Latin names for. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ovid. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I bet the reason it was odd is because of "sex and the city". Thus "sex and the" anything will be odd. before sex and the city it wouldn't have been odd. 94.27.226.57 (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

William A. Percy refers to Greek Erotica on Attic Red Figure Vases by Martin F. Kilmer (London, 1993)

"Concluding that olive oil was very likely used as a sexual lubricant in the Late Archaic period. , Kilmer wonders aloud in his book whether this fact may explain the presence of containers of oil in a number of scenes of pederastic courtship." Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece by William A. Percy, University of Illinois Press, 1998, p 120, ISBN 0252067401

The article on olive oil doesn't mention this. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Catullus? Ah, his lover's little sparrow... 80.41.127.59 (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So how did Popeye use Olive Oyl? Ack, ack ack! Edison (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well blow me down! I'm strong to the finitch cuz I eats me spinitch. I'm Popeye the Sailor Man... (toot toot)... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Many people have independently discovered this use for olive oil, or any handy kitchen oil, without ever having read about it or being told about it. It would be absurd to think the Greeks and earlier civilizations didn't also cotton on to it. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

many people have also independently discovered that Italy looks like a boot, but per my earlier question here at the reference desk, it seems this is a recent discovery and for example poor Pliny had to struggle with the description of the peninsula as an "elongated oak leaf, bending to the left at the top and ending in the shape of an amazon's shield." He could have really used that Aha! moment of someone telling him to stop straining himself, it's a freakin boot. For all we know the Greeks did not yet have the Aha! moment with olive oil... 94.27.226.57 (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the relevance; boots shaped like the Italian peninsula did not exist in the time of Pliny. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You're dead right, of course, 94. It is possible that the first person who had the idea of using olive oil as a sexual lubricant lived long after the ancient Greeks. Possible, but imo very unlikely. We may one day find the earliest recorded reference to this use; but however old it is, I would never believe that it had not been used earlier than that, by someone who made no record of it. It's a bit like masturbation; the earliest known reference to it is probably no more than a couple of thousand years ago, if that. Does that mean that people never did it before then? Of course not. All it means is there no surviving record of them doing it (assuming they made records of their masturbatory activities, which they probably didn't, because hardly anybody does. Ever.) -- JackofOz (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Way to go Sluzzelin for coming up with an academically impeccable quotation! And yes, it was Catullus I had in mind. After posting my response, I was thinking about this question while walking around the park; the obviousness of olive oil jumped out, so I'm glad others have pre-empted me. Oil is almost by definition one of the v ery best lubricants-- that article refers to mechanical engineering, but the principle is the same with biological entertainment. The Greeks and Romans used olive oil extensively for massage, e.g. after sports and in the bath houses. It is an obvious extension from muscles to genitalia. We moderns avoid oil because it rots rubber, but of course the Classical World did not have access to latex (the sap of a tropical tree) -- nor polyurethane etc.! Nor, as far as I know, any evidence of any sort of condom, even lamb's intestine. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Best way to make money

I have 450,000 US dollars to invest. What is likely the best way to make the most money by the end of the year, without a high risk of losing a large amount of the investment in the long term? Obviously "high risk", "large amount" and "long term" are fairly subjective terms. Let's say I would like to recover at least 90% of the original investment in the next five years, and I will leave "high risk" to the reader's personal judgement. Any input welcomed. BellyButtonDesigner (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Roche if you think this flu thing is serious. F (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk to a professional financial planner. Looking for advice on investments from a group of strangers, with no accountability, on the Internet, with no reliable identifiability, is already a stratospheric risk. Paying attention to that advice gives "risk" a whole new meaning. (And, by the way, I can take your money and absolutely guarantee you will get back 90% of your invested capital in 5 years. I can just take $45,000 off the top for me, and put the remaining $405,000 under my bed in a fireproof box. I'll even throw in the box for free when I return the 90% ;-)) // BL \\ (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Amen. People around here are rightly afraid to give legal or medical advice, but ask a question on economics or finance and the amateur pontificators come out in droves. Get professional advice. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats because medical and legal advice have legal ramifications. Any idiot can give out economic advice and the investor who listened to them has no recourse if something goes wrong. But, the best solution is to listen to someone who knows what they are doing, and none of those people are here. Livewireo (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

All investments have some risk of loss, although investments guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government are considered to have the maximum degree of safety. Thus, there is no investment, or combination of investments, that gives you absolute assurance that you will recover at least 90% of your investment over a five-year period. However, if you invest at least 90% of your money in federally guaranteed investments, you do have a reasonably good assurance that that amount will still be around at the end of that period.

