Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Scsbot (talk | contribs)
edited by robot: adding date header(s)
Line 18: Line 18:
Is there any website where it compares and contrasting on multiculturalism in USA and multiculturalism in Canada? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.64.53.139|76.64.53.139]] ([[User talk:76.64.53.139|talk]]) 01:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Is there any website where it compares and contrasting on multiculturalism in USA and multiculturalism in Canada? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.64.53.139|76.64.53.139]] ([[User talk:76.64.53.139|talk]]) 01:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Have a look -- [[Cultural mosaic]]. [[User:Vranak|Vranak]] ([[User talk:Vranak|talk]]) 14:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
:Have a look -- [[Cultural mosaic]]. [[User:Vranak|Vranak]] ([[User talk:Vranak|talk]]) 14:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there any better result than this?


== final total from benefit concerts ==
== final total from benefit concerts ==

Revision as of 00:53, 2 November 2009

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
Select a section:
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.



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:



October 26

Jesus and Muhammed

[Moved from Talk:Jesus#Jesus_and_Muhammed]

I am writting a paper on Jesus and Muhammed and have a question. Christians believe that Jesus is God. Correct? And Islam believe that Muhammed was a prophet sent by God. Correct? So is it this the same God. Jesus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.238.49 (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The God of the Christians is the God of Abraham/Ibrahim, who was the father of Ismail and Isaac. The God of the Christians is thus the same God as the God of the Muslims - we are all cousins. Christians also believe that, about 2000 years ago, God sent his divine son to earth to live for a time as a human, who was named Yeshua (in Greek this name is pronounced “Jesus”.) Jesus was thus an ordinary human whose ordinary human spirit was replaced at birth with the spirit of the divine son of God. When the human body of Jesus was killed, the spirit of the divine son returned to earth briefly to finish its work, and then went back to heaven where it rejoined with God. This happened hundreds of years before Muhammed was called to service by God, so the son of God (which had lived in Jesus) was by then back in heaven together with God. Wdford (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Marcionites and many Gnostics did not believe that Jesus was the son of the Judean god, but rather sent by a higher god (arguing something along the line that the "real real" god would not have created an imperfect universe). And I do think that "Jesus was thus an ordinary human whose ordinary human spirit was replaced at birth with the spirit of the divine son of God" is an opinion many mainstream churches would gladly burn you for (or whatever they do with heretics in these sadly civilized times). But yes, conventionally the god of Abraham is the god of Jesus and the god of Muhammad. Jesus is seen as an important prophet in Islam, but not as the son of god. See Jesus in Islam. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. This question is as poorly worded as possible. All that is being asked is: "Does Islam consider Jesus to be God?" The answer is a simple "No." -- kainaw 21:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another simple way of putting it is this: Christians believe that Jesus was God in human form. Moslems do not believe this, even though they believe in the same God. Grutness...wha? 21:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you expect there to be a god, which you cannot easily find yourself? St.Trond (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from giving your opinion unless you have something meaningful to contribute directly to the question asked by the OP. If you want to merely discuss your opinions on the subject, feel free to visit the countless religion discussion forums specifically for that purpose. Vespine (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always puzzled by talk as to whether Christians and Muslims worship "the same god". Clearly the concept of God is quite different between the two religions. Most Christians believe that God is a trinity, in other words a union of three "persons", one of which became incarnate as Jesus. This is radically different from the Muslim point of view. So in what sense are they "the same God"? --rossb (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Trinity is a Roman Catholic doctrine that is by no means universally regarded as either true or significant by all Christian sects. Jews, Christians, Muslims all consider themselves to be followers of the God of Abraham. But they have different views and interpretations of the nature of that God. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots22:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Trinity is much more than a "Roman Catholic doctrine." Surely there are Christians who don't accept it, but please note the following from Wikipedia's article on the Trinity:
Trinitarianism, belief in the Trinity, is a mark of Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and all the mainstream traditions arising from the Protestant Reformation, such as Anglicanism, Methodism, Lutheranism and Presbyterianism. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church describes the Trinity as "the central dogma of Christian theology".
--Dpr
The "central dogma" of Christianity is that Jesus was the Messiah. That's where Christianity parts ways with both Judaism and Islam. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots17:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both Christianity and Islam are religions based on Judaism. The Hebrew bible, the Tanakh is pretty much Christianity's Old Testament which is also the basis for a lot of the Islamic scripture, the Qu'ran. From the Qu'ran article: The Qur'an assumes familiarity with major narratives recounted in Jewish and Christian scriptures, summarizing some, dwelling at length on others, and, in some cases, presenting alternative accounts and interpretations of events. Hence, it can almost be said that Christianity and Islam are just reforms of the Jewish faith, obviously quite radical reforms but they all still believe in the same God.Vespine (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verily do I say unto thee: read carefully (and follow the links at) the article: Jesus in Islam.
To sum up: Christians believe that Jesus (BBHN) is the Incarnation/Manisfestation of Allah (from the Arabic/Semitic name for "God") on Earth. Be that as it may (or may not) be: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are, together, the three main branches of all "Abrahamic" religion. Wikiscient 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Catholic church shaped the idea of trinity, meaning that there are three entities and each is presumably deity. There is no trinity in Islam. One of the main principles of Judaism is that God have no shape or form of body and that we can't know anything about it aside for its commands manifestations and the Rambam also wrote that we can only inferwhat God isn't (to a very limit extent). So, it's very different from both Islam and Christianity --Gilisa (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do people of other religions than christianity use their god to swear as commonly?

