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

July 1

Pirate Party

Based on historical precedent, how will the Pirate Party (of Sweden) fare without an 'illegal' The Pirate Bay? The party doesn't seem very capable of inciting much interest itself, since it is relatively new and is a single issue party. It does have some inherent support (maybe around 1-2% of the electorate), but without TPB, it seems like interest will fizzle away rather quickly.

On the other hand, I can see how the acquisition of the site can invoke some strong emotions, thereby increasing support for the party. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 04:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder sometimes do they care less about green partys and other stuff unless they are showing it on TV all the time and if so, why don't they brainwash us all into the very best morals and health? If I then took them to court with treasures like The Exorcist, do I get my money back? ~ R.T.G 07:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As you say, the Party alone doesn't seem to have much success, but it is possible that the closing of the Bay could give them one last big publicity boost. Also, the 'Battle of the Bay' isn't over yet. The Pirate Bay is still running, and they will appeal the judgement, possibly successfully. Also, now they are in the EU Parliament they have access to substantial funds and resources there. Prokhorovka (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on historical precedent, they need to move to California to have any luck. In general, upstart parties with a single political stance that isn't a major part of the daily life for the majority of the citizens is doomed to failure - except in California. Strangely, in that state, the single political stance can be completely absent from any of the citizens daily life and somehow succeed. As an anecdote: Sonny Bono's restaurant was being heavily pushed around by Palm Springs city council. So, Sonny ran for Mayor of Palm Springs to have the power to tell the city council to shove it. Why would anyone vote for him when it was clear what his motive was? Well, he won. -- kainaw™ 11:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sonny Bono was a celebrity, celebrities have name recognition and unfortunately name recognition is a big part of getting elected. I don't think California voters are worse than other voters in that regard. -- BenRG (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the original poster is referring not to the court case but to yesterday's announcement that The Pirate Bay is about to get the Napster treatment ([1]). -- BenRG (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a crystalball, and it's impossible to predict exactly how the political developments will be in the future. That said, it should be clarified that PP and TPB are two different entities, and PP was never the 'political wing' of TPB. The TPB trial was a huge boost to PP ahead of the 2009 EU elections, but the media buzz around PP is not dependent on the continued existence of TPB. Also, the PP now has a political network of its own and is (with one full MEP seat and one MEP observer) economically self-sufficient to run an election campaign in 2010. --Soman (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting!

I've seen this phrase in various places, including the start of Royal Charters, but also on American documents. What does it mean, what is its significance, and where does it come from? Does it have a name? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 06:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"These presents" means "this document". Rhinoracer (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't answer any of those questions, but the phrase has been in use in legal documents since at least the early 15th century. (And Rhinoracer is correct; the phrase "these presents" is sometimes given as "these present letters"). Fouracross (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, even as a lawyer I never knew what it meant, thanks! I always guessed "these presents" meant "those present at the signing of this document." Meaning, in other words, those attesting to it would, by thaeir attestation, writing, etc., be delivering what was written to others. But, Rhinoracer's explanation also makes a lot of sense.Somebody or his brother (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In medieval Latin, one sense of presens was "a message or document." The English usage no doubt derives from that. Deor (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a standard formula in medieval Latin documents, something along the lines of "omnibus ad quos presens scriptum pervenerit", or "omnibus ad quos presentes litterae pervenerint", or other similar formulae. "Presens" in that case meant "the present document" or "the present matter". In the study of these kind of documents (diplomatics), I think this part is called the address, there's no fancier name than that. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, although my point was that presens alone was used to denote a document (my old copy of Baxter and Johnson's Medieval Latin Word-List dates the sense as far back as the eighth century in British sources), which would account for usages like "these presents" in English. Deor (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, and definitely the formula occurs with "presens" as a substantive adjective alone. Another interesting thing about this is that "salutem" always occurs as a direct object without a verb, it is just assumed that the verb is "sends". Even ancient Roman letters left the verb out. In English "salutem" becomes an interjection instead, "greetings". Adam Bishop (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant (since no word corresponding to "present" is involved) addendum: This thread awoke a dim memory in me, so I dug out my old college diploma, which turns out to bear the line "Omnibus ad quos hae Literae pervenerint, Salutem in Domino sempiternam." Not just a greeting, but a sempiternal one! Deor (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

UN 6th Committee

There is a wiki article that needs an expert to fix. First the tittle is wrong! Second it needs serious expansion. It is a subcategory. to wikiUN. can some one direct me to the right people? --Zakouma (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a wikiproject that handles UN articles, you can leave a message on their talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_Nations Livewireo (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Princess Elisabeth Helene of Thurn and Taxis

Do you know if there is an photo archive anywhere of Princess Elisabeth Helene of Thurn and Taxis? I only found one here. --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

22nd Amendment (US Constitution)

If the 22nd Amendment were repealed during Obama's presidency, would Obama be allowed to run for a third term, or would it only apply to future Presidents? Or would this be decided by the way the repeal(presumably a new amendment itself) was written? 69.224.113.202 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If the repeal just said "The 22nd amendment is hereby repealed" then we would be back to the situation the day before it was passed, and the incumbent could keep running for reelection for the rest of his life, like F.D. Roosevelt. But to avoid it being too clearly directed at one person, it might exclude the incumbent, just as Truman was excluded from term limits as the incumbent when the 22nd amendment was ratified. Edison (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

So in theory Obama could run, but in practice he might be specifically excluded? Prokhorovka (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, in practice I don't think such a repeal is very likely at all, so it is difficult to say. Something would have to happen to change public and political opinion on term limits and without knowing what that something is, we can't say how it would work. If it was repealed because people absolutely loved Obama and wanted him to be able to stay on then, obviously, he wouldn't be excluded. --Tango (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It would depend on how it was worded. Some amendments have "activation" dates which are later then the date of passage, and others are considered to become valid the day they pass. Consider especially that the 22nd Ammendment specifically did NOT apply to anyone who was President when the amendment was proposed by congress, thus theoretically Harry Truman could have served an infinite number of terms (well, until he died) even though he was the President when the amendment was proposed. The first president it applied to was Dwight Eisenhower. Likewise, the 18th amendment went into effect 1 year after it was ratified. So we have examples of two with alterations on the starting time of the amendment being different from its ratification date; one based on the date it was proposed, the other based on the date it was ratified. However, most other amendments do not list "starting dates", and so they would become active as soon as they were passed. Presumably, if the 22nd amendment were repealed, whether it would apply to the sitting president or not would depend on how the repealing amendment (lets say the 28th) was worded. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Miracles

Why is it considered a miracle when a single person survives a catastrophe? The most obvious example is the recent [Yemenia Flight 626] disaster where a teenage girl survived the crash while everyone else died. Why is it a miracle when hundreds die from the same accident as the survivor? I understand why people look for a silver lining but I don't see how someone can explain that God was great for saving the one person while he let everyone else die... TheFutureAwaits (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think often when people say "miracle" they just mean a very unlikely good thing, rather than literally meaning it was an act of god. --Tango (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternately, if we want to stick to acts of God, let's determine whether you're asking "why is God saving one person out of 500 a miracle" or "why didn't God save everyone". Are you counterclaiming that it would be better for God to let everyone die rather than save one person? By most any measure, a miracle is a rare occurrence, so asking (theologically) why people die in the first place is a very different question. Of course, Wikipedia is well-equipped to start informing you along those lines, too -- you may be interested in our article on the problem of evil and related topics. — Lomn 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's always the flip side of the "miraculous" outlier event—it indicates the relative lack of intervention in the mainstream events, and the question about why intervention only seems to happen at very rare times. I am not sure whether any serious philosophers or theologians would consider such actions "miracles" or not. It is not a very rigorous approach. In many cases (but not this particular example), the claiming of a "miracle" is often at the expense of those mere mortals who actually performed it (medical personnel often get somewhat discounted when someone has a "miraculous" cure). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it was more of a miracle when a passenger train I was on was unaffected by the derailment of a freight train while we were passing it at 70 miles per hour (it tipped over the other way from where we were) than if there had been a wreck and fire and I had been the only survivor. Ditto when a plane a family member was on was in final approach and another plane taxied across the runway in its path. My family member's plane managed to rise above the interloper, and no harm was done. More of a miracle than if the family member had been the lone survivor of a crash and conflagration. When no one is harmed and nothing is damaged, we discount the miracle. Edison (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Its a miracle if one person survives, not a miracle if half the people survive, and a miracle when everyone survives, very confusing :P --Abc26324 (talk) 14:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is probably because the media is a poor judge on what a real miracle is, and tends to overuse to word because it sells more newspapers, ad-time, whatever. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You may also just be interested in our article on Miracle, which just describes it as an interruption of the laws of nature. I don't see why a survivor violates the laws of nature, not even for a moment. Llamabr (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oldest French Noble titles

What are the oldest French noble titles? I a title that had remain in the family for over a thousand years besides the Capetian kings. Like Count of Paris, it didn't remain in the same families throughout history but it is a really old title. I want to know the oldest continuous title from medieval France.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you checked List of French peerages? They don't seem to be continuous for very long; most of them were created in the Renaissance and they frequently died out, were sold, or were merged into other titles, and sometimes a new line is created with the same title. It's similar to what happens with the English peerage. Does any noble title ever remain in one family for a thousand years? Adam Bishop (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The oldest English title is Baron de Ros, dating from 1264. The various branches of the Montesquiou family may be the oldest French family. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The oldest still existing noble family in France is the House of Rochechouart (876). But since the Third Republic, the French noble titles have no legal value. Gede (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Merovingian titles originally belonged strictly to an individual, in right of his appointment: comes was an inheritance/imitation of a late Roman title. The gradation to a heritable title was a process, strongest in outlying domains. Compare the Visigothic Duchy of Cantabria, also in a march--Wetman (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

For information on French nobility and titles, including a discussion of their status today (pertaining to the notion of "continuous"), see the pertinent page on Heraldica.org, and its sources. - Nunh-huh 21:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

An historical example of a counter-productive fad

Hello all -

I'm working on a book which is largely mathematical, but I want to intersperse it with a few relevant historical examples. Right now, I'm looking for a particular example of a situation where a community of people had a clear goal in mind, but as the result of some serious misinformation, they all acted in a way that was radically counterproductive. It would be best if at the time there were people who knew what this group was doing was counterproductive, but the people in the group didn't listen to those people (either because they didn't believe them or because they didn't know them).