Since you appear not to be a sophisticated investor, and to be fairly risk-averse, you would be best-served by a conservative investment adviser. The trust department of your bank may offer the kind of advice you need, as do many investment managers. Make sure that whoever you choose is aligned with your investment goals; choosing someone who specializes in picking stocks, for example, is unlikely to be a good choice for a risk-averse investor. Also, find out how they are compensated. Some advisers get their compensation from the products they sell; you may be better-advised to choose a fee-only adviser, whom you pay directly. John M Baker (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: The maximum degree of safety for an investment denominated in US dollars is one guaranteed by the US government. If you want an investment denominated in some other currency, you need that currency's government bonds (assuming that government is from one of the major, stable economies - if not, there really aren't any particularly low risk investments). Investing in a currency other than the one you intend to eventually spend the money in opens you up to risks from changing exchange rates. If you invest in non-index linked government bonds, you are also open to risk from inflation. In an efficient market, your expected return is determined entirely by the risk you are willing to endure, the only way to get a better return is to take on more risk or to exploit inefficiencies in the market, which isn't something most people can do (it isn't something most professional investors can do, for that matter!). --Tango (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What would happen if New York was attacked with a nuclear weapon?

What would happen if New York was attacked with a nuclear weapon large enough to kill a million people, but nobody could identify who was responsible? What would happen if, a couple of days later, San Francisco suffered the same fate? Crazy Wind (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

See top of this page:

• "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead. "

Have you read the page on the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? In that case the responsible agent was known, but the consequences in the aftermath may be relevant for your consideration. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Since atomic bombs were invented, the military and civilian leaders of nuclear (and non-nuclear) powers have pondered what to do if attacked. Herman Kahn was one such military strategist, and an inspiration for Dr. Strangelove. One option would be to use the bombing as an excuse to launch an attack they wanted to do anyway, like the Bush government invading Iraq as a response to the 9/11 attack (which was not done by Iraqis, nor was it planned or launched from Iraq). A country might respond by attacking a traditional enemy or a rival world power. There are probably war games and think-tank analyses of how best to respond to a nuclear detonation, but countries are likely to keep them secret. If the secret war plans of Russia called for responding to an anonymous nuclear detonation by launching a decapitating strike against China, say, then it would be in the interests of anti-Chinese government groups to set off such a device in Russia. A suitcase nuke could be strategically leveraged into a massive nuclear strike. As for setting off nukes anonymously, there would be claims of responsibility by numerous groups who wanted to bend the government to their will: give them a billion dollars, make them Dictator for Life, outlaw abortion, save the whales, prohibit alcohol consumption, abandon Israel, overthrow the Cuban government, stop illegal immigration, Tell the Truth about flying saucers or 9/11, etc. The actual group that had gone to the trouble and expense of acquiring the devices would be likely to make known that they were responsible by announcing perhaps the timing of the next detonation (but not the place). After a couple of demonstrations, few governments would still be willing to "Refuse to negotiate with terrorists." It might be possible for analysts to tell whose nuclear arsenal the fissionable material had come from, but that would not prove the source government was behind the attack. Nukes all too often get "lost." One likely response would be an intense intelligence effort to determine what group was responsible, followed by attacks against their bases, camps, offices, and leaders, including any country which afforded them a refuge, much like the invasion of Afghanistan to retaliate against Al Qaeda after 9/11. If there were an ongoing threat of more attacks, civil liberties in the attacked country would be curtailed, and electronic surveillance increased, much like happened in the Bush administration after 9/11. Edison (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think nukes are "lost" as often as you seem to imply they are. There are a finite number of lost nukes in the world, each of which have a pretty predictable isotopic content, so it would be pretty straightforward to figure out whether the blast could have been from a "lost" nuke or not. You can certainly identify the source of the uranium or plutonium, which could then lead to a more pronounced discussion with said country over when they may have "lost" any nukes and how high the yields of those were (which would narrow it down quite a bit). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in Sum of All Fears which looks at this (though not with New York). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

He means the book. The film was utter rubbish. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not at all confident that a failed world power with thousands of nukes would be able to resist the bribes offered by terrorists or rogue states. Would no general, colonel,or private be interested in a bribe of millions of dollars, or be malleable through blackmail or threats of violence against a kidnapped loved one? Or be amenable to appeals to their political or religious beliefs? Klaus Fuchs (German/British) scientist, supplied atomic bomb information to the Soviets in the 1940's for political reasons. Kim Philby (British) intelligence officer, likewise spied for the Soviets in the 1930's and 1940's. If they were in charge of bombs, is it not likely they would have turned them over as well? Do we know that all U.S, Russian, Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, British, French, and perhaps Israeli or North Korean functionaries guarding nukes are more trustworthy than CIA counter-intelligence officer Aldrich Ames, or FBI agent Robert Hanssen, convicted of spying for the Soviets and later for Russia, however much such spies may qualify their acts? Edison (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Japan's religous demographic

I'm looking for the exact percentages of religions practiced by citizens of Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.80.59 (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Our article on Religion in Japan, surprisingly, does not quote the numbers you are looking for, but it is well referenced. If you follow some of the sources, such as this one from the CIA World Factbook: [8] you may find such data. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that religious affiliations are not always exclusive; traditionally, the majority of Japanese were both Shinto and Buddhist, while being influenced by Confucianist philosophy... AnonMoos (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

have any antisemites converted to judaism?