I think it's safe to say (definitely in America, at least) that it's fairly common to hear a very angry person say "Jesus Christ!" or "G-d dammit!" (self-edited in case there are sensitive ears here, but you know what I mean). I wonder if Buddha, Allah, and others get used in the same way as commonly in other parts of the world. 71.161.59.133 (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a statement would be taboo in observant Judaism. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 01:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those statements are forbidden to Christians as well, but many self-identified Christians make them anyway. Marco polo (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wondering about the forbidden-ness of the terms, I'm just wondering if blasphemies of the deities of other religions have established themselves in the lexicons of the other cultures of the world as those two phrases have. 71.161.59.133 (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The greeks used to invoke gods in swears as well. Here is a page that talks about it [1]. Pollinosisss (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's common to hear (mainland) Chinese people exclaim "Oh my heavens!" or "Oh my god!" depending on how you want to translate it, although by Western classification they're nearly all atheist (or even shamanist!). Whether that phrase is endemic or has been adapted from exposure to English culture I cannot say. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven worship predates Christianity by several millenia. Even if the expression was adopted from foreign influence, it probably isn't English - early missionaries were more likely to be Italian or French. The earliest form of Christianity to have flourished in China was Nestorianism. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Truman, during talks with Stalin, the leader of an officially atheist nation, reported that Stalin invoked the expression "God willing" during one of their meetings. Even an atheist can ask for God's blessings, while a religious person can ask God to condemn. It happens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots02:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that the USSR was "an officially atheist nation" is a misconception, one that I ran into before. Actually, the only officially atheist nation ever was communist Albania, which declared itself to be atheist in its constitution and banned religion outright. The USSR discouraged religion strongly, yes, but it wasn't officialy atheist. </OT> TomorrowTime (talk) 07:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Stalin article states that he himself was atheist. Is that a certainty, or is that original synthesis, based on the assumption that "all commies are atheists"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots07:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd never know. The old man wouldn't give a slightest clue and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that his personal tastes differed from his public policies. Incidentally, a search of his published papers and speeches yields no trace of any personal statements on religion or atheism. The topic "Was S. an atheist" has been debated in and out, and the answer is: we know what he did but we don't know what he was. NVO (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Stalin article indicates his true beliefs were kind of a mystery, so calling him an "atheist" in the fact box seems kind of questionable. It also mentions how he encourage the churches during WWII, for mercenary reasons, i.e. they served a means to an end. He was hardly the first to do that kind of thing, for sure. For example, the Pope sitting there saying nothing while the Jews were being rounded up. A man may compromise himself a great deal to keep his job. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots07:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for... Yes, like the Queen sitting there, or like you sat in your chair surfing the internet while people are still in Guantanamo Bay. What should the Pope have done rather than sitting there: marched out with a bandolier of grenades? If you're interested in some actual historical fact, why not try reading the (badly titled) Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, which would lead you to Mit brennender Sorge, an extremely important encyclical written (unusually, and to ensure wide exposure) in German and widely distributed in Germany in 1937, before Kristalnacht, before Poland, before the ghetto and the death camps. Or perhaps you meant only Pious XII? In which case, Summi Pontificatus and Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust would probably be interesting reading. The truth is more complicated than the soundbite of "evil Catholic Church".86.144.144.110 (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Catholic Church has only recently achieved some moral high ground. More recently than World War II, for sure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots21:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know I shouldn't. I know I shouldn't. I know I...So what, precisely, do you mean? Given that I've shown you many places where you can read that the Pope did not "[sit] there saying nothing while the Jews were being rounded up", but actually did something positioning himself and the Church in opposition to it, which brought heavy repercussions for many Catholics. That anti-Catholic feeling continues to be acceptable in many countries does not mean that the Church, or the Pope, or individuals, necessarily conform(ed) to the "hilarious" things people say. 86.144.144.110 (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear this up: Gautama Buddha is not a god, nor is any of the Buddhas considered a god by Buddhists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Buddhists believe in any god or gods in the conventional sense? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots17:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought Dainichi Nyorai was the closest Buddhists got to a deity. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Formally, Buddhists do not believe in the existence of a god or gods. However, at the level of folk religion, some people who identify as Buddhists may worship entities with godlike qualities. Marco polo (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do they formally or informally believe in an afterlife? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots20:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scriptures of Buddhism refer to gods (small g) in various realms e.g. in Buddha's statement that he would depart to "a place where he would be seen by no man nor god" (Mahaparinibbana Sutta). Buddhist scriptures describe a range of after-life destinations, some involving more or less fortunate rebirths depending on one's accumulated karma. Tibetan buddhists have a Book of the Dead Bardo Thodol that gives details of between-lives experience. It appears that Gautama Buddha the founder of Buddhism consistently refused to affirm or deny his belief in an almighty creator "God", consistent with his dictate to disciples never to debate "eternal things". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the OP's question Buddha is believed by buddhists to have been an enlightened but otherwise normal human, so disparaging the person is disrespectful but there is no Blasphemy in Buddhism. For example, the wilful destruction of the Buddhas of Bamyan statues was regarded as a sad cultural loss only. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a former Zen Buddhist (including a brief stint as a monk) I can vouch that Buddhists can't care less about such things. (We routinely said the word Buddha out loud, by the way, but he isn't a God, so it didn't matter.) They're more concerned with clearing their mind, and living their lives in the most productive way possible. There certainly is literature in the libraries of Zen monasteries that explains principles of the dharma, the sutra, and so on. But, those are emphasized by Western scholars and Christian visitors much more than Buddhists themselves. I have also worked with Thai and Lao communities (who are members of the Theravadan branch of Buddhism). The monks in those communities spend most of the day sitting still meditating (just like Zen Buddhists). They don't think about anything -- just clearing their mind. That's how Buddha spent his day, as well. Buddha mentioned that you are re-incarnated when you die (the dharma) and that there is a Noble Eightfold Path ([1] knowledge of the truth; [2] the intention to resist evil; [3] saying nothing to hurt others; [4] respecting life, morality, and property; [5] holding a job that does not injure others; [6] striving to free one's mind of evil; [7] controlling one's feelings and thoughts; and [8] practicing proper forms of concentration). But, again, you cannot do the first six things if you cannot properly perform last two. That is why it is so important to take control of yourself first, and then implement the first principles. You'd be surprised how many Christians came to our temple (including Catholic monks and nuns). Protestants in particular emphasize the Bible, and they are puzzled by the Buddhist emphasis on shutting the fuck up and staring at a wall. Then, we would chant for a few minutes and the sensei would give a short lecture. The lecture was often surreal and nonsensical (nonsense being a tool used to clear your mind). I never got involved with Tibetan Buddhists because their community was too commercialized and there weren't any Tibetans in their sangha. They were all Americans.
So, try not to approach Buddhism asking where their God is, what their bible is, etc. It's a whole different ball game.--Drknkn (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arabic invokes Allah in many normal expression ("God willing", "whatever God wants", etc), and this reminds me of an article: Niall Christie, "The Origins of Suffixed Invocations of God's Curse on the Franks in Muslim Sources for the Crusades," Arabica, vol 48 (2001), No 2, pp 254-66. (Basically, Muslim sources always say "may God curse their bones" or something similar whenever the crusaders are mentioned.) I don't know if that counts but I suppose it's the same general idea. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a Spanish idiom "ojalá que" which vaguely translates to "I wish that" but comes from the Arabic expression, obviously added before the Reconquista. I've never heard it explained as having any religious meaning, and when an English speaker says "darn it" there isn't usually any religious implication. It's funny to go back to Chaucer and here people exclaiming "'sfut!" (Christ's foot) in dismay, so the non-religious religious statements in English are clearly not a modern invention. SDY (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If these answers about the choice of words for swearing are not sufficient, I suggest you ask again on the Language Desk. BrainyBabe (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clock Question