As an illustration, the recent scandal about the misperceptions of Florida teenagers regarding bleach as a preventative for HIV or Mountain Dew as a contraceptive would be a good example. But, I was hoping for something (a) more historical, (b) with a bit more meat so that a nice narrative could be written, and (c) a little less embroiled in politics.

The more suggestions, the merrier I'll be. Thanks for your help! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

China under Mao went into a few widespread counterproductive practices. These are anecdotes. You will need to dig into the history to make it as accurate as you want. The main example that comes to mind is steel production. Steel is required to build major cities and a strong military. So, Mao (or someone speaking for him) made the announcement that more raw steel was needed. The people took their good steel products, melted them down, and created heavily polluted, brittle, almost worthless steel (mainly because they didn't know how to recycle steel). Another more abstract issue is rice production. Mao asked how much rice production there was. As the question trickled down to the farms, it was expressed that it was important to grow a lot of rice. When the answer trickled back up, each person added a tiny bit to the amount produced. The final answer was far more than the amount of rice produced, so the government sold a lot of the rice that wasn't apparently needed to Russia and, as a result, many people in China starved. -- kainaw™

See articles Backyard furnace and Great sparrow campaign... AnonMoos (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Tulipomania.--Wetman (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As expressed in Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, which also examines the South Sea Bubble, among other popular follies — this may be at a distance from what you're looking for (but may be spot on). Tempshill (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to recommend that very book when I saw that you had beat me to it. It is probably the best source for what the OP is asking, although of course because of its age it lacks more recent examples. A somewhat relevant book would be Wilhelm Reichs The Mass Psychology of Fascism which attempts to answer the question: "Why did the masses turn to authoritarianism which is clearly against their interests?" (this is a quote from the article). --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

How about the Shakers? They believed in complete celibacy and essentially went extinct as a result (just 4 left). TheFutureAwaits (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• According to Guns, Germs, and Steel (Google book link), in the 1600s Japan abandoned the use of guns and rifles as part of its drive to let Japan stay in isolation. A few influential samurai were apparently convinced that guns were un-samurai and therefore counter-productive in defending Japan. The result was that when the USA's Commodore Matthew Perry showed up, Japan's military was woefully under-prepared to defend itself and stay in isolation. --M@rēino 21:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the misinformation in this situation? That the US was not going to roll up and threaten them? (I'd say 200 years of success at a policy is a pretty good track record, personally. Failing to adapt with the times is something different than being said to be delusional the whole time...) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Other entities had firearms. Giving up advanced technology because it didn't match their romantic ideals is unwise. They got lucky that it took 200 years for some one to come along and point it out. However, I don't think its what the OP was looking for. Cmschroeder (talk)

The Maginot Line in France, which was clearly opposed by people such as de Gaulle who knew that the military theory on which it was based was out of date. Basically, French generals thought that the next war with Germany would pretty much be the same than the previous one that they won : static, based on defence and artillery. So they built these huge system of defence, which diverted France from using its resources on the new weapons, planes and tanks, that made the Blitzkrieg possible. And in 1940, in three weeks time, they lost. --Gede (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That was just a bad strategy, not a counter-productive fad... --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Something along the lines of your original example is the South African phenomenon of raping babies in the belief that sex with a virgin cures AIDS. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this one so far is the most in line with the original suggestion. The rest are just poor policy decisions or economic bubbles, which are not quite the same thing at all. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

At the beginning of the 1910's, the hobble-skirt briefly became a mainstream fashion. Elaborate and cumbersome women's clothes had long been used in order for families to effectively advertise for all to see that they were wealthy enough that they could afford to render their women unfit for practical physical labor (as famously analyzed by Thorstein Veblen), but even in that context the hobble-skirt was kind of extreme in restricting basic mobility, and it basically came and went in about two years (and at the end of that time, I bet a lot of women were asking themselves "What was I thinking?"). AnonMoos (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This may be an apocryphal tale - but you may or may not have heard of the 'rat temple' of Karni Mata at Deshnoke. Supposedly, when periodic outbreaks of rat-borne sickness afflict the monks there, their response is to go out and acquire more sacred rats to live and eat alongside them in the temple, as they believe that the sickness is some form of divine punishment for failing to sufficiently worship and protect the rats... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

From 1the 1790's through roughly the end of the 19th century medical doctors would routinely bleed and purge patients, to "remove toxins" from the body. This was based on tradition and faith in the claims of such 18th century doctors as Benjamin Rush rather than on experimental evidence. The purging was by administration of a poisonous mercury compound called calomel. That plus the loss of blood from the bleeding hastened the deaths of many, and were of no therapeutic value. Their goal was to purify the bodily fluids, but they only weakened and poisoned the patient. In the mid 19th century, homeopaths and herbalists (some quacks in their own right, but more with placebos) wrote books collecting evidence of deaths caused by these practices, and even a few physicians denounced the practice of bleeding and purging, but it continued for decades as the standard treatment for every kind of illness or injury.Other harmful abuses during this era of Heroic medicine included blistering and emetics to make the patient throw up. Edison (talk) 04:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The practice of bloodletting is much older than the 1790s, in fact one could say that it was from the last half of the 1700s and onwards that the process of ending the practice began through more and more practical experiments in the field of medicine (although it is correct that it was not abandonded completely until the late 19th century).--Saddhiyama (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Appeasement. What an own-goal that was. --Dweller (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Smoking, and the theory of humorism, seem to fit the bill. See Smoking is good for you. As late as the early 20th century people thought that smoking would cure a bad chest. "Here, sonny, have a gasper, it'll do you the world of good and no mistake." Ericoides (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How about the plowing of the top soil of the great plains? It was intended to make it more suitable for agriculture, but... See Dust Bowl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The Challenger disaster is a very well documented incident that seems to meet your criteria:

• "A community of people" - senior management in the Space Shuttle programme ...
• "had a clear goal in mind" - wanted to demonstrate that the Space Shuttle was safe and reliable ...
• "but as the result of some serious misinformation" - but a failure to communicate serious safety concerns up the chain of command ...
• "they all acted in a way that was radically counterproductive" - led to a tragic loss of life and grounding of the Space Shuttle fleet for almost three years.
• "at the time there were people who knew what this group was doing was counterproductive" - engineers at Morton Thiokol expressed their concern about the effect of the temperature on the resilience of the rubber O-rings on the evening before the launch ...
• "but the people in the group didn't listen to those people" - but they were overruled by Morton Thiokol management.

The Rogers Commission Report described the Challenger disaster as "an accident rooted in history". Gandalf61 (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Leaded Petrol and the use of Asbestos. Nanonic (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In hindsight, the combination of asbestos and cigarettes was probably a Bad Idea. Yep, for a time (in the 1950s, I believe), some cigarette filters contained (or were made of) asbestos. Years ago, I saw a documentary on the BBC that explored the 'worst ideas in history' - one of the things they talked about was a brand of cigarettes sold in Britain that, as a selling point, featured a thin strand of asbestos through the centre of each cig, which supposedly prevented the ash from breaking off at inappropriate moments. Also noted was a 'health tonic' made from substances extracted from the brains and spinal cords of cattle. Oops. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a perpetual fad for skin lightening; venetian ceruse was certainly harmful, but it fails your "people who knew this was counterproductive" test, but mercury-based skin whitening preparations continue to be used in countries with poor regulation, although there's strong medical evidence that it's dangerous. 87.113.26.43 (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WOW!! I didn't check this for a day, and look what I got. Thank you everyone. I'm going to look through these and see how they fit with my overall project. If anyone has any more ideas keep them coming, but thank you everyone for your quick help! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 15:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

See Tragedy of the commons. Almost any example of over-exploitation of a common resource will work for you. This has been going on since before the invention of agriculture. Examples include hunting the manoth to extinction, the deforestation of the seats fo many great civilization ofthe past (Greece, Rome, Israel...) salinization of crop land in India, overfishing in lots of places, global warming, air pollution in London, air pollution in eastern europe and many more. In each case, the activity seems like a good idea to most folks, and at some point a few people notice that bad things are happenihg. -Arch dude (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting a deep bronze suntan to look healthy and fit, until the skin cancers pop up amidst the wrinkled ruins of the person's skin. Edison (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Rabbits_in_Australia --Dweller (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Endowment mortgage DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