Have there been any cases of an antisemite converting to judaism on an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" principle? Or even tried? I would think this would be especially tempting to those antisemites who think the Jews control [whatever] but thus far have not been able to locate any specific cases... 94.27.137.46 (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many cases of non-Jews converting to Judaism, but seriously, why would a true "antisemite" convert to Judaism? Such a speculation makes plainly no sense. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of antisemites whose main problem is that they think Jews control the world. So it would follow (if my premise is true) that at least a small percentage would decide it's easier to join 'em and defect to the people they think are controlling the world... really I don't see how it doesn't follow (for at least a small percentage of these people in specific, not all antisemites)... 94.27.137.46 (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Julius Lester launched modern political Black antisemitism into public prominence in the U.S. by allowing a bigoted poem (referring to the Ocean Hill schoolboard dispute) to be read on his WBAI radio show. He later converted to Judaism himself... AnonMoos (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a guy from Utah who was active in antisemitic hate groups and wound up converting to Judaism. He now gives speeches about tolerance. Don't know his name, though. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who genuinely thought "Jews control the world" and converted to Judaism would, I fear, be sadly let down by the impotent reality he discovered. When Dorothy pulled back the curtain, she found the Wizard was a bit less omniscient than she thought previously. --Dweller (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bootmakers to Kings

In The_Good_Shepherd_(film), Fredericks mentions "bootmakers to kings" before he is killed. What's he talking about? Black Carrot (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You may want to ask that at the entertainment reference desk instead of here.--Under22Entreprenuer (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I've moved it. Black Carrot (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

May 4

University Suicide

I want to raise awareness about the causes of suicides in university. I don't want to write a letter to an editor to the newspaper (although I would be happy to do so, if someone would help me) (as in if the letter was an open one where the editor publishes it in the newpaper). What can I do?68.148.149.184 (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No disrespect, but if you need help with writing a letter to an editor at a newspaper, perhaps you aren't quite ready to undertake a project like this by yourself. You might want to contact a local organization that works to prevent suicides and see if they need volunteers, or make a donation to them. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to start a blog or something like that.68.148.149.184 (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Then start one. Do what you want to do. Saying that you will be happy to do it is one thing. Actually performing the action is another. -- kainaw™ 03:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, good news: a blog's really easy to set up. Check out Blogspot or WordPress.com, for example. Good luck! -- Captain Disdain (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Is a blog the best way to go about spreading awareness and a soapbox for university suffering and suicide and causes of university suicide?68.148.149.184 (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That mostly depends on how good a writer you are, I suppose. Seriously, though: what do you want to say about the topic? Who do you want to say it to? It seems to me that you think it's important, which is fair enough, but you don't really know what to do about it. I again recommend you contact a suicide prevention group in your area and talk to then. Chances are that they can tell you how you can help. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Infinite Perception

Me and my friends were talking the other day and we came to the realization that what we, as human, perceive right now is not truly reality, in the sense that our brains filter out information and that our senses are not capable of perceiving certain sensations. For example, when we walk our dogs outside, they're always sniffing around, smelling things that we cannot sense. We then tried to understand what it would be like if we could obtain infinite perception, what would the universe be like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.109.135 (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

See the Omniscience article. Tempshill (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading the philosphy of various thinkers including the Phenomenalism of David Hume, which holds that reality is ONLY what we perceive, and it makes no sense to think of reality outside of perception. Another important school of thought is that of Phenomenology by Edmund Husserl which is a more pragmatic view of the relationship between perception and reality. Both represnet opposing viewpoints in the school of thought known as Positivism which maintains that all knowledge derives from experience. There are VOLUMES of philosophy texts written on the relationship between senses, perception, and reality. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There's also the completely opposite philosophy that reality is one thing, and our perception of reality is another thing. Which is supported by the fact that one person's perception of an event can be very different from another's. Even if they were identical, that still wouldn't mean that they have truly accessed "reality". All we know about "reality" is what we can perceive or intuit about it, and that's the best we have to work with. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Voltaire wrote a funny little "science fiction" short story Micromegas on this subject... AnonMoos (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

On a more practical note, and not entirely related to the OPs question, I would like to point out that it would make you insane. Those with "heightened awareness", shall we call it, can be driven to distraction by the enormity of information that they take in. This is not dissimilar to idiot-savants and some extreme forms of autism. Our filtering of the universe happens for extremely good reason; our brains are simply not capable of processing the information and still retaining much in the way of thought or emotional intelligence. In some science fiction, I think that some extraterrestrial beings are bestowed with greater abilities in this area than humans are, because it's been recognised for years as one of our primary limitations. On another note, and even more removed from the OPs post, you notice a lot more of the physical universe than you think you do. The subconscious is a trap for a lot of perception that our conscious minds filter even further. This is part of the reason why hypnotism is used to try and extract information from people, often information that they are not even aware of knowing. For example, a witness to a crime may not remember what the assailant looked like or what he was wearing, but these details may very well be stored in the unconscious mind. You might not be able to smell the things your dog smells, but if you could, a lot of it would probably be lost somewhere in your unconscious mind as extraneous detail. Maedin\^talk 13:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you guys are talking about. But I was going off the base that we COULD perceive everything and it wouldn't be a problem. I think it would go beyond the sense of smell and everything, it would have to do with perceiving all quantum particles and they systems they create. My friends and I thought that it would appear just a point, centered at your position of perception. Your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.109.135 (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That what would appear just a point? What is the question? Tempshill (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The point appears to be to continue the chat. // BL \\ (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As Psychology suggests, our perception of the world is unique to each individual, and is the sum of all our past experiences. Some people see better than others, some hear, smell or feel better than others. All of us have past experiences which affect the way we see ourselves and the world in which we live. If we all had the ability to know everything the world would appear as a finite set of challanges, all of which have been met before, just waiting for death. Our unique perspective on life in the world is what generates our drive to succeed, evolve and ultimately to do many of the fantastic things we do. Personally, i don't think my experience could be enhanced by being able to smell piss on a lamp post, but if it troubles you then go for it. russ (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What I'm asking goes beyond human senses. Take a look at the light spectrum, you can see that the human eye can only perceive a very small portion of what it actually out there. My question is what would the world look like to a conscience being that has no limits to his perception. What would the world look like if he could perceive everything that there was to perceive in the universe: atoms, galaxies, radio waves, chemical reactions... and time especially? I'll try to redefine the "point" I was talking about. The only conclusion that we (my friends and I) could come up with, the solution to what the universe would look like if a conscience being had infinite perception, was that everything would be a point, because it would be both infinitely small and infinitely large at the same time. But we are unsure about this theory, so I was wondering what the internet would have to say about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.109.135 (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream bibles around the world