To whom it may concern:

Bsck in 1993 I was given a hand made clock with two cards (A and J)on the left, in the middle is the clock (with the back ground a 12 noon heart, 3 o'clock club, 6 o'clock diamond & a 9 o'clock spand symbols), and the top right side is a red chip with a very large 'B' and around the B is the words; ROULETTE, top and bottom. On the bottom of the right side ia a red book of matches that reads: HOLIDAY CASINO, ON THE STRIP, BETWEEN SANDS & FLAMINGO HOTELS, address is as follows: 3473 LAS VEGAS BLVD, SOUTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89109 (all lettering is in white caps). The frame is oblong: length: 12 3/4"--width: 6 3/4"--depth: 2 1/8--with a clear glass front.

I have looked all over the internet to see if I could find any item and or casino that even came close to this hanging item, I did come very close to finding a casino on the strip in Las Vegas, which made me fill pretty good. I also found a little info that Holiday Inn bought the Holidy Casino out around the early 70's.

Could you please help me find out some info on this item. I thought that maybe a collector or someone would be insterested in buying it.

I just want to say thank you for your help either way.

Bess Wilkins Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.134.33 (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(Removed email address) According to the article Holiday Casino, it is now Harrah's. You might get in touch with them. They may have a museum on site about the history of the casino. Bielle (talk) 03:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How TALL was King George IV ?

Dear SIrs,

I would hesitate to criticise any aspect of Wikipedea but the article on King George IV of the UK misses one important detail

How TALL was the man- makes a BIG difference if he's six foot or a "mere" five foot five high. This minor detail gives a better idea of his actual bulk- forget BMI, that confuses the likes of the undersigned!

I tried to determine the height but failed- perhaps your goodselves have the resources to nail the point!

Rgds

Bill Evan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.118.46 (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of reformatting your question to make it more legible. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galeros

Apparently, in Roman Catholic cathedrals, the tradition is to hang the galeros of cardinals from the ceiling when they die, where they (clarification, the galeros) remain until they have completely decomposed. How long does this take on average? Thanks. 169.231.34.158 (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: What noun does the third "they" refer to ? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am wondering how long it takes a galero to completely disintegrate. Sorry about all the theys. I assume it takes a long time, but the Church has been around for a long time, so I'm hoping someone knows this information. Thanks. 169.231.34.158 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.130.57 (talk) [reply]

Upon some g**gling I found that the grave of John Henry Newman (who had died in 1890), when opened in 2008, contained a few red tassels of his galero. His body seems to have decomposed completely. Our article states "no remains were found because of the coffin having been wooden and the burial having taken place in a damp site". Based on this I assume that the hat, when hanging in a cool, well ventilated church would last for a quite lengthy time. This picture [2] shows 5 galeros suspended in the Holy name Cathedral in Chicago. For obscure reasons, searching for the Chicago Cardinals in the WP shows entirely different headgear. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that fabrics hanging in cathedrals would last a very long time indeed, perhaps due to the cool dry air. In the UK, it is the tradition for the local infantry regiment to hang it's retired "colours" (i.e. the regimental flags once carried in battle) in its "home" cathedral. Some of these date from the 18th Century[3]. In Canterbury Cathedral hangs part of the armour of Edward, the Black Prince[4] who died in 1376. At least part of that seems to be made of textiles. It seems to be in a display case now, but in my 1960s childhood it hung in the open above his tomb.Alansplodge (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK House of Commons - Opposition Day Motions