MMR_vaccine_controversy Snorgle (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Lysenkoism - Nunh-huh 18:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed on the desks before - but how about tapeworm eggs marketed as a weight-loss aid? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not the Edsel, described here as "talented, competent, well-intentioned people setting a goal that seemed perfectly reasonable, marching confidently toward that goal--and going straight off a cliff." --Blue387 (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Iowa crop revenue

Hi, I've been trying to poke around google and the various Iowa government sites to find this, but I'm having trouble. I'm trying to find the annual revenues earned by Iowa farms, broken down by crop. I've seen crops compared in terms of acres or bushels, but what I'm really trying to get a hold on is how much money is at stake, so I figure revenue is a better figure (or maybe net profits or appraisal value, but I haven't seen those either). Yes, I know that the ballpark answer will be "corn is really important, then soy, then some other stuff," but I'd really love to get a more exact economic picture than that. Thanks! --M@rēino 21:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The 2007 U.S. census of agriculture will probably have all you need: [2]. You can get down to the county level.Rmhermen (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--M@rēino 18:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2

Garibaldi's hat

What kind of hat is Garibaldi wearing here? There's a mention of a "Garibaldi cap" in one list of hats, but there's no more information than that. Does anyone know the name of this kind of hat? (Yeah, it's a dumb question, but it's driving me nuts.) Thanks. CSWarren (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No idea but we've had "what type of hat..." questions before. Dismas|^(talk) 02:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks a bit like a Fez. From there I went to the "See also" section. From that, it looks to me like it is a Taqiyah. Dismas|^(talk) 02:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is most definately neither of those, nor is it the Indonesian Peci, since Garibaldi was not North African, Arabic, or Indonesian, despite the similar brimless caps. Consider that the yarmulke and the zucchetto are considered different hats despite almost identical construction, cultural context is very important here! This is probably an Italian peasant cap of some sort; Garibaldi liked to style himself a "man of the people" and dress himself not as a military commander or politician, but as a commoner. The List of hats and headgear only calls it a "Garibaldi cap" as well, though I doubt it was exclusive to him. He may have picked it up as an affectation in some of his many travels; Garibaldi was essentially the Che Guevara of his generation, fomenting rebellion across several continents. It should also be noted that he is pictured wearing a few different hats in some other pics. He's wearing what appears to be a French musketeers cap in these two paintings:[3] and [4] and he has different floppy had in this sculpture in Brazil: [5]. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Some millinery sites call it "Garibaldi pillbox" [6], [7], [8]. For comparison, see pillbox hat. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be a kepi (either with no visor, or the visor isn't visible at the angle shown in the picture); in George Macaulay Trevelyan's Garibaldi's defence of the Roman Republic he says "Garibaldi sometimes wore a cap (possibly sometimes a kepi), but his most common headgear at this time was his peaked hat," (ref). 87.113.26.43 (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a closer view of Garibaldi's decorative cap, and I'm pretty sure it has no visor. The Garibaldini sometimes wore a type of kepi, similar to the "chasseur cap" or "McClellan cap", see for example the images under Cacciatori delle Alpi or Nino Bixio. But I'm pretty sure the cap CSWarren is asking about lacks a visor and is not a kepi. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, a Kepi seems to be universally a rigid cap with short visor. Garibaldi may have worn one at some time (especially seing the reference provided) but this one is clearly a soft, cylindrical, embroidered visorless cap, rather than the stiff kepi. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a smoking cap to me. http://zomgablog.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/main_smoking-cap2.jpg hotclaws 14:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin's Political Affiliations

Franklin didn't live long enough to see the first political parties, so I'm left with the question: Should Benjamin Franklin have lived long enough, what political party would have Franklin fought for, if any? 65.34.141.207 (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The article Benjamin Franklin states:

"At this time, many members of the Pennsylvania Assembly were feuding with William Penn's heirs, who controlled the colony as proprietors. Franklin led the "anti-proprietary party" in the struggle against the Penn family, and was elected Speaker of the Pennsylvania House in May 1764. His call for a change from proprietary to royal government was a rare political miscalculation, however: Pennsylvanians worried that such a move would endanger their political and religious freedoms. Because of these fears, and because of political attacks on his character, Franklin lost his seat in the October 1764 Assembly elections. The anti-proprietary party dispatched Franklin to England to continue the struggle against the Penn family proprietorship, but during this visit, events would drastically change the nature of his mission.[42]" 208.70.31.206 (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the original questioner was wondering whether Franklin would have more naturally aligned with the Jeffersonians (the "Democratic-Republicans") or with the Hamiltonians (the "Federalists" in the 1792 sense of the word). Of course, Franklin was a "Federalist" in the 1788 sense of the word, since he was involved in the constitutional convention... AnonMoos (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Franklin would have been more comfortable with the Jeffersonians. It's hard to imagine Franklin in the camp of the anti-French Federalist party, and even harder to imagine Franklin the printer and political satirist making common cause with the party of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Of course, Franklin's protégé and grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache, was a Jeffersonian and the scourge of the Federalist party, if that means anything. One way to think about the question is this: was Franklin more in tune with Jefferson or John Adams? Personal relationships perhaps provide the clue: Adams hated Franklin, while Jefferson idolized him. (P.S. I wrote that quoted paragraph above about Franklin & the anti-proprietary party. It's a pleasure to see it quoted, and to know that the paragraph hasn't yet been mangled into tripe!) —Kevin Myers 12:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, cool. I looked in the BF article expecting to find that BF was a member of the Whig Party (United States). I was very surprised to find that party wasn't formed until 1834. I knew that colonial separatists like Franklin called themselves "Whigs" but didn't realize that the Whig Party was different and came later. 208.70.31.206 (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Keep in mind too that the Whigs of colonial America were not really "separatists" until late in the game—1774 at the earliest, and usually not until '75 or '76. The American Whig movement, like that in Britain, was about resisting arbitrary government. Whigs like Franklin were very happy to be British right up until the American Revolution. —Kevin Myers 14:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

thomas cook and son logo 1898

I have been trying to locate the 1898 logo of thomas cook and son, including writing directly to thomas cook archives, but have been unsuccessful. all internet references give the history or the recent logos. library books with images show only very pixelated images of the sign above the office. help would be very appreceated. M1972 (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If possible (and if you haven't already tried it), see if your accessible libraries have copies (probably bound into volumes) of newspapers, magazines or journals from that period that would feature advertisements, and search for Thos. Cook ads, which would likely feature any logos. Something like Punch would seem a likely bet. 87.194.161.147 (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the date 1898 significant? (I ask because that is when Thomas Cook funded Kaiser Wilhelm's visit to the Holy Land, and I remember reading that their logo was ostentatiously displayed everywhere, but I can't find any pictures of the Kaiser's trip). Adam Bishop (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Role Of Marketing in Network Economy

This is new topic and very difficult to find the information. Could you pl. help me.

I am Tilak Denipitiya E mail - xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.115.21.30 (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Email redacted for privacy. We will not contact you off-wiki. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

For those like me who didn't know what it is, we have an article on Network economy. I thought it was creating a computer network using the minimum outlay on materials. --Dweller (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hyde Park, London

What's the origin of the name? --87.253.6.155 (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you'd think that article would say, but it doesn't seem to. Old and New London: Volume 4 by Edward Walford says of the area "About the time of Domesday Book, the manor of Eia was divided into three smaller manors, called, respectively, Neyte, Eabury, and Hyde. The latter still lives and flourishes as a royal park, under its ancient name, no doubt of Saxon origin". The Oxford Book of British Place Names says the various "Hyde" placenames, including Hyde Park, comes from the anglo-saxon unit of land taxation, the hyde. 87.113.26.43 (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I worked your response and reference into a footnote at Hyde Park, London.--Wetman (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a map :)

Hi, im trying to find a map to the level of detail of showing the Non-metropolitan districts of England (inc. Wales/Scotland etc if possible). Im struggleing and on Wikipedia can only find that level of detail one county at a time rather than on a whole map of England/the UK.

thanks, --Abc26324 (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen Google maps? Here's a link to a random spot in Wales; you can zoom in and out and pan around. Coverage is good throughout western Europe. Astronaut (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried looking at one of the UK government websites? The one that comes instantly to my mind is [www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk]. If not there, it has links to other government websites that may be able to help. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a UK map here through which you can click to see local authorities in the various regions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Supply and demand

The chart that puzzles me

Economics makes my hair fall out. I'm fairly well-educated, but I've never been able to make head or tail of it. Simple language help please...

I'm bemused by this chart of supply and demand, which I've seen many times down the years in similar versions. The red lines make sense to me - as an item becomes more scarce, where Q is reduced, the price increases. But what the heck is the blue line about and what's the difference between "Supply" (S) and "quantity of good" (Q)?