In the English-speaking world, KJV is the most-widely used translation of the Bible. What are the most widely used versions of the Bible of other languages? How old and linguistically-outdated are they? -- Toytoy (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Which languages? Does Bible translations by language help? (Some of the language entries are sub-pages.) Tempshill (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The KJV is the standard "classical" Bible translation into the English language, but I would question whether it's the most widely-used at this point... AnonMoos (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Close, it seems, but not quite. this page lists the New International Version as the most popular, with the New King James Version second and King James Version third. I don't know if KJV and NKJV combined would outsell the NIV. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the word 'used' opens up a whole 'nother barrel of monkeys. I would expect that the KJV would be more commonly given say as a baptism or wedding present than other versions but rarely used while the NIV is more likely to be actually read. Now finding statistics on that would be a real challenge. Rmhermen (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In my experience the NIV is the most used version in Protestant Churches in the U.S. My pastor intentionally will read from a variety of translations, but the pew bibles in the church are NIV. And, of course, the sales numbers quoted above make it clear that the NIV is the top selling bible. On a personal note, I find the language in the NIV more accessable than even the New King James version, which may go some to explaining its popularity. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the KJV is most often quoted, because it is public domain, while NIV and other modern translations are still subject to copyright. Steewi (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Proto-Helladic period

What is the difference between proto-Helladic and Early Helladic? In the Helladic period article it says Early Helladic II is 2500-2300 BC. However in this article it is indicating the second Proto-Helladic period is 2700-2200 BC. I am trying to get this accurate for the Dokos shipwreck article, which has cargo evidence of about 2200 BC.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 11:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: post this query on the discussion page for the Helladic period article, then post a head's up on the two WikiProject pages (WikiProject Greece and WikiProject Archaeology) mentioned there, with a link to your query. This is a great way to alert editors knowledgeable in this field, and also directly documents the query and responses where they'll be most pertinent, i.e. rather than the Ref Desk archives. (I do this often with highly specific queries in geography :-) -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds logical. Great idea, did as you suggested. They will have better knowledge on that. We'll see what happens now.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

world heritage sites

Why no new objects from the US have been inscribed on the world heritage list since 1995? Is it becaause of some beef between the US and the UNESCO? Why do they keep inscribing on the list such sleepy rural places as Sabbioneta? Would they like to attract more tourists to Europe? Your article doesn't offer any clue. --212.73.96.111 (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sabbioneta was founded in the late 16th century, at that time there were just a handful of European settlements in North America. It is natural that there will be more heritage sites in Europe than the US. (Of course, there were Native Americans around long before European colonisation but by my understanding (which, I'll admit, is rather limited in this area) they didn't have many permanent settlements or other things that would still be around today and worth making a world heritage site.) --Tango (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

World Heritage Sites can be natural sites, not only cultural ones (like Yellowstone and Yosemite, on the list). The U.S. already has more sites listed than any other country in the Americas, according to List of World Heritage Sites in the Americas. Given a quick scan it looks like Europe has more sites on the list than the rest of the world combined, which may say something about the politics of the listings (or desire to have sites listed). Rmhermen (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Projects marred by human rights allegations?