I was watching Parliament the other day and the motion being debated at the time was something like "The Government has handled the financial crisis badly". The Government tabled an amendment which was the complete opposite of the original motion. Guess which one got voted in? Now, what was the point of all this? I know it is the Opposition's job to hold the Government to account, but it just seems pointless to me when anything you table will get voted down and amended. There was a vote (when Blair was in I believe, something to do with Royal Mail?) that Labour back benchers voted with the Tories, so that at least was pragmatic! Rixxin (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, for once in British politics, it's not the vote that counts. On Opposition Days, the Conservatives or the Lib Dems will table a motion (recently it was ...calls on the Government to scrap the identity card scheme,) knowing that it won't happen – obviously the government won't drop the idea, they have a majority, why would they?
And the government will propose an amendment, like ...replace the motion with, "very concerned at the rise of identity theft...") so that they can have a position in the debate and the division/vote that comes at the end. But Opposition Days are about the oppurtunity for the Tories to require a government minister stand up and defend his position. ╟─TreasuryTagprorogation─╢ 09:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, the term "table" means exactly opposite things in British Parliamentary parlance vs. US Congressional parlance. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TreasuryTag is correct - the point of opposition days is to have a debate, not primarily to win a vote. We have had several Governments with landslide majorities recently and the opposition days do not stop merely because there is no chance of the opposition winning. Nor would there be much effect if the opposition did win: the motions are simply expressions of opinion. I think the Gurkha debate on 29 April this year is the sole example in history of an opposition motion on an opposition day being passed by the House (see Hansard HC 6ser vol 491 cols 890-931). In itself the motion did nothing, but it led the Government to announce a change of policy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I can't think of any other examples. Sometimes the opposition manages to get an amendment to a government bill passed, but usually only with government support. Occasionally rebel majority party MPs means a government loses a vote and either a government bill fails or is amended against the government's will. That is the only way the opposition can actually have a direct impact on legislation/government policy - they can have quite a lot of influence at the committee stage, but I don't think they can force through anything at that point without at least some support from the majority party. --Tango (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before the present system of 'Opposition days' was brought in, there was a system of 'Opposition Supply Days'. If we except motions of no confidence (an opposition motion debated in Government time), then the last occasion on which an opposition motion was supported was 11 February 1976 when a motion to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for Industry by half was passed by 214 to 209. This was, however, an occasion of confusion because there had been a miscount and some MPs were unaware that the division was continuing. The previous occasion was on 27 June 1974 when an opposition motion stressing the need for a fundamental reform of the rating system, urging Her Majesty’s Government to introduce interim relief for the worst affected in that year, and to provide that water and sewerage charges should rank for rate rebate, was passed by 298 to 289. It was not until 1989 (Scotland) and 1990 (England and Wales) that the rating system was fundamentally reformed, and we all know what a success that reform was. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, of course, we don't all know what a success that was or wasn't because most readers of the Reference desk reside outside the UK and may not even know what a "rating system" (for local property-tax assessment and collection, I think, in U.S. terms) is. The period between February 1974 and April 1976, for those who may not know or remember, was a time of closely-divided parliaments whose votes could be swung by the dissent or abstention of a few rebel, independent, or minor-party MP's. —— Shakescene (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People, thanks for the answers. --Rixxin (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Governor-General of the United Kingdom

When the Statute of Westminster 1931 was being brought into existence, was any consideration given to creating a "Governor-General of the United Kingdom"? Or since? All the other Commonwealth realms have one, and their Prime Ministers normally communicate directly with their G-Gs, and only occasionally with the monarch. We're all lead to believe that the Realms are all equal in standing in every way, the UK having no kind of special status any more. Indeed, it's often been said that the Commonwealth would continue unabated even if the UK were somehow to be expelled from the Commonwealth. Yet, the UK PM talks directly to the Queen rather than to a vice-regal representative, and she (at least nominally, although it's done in her name by the Lords Commissioners in most cases) gives Royal Assent to acts of the UK Parliament, whereas acts of the other parliaments are normally assented to by the relevant G-G (only in special cases is such an act reserved for the monarch's personal signature). Some might say "What's the point? They're both based in London, so why complicate matters by introducing a middle man?". I can see that, and of course the Commonwealth is intimately connected to the UK historically. But symbolically - and that's really the essence of governor-generalship - it would be very fitting. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please thank Hansard on my behalf. Okay, so it's 1968, but basically the same thing, just retrospectively. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 20:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many cultures, the British included, have a deep-seated objection to creating pointless government positions. As you so correctly state above, with the Queen's ready availability in London, such a post would be utterly irrelevant. Besides, having the GG do all the things that GGs do in other Commonwealth countries would make the Queen even less relevant in Britain. Besides, we'd then have to pay A GG in addition to all the royals. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first Leader in The Times on 29 January 1937, on the subject of the Regency Bill, said:
The Times was extremely close to Buckingham Palace in the 1930s, so much so that King George V was despatched from this world to the next in order that his death would make their deadlines. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope no one will mind if I pick up on a point mentioned by Tango above...George V indeed faced an accelerated demise for the benefit of the Times...Such an incredible detail of history merits being repeated for general interest. According to our article on the subject:
Dawson admits hastening the King's end by giving him a lethal injection of cocaine and morphine, both to prevent further strain on the family and so that the news of his death could be announced in the morning edition of The Times newspaper.[50][51] He died at 11:55 p.m.[52] --Dpr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.194.50 (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After 3 edit conflicts... The UK also has a special judicial role in the Commonwealth - Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council hears certain appeals from some other Commonwealth countries. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (which hears the cases) is made up of British judges. --Tango (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) It may just be due to the fact that the Queen spends the majority of her time in the UK. The G-G is only the Queen's representative in her absence, and I seem to recall hearing that the G-G loses all "official" power the moment the Queen steps foot in the country. If that's correct, while the Queen is physically in the UK there is no need for a G-G (edit: as he'd be powerless most of the time). One may ask why there isn't a G-G for those times the Queen is out of the country, but it may just be that there isn't a real need - you can just wait for her to get back. I would speculate that if the Queen ever decided to relocate to Canada/Australia/etc. on a long-term basis, the UK might then gain a Governor General, though tradition and the ability to just phone her directly may trump that need. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually not true that the GGs lose their power (the little they have) when the Queen is present. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"what little they have": In fact, in some circumstances, they have more power than the Queen. For example, Sir John Kerr sacked the government of Gough Whitlam (the reasons are described in detail at 1975 Australian constitutional crisis). It has often been stated that, if the decision had been up to the Queen, she would never have taken that action. Not because her view of how best to resolve the crisis would necessarily have been any different from Kerr's, but because she basically does not have the power to appoint Prime Ministers other than those of the UK, and therefore would always leave decisions about sackings etc to the relevant Governor-General. Her private reactions to Kerr's decision are alleged to have included horror; but publicly, she clearly distanced herself from the issue, saying it was a matter for the Governor-General alone. And there is a well-defined school of thought that governors-general are not just there as representatives of the monarch, but have a range of powers in their own right that the monarch does not have. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given recent changes in the UK, I can see a time when a GG for Scotland is a likelihood rather than a possibility (and if so, I think the best person for the job would probably be Princess Anne -she's generally liked north of the border and it would appease Scottish royalists as well). Grutness...wha? 00:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would either a self-ruling Kingdom of Scotland or the Queen of Scots see the need for a Governor-General? She's perfectly capable of the far more challenging task of being Supreme Governor of the Church of England while in England & Wales, and the protectress of the Church of Scotland (different structure, different theology) when north of the Border, although it's true that appointed Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland represents the Crown in her absence. Were the Irish as part of some long-term settlement to rejoin the Commonwealth as a Dominion as they were before 1949 (a status in which Eamonn de Valera, of all people, kept Eire in hopes of easing reunion with loyalist Ulster), they'd surely not want the return of a Governor-General or Viceroy. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So. I see I'm not the first person to consider this question. If it was good enough for The Times, ... Thanks for those refs, Jarry and Sam. You make a very good point, 128.104.112.179. My question was predicated on the need for a certain constitutional distance between the monarch and her prime ministers, which might in theory apply regardless of the shortness of any geographical distance. The Times' reference to "symmetry" was what I was on about. I assume that if there were a Commonwealth Realm in the English Channel (e.g. if the Channel Islands were converted into one, separate from the UK), they'd have a Governor-General regardless of the fact that they're within spitting distance of the UK. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DOCTOR WHO QUESTION