Like I say, this may be a FAQ, but I found our Supply and demand article really hard work --Dweller (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Supply" and "demand" in this context actually refer to the "supply curve" and "demand curve". They are functions of price. The higher the price the more it makes sense to produce (eg. you can afford to use more fertiliser so can grow your crop of less fertile land while still remaining profitable, so there is more total land available for growing the crop) and also the fewer people will want to buy it (they will decide it is a luxury they can't afford or that something else better value). In an efficient market the price of the good will become the price where the supply curve and demand curve meet. The "quantity of good" is simply the amount of the good produced and sold at that price. --Tango (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You did not get it correctly. You have to read it that way : at each price level (P), what is the quantity (Q) that buyers are ready to buy (D, red line) and sellers ready to sell (S, blue line) ? The more expensive the product, the smaller the demand, hence the red line is downward sloped. The more expensive the product, the bigger the supply, hence the blue line is upward sloped.

The whole idea of the chart is that, by a process of confrontation, error and trial (that never was really studied), supply and demand will reach an equilibrium, that is the price for which demand is exactly the same than supply. That's where the two lines cross each other. Gede (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help chaps, I'm squirming my way through this swamp. "The more expensive the product, the bigger the supply"? How does that work? There must be fewer Rolls Royces than Renaults for sale? Surely cheap products proliferate and expensive ones do not? --Dweller (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We're talking here of one and only one product : Renault and Roll Royce are two different products and have two (very) different markets. So : the more expensive the Renault, the bigger the supply of Renault. To know if and how much the demand of Renault goes up when the price of Roll Royce increases if another question that's going to make the swamp muddier, but you can see "Cross elasticity of demand". --Gede (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Imagine an economy where everyone's on welfare, wondering whether they should grow cabbages or not (that's the only thing that can be produced). Let's say, theoretically, the government were to set the price of cabbages to be $20. Let's say 100 people would be tempted by this price and go and grow cabbages. But say tomorrow, the government declares that the price of cabbages is now $50. More people - let's say 200 - would be tempted by the profit they can make - and decide to grow cabbages as well.

That is to say, if the price increased from $20 to $50, the number of people willing to grow cabbages increases from 100 to 200, so the supply of cabbages will increase. The line that traces this change is the supply curve.

Now, in the kind of economy assumed in those diagrams, the price isn't set by the government, it's set by how many people out there are willing to buy cabbages, and how much they are willing to pay them -- that's the demand curve. For example, at $50, only a handful of people will be willing to buy cabbages, whereas at $20, more people are wiling to buy them. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The article on demand curve actually makes a fair hack at explaining the graph (but I assume you've read that already Dweller in which case this comment is of little help). Rolls Royces may be a Veblen good where demand increases as price increases, so probably isn't the best example to superimpose on the model. Cabbages are better, though I always prefer potatoes. Fouracross (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Potatoes might be Giffen good. That would not help... Gede (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes that occurred to me when I finished typing... but please don't confuse the OP anymore. Might be better to just substitute "Widgets" for "potatoes"/"cabbages"/"rolls royces".... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Splendid, thanks all. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Cruelty to animals laws in the United Kingdom

NOTE: This is not a request for legal advice as I do not participate in cruelty to animals, merely an information-gathering exercise out of curiousity.

Cruelty to animals is a criminal offence in the UK, yes, but which animals are covered? Flies? Worms? Slugs? Mice? Rats? Rabbits? Where is the line drawn?--The lion sleeps tonight (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question, but this article is relevant and a good read. Recury (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Different animals in different situations are covered by different laws and regulations. These are some good starting points: DEFRA Animal welfare pages, DEFRA Wildlife pages, Hunting Act 2004, Home Office page on legislation regarding animals in scientific research (Flies, worms and slugs are not covered by any welfare regulations that I know of). Fouracross (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that any vertabrate would qualify, invertabrates not so likely. Exxolon (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Rule of thumb: any animal that actually poses a danger to you is probably covered. Animals that are completely harmless, you can kill with impunity. --81.170.28.14 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Black widows? --Sean 14:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

US election results

What is the highest margin of victory (% wise) for a Democrat or a Republican in the US at the Senate or House of Reps level? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to ignore those who ran uncontested? -- kainaw™ 20:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In 1996, Jose Serrano in NY-16 won 96.3% of the vote to 2.9% for the Republican candidate. That may be a record for a race between candidates of the two major parties. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Economics: Is it optimal to have different or equal tax rates?

Why Tax Rates Vary

Taxes on expenditure create deadweight losses whose size depends on the elasticity of demand and supply. If there is a choice between taxing two goods whose elasticities of supply are equal, then taxing the one with the more inelastic demand will minimize the deadweight loss from taxation.

Taxes and the Allocation of Resources

In an economy with no market failure, there will be an efficient allocation of resources. But if taxes are levied on some goods and not others, there will be an inefficient allocation of resources. Taxing all goods and services at the same rate could restore allocative efficiency.

(Parkin & King: Economics, 2nd ed., p. 541)

Are these two statements not contradictory? E.g. the petrol/gas tax is higher than most other taxes, and demand for petrol is inelastic. Would it be welfare-improving to smooth out tax rates or not, under perfect market assumptions? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It would, just not as much as if you smoothed out tax rates on something with more elastic demand. Recury (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"You can now see why taxing lemonade [highly elastic demand] is not on the agenda of any of the major parties. Vote-seeking politicians seek out taxes that benefit the median voter. So, other things being equal, they try to minimize the deadweight loss of raising a given amount of revenue. Equivalently, they tend to impose heavy taxes on items such as petrol, alcohol and tobacco where demand is inelastic." (ibid, p. 534)

So different tax rates is a government failure? Do politicians suffer from myopia when setting tax rates and do not see the whole picture – that they are distorting the overall economy? (Again, assuming away externalities etc.) Jacob Lundberg (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Real-world decisions have to take into account a lot more than the economic impacts of an outcome. Different tax rates are not a government failure, they are an attempt to balance the need to raise taxes with the desire of the general population to avoid paying more tax than they need to. Sometimes tax is set based on an agenda (e.g. high taxes to disuade use and turn people off that product/service) and sometimes they are trying to maximise revenue. The decisions of political parties are part economic, part social, part beliefs, part party preference, part marketing and countless other factors beyond. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, but I'm not talking about the real world. ;) Am I correct in saying that in economic theory, assuming no externalities, perfect markets and all that, the best way to raise taxes is through a general tax, regardless of how elasticities differ? Jacob Lundberg (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the best way would be to tax the most inelastic things as much as possible (to raise a given amount of revenue). Then you would have the least deadweight loss per dollar (or whatever) of tax revenue. When the book says "if taxes are levied on some goods and not others, there will be an inefficient allocation of resources", I believe they mean goods of the same elasticity. Recury (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

An economist would say that the most efficient tax would be a lump-sum tax. Say, a tax of $100 per person, regardless of income. This tax doesn't influence behavior in any way, and - in the partial equilibrium framework - creates no dead weight loss. It's just a transfer. People will still choose to work just as much, and the relative "bundle of goods" that they consume will remain constant (albeit there will be less per person; the mix will stay the same).

As soon as you use the word 'best' though, it's assumed that you'll be taking into account both efficiency and equity (equality). Nearly every policy trades these two things off against eachother. Economic theory can't tell us at what rate efficiency ought to be traded off for equity.

A fixed percentage tax on everything (a general tax), influences behaviour: for example, the labour-leisure tradeoff. This is, of course, unless the tax is also on "time spent not working" I suppose. This would be more like a lump-sum.

Also, many goods with inelastic demand are "sin" goods. Liquor, tobacco etc. Some would argue that these goods produce negative externalities and ought to be taxed at a higher rate to internalize that externality: to make the decision maker bear the social cost, not just the private cost. Oh. You mentioned, "no externalities." Sorry.NByz (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

All taxes change behavior, even ones such as the flat-value tax you say don't. Consider the $100 per person tax; someone who is rich enough that they wipe their ass with $100 bills wouldn't think twice about changing anything in their lives to pay that tax; however someone living in a limited income may find such a tax a hinderance to spending in parts of their lives; they would most certainly have to alter their behavior to work $100.00 spending into their budget. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Lump-sum tax. That is all I meant.NByz (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I mean "best" as in "efficient". I am only interested in what the most efficient VAT policy would be on a perfectly functioning free market.

Recury, you seem to have changed your mind. Above, you wrote that smoothing out tax rates would be welfare-improving regardless of elasticities, while in your second post you say that the best way is to tax inelastic goods as much as possible. (You seem to contradict yourself in exactly the same way the book contradicts itself. How can different tax rates be most efficient (least deadweight loss, best welfare outcome) on a micro level while on a "macro" level it is best to tax goods at the same rate? Is it because the elasticities sum to one?) Jacob Lundberg (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is my interpretation:

Allocative efficiency means that productive resources will be allocated to productive processes in the same proportions as if there was no tax or government involvement. That's kind of a 'general equilibrium' idea. A dead-weight loss in a micro supply-demand model will always appear if there is a tax and the demand curves exhibit any elasticity. This is a 'partial equilibrium' idea (the tax is examined without considering it's implications for - and by re-achieving equilibrium in - other markets).

There is almost always an excess burden of taxation (a dead weight loss in the partial equilibrium demand/supply model) when a tax is imposed; goods are not quite allocated the way the free market would allocate them. Even if the dead weight losses in each of the taxed markets still exist under the partial equilibrium model, but the remaining private sector goods are still allocated in the same proportions as they would have been under free markets, you can still say you have allocative efficiency in the general equilibrium economy. There's not really a dead weight loss to society.