What large projects/events/constructions have been 'marred' (cancelled, even) by allegations of human rights abuses? Beijing 2008, for example, comes to mind. The abuses could be of the workforce or others related to the project. Similar things, like bad health and safety leading to deaths, are also useful to know. Cheers for any help, LHMike (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you will need to narrow your question, especially the definitions of "marred" and "human rights abuses", because if those two definitions are read broadly, an extremist's answer might be "every construction project in the industrialized world". Does "marred" extend to "a reporter has claimed someone is concerned"? Does "human rights abuses" extend to "earning five dollars a day"? These refinements of your question could make the answer meaningful. Tempshill (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, do you want cases where unfounded accusations caused the damage (i.e. there was no basis for the allegations, but they caused real damage anyways) or where there were real human rights abuses, and where the exposition of those abuses was met with real consequences in the form of sanctions? The tone of the question makes it hard to answer. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Beijing 2008 was not marred by "human rights" treatment of any workers or anyone involved with the project. You may remember (or not) that the "human rights issues" were all somehow grafted onto the event by some fairly sophisticated PR-manipulation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, surely the event didn't exist in a vacuum, though. China has a pretty bad human rights situation. China hosted the Olympics. The latter is a kind of an obvious tool for protesting the former, and I think it'd be hard to say that there's no connection between the politics of the host country and the event the host country organizes and hosts. I mean, maybe the human rights of the people involved with the project weren't infringed upon, but considering that among other things, China actually banned Tibetans from working in Beijing during the olympics, which led to plenty of people being fired from their jobs, I'd say that it definitely had an impact. (Anyway, personally, I consider that particular issue both more interesting and important than figuring out which dude runs fastest.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the OP asked for, though. He asked for a major project derailed because of its human rights issues. For one, the Olympics was not derailed, and for two, if we are going to talk about Olympic games affected by extraneous political action, then almost every game fits that bill - Moscow, Los Angeles, Berlin ... Even the Sydney Olympics attracted masses of protesters passionate about, if I recall correctly, Aboriginal rights. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And I'd like to see a cite for Tibetans being fired during the Olympics for being Tibetan. It sounds like the kind of news stories that spreads because a foreign government policy is dressed up 100 times and sensationalised into a zippy headline. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for examples of projects built with human rights abuses, you could look at the large-scale use of forced labor in and after World War II, e.g. Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union, Forced labor in Germany during World War II, Japanese war crimes#Forced labor. Even in the UK POWs were used in building projects such as the harbor of Scapa Flow, in contravention of international law.

More recently, many dam projects seem accused of human rights abuses, either forced labor to build them or the removal of people from their homes before they are flooded. E.g. Irrawaddy dam in Burma[9], Merowe Dam in Sudan[10], Ilisu Dam in Turkey[11]. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Fact checking, educational system

I took this from the NYT: "students can spend 40k or more per year to be herded into an auditorium for a lecture from some sage only to be actually taught by graduate students is a scandal that no K-12 institution could ever get away with." Is that possible? What institution charges 40k and do that? --80.58.205.37 (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would expect that at most research universities, some portion of the teaching is done by graduate students. I'm note sure if the quote is trying to say anything more than that, or not. It's definitely phrased in an inflammatory manner—I don't remember border collies or cattle prods being involved. -- Coneslayer (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, a little fact checking helps so much. Googling a key phrase above took me to this blog. Notice that the sentence quoted above is not said to appear in the NYT article but in the comments to the NYT article. A little more searching took me to the article itself where the phrase doesn't occur.

In other words your quote is not from the NYT but from someone commenting on the NYT. So you can treat it with exactly the amount of attention it deserves. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Does that really happen in the US? Here in NZ, postgraduate students may teach in labs/tutorials/etc and may mark papers etc but they don't tend to be involved in lectures except as assistants. At least in the sciences. Nil Einne (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I only recall a grad student giving 1 lecture when I was in school for engineering (2003-2008), and that was because they were filling in for a sick prof. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There are two types of grad students: Masters students and PhD students. In many universities, the qualification to teach is a Masters degree. Therefore, it is not surprising to have a PhD student giving lectures. The student has met the requirements to teach, but is furthering his or her education. In my opinion, the complaint is from a student who failed to learn. Instead of accepting the blame, the student is attempting to blame the teacher. I get that often. Just this semester, a student turned in 4 out of 12 assignments and missed four full weeks of class. He said that it was my fault for not calling him and telling him that he needed to show up to class and do his homework. -- kainaw™ 20:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In NZ most lecturers have PhDs. This is I believe a requirement to be classified a lecturer in the university pay scale. I think I've heard of a few people without PhDs giving lectures in year 1 courses but they tend to be those who have a fair amount of experience teaching and are usually not postgraduate students and are I think usually primarily used when they couldn't find someone else. On the other hand a 400-600 student lecture is not uncommon in the first year so don't expect it to be very personally (although most lecturers would still be available for questions.) I agree with, it is amazing how many people will pay $40k (or whatever) and then not attend lectures etc, as well as how many students don't attend lectures etc and then are surprised when they fail. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The lectures in most universities in the U.S. are done by PhD. WHen I was in school, we had one class taught by a non-PhD, and he had two Masters degrees, one of which was in education. Otherwise, the standard practice is for the PhD professors to give the lectures. Graduate Students often staff the "Tutoring Center" or hold "Review Sessions" where people can go and ask questions and get help with their homework. The quote in the OP is probably refering to the fact that the person who stated it learned more from the grad students assisting the professor than from the lecture itself. That is unsurprising, as the sort of personal contact one gets from a grad student who is working in the Tutoring Center is far more than what one gets sitting in a lecture hall with 200 other students. Also, that situation usually only exists with entry level classes. My largest non-100 level class was probably 20 students. So, in General Psychology you are likely to sit in a lecture hall with 200 other students. But if you are taking an advanced psychology class, something expected of junior and senior level psychology majors, you are more likely to be in a small class of 20 or so students. Also unsurprising. Lets face it, what you are going to learn in Psych-101 or whatever the freshman level class is, you could easily teach yourself from the textbook. The real learning happens in the advanced classes, where the professor's unique expertise in the subject comes to bear. The sad fact is, as alluded to above, many people in U.S. colleges never make a serious commitment to their education, and so take "easy" majors without academic rigor, so ALL of their classes are taught in 200 person lectures. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, it depends on the subject - most subjects these days are taught almost exclusively by people with PhDs (barring the occasional lecture where the regular lecturer can't make it due to illness or another engagement, and tutorials/supervisions/labs/etc. that are sometimes taken by postgraduate students). Some subjects do allow people without PhDs to teach, but they would be professional teachers, not students, usually with at least a Masters degree (and probably some kind of teaching qualification) - usually arts subjects more than science subjects, although my Uni's Computer Science dept includes quite a few lecturers without PhDs (it is, however, a rubbish department and will, as of next year, be merged into Engineering because it can't manage itself [they say it is because of low student numbers, but everyone knows the truth]). --Tango (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