Question moved to Entertainment desk Tevildo (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


October 27

Founder of Wikipedia

Who is the genius founder of Wikipedia ? Rishabh Somany —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnujSomany (talkcontribs) 07:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Wikipedia page.Popcorn II (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a slightly controversial issue, but according to Wikipedia, it was founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Jimmy Wales argues that Larry Sanger shouldn't be considered a founder, but the reliable sources suggest otherwise so he is described as a founder in Wikipedia (our article on Larry discusses the controversy). --Tango (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even Jimbo himself admitted more recently that he should not be considered the sole founder, and time was he openly called Larry the co-founder. However, I notice that a recent paragraph of comment from him in The Guardian called him "the founder" again, although the article it was attached to had several ridiculous errors regarding Wikipedia (such as getting the date it was opened to public editing out by 3 years). I tend to see it as not controversial at all: it's just that Jimbo and Larry fell out. 86.144.144.110 (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has he? I haven't seen any such admission. He usually just avoids the topic these days. --Tango (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justices of the UK Supreme Court

Does anyone know how many of the justices are Jewish, or have Jewish roots/connections? I've identified Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers [5] and (by the look of his parents' names) Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and wondered if there were any others. Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, who recently stepped down, is very much Jewish, of course... Anyway, thanks! ╟─TreasuryTagCaptain-Regent─╢ 10:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Blagojevich gag order?

Interviewed on The Daily Show last month, Rod Blagojevich said that federal prosecutors had obtained a court order prohibiting him from quoting his wiretap tapes. He said that his lawyers had heard all the tapes, and he had heard some of them, and he was allowed to paraphrase the tapes but not quote them directly, even for use in his own impeachment trial. This question was raised on Talk:Rod Blagojevich corruption charges but I am still wondering whether the court order was independently reported in the news media, and whether the court's reasons for making the order were published online. --Mathew5000 (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been reported quite widely, as searching Google News would show. The order is apparently because the court is worried about Blagojevich influencing potential jurors and therefore they've banned him from discussing evidence relating to the trial.[6] --Lesleyhood (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That article you linked to is referring to a court hearing from this month; his appearance on The Daily Show was last month, and he was apparently referring to a court order rendered in 2008 or early 2009 (before his impeachment conviction). --Mathew5000 (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SABAM and the freedom of panorama

Is the following sentence true: “SABAM does not recognize the freedom of panorama”? --88.78.239.155 (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(For those who are clueless as I am, SABAM is apparently something of a Belgian equivalent to the RIAA.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but "freedom of panorama"? Does this mean Panama? Or is this about public domain music? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost certain it means this sort. I think it is probably true; there is no freedom of panorama in Belgium as a whole, and I can imagine SABAM being against the introduction of such a law. To expand on Mr. 98, our article mentions that "The members of SABAM are not only composers, poets and musicians text, but also writers, poets, artists, publishers, visual artists, architects, designers, choreographers, photographers, film and television directors, etc.", the latter groups more interested in the legal concept of FoP.- Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 14:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which Belgian building has to do with this section? --88.77.252.209 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having to guess what you mean, but if it helps, SABAM includes architects, and they design buildings. In some places, the building can't be photographed without the permission of the architect. Freedom of panorama usually goes against this. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody is just going to have to ask them. Some architects would be all for "freedom of panorama" and some, against it. Our answers so far have just been speculation. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Atomium in Brussels? --88.77.252.209 (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have read Atomium#Worldwide copyright claims shows that SABAM are attempting to enforce the copyright of the architect(s) involved. Basically, they are saying that people have to ask the architect before photographing it. Since the architect(s) is/are part of SABAM, SABAM is trying to prevent the use of pictures of it. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suspect that SABAM doesn't take a position on freedom of panorama—the question is whether the local copyright laws recognize it, and SABAM is interested in enforcing said laws to the maximum degree possible (as is their purpose as an organization). Whether they have lobbied for it or against it, I do not know—I suspect you would need someone who was versed in Belgian copyright disputes to know, and there are probably no such people on this particular Reference Desk. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identify this book

When I was in early elementary school (about 15 years ago), I remember reading a book where a lady has a cat named Sam who doesn't like fish, so when Sam left to join a group of cats in another building the lady used the fish to separate Sam from the rest of the cats. What was this book titled? 128.237.248.254 (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aunt Eater Loves a Mystery. —Wayward Talk 10:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MIT's budget

Does anybody knows what part of MIT's budget come from governmental grants and what part based on endowments?--Gilisa (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://web.mit.edu/facts/financial.html is a starting point, although "research revenues" is not split into government vs. private sources. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon's relative

Napoleon Bonaparte gave most of his siblings, and stepchildren title or arrange good marriage for them. Did he have any Ramolino or Bonaparte cousins from his mother or father side who he bestowed on royal titles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.22.26 (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One instance, at least: Comte d'Ornano is not a royal title, but it is one of the French Empire, and Philippe Antoine d'Ornano was Bonaparte's second cousin.... - Nunh-huh 01:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C.