If tax rates were such that the economy only had one privately allocated dollar, and that dollar was allocated as it would have been if there was no tax, you could still say you had allocative efficiency, even though there must certainly be some dead weight loss when you examine each of the markets under the partial equilibrium supply and demand model.

So I guess I see the problem being one of using general vs. partial equilibrium models. Partial equilibrium models are best to use when examining the use of taxes to influence behaviour, and general equilibrium models (e.g. the macro formula) would be best when examining overall taxation.NByz (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Just about every society on earth taxes both income and expenditure. Taxing consumption discourages spending (encourages savings and investment); taxing interest income discourages savings (encourages investment and consumption); and taxing dividends or capital gains discourages investment (encourages consumption and savings). The trick is to keep these in balance such that each of the three (consumption, investment and savings) are only modestly discouraged.

A good tax is neutral (taxpayers with the same ability to pay are taxed equally); fair (those with more pay extra); effective (revenue-production is worth the effort); efficient (minimal compliance and collection costs); certain (everyone knows what will be taxed); simple (as dissimilar to the US Tax Code as possible); flexible (capable to adapting to technological or commercial changes); pro-competitiveness (does not discourage cross-border investment or trade); and stable (only modestly sensitive to the economic cycle).

The tax that comes closest, in theory (but rarely in practice) is the value-added tax (VAT) or goods and services tax (GST). This is an excellent analysis of the pros and cons of various tax alternatives: http://www.fstb.gov.hk/tb/acnbt/english/finalrpt/finalrpt.pdf DOR (HK) (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

mansur al hallaj

was Mansur Al-Hallaj a shia suffi? or did he have sunni islam inclinations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.23.202 (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He was born a Sunni but he really did not belong to any orthodox school, rather he charted his own course. The manner of his death shows his disdain for orthodoxy. To identify him with the Sunni might be stretching his formal methods of prayer too far.--Shahab (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

abdul qadir gilani

what is the shia muslims' view of Abdul Qadir Jilani? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.23.202 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

July 3

California Foreclosure Prevention Act

Hi all,

I was wondering why is there no article on the current moratorium stopping the foreclosures in California? Usually current topics like this land on wikipedia very fast, but I can't find any relevant content. --Spundun (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

p.s : Reference: http://www.google.com/search?q=California+Foreclosure+Prevention+Act

Feel free to start one. // BL \\ (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

US Constitution Amendments on display?

Are all the amendments of the US Constitution on display at the National Archives. I know that the Bill of Rights and a few others are, but what about the rest? Are they displayed elsewhere, or just not important enough to put under glass? Tiailds (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(When someone answers this question, please edit the Charters of Freedom article to include the answer. The National Archives page just mentions the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, as Tiailds mentioned.) Tempshill (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A note here: There is no single "original" copy of the U.S. Bill of Rights. According to United States Bill of Rights, Congress made 14 copies of the Bill of Rights, one to keep and one to distribute to each state. The copy in the National Archives is thought to be the one sent to Georgia or Maryland. It's possible that Congressional leaders as late as 1971 (when the 26th Amendment was passed) sent formal printed copies of proposed constitutional amendments to the states, even though today's communications technology means that isn't really necessary. If that's the case, those copies are probably in the hands of the states if they're still around. The National Archives keeps copies of old bills, which presumably includes proposed constitutional amendments. See ([9]). Since hundreds of copies of proposed legislation are printed, there's probably no single "original" copy of latter-day constitutional amendments, either. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't there be an official or "executed" copy of any legislation. signed by the officials who thus assert that it is enacted? This is true of many official acts. Otherwise, how is one to know that a supposed "bill" or "amendment" is not the random caprice of a printer? Edison (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the National Archives is inconsistent in what they display for the amendments (and that's what we display in the articles.) Amendment XXVII, for example, has the page with the Archivist's signature that certifies the acceptance of the amendments. Other amendments seem to have just a copy of the Congressional resolution sending the amendment to the States. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly the official publication of a U.S. Constitutional Amendment or Bill just requires that it is published in an official source such as the Federal Register. That organ of the state would publish it when some official (Secretary of the Senate???) sends them an order to publish it. That leaves open the possibility of hanky-panky. Edison (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps one wouldn't need the signed copies for amendments? Unlike laws, which require a presidential signature or the president's ignoring the bill (see the introduction to pocket veto), a constitutional amendment doesn't require any action or inaction on the part of the president. I'm aware that the presiding officers of the two houses sign bills and resolutions that have been passed, but the Constitution doesn't say anything about that, so it's possible that they're not absolutely required. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Biting the lower lip

Is there any common interpretation of what it means when a person bites their lower lip? Vimescarrot (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My guess: insecurity, self-doubt, worry. Bus stop (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A link concerning the question is found here. Bus stop (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Any kind of speculation like this is pretty useless because little tics like that are influenced by culture and your upbringing in early life, which varies a lot across the world. See Tic, although I don't really care for that article as it currently mostly talks about them in the context of mental disorders. Tempshill (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Body language should be a better starting place. Should be, but isn't. Fouracross (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Depending on where you (or the biters) are coming from, it could allude to "oral aggression: biting and swallowing" (Nänny & Fischer, Form miming meaning: iconicity in language and literature‎, 1999) or "unmistakeblable allusions to imminent oral aggression" (Fónagy, Languages within Language: An Evolutive Approach, 2001), while An Asperger Dictionary of Everyday Expressions refers to it "as a facial gesture indicating that a person could say something on the subject but is not going to.". Finally (for now), Body Language for Dummies identifies it as one of the "three main lip chewing gestures associated with anxiety". ---Sluzzelin talk 18:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Or they could just have a piece of loose skin that they're trying to chew off...--TammyMoet (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I fully expected a fuzzy answer, but ever optimistic, I asked anyway. ;-) Vimescarrot (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Royal political involvement in a constitutional monarchy

I've long known that constitutional monarchs weren't supposed to be involved in politics. However, after reading Royal family, I was surprised, for its wording suggested to me that, in most constitutional monarchies, members of royal families aren't allowed to vote. Is this true, or is it simply that they can exercise political preferences but only at the ballot box? Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Some royal families of constitutional monarchies do not have the right to vote, others have the right but do not exercise it, as to do so would not be in accordance with the need for the appearance of neutrality. I can't think of a royal family that has the right to vote and exercises it, but I'd be interested to hear if there are any. Fouracross (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Belgian Royal Family can and do. They voted recently at the European Elections. The King is prohibited by law, however. --Cameron* 10:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's somewhere in my memory that members of the House of Lords are not allowed to vote either. The theory, I believe, is that they are already represented in parliament, so they don't need a representitive in the Commons. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's correct - see Elections in the United Kingdom#Eligibility. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of a distant relic of the old European "three estates" system (in which nobility, clergy, and commoners all had their separate consultative assemblies). The traditional mid-20th-century journalistic phrase was something along the lines that all except lords, lunatics, paupers and felons were eligible to vote... AnonMoos (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Lord Nelson's got a vote!"

"He's got a boat, Baldrick."

crosses

• If you are awarded the Victoria Cross, you get VC after your name.
• If you are awarded the George Cross, you get GC after your name.

What happens if you are awarded the Elizabeth Cross? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.220.28 (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Not much, I expect. It's not as if the recipients actually do anything to receive it. They're just next of kin. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's right. The use of a post-nominal is not authorized for a Commemorative emblem. It is only authorized for some decorations, honors and awards. --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 19:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Babenberg Ladies

Moved to User talk:Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy/List of Austrian consorts#Babenberg_Ladies by --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Where Did Tolstoy, Live Around The Time Dostoevsky wrote crime and punishment.

Hello, my question is short and sweet I`am the aspiring screenwriter. Who wrote about the World War I solider on the miscellaneous page. I`m doing research on the two for a screenplay on crime and punishment. I want to know, where did Tolstoy live around the time Dostoevsky wrote crime and punishment.