when was oral sex invented?

when was oral sex invented? the article doesn't seem to say... 79.122.30.40 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it almost definitely happened multiple times and in multiple places long, long before we had any semblence of written records. Bonobos also practice oral sex as do other animals so it likely predates anything resembling modern humans. Nil Einne (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

oh. I thought no animals did, and humans didnt a long time ago. 79.122.30.40 (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, any statement that starts "Humans are the only animal that..." is almost certainly wrong. Numerous such ideas have been assumed to be correct only for someone to find an animal that does it too. People used to think only humans used tools, but that was proved wrong. Then they assumed only humans made tools, but that was proved wrong too. People have assumed various things about humans and language that have been proven wrong. Humans really only differ from the rest of the animal kingdom by degree - we have more complex language skills than any animal (that we know of, at least), but there is no simple cutoff point which humans achieve and other animals don't. Similarly, we make more advanced tools, but there is no simple dividing line between simple tools that animals can make and advanced tools that only humans can make. Sexual activity for pleasure, rather than procreation, has long been assumed to be a purely human thing, but it isn't true. Bonobos, dolphins, etc. all do it. Oral sex is no different from other forms of sexual pleasure, many of which have been observed in the animal world - masturbation, homosexuality, prostitution... --Tango (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite (possibly an inappropriate choice of words in a thread about oral sex). What animals engage in prostitution? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We know of penguins but there are probably others. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Only humans sell subprime mortgage-backed securities"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if you go specific enough then obviously you can find things. "Only humans engage in economics" would be false, though (there are plenty of examples of animals trading - penguins even trade sex for stones). --Tango (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Follow up based on findings from Tango's response above

After reading the above responses I thought i'd have a look around at what the 'key' separators were between Humans and animals. I always thought one of our key separations was that we are able to 'consider' the thoughts of others - I can't think of the appropriate word for it, but essentially that we can put ourselves in someone else's shoes (sort of like empathy). Anyhoo i've no idea if it's true - just something I heard. Anyhoo onto my actual question. According to our article Human we are one of 9 animals that pass the Mirror test. I thought that was quite interesting and I wondered - are there examples of humans that do not pass the test? (i'd rule out blind/physically disabled) - more of question of those that lack the, presumably, mental function that makes us pass the test. ny156uk (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think empathy is, indeed, the word you are looking for (although empathy is usually used when referring to the emotions of other people rather than more general thoughts, so perhaps there is a better word). That is one of the things people have assumed only we can do and have been proven wrong. Empathy#With animals gives a very brief discussion, but I have seen more detailed examples (just can't find them now!). --Tango (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and as for people failing the mirror test, you just have to take a human that is sufficiently young or mentally disabled. You can't rule out the mentally disabled since you are talking about a mental disability - you could ask if it is possible to lack that ability and not any others, but it would be a little difficult to define. --Tango (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The initial phenomenon you describe may be theory of mind. --superioridad ^(discusión) 07:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

May 5

Voletta Wallace

Are you sure she is an active member in the Jehovah Witness Organization? Is she disfellowshiped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekasmith (talk • contribs) 02:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Long Hair Merovingians

Did the tradition of long hair as a sign of royalty go pass the Merovingian kings of France? I just talking about the Franks not the other German kings. Did the Carolingian, Robertian or even the Capetian have long hair? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hard to say. I don't imagine we have very much contemporaneous art from that time period; we would have to go on written accounts, and most of what we have is of the "Such and such a king fought such and such a battle and captured such and such a fort" kinda stuff. Most of the chroniclers didn't necessarily note hairstyle... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the last Merovingian king symbolically had his long hair cut off, presumably it was not a tradition of the Carolingians. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you are right but I don't agree with you Adam. The last Merovingian had his long hair cut off because Pepin the Short overthrew him and had him enter a monastery. It would only symbolize that the Merovingian had lost the royal power (long hair). Earlier Merovingian kings had relatives who were their enemies tonsured and had the long hair themself. Also for Christians the early Frankish king seem unChristian since they grew the barbaric long hair and practiced polygamy. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

NYSE and NASDAQ listed stocks

Are there any firms that are listed on both the NYSE and NASDAQ markets currently or previously? Is it even possible to list on both markets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.64.101 (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing in terms of regulations preventing a company from listing on both exchanges should it deem the benefits worth the increased cost of administration and reporting to two exchanges. Hewlett-Packard is listed on both. Googling "dual listing NYSE and NASDAQ" will probably find you other examples.