I have a question for my English project (and that is a thing which is not bad to be found on an Washington, D.C. article). Does District of Columbia means District of the CDP Columbia, Maryland?
Greetings from Mostar and thanks,--77.221.8.180 (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the U.S. capital is not in Maryland. The capital district was given the name "Columbia", which also appears in various other places in the U.S. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It refers to Columbia, a poetic name for the United States (e.g. CBS is the "Columbia Broadcasting System"). This is mentioned in the Washington, D.C. article, History section, paragraph 3: "On September 9, 1791, the federal city was named in honor of George Washington, and the district was named the Territory of Columbia, Columbia being a poetic name for the United States in use at that time." -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(multiple ec)The Columbia MD article you linked to indicates it was barely a gleam in anybody's eye until the 1960's. Washington DC was in existence for a few years prior to that. So what do you think? --LarryMac | Talk 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another point - it's called the District of Colombia, because the word "District" is used in Article One of the United States Constitution, which provides that the capital of the USA is to be in an area that's not administered by any individual State. It doesn't just mean "the vicinity of", although I can see why that might be confusing. Tevildo (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article 1 does actually not require the creation of a capital district; it just allows Congress and the relevant states to agree to create such a distrinct, and specifies that Congress alone has legislative power if it happens. --Anonymous, 00:00 UTC, October 28, 2009.
The key part of of the "D.C." part, is that it means that it legally does not technically exist in any particular state. It is meant to be thus totally independent from the local squabbles of states, and not privileging any one state. (In practice, it finds itself today with almost no political representation at all, which has its downsides, to be sure.) So it is not really in Maryland, or Delaware, or Virginia, the three states which surround it. It's not in any state. "D.C." is a unique political entity in the U.S., and "Washington" is its sole city (well, they are technically one and the same at this point, but I think it works fine on a conceptual level). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters, Delaware is not actually adjacent to DC. --Anon, 00:01 UTC, October 28, 2009.
Ah, yeah. That's right. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, while the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit hears cases from the surrounding states of Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, there's a separate United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, covering just the non-state of Washington, D.C. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


October 28

Poor people as an engine of economy

Just would like to know whether my assumptions about the poor or middle class are basically correct:

  • 1) poor people are essential to contain inflation rate and the money value; as such, poor people regulate the prices, keeping them relatively low, and influence discounts
  • 2) as the number of poor people grows, the purchasing capacity decreases, so at some theoretical point nearly every poor man would be able to buy chic and luxurious things because the salespeople are forced to slash down the prices
  • 3) significant amount of poor people may affect such areas as the waste management, making it cheaper (less waste products) 217.25.31.177 (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First ask: how do you define poor people?
In point 2 especially - if a "poor man" who could not previously afford luxuries now can, in ordinary parlance he may well be considered "no longer poor".
On point 3: you seem to assume that "poor people", however defined, exhibit the characteristic of producing less waste. Assuming this, it would mean that there is less demand for waste processing services, which, in the long run, would likely lead to a contraction in the market. Since waste management is likely to be a scale business - high economies of scale when proceessing a lot of rubbish compared to a little - this probably leads to higher cost per tonne of waste processed.
You may want to start by reading supply and demand. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well, some articles come close to your questions:
1) substituting unemployed for poor, "The natural rate of unemployment therefore corresponds to the unemployment rate prevailing under a classical view of determination of activity. It is mainly determined by the economy's supply side, and hence production possibilities and economic institutions. If these institutional features involve permanent mismatches in the labor market or real wage rigidities, the natural rate of unemployment may feature involuntary unemployment." from Natural rate of unemployment.
2) "The term liquidity trap is used in Keynesian economics to refer to a situation where the demand for money becomes infinitely elastic, i.e. where the demand curve is horizontal, so that further injections of money into the economy will not serve to further lower interest rates."
3) i got nothing for this one.
Gzuckier (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

217, your assumption 1) is wrong; there is no necessary connection between inflation / the money value and whether a society has poor people or not. Moreover, it is widely recognized that supply and competition have the greatest influence on price changes. Assumption 2) is also incorrect, in that any single extra consumer (poor or otherwise) adds to total purchasing power, even if only by a small amount. While the average may fall, that isn’t the same as total demand falling. As for 3), the parameters are simply beyond useful calculation. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a great difference between just "poor" person, who just paid too low for his/her work, and an unemployed person. First, as smaller industry is and as lower precent of population is taking part in the manufacturing process-the higher it would cost to produce different products and there would be not much to trade them for. Second, the more complex and demanding it take to manufacture product, the more expensive it will be -it can be still very cheap for people from other society where people are rich, but always will relatively expensive to the people in the society in which it was produced (e.g., China vs. USA). High inflation rates are connected with more people can't do nothing with their money, meaning poor people and high inflation rates are going well together. Another outcome could be higher deflation rates in societies where most people are poor or unemployed -so there is a small sector who exploit state resources with a very strong purchasing power. This is for example the situation in many South American countries-where an average Western can live as a king without working for the rest of his life and there are districts for the minority of rich people (in local terms-but they live in a very high standards undoubtedly) and all the rest live in miserableness. Indeed, in South America you can buy anything you find in Western markets, it will cost you half usually-so you may tell "Wow, what a low inflation rates"-but just remember that even those fortunate people who work for their living there are being paid for their work about 1/10 than what you would be paid for the same work in any Western society and it would still be too expensive for them-so inflation is not an absolute concept, but one which can't be disconnected from the society for which it applied.