Leo Tolstoy lived most of his life at Yasnaya Polyana, and there's nothing in his article to suggest he was leaving elsewhere in 1865–6, when Crime and Punishment was written. Algebraist 22:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

July 4

Urgent: Tuning a snare drum

For a 4th of July Parade tomorrow, I need to tune up a snare drum. The heads seem to be loose and the snares are woefully loose. I am filling in as a drummer. How would one determine when the upper and lower heads are at the proper tightness, and when the snares are properly tightened. This drum has a rotary adjustment for the snares as well as a lever to apply or loosen the snares. Normally a brass player, played snare many years ago for a bit. Thanks. Edison (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Go to your local music shop and ask for a quick demo/refresher on snare tuning? Exxolon (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you what I did a couple lifetimes ago... First, are the heads usable? If this is an old drum that has been sitting in an attic for 10 years, the heads may be shot. Assuming that they are good, start by getting the tightness down a bit. Just tighten all the lugs around until you get a somewhat proper snare sound, not a thud. Note: If the bottom is a tad looser than the top, you will get more of a classic snare sound. Once it is tight, you can tune it properly. Place your finger in the middle of the head. Tap around the head near each lug. You will hear if one is looser than another. Adjust them until they all sound the same. Repeat on the bottom. Then, try it out. If it doesn't snap enough, give each lug a little tightening and then check to see if they are all in tune with one another again. That's pretty much all there is. -- kainaw™ 14:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Edison (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Parachutes for passengers in planes

why aren't there parachutes in every plane so more lives could be saved. Instead of life jackets of course. Any article?. I find it interesting. Thanks. --190.50.120.109 (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The logistics really would not be too feasible except in a very small number of situations. Maybe if the landing gear is out, but everything else is working, and the plane has plenty of fuel to fly low and slow for an extended period. Otherwise, parachutes probably wouldn't do too much except for a few highly lucky people and/or highly-trained parachutists in a rather unusual and rarely-occuring situation... AnonMoos (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

See this: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009_June_2#Why_don.27t_commercial_airplanes_have_parachutes.3F from last month on the miscellaneous topics page, for a rather extensive and interesting discussion. Acroterion _(talk) 04:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's a catastrophic plane failure, they're not going to have time to use the parachutes (those who bothered to listen to the pre-flight instructions). If it's something less serious, like what AnonMoos described, then the pilots would most likely try to land the plane. So either way, parachutes are pretty much useless. However, there are parachutes for entire small planes - see Ballistic Recovery Systems for an example. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw a newsreel film (Possible in the Popular Science series) made in the 1930's or 1940's in the U.S., showing an airplane in which each passenger had an ejection seat allowing him to parachute down when over his home. There were two rows of seats, and each had a portion of the fuselage next to the seat which could pop open and the seat would tilt outwards to eject the passenger. It was a gimmick or demonstration and not a commercial project. The plane was not pressurized. Such a plane would allow the rapid ejection of all passengers in an emergency. Edison (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Artist- I can't remember his name

Hi everyone,

Sorry I can't give too much info.

I remember watching an interesting documentary about an artist who mainly created (I *think* prints, but could have been another medium) of bright flowers and fruits like lemons. He is alive now and fairly well known. The art created is fairly repetitive and bold, for example 5 lemons on a plain background. Can anyone help me identify him? I might be completely wrong, but his name might have been Howard something.

Many thanks

18:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)~ Hesperus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesperus (talk • contribs)

Possibly Howard Hodgkin. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 18:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Afraid not, his seem quite a bit more complex then the ones I mean. Hesperus (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC).

Peter Max? Wayne Thiebaud? Jasper Johns? Andy Warhol? Bus stop (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ink plums in Chinese art

Several Chinese artists, including, for example, Tang Yifen, to have created "ink plums". What are "ink plums"?

They are plums drawn in ink (pen and ink); not, I think, a special type of plum. // BL \\ (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I take "ink plum" to be a literal translation of "墨梅". It means mei flowers as depicted in ink and wash paintings. Though a conflicting explanation found on the internet says that it means mei flowers with especially intense colours. I'm not so sure about this second one. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

July 5

Two Sicilies

Why was the unified kingdom of Naples and Sicily called Two Sicilies? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

See Two_Sicilies#Origins_of_the_two_kingdoms. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

doxycycline withdrawal symptoms

Are there symptoms for the withdrawal of doxycycline used to treat Lymes Disease?206.53.153.39 (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You may like to read our articles on doxycycline and Lyme disease. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's Jewish friend.

Can anyone help me in his article... is there any mention about his childhood friend who was Jewish?... --FromSouthAmerica (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This rumour has cropped up many times over the years. It is perfectly possible Hitler knew some Jews when he was young, but since little is known of the specifics of his youth. His parents either died or never commented on anything (I assume died) so we can never know for sure if he did have a specific Jewish friend when young. Prokhorovka (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be thinking of Max (film). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If he had he and his lieutenants would have gone to great lengths to try and cover up or destroy any record of it. The lack of detail about his early life considering he was so famous does argue that there were things he didn't want known. I doubt you'll find any record of anything like that. Dmcq (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There's also the story that he went to school briefly with Ludwig Wittgenstein. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The apocryphal story I heard was that Hitler's mother had a Jewish doctor who was very kind to her and did not charge. Hitler saved his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf1052 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting ... the (again, apocryphal) story I heard was that when Hitler's mother died, she was being treated by a Jewish doctor, whom Adolf blamed - which was supposed to be one of the reasons Hitler disliked Jews. These sorts of conflicting reports illustrate the difficulty with trusting such apocryphal stories. -- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the term for a trance brought on by art?

I remember reading about a supposed altered state of consciousness that can be induced in some people by viewing or being in the physical presence of some great and beautiful work of art. I would have asked this question in the science reference desk, but I'm fairly certain this isn't a technical term from psychology, it's a general word that at most derives from pop-psychology. I could be wrong though. --86.135.177.168 (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Not "trancendental" ? 83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Guesses "transpersonal", "ecstatic states", "euphoria", "harmonization", "interconnectedness", "self actualisaation" - all copied from Peak experience - you did say pop-psy83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Psychology of art - empathy, gnosis, epithany Epiphany (feeling) ? 83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Stendhal syndrome. —Kevin Myers 15:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

yes! that's it! thanks. --86.135.177.168 (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Alaska's Lieutenant Governor position

Sarah Palin has announced that she is naming Craig Campbell (politician) to replace Sean Parnell as Lieutenant Governor of Alaska once she, Palin, steps down as Governor and Parnell succeeds her. How does this work? How can she name somebody to replace someone when that position is currently held by Parnell? Wouldn't it be up to Parnell to choose somebody to replace himself as Lieutenant Governor once he's Governor and the Lieutenant Governor position is empty? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The [jump!3A!27as4419040!27/doc/{@17911}? Alaska succession law] covers this - Although, it has to be approved by a joint session of the Alaska legislature, so either they have to convene, or she may already have taken care of this, since she was supposed to do it back when she won the office. --Saalstin (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, the wikicode doesn't like that - AS 44.19.040 is the law in question --Saalstin (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. What a weird provision. That gives the nominee reason to want to see the LG dead.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

rue de Richepanse

The name of this street in Paris has been changed to Chevalier du St. George. Anyone know why. I would have thought that a successful General would outlast a fallen Saint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf1052 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Read up on Joseph de Bologne, the Chevalier de Saint-Georges (1745-1799), Afro-French composer, violinist, conductor and fencer.--Wetman (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He was victim of the change in the public perception of slavery and colonial power that's taken place in France in the 1990's. No one denied that France took a active role into the slave trade and created a colonial power based on slavery in its West Indies until that time, but that was not a central issue in the public debate. With this change, the perception of Richepanse was transformed : he is now first and foremost the general whose mission was to reinstate slavery in 1802 (French Revolution had abolished slavery) and who brutality massacred people to this end, and not any more the young and successful officer who helped Napoleon in his first European campaigns. The places that are named after him are renamed one after the other: the new names are those of black persons from the French West Indies. In Guadeloupe in 1999 the "Fort Richepanse" has become the "Fort Louis Delgrès" (a black officer who was the leader of the vey insurgency that Richepanse repressed), in Rouen a headquater lost his name, just as a waterfront in Metz (2004), etc. You can sign a petition in line to rename the "rue Richepanse" into "rue Delprès" in Sartrouville. --Gede (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone might fatten up Antoine Richepanse. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Soviet archives

There's general consensus that Soviet sources are biased when it comes to versions of history, after all, these are the products of the regime where "history serves politics." I'm therefore at a loss when editors lobby for the "truth" based on what's stated in declassified Soviet archives—aside from the fact that doing so quotes a primary source. They may be declassified, but, quite frankly, it would be uninformed to contend the archives are intrinsically any more reliable than what came before. There are more than a few "facts" in the archives which are not corroborated by reputably documented circumstances and events. Does anyone know of any studies of Soviet era archives as to their fundamental reliability? VЄСRUМВА  TALK  21:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. And it's also documented that, for example, "reports" to Stalin were informed more by an instinct for self-preservation than by a desire for openness and honesty. In fairness, there's also this same issue with Nazi archives with regard to Hitler. VЄСRUМВА  TALK  21:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

To what extent have Soviet archives been forged to sell western researchers what they are looking for? for example with the rosenbergs? --Gary123 (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I gather the reason the declassified archives are fairly trusted is because everyone (even the Soviet Union) needs a reliable source. The things they publicly announced were false, but the records they kept secret and for internal consumption only, which became available following 1991 are fairly trustworthy. We can 'know' this by doing things like comparing our information on things we know to the internal archives and checking. If the Soviets weren't lying to themselves on things we can be sure of, then it is logical to assume the rest is true also. Prokhorovka (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both. To Gary123's... for example, Soviet "archives" have produced evidence that individuals were Nazi war criminals when in fact they were children at the time and produced testimony by people known to be dead. To Prokhorovka's... what has been reported to be in the Estonian Soviet archives (families taken to Siberia on coach trains, nursing and medical care, et al.) is patently false. That something was kept for "internal" consumption is more "true" is based on our "democratic" assumptions about when/where one lies and one does not. We cannot make those assumptions regarding either Soviet or Nazi archives—hence my asking about research on the topic. VЄСRUМВА  TALK  19:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you assume that other archives are factual? What about the National Archives and Records Administration? The Public Record Office? The Vatican Archives? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