The Wiki article on "dual listing" (Dual-listed company#Dual-listings versus cross-listings) tries to make a distinction between "dual listing" (e.g. Rio Tinto) vs "cross listing", but I'm not sure how real that distinction is in terms of terminology in everyday use. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Single superpower, single party

I read in an old Usenet post recently something along the lines of, "If you listen to the arguments for why the US should be the world's only superpower, they sound a lot like the arguments for why the Communist Party should be the only political party in China. Similarly, if you read China's arguments for a multipolar world, they sound a lot like the arguments for multiparty democracy." I was wondering, is there any truth to this? Is anybody able to point me to any pairs of arguments with these noticeable parallels mentioned in the quote? --superioridad ^(discusión) 07:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

as you can see at the top of the page, the reference desk is not the place to start debates. If you're wondering what would make America unique among countries you could read our American exceptionalism article. But this is not the place to debate it. 79.122.45.107 (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the OP is asking for a book, article or other source that explores this parallel in more detail, not editors' opinions on it. It's a proper ref desk quesiton, and provided those answering don't get carried away with their own opinions, it wouldn't be a debate. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounds plausible to me. Basically the countries in question adopt different views when talking about nations on the international stage than they do for their own domestic politics. There are many reasons that one could use to justify this; interactions within nations and between nations are apples and oranges. It is not hypocritical to think that different philosophies would govern them differently (and more than it would be say that one's company board meeting need not be patterned on national politics either). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

When welfare in the US runs out

I understand that you only get paid welfare in the US for six months after losing a job. I'm curious about what happens next? Starvation? Here in the UK the equivalent of welfare goes on for ever, although you do get more and more encouragement or pressure to get a job as time goes on. And in the US, what happens regarding people who are sufficiently disabled as to never be able to earn a living? 78.146.219.21 (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Social Security (United States) is an enormous article that may be able to help you, and it has plenty of links etc. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We call it unemployment benefits, not welfare, which has means something else and has negative connotations. Social Security is mainly for retirees (also covers disabilities and survivors). --Nricardo (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Which country do you mean please - where are "we"? 78.144.240.92 (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Jobseeker's Allowance (the official name for UK unemployment benefit) doesn't go on for ever, it just doesn't have a fixed time limit. It goes on for as long as you are genuinely seeking a job. If you make a real effort to get a job - fill in application forms/send in you CV, go to interviews, accept a job if you are offered it, etc., then you can stay on the dole indefinitely, but it is unlikely to go on too long except in situations like the current one when there are very few jobs available. --Tango (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've looked through the article Social Security (United States) and some of its links, it seems that disabled people are given money, but I havnt been able to see what happens after the 26 weeks is up. The article also claims that not many American people are eligible for unemployment benefit. 78.144.240.92 (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Women and the internet

(I don't know which is the right desk for this question; arguably it would fit better under computers or science, but I tend to think it's more of a sociology-type question which fits under humanities.)

Have there been any reliable studies comparing the relative levels of comfort, facility and expertise men and women have as end users of the internet, or even of computers in general? Many thanks. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 10:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Any differences there might be are caused by society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose you have any sort of study to back that claim up with? -Elmer Clark (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose you have any sort of study to disprove that claim up with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. That claim doesn't even come close to answering the question. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, probably. Try this google search (keywords: gender differences internet) and you'll pull up several academic papers in just the first few hits. Hopefully you can narrow down to the specific comfort question. Also, perhaps check the "internet use" section in our article Gender differences. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Have I broken the law?

Since people haven't noticed I said this later on, I'm located in England.

In an earlier discussion, someone claimed that everyone has broken the law at some point, so there are no true non-criminals out there. I'll admit I've broken copyright law...I was too young to know better (well, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it). But I've since stopped. I've never broken the speed limit, never gone somewhere I shouldn't by law. So if I hadn't downloaded those songs when I was younger, would I be legally innocent of everything? Can anyone suggest something that I've almost definitely broken? My experience of the Ref Desk would lead me to believe that this is a somewhat unusual question, but I see no reason it wouldn't be allowed... Vimescarrot (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We'd need to know the country you're in first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's likely you've unthinkingly 'broken' some law or another. Crossing the road at a non-designated crossing area is against the law in some countries and i'm sure 99.999999% of the given (adult) population have done that at some point. Copyright law seems to be the easiest thing to break - be it making a copy of a cd for a friend, or downloading music/games/software illegally. Being in a (moving) car without wearing your seat-belt is illegal in many countries and I suspect millions have unwittingly done this out of forgotfulness. Similarly you may be an 'accessory' to a crime, or you may have known of criminal activity and failed to report it. These can often be against the law, at least theoretically even if they are difficult to prove in practice. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