For instance, I bought DVD player which cost about 120 Euro in the Netherlands for only 60$ in Bolivia and original T-shirt of Barca for 15 $ in Argentine where in Europe it cost about 60-100$. So you may wonder how come, the simple answer is that these products are very cheap for manufacturing and manufactures can play with their profits by adjuest the prices to any economy they are marketed in. However, in rich markets it would necessarily cost you more as the accompanying expenses are much higher and as lower prices would lead the economy to deflation-which is at least as negative for economy as inflation is --Gilisa (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think otherwise, if everyone turns reach, the inflation rate would be extremely dangerous (due to huge money mass in circulation). The unemployed person may be often associated with the poor because the unemployed is also limited. So at some degree the inflation rate is related to the poor/reach ratio in my opinion. 94.20.22.147 (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The all issue is that there is no possibility that everybody would be rich, if there was, then communism could be a very good idea (but it's far from being so). The value of commodities is determined in almost linear relation to how wealthy society is and the more you buy the more you have to give and produce in return, so in a modern economy there is no possibility for everyone to be rich. In very primitive economies, where the economy is based on food ingredients, there is a tehortical chance for everyone to be rich by having a fertile agricultural year-but then we are not talking in terms of inflation or deflation as money have no real meaning in such primitive societies in which economy based on simple exchange trade and there can be, at least theoretically, situation in which the supply is hugh and the demand is very low. But as we are talking about bronze age like agriculturist economies it have no meaning in modern economical terms.--Gilisa (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That starts off pretty badly. Yes, there is no possibility that everybody can be rich under capitalism. Communism attempts to share resources equally among everyone, holding that it will then be in everyone's interests to expand the economy as a whole (or pursue other aims). Were that to prove successful, could you say that everybody was rich? It would be pretty meaningless. Warofdreams talk 13:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In communistic terms there are no rich or poor people in communist economy-all are equal for the bad or for the good. The problem is that when anyone have the same economical status and when you are paid the same for easier job there is no reason for most people to be productive. In communistic societies mostly all people are poor and the important ones are paid much more unofficially, there are no luxuries available for most people and if there is then someone have to produce them while others only want to enjoy them without taking the same part in the production process -so by now it's not possible. Maybe in the future, when robots will do all the work for us it would be, but the simple rules of economy demnand that there will always be economical hierarchy and economical incentive to be productive. BTW, I think that you can still be wealthy even if all others are "rich" as well. As long as you can afford yourself to do whatever you want and/or you are satisfied the economical definition for who is rich mean nothing --Gilisa (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute definitions of being rich are even more problematic than absolute definitions of poverty. Being able to afford to do whatever you want is very rarely the case, but will rather depend on technologies and, in particular, on what can be bought and sold in an economy. Being satisfied doesn't really hit the mark - it's the focus of happiness economics and is certainly of interest, but it's not what it commonly understood by being rich. The economic incentive question is often put, but there are other incentives (moral, acclaim, adjustment of workload, even coercion), which can all work to varying extents - economic incentives are hardly unproblematic, and there's no good evidence that they are necessary. The luxuries question you put is easily resolvable - incomes would be equal, the exact mix of goods consumed wouldn't be identical, so people who want a particular luxury could prioritise having it. You do correctly state one problem with all the officially communist societies which have been created - they haven't actually produced this equality, as there's always been a privileged elite. But I fear this is rather going off track from the original question. Marx's labour theory of value sees poor people - workers - as the engine of an economy, in that their work creates value. Of course, you can run an economy without any production, but he has a point in that without any production globally, there wouldn't be an economy. Warofdreams talk 20:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Surname "Karasarlidis"

Can somebody help me in my little research for my surname origin.My surname is KARASARLIDIS and i want to know is there a possybility for connection with ancient Lydia with capitol Sardis.As i know that was on todays Turkey teritory near Izmir.My grandgrand father came from Smirna, Turkey,which is aproximatly 70km from Izmir.He came during excange of people from Turkey to Greece 1920es i think.His surname was also Karasarlidis.Maybe this is my romantic quest but if anybody can help me i would be wery thankful.Best regards to all good people and sorry all for poor English —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.86.87 (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your name seems to be Turkish in origin. "Karasarli" is a somewhat common Turkish name. "Karasarlidis" seems to be a Greek version of it. Perhaps you had a Turkish ancestor who became part of a Greek community for some reason. The word "kara" means "land" in Turkish. "Kara Sarli" seems to have been the Turkish name for Skobelevo in Bulgaria. It could be that this is a descriptive name that could have applied to other places. The word "sar" means "belt" or "strip" in Turkish. "-li" is an instrumental ending. So "kara sarli" could mean something like "with a belt or strip of land" in Turkish. Marco polo (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to look at Population exchange between Greece and Turkey for some interesting historical background, but I expect you know about it already. A shameful mess created by the Western Allies. Also Izmir and Smyrna seem to be the same place.Alansplodge (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor

In Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor, what was the result of Subramaniam's retrial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.186.10 (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time signatures, why do some feel more natural (to me) than others?

To me time signatures like 4/4, 3/4 and 12/8 feel very natural. Anything else to is difficult to grasp. Which makes me wonder, why? Is it because in modern (western) popular music these times signatures are so prevalent (ok, 3/4's and 12/8's are not THAT prevalent but at least you hear them on the radio now and then). Or does popular music use these time signatures because they feel natural? PvT (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Nature versus nurture. My guess is that it's more of a nurture issue, where the "natural" rhythms are just what you're used to hearing rather than any hard-coded predilection to 4/4 time, but I'm sort of biased towards nurture interpretations (I blame Gattaca). I'd presume that learning music is a bit like learning language, though some (Noam Chomsky?) have even proposed that at least a part of language is "hard coded." SDY (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most modern language theoreticians would suggest that at least to large extent language is hard coded, even to the level of distinguishing between real and pseudo words-but not in the sense of two separated toddlers who have no one to learn language from will develope the same language or natural language as we know it. So, it's both environmental and biological-and as all humans talk Steven Pinker has suggested that language is an instinct. Howeber, connectivity computational models argue that there is no real hard coding for lnaguage-I think that this is a wrong concept. P.S. Noam Chomsky made hugh mistakes so his overall contribution to linguistics is negative.--Gilisa (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I strongly disagree. The "mistakes" of Chomsky are more akin to Newton's "mistake" about gravity - yes, he is not perfect, but his errors still provide the framework and foundation for an enormous body of later work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was refering to Chomsky's assertions according which there is internal mechanism for language acquisition with few parameters that are being fine-tuned to the specific language, I think it's a wrong concept, an if it's, then it only slow down our understanding of how language is produced (even that I believe language is not a solvable question).
As for his universal grammar description (themetic roles which must accompanied with verb and etc, it's a shame that they can't be found in dictionaries -they could be very helpful)-I think that this is a great idea. --Gilisa (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a matter of custom. You have been bouncing and bopping along to Western time signatures since you were an infant. If you grew up in a different musical culture (and there are many that just sound completely far-out to an untrained Western ear), you'd bop along to their beats. If you listen to non-Western music you quickly see that you affinity to Western time signatures is arbitrary. I seem to recall studies saying that listening to music as a child was important if you were to become a good dancer—not quite the same thing, but it does imply that nurture is a big deal when it comes to finding certain rhythms to be natural. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And its also not universal that every song which is "comfortable" to western ears is in either 3-time or 4-time or some multiple thereof. Consider that one of Pink Floyd's most popular songs is in 7/4 time, Money, and most people find it a catchy and pleasant song. --Jayron32 14:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also Take Five (5/4 beat), which is very recognizable but (for me) very hard to reproduce... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Music in 4/4 and 12/8 do no necessarily "feel natural", and music in other meters are not necessarily "hard to grasp" ("Money" by Pink Floyd being a great example). I'd say that it is easier to make natural sounding music in some meters and harder in others, but ultimately it is the composing and playing skills of the musicians that make music sound natural or difficult. Why is it generally easier to do in 4/4 and 12/8? Because, I would argue, they involve regular pulses with predictable accents repeating in short cycles. 4 beat cycles are often basically two 2 beat cycles. Lots of popular songs are closer to 2/4 than 4/4. And 12/8 is usually just a "swung" or "shuffle" 4/4. I'd suspect music in 3/4 also feel very natural quite often--so natural that one might not realize a song is in 3 instead of 2 or 4. The Beatles' song Blackbird, for example, shifts between 3/4, 4/4, and 2/4, but feels quite natural to me. Pfly (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to the second movement of Tchaikovsky's 6th Symphony, the "Pathétique". It sounds completely natural, right? A waltz, right? Then go back and actually count the beats, and you'll discover it's not a waltz at all, but it's written in 5/4. Thanks to the consummate skill of the composer, who died a few days after the first performance, he writes a piece in 5/4, a normally "unnatural" meter, in a completely natural-sounding way. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will take the line that JackofOz start with: 7/8 is common in Middle Eastern music but not in Western music. Also, in Western music the length of any unit is 4, but not in African music-so it's quite clear that this differences were developed. --Gilisa (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top Ten Controversies in US History?