July 6

Poor people

In the 1990’s, the Bureau of the Census reported that about 35 million Americans were classified as poor. They also stated that the majority of poor were white. What race currently makes up the highest percentage of poor?71.164.13.96 (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In 2007, there were an estimated 25.1 million poor whites (of whom 16 million were non-Hispanic), 9.24 million poor blacks and 1.35 million poor Asians out of 37.3 million poor people. Hispanics, who can be of any race in the census, accounted for 9.89 million poor people. See [10]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting to note, however, that while whites make up roughly 2/3 (67%) of poor people are white; 3/4 (75%) of all U.S. citizens are white (or thereabouts, see 2000 United States Census). Thus, minorities represent a larger portion of poor people than they do of the general population. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding on to that, poor blacks make up 25% of America's poor, but blacks represent only 12% of the America's population. 25%/12% is more than two times higher than 67%/75%, so the statement that the majority of poor were white, although true, is highly misleading. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that as misleading. If someone were to read into that "blacks were richer than whites" they would be failing to consider other evidence required to validate their statement. You are right that other considerations are important to give this statement context and depth, but of itself the statement doesn't appear to be misleading - only the reading of it. If, for instance we were to read a stat showing the % of each racial-group that are poor we might (incorrectly) assume that there were less poor whites than black. This would be incorrect in 'volume' terms, but correct in terms of 'proportion'. Either way it's often how individual's interpret stats, rather than the stats themselves, that is an issue (though of course the people doing the stats can be trying to willfully misrepresent the data. On this, the excellent book How to lie with statistics is well worth a read. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the other way round : 24.7% of black are poor (slightly less than 25.3% of American Indians, who are the poorest "race"), that is 2.5 times more than white (10%). But 58.6% of poor are white, 24% are Hispanic, 23% are black, and only 1.5% are Indian Americans. --Gede (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Did the Chinese Communists ever officialy use the term Maoism?

Did the Chinese Communists ever officially use the term Maoism? --Gary123 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Maoism, the officially used term was Mao Zedong Thought (simplified Chinese: 毛泽东思想; traditional Chinese: 毛澤東思想; pinyin: Máo Zédōng Sīxiǎng), of which Maosim seems to me a reasonable English rendering. Algebraist 01:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Except the Communist Party of China disowns "Maoism" as represented by Maoist insurgents around the world, stating that it departs from and does not represent Mao Zedong Thought. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ornamental

In Northern Europe, were Moors ever kept ornamentally by affluent families-- brought out for parties, taught pleasantries in Dutch, etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.104.114 (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Slavery in Britain and Ireland and History of Slavery may be a good place to start. The term "moor" is somewhat imprecise; it could mean simply someone from Northwest Africa (i.e. Morroco or Mauritania, both of which have the same root word as Moor) or it could mean sub-saharan africans (Blackamoor) or even Sri Lankan Moors, the muslims of Sri Lanka. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This may be of interest. There were several black servants in the Scottish court (taken from a captured Portuguese slave ship, apparently) in the early 16th century, and the presence of one as the queen of beauty in a mock tournament would seem to constitute at least one "ornamental" appearance. (William Dunbar's poem associated with the event can be read here.) The use of another "Black-Moore" in a pageant, as described on page 4 of the source cited above, would perhaps constitute another. However, describing such individuals as being "kept ornamentally" seems debatable at best. Deor (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that raises the question of the difference between being used ornamentally for an occasion, as in dressing up the house slaves nice for the guests, but other wise having such slaves doing standard slave stuff otherwise, or keeping such slaves for the sole purpose of ornamentation; i.e. as living statues and nothing more. I think the former may have been much more common than the latter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, plenty of Europeans were kept as slaves in northern Africa (see Sack of Baltimore etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Shoulder angel, personalized

Greetings! The above article explains where the idea of an angel (right side) and the devil (left side) comes from.
However, when and where did it start, that these companions showed the actual face of the person in question? So far, I got back to the 1960ies Tom and Jerry cartoons; Homer met them too and some Disney characters (Donald and Goofy), of course. Is there a non-animated movie (from when?) which uses this symbolism? Looking forward to your suggestions! -- 12:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grey Geezer (talk • contribs)

Psychomachy, the battle between angels and devils for a man's soul, is a very old trope, going back to medieval morality plays. The word "psychomachy" comes from the poem Psychomachia, about a battle of personified vices and virtues, written ca. AD 400 by Prudentius. More modern examples include William Shakespeare's Sonnet 144, Alfred Tennyson's The Two Voices, Adam Mickiewicz's Dziady or Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's and Christopher Marlowe's accounts of the Faust story. See this photo of a column capital in the Autun Cathedral for a 12th-century example of the theme outside literature. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I just re-read the question and saw that my post didn't really answer it. Still, it looks like we need a decent article about the theme of psychomachy. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

offtopic: we have Psychopomp 83.100.250.79 (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Going back a long way the idea of a devil/angel dichotomy was common in middle ages images of the last judgement - with angels and devils in an almost symbiotic relationship - someone with a better knowledge of art could probably supply an example of a painting with devils and angels in a tug-o-war with a human (soul). See also [11] the section on "Ars Moriendi" which describes angel and devil struggling for possesion of a dyinh mans soul - particularily memorable is

The old print shows the dying man on his deathbed... Christ and the Virgin are at his side, but he does not see them, for a devil raises the covers behind his head and hides the heavens from him

- I've seen something similar (but less morbid) in those cartoons.

Here's another link between cartoons and middle ages religious art, just for fun.. [12] 83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Addtionally the idea of devil whispering in the ear is as old as the hills - eg try a search for "devil whisper ear" eg Shakespear - Titus Andromicus, also see http://www.trivia-library.com/a/origin-of-common-superstitions-spilling-salt.htm

An oddity File:Fouquet Madonna.jpg - no devils in this one - but the image is vaguely familiar - see the background.83.100.250.79 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's King David plus angel and devil vying for his attention - [13] 83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep screw that too, sorry- only just worked out what "actual face" mean, if it means "actual thought processes"?83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify what "show the actual face" means.83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the OP, but I assumed they were discussing the trope where, for example, Homer has a devil-Homer on one shoulder and an angel-Homer on the other, or Donald has a devil-Donald on one shoulder and an angel-Donald on the other. So they say the article already discusses the history of showing an angel and a devil on the shoulders, but it doesn't discuss the history of showing the angel and devil as, effectively, versions of the person. They wish to know if a non-animated film makes use of this trope, and where and when it started. Does this seem a fair reading of their question? 89.168.106.72 (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Identify this play

I saw a play in Winchester, UK about fifteen years ago. I remember very little about it, except it had a spiral staircase on stage. At the climax of the play, the main male character is electrocuted or suffers some other fall, and tumbles down the stairs. While he lies on the apron, another character appears, stalking round the stage, his head turned away. When he reveals his face, it is the same actor, or a twin - of the first, still visible male character.

Any ideas? I'll repost this in the entertainment section after a while, it was a bit of a tough call. Thanks 82.111.24.28 (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Are the United Kingdom and Canada in Personal Union?

OK, so we had a long discussion about this a while ago on a talk page. I don't know why I didn't think of this before, so I'd now like to put the question to some of Wikipedia's unsung heros - the ref desk guys!

I can't actually see anything that speaks against the Commonwealth realms being in personal union however it is almost equally as hard to find any sources stating that a personal union exists. The only evidence that can be found is a few obscure political commentaries and the dictionary definition of the term "two sovereign states that share a common monarch".

I'd be very interested in your personal comments on the subject, and thrilled by any sources anyone can find - I can't find anything myself! :) Best, --Cameron* 17:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are, according to a source whose author is given as "Canada. Parliament. House of Commons" - it sounds reliable! I'll keep looking! Surtsicna (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)You may be interested in such books as "personal+union"+canada&dq="personal+union"+canada&ei=wTxSSsW_MIOSNriI4eUC The Sovereignty of the British Dominions ("The British Empire has been dissolved in a number of states in personal union"), "personal+union"+canada&dq="personal+union"+canada&ei=wTxSSsW_MIOSNriI4eUC Handbook of international law, which provides a definition that UK, Canada, Australia, etc meet (separate governments, same HoS), "personal+union"+canada&dq="personal+union"+canada&ei=wTxSSsW_MIOSNriI4eUC Foreign Affairs which does much the same, and "personal+union"+canada&dq="personal+union"+canada&ei=wTxSSsW_MIOSNriI4eUC International law, which refers to the International Person through the dominions of Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, etc. Also, The Crowned Republic, which appears to be an Australian monarchist organisation refer to it as personal union. Hope this helps. --Saalstin (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes, and that Personal_union#Commonwealth_realms actually addresses the reality of the situation, in that this would be the correct, if archaic, description of the relationship. freshacconci talktalk 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Thanks, yes that section is, I believe the result of the discussions. Thanks for the other comments/sources too. Surtsicna, your source is a dream come true, I could kiss you!!! :) --Cameron* 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for pointing out the obvious, it's that the section of personal unions dealing with Commonwealth nations very much reflected my understanding of the term. freshacconci talktalk 18:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not usual to talk of Canada and the UK as being in personal union because they aren't - unlike Jersey or the Isle of Man and the UK - only in personal union. In countries usually discussed as being part of a personal union, the countries generally have little or no relationship other than being ruled by the same crowned head, and that's clearly not true of Commonwealth nations like Canada and the UK. - Nunh-huh 18:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

They are not just in personal union, of course, but that doesn't mean they are not in personal union at all. Anyway, thank you Cameron! I'm glad I was that helpful :) Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We used to be very close, but now we're separated, with occasional halfhearted grumblings about divorce. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've just liberally applied some fact tags. I don't think "functional importance" changes the legal nature at all. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What are these blue spots in my pictures?