England. Is crossing the road in non-designated areas against the law here? From memory I honestly can't actually remember a whole lot of designated areas around here. I've never been in a car without my belt on to my knowledge. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As long a you don't murder anyone or cause a load of damage to something, you aren't likely to get into trouble. Keep your head down, don't get caught and nobody cares —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.169 (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Of this, I am aware. That wasn't the purpose of this question. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever ask for anything in pounds and ounces instead of kilos and litres? Ever photocopied a page from a book, or a newspaper? Ever told someone how bad someone else was? (slander)... There are plenty of low level offences that people commit without even thinking in the UK! But it's not against the law to cross the road wherever you fancy - unless you're on a motorway! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Some more ideas, since a specific location isn't mentioned. Have you deleted the songs you downloaded? If not, you're still in breach of copyright merely by owning them. Many crimes like assault, nuisance, threatening behaviour, harassment, stalking, and breach of the peace have very vague definitions so that theoretically you could be prosecuted e.g. for shouting at a shop employee or customer service worker, playfully punching someone, moving in a threatening way (could all be assault), shouting in the street (particularly in the evening), swearing in public[12], wearing a t-shirt or badge with an offensive message[13], holding a protest sign or sending emails protesting about animal testing[14], taking part in a political protest or demonstration, or many other things. Public drunkenness is also illegal in some jurisdictions (it's illegal to buy alcohol when drunk in some places, e.g. Australia - see Legal drinking age), so if you ever have more than one or 2 drinks, you could have violated some law. Of course, if you conduct yourself with decorum at all times, never raise your voice, never adopt an aggressive stance, you may be ok. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In almost evey state in the United States, you are required to pay "consumer use tax" on any item that you purchase from a merchant in another state (e.g., vis the internet, phone order, or mail-order) if the seller does not apply your state's sales tax. Look up "use tax" on your state's web site to verify this. Almost nobody in the entire country complies with this law. in Virginia, the rate is 5%,and I pay about $1000/year -Arch dude (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Woo...Let's see. Never photocopied anything, never asked for anything in any weight measurement. I no longer own the downloaded content. I've never shouted, punched, moved threateningly, or worn offensive clothes or badges, or protested against anything. I don't drink. I don't live in the US so I'm not sure that last one applies to me. Vimescarrot (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You've never shouted? I really don't believe you... --Tango (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I shouted across the warehouse I work in once rather than sprint towards the person whose attention I needed. Does that count? Other than that, I haven't raised my voice for many years. Vimescarrot (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

For a little context, shouting is the standard way of communication with someone far away. Vimescarrot (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bridge types

I've been somewhat confused by the various types of concrete bridges. I can understand arch bridges, but what exactly is a deck arch bridge? The arch bridge article mentions a few types of deck arch bridges, but it doesn't spell out exactly what a deck arch bridge is, and I'm quite confused about Commons:Category:Concrete deck arch bridges in the United States. If you look at its parent Commons:Category:Concrete arch bridges in the United States, you'll see just three pictures (all of which are mine, because I didn't know if I could classify them further), while there are dozens in the deck arch bridges category, many of which (to me) don't seem to fit the definitions of "suspended deck arch bridge" or "supported deck arch bridge" given at arch bridge. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a start to your question, the main load- and traffic-bearing element of a bridge that is not an arch is generally referred to as the deck. This term is used to varying degrees by particular civil and other engineering and highway maintenance disciplines. Deck arch bridge is another way of saying that, although the "arch" is part of the construction, it is not the construction, or the main load-bearing element. It is the actual concrete deck which is carrying the traffic, but the deck and the arch work in conjuction as the structure. A deck arch bridge comprises both the suspended and supported types, I would assume, though there may be other design possibilities which don't fit very well into either category. It is possible, for example, for an arch to be present but for it not to be a part of a working bridge. Here in the UK, some smaller arches that are understrength can be over-slabbed with concrete. No one ever sees the slab on top of the arch, because it is largely hidden by fill, but it is, technically, "taking over" the loading from the still-present arch. I'm sure others will be able to explain or help more fully! Maedin\^talk 12:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and a concrete arch is different from a deck arch bridge. With a concrete arch, the structure is still more or less operating as an arch, and as a single construction type. It still disperses loading by means of fill over the top of the arch. Looking at the three bridges you say you placed in that category, I would suggest that the Hayden arch is a supported deck arch bridge, the Melan Arch is just a concrete arch, and the Twin Bridge, I don't know, as the elevation isn't shown. Maedin\^talk 12:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Stafford Hospital scandal, UK

Where is the article about this? I cannot even find an article about Stafford Hospital. According to this url, http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/03/18/up-to-1-200-may-have-died-over-shocking-patient-care-at-stafford-hospital-115875-21206422/ up to 1200 people died in shocking circumstances. Surely this is noteworthy. I will not write the article as I know little about it. As an original-research aside, when I was involved with another public organisation nearby in the Midlands that was also (literally) unbelivebly badly run, I found that even people in responsible positions were apathetic, apparantly believing that things would run themselves. It was as if they had not discovered the necessity for feedback, and their management model was that of a strong-willed person forcing or frightening subordinates into lip-service or silence, like pressure radiating from the centre, with no upward communication. 78.144.240.92 (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)