File:Dalelempa bluespot01.jpg

File:Dalelempa bluespot02.jpg

File:Dalelempa bluespot03.jpg

File:Dalelempa bluespot04.jpg

All of these pictures were taken with a Nikon D40 and its standard kit lens, the AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6G ED. At first I thought it was lens flare, but now I'm not so sure. It doesn't seem like dust since it is blue, so my only other guess is some sort of sensor flaw, but I have taken pictures both before and after these without the weird blue spots. Also the photos here were not all taken consecutively; I had other exposures in between them that came out fine. Any ideas, and suggestions to avoid this problem? dlempa (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The pictures aren't showing--they either weren't loaded properly, or are deleted (wikipedia is not an image host), or something like that. Sensor dust can cause colored spots because of the Bayer filter over the sensor. If the pics were taken in low light it can be ordinary sensor noise. If you can get the spots to be out of focus by changing the lens focus, it's dust on or inside the lens. Without being able to see the shots it's hard to diagnose. 208.70.31.206 (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Photographs from Obrazove zpravodajstvi CTK archives

I have several photographs that belonged to my late father which depict The Massacre at Lidice.

These photographs are stamped on the reverse with Obrazove zpravodajstvi CTK archives.I have had them for several years and would like to know if they are of any interest to any organisation or individual.Curious60 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If they aren't copies of the photos available currently at our Lidice article or at the Google image search page for Lidice, and if you are the current legal owner of the photos and you wish to share them with the world, then scanning the photos yourself and uploading them to Flickr or Wikipedia is the easiest way to make the photos available to interested parties. First, scan the photos — front and back, separate files, since you make it sound like the reverse of each photo may be of interest — and save the photos to your computer's hard disk. If your scanner software allows, save them as PNG (or even TIFF) files to be sure that no lossy compression artifacts get baked in to the scan. (If this is not feasible then JPG-format files are fine; save the photos using the highest-possible quality setting, if your scanning software has such a setting.) Then you could head over to the Flickr website, create a new account, and then start uploading the photos. You can decide what license you want to impose on whoever is interested in reusing the photos. CC-by-sa is a license, for example, that would mean anyone can use the photos for any reason and must attribute them to you (presumably using your Flickr account name, whatever that is.) Tag the photos with a description of anything you know about the photos — the story of how your father obtained them and anything he told you about them — and you're done. Alternatively, here on Wikipedia, you can click "Upload file" off to the left of the screen and contribute them using the license of your choice; though here on Wikipedia there is the risk that your photos will be "nominated for deletion" at some point if they are not actually incorporated into an article, or if a skeptic doubts that you are being truthful about your ownership of the photo. Hence my recommendation to use Flickr. If you lack a scanner then you might contact World War 2 museums, such as this Lidice museum in the Czech Republic which might be interested. Tempshill (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Inheritance of German Noble Titles

HI there. Could somebody explain this to me: In Germany titles of nobility are not inherited by the heir but by all children of the title holder. Thus the children of a Freiherr are all known as Freiherr "Son 1", Freiherr "Son 2" and so on. The heir may place the word "Erb-" infront of his title to signify that he is his father's heir. Could anyone confirm that this is true. If this is true, surely half Germany would be entitled to use a title, seeing as both son 1 and 2's descendants would also inherit the title, as would their descendants and so on. I hope you can see where I am coming from. It's all rather complicated. If anybody has a useful English language link that explains German titles I'd also be interested. Thanks...--217.227.122.36 (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If only sons of sons, sons of sons of sons etc. (in a strict patrilineal line) inherit nobility, then it would not really be expected that an ever-increasing proportion of the general population would be noble over time...

The British pattern, in which the wife and children of a title-holder derive honorifics and precedence from him, but only the title-holder as an individual is really fully noble in a technical legal sense (so that, for example, Lord Astor's wife and son could be MP's in the House of Commons) was not the prevailing tradition on the Continent... AnonMoos (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that the nobility only tended to marry amongst themselves, there are lots of cousins marrying other cousins. In a perfect family tree where there are no familial marriages, you would get that diluting of nobility; each generation would produce more and more nobles. However, since the family tree of any noble family essentially folds in on itself, the size of the nobility grows MUCH slower than one would expect. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

But still, the lesser members of the lesser nobility tend to marry non-nobles rather frequently. Otherwise, how would it be that 80% of Englishmen are the descendents of King Edward III? Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The section about German nobility in the alt.talk.royalty faq is pretty good.[14] 208.70.31.206 (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Abdoulaye Wade's siblings?

Do Abdoulaye Wade have any siblings. I've google once on Abdoulaye Wade, I don't know if I can find that site again. If so, how many total. Is he oldest, youngest, if 6th is he the 4th?--69.229.111.118 (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Arap Moi's baptism?

Is Daniel Arap Moi baptize as Roman Catholic, or is he Sunni Muslim or he is some I don't know theologism. Since Mwai Kibaki is Catholic, on one of my geography book said most people in Kenya is Catholic, so will Moi be Catholic?--69.229.111.118 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Saint and devil image - confusion

There seems to be some confusion with this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Pacher_004.jpg

I've assumed it to be of Wolfsgang of Regensburg.

First of all I've seen it attributed to Moritz_von_Schwind which may be a mistake, but Wolfgang_of_Regensburg#After_his_death says "A fine modern picture by Schwind is in the Schak Gallery at Munich"

(ignore) Has anyone got a link to this to show it's a different painting.

Found it - if this is right http://www.my-art-prints.co.uk/UK/fine-art-prints/Moritz-von-Schwind/Legend-of-the-bishop-and-the-devil-1005493.html

Elsewhere says the painting may be of Theophilus_of_Adana or Augustine of Hippo.

• I can't work out why it could be Augustine of Hippo - can some one explain. Thanks.

However at http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/bio/p/pacher/biograph.html I can't find the piece - but there is a devil tempting christ picture (could this be a source of confusion) - see image

• Can someone say whether or not there is any real lack of certainty over who the image is of.also why is it in Overlord_(alien_race)#Karellen ????

Thanks.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Pornography for the blind

Is there a market for it? I assume there must be. What forms does it take? CD? MP3? I assume it must be audio-based, but perhaps it could have a tactile element. I suppose this question is in poor taste, but I'm genuinely curious. LANTZY^TALK 23:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could have pornographic books printed in braille. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 23:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You know you could type "blind porno" into GOOGLE, like I did - and get the answer - such as this http://pornfortheblind.org/ which probably has a lot you wanted to know..83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Porn is a many splendored thing. LANTZY^TALK 23:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

July 7

Kalkot Mataskelekele's wife

Is this possible that Kalkot Mataskelekele wife to be older than Kalkot. All evidence given is Kalkot's wife have some white hair, hybridding with brown hair. Kalkot have gray hair he is born in 1949 so 59 or 60 depending on his b-day. I don't know anything said the wife is to be how old, but it is less likely to be younger than 1953, gray or white hair shows people is likely to be old. Even pitch black hair could odd people to be at least 60. Like Paul Biya 76 years old (b. 2/13/1933), pitch black hair, his facial look like 40s.--69.229.111.118 (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no knowledge on your specific question (and also no particular idea why you're asking it), but as a general matter, it's highly inexact and quite dubious to attempt to estimate people's ages by the amount of grey in their hair (even leaving aside the possibility of dye). My uncle was starting to show a significant amount of grey in his hair in his early 40's... AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Homographs

Are there any languages without homographs? 94.3.146.39 (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

All the languages with no written form, for a start. Algebraist 01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I would wager that Spanish has relatively few, especially since its orthography has a systematic means of preventing them, namely, by putting an acute accent over a vowel: si/sí, como/cómo, mate/maté, tu/tú, etc. However, this system is not perfect, and there are still quite a few: for example 'haya', beech tree or a form of the verb haber; 'vino', wine or a form of the verb venir; etc. (A commenter at this thread provides a list of Spanish homographs, of which most of the examples are not true homographs but examples of polysemy.) LANTZY^TALK 01:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, constructed languages like Esperanto and especially Lojban probably have few if any homographs. LANTZY^TALK 01:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

North Korean diplomacy

I guess this is more of a humanities question than a language question: when North Korea is involved in diplomatic affairs, like the Six Party Talks, what language do they use? Would they use Chinese? Russian? English? Or just Korean, with translators? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal union during war

Reading the personal union of Canada and the UK question above, I wondered: what is the official status of the monarch if two countries that are in personal union go to war? I don't mean something like Norway and Sweden, since Norway wasn't trying to become totally independent while retaining the House of Bernadotte. Instead, I mean something such as the invasion of Grenada, in which Jamaican soldiers participated; or if war had erupted between the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary during the period of Austria–Hungary? I know that the UK protested the invasion of Grenada, but I'm not sure that such a protest could change the queen's legal standing in that situation. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)