Does anyone know where I can go to find this? --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're referring to a particular feature, book or article that someone has written with that title, then this is basically an invitation to debate, which is not what this reference desk is for. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Also, "controversies" is too wide a term. It could mean anything, and what is controversial to one person may not be at all to the next. Please find a more appropriate discussion forum. --Richardrj talk email 15:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say that, but I'm sure in the next hour or so people are going to respond with a list they've thought up ;)
What do you (Reticuli88) mean by controversies, though? Big news stories with conflicting support (OJ trial)? Laws (Roe v Wade)? Disputed history (was Lee Harvey Oswald a patsy)? TastyCakes (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for any publications, online or not, on top controversies in US history, like the Kennedy assasination, or like that. --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typing "American controversy" into Google Scholar yields the Hemmings/Jefferson debate, evolution/creationism, and hate speech among the top hits. Google Books adds slavery and the reintegration of slaves after the civil war. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a list of political scandals of the United States and Category:Political scandals in the United States. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean conspiracy theories? Either way, any list will be necessarily very arbitrary. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Hofstadter's three-volume Great Issues in American History doesn't have a top-ten list but does go over many of the top controversies in American history (up until 1981) using primary-source documents. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP needs to clarify what they are considering "controversies" for us to be of any real help. "JFK assassination" is not specific enough. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the non-answers but I will start with Gadget850's suggestion. Just thought there would be a list or publication somewhere such as wiki's list of specfics types of disasters that I was recently reading. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason these are "non-answers" is that - as I and others have said - "controversies" is too wide and non-specific a term. You're not going to get any kind of definitive list, because what is controversial is a matter of opinion. --Richardrj talk email 14:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)"Disasters" are much easier to quantify, since you can do it by "people killed", "property damage" etc. What classifies as a "controversy" is different for each person, any list would be inherently opinionated. It would not classify as "fact" or be quantifiable the way "disasters" can, and so is unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. Incidentally, that's also why you wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) find Wikipedia lists along the lines of "Best actors of all time". TastyCakes (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unaware Prophesied Messiahs, Saviors, Redeemers, etc

I am also searching for any stories, legends, etc of any prophesied messiahs, saviors, etc (besides Jesus) who were unaware that they were who they were up until that critical moment. --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to investigate Siyyid `Alí Muḥammad Shírází, one of the founders of the Baháʼí Faith, who was executed for claiming to be the Bab, the foretold next prophet of Islam. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to say that Jesus did fall into this description? —Akrabbimtalk 21:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until what critical moment? I'm pretty sure few legends of messiahs, saviors, redeemers, prophets (if we're including them) claim they were aware of who they were at birth (unless the legend says they weren't born I guess). Nil Einne (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The moment of prophecy, presumably. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nil, your answer makes so sense to me whatsoever. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrix? TastyCakes (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Mary was aware before she was even pregnant [7], I don't think Jesus falls into that category, unless she never told him. Baptism of Jesus has some discussion on whether Jesus would have considered himself free of sin without needing to be baptised. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix is a very good example. Thanks! Anymore similar to that? --Reticuli88 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Belgariad? Harry Potter? Anyone listed at The Chosen One (Warning, TV Tropes link). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought Jesus din't know he was the Messiah until later in his life. That he was almost reluctant to be this. Am I wrong (which most likely I am)? --Reticuli88 (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Borg (among others) would argue that, based on my reading of him--I think he and probably most of the Jesus Seminar folks would claim that Jesus didn't ever think of himself as the Messiah. This is speculation, of course, and may not be good enough for what the OP is looking for. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L. Ron Hubbard? Jim Jones?  ;) TastyCakes (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a record of Jesus disputing with the religious leaders in Jerusalem when he was only 12. The reason he gave to his parents was that he should "be about his father's business". His high-profile religious work didn't begin until he was around 30, so he had known for most of his life. —Akrabbimtalk 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a moment I thought about Life of Brian, but Brian was not a messiah. He was a very naughty boy. — Kpalion(talk) 18:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King Arthur? Whosoever draws out this sword, etc. Karenjc 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Province of Punjab, Pakistan

Didn't Province of Punjab, Pakistan used to have 35 districts and now they have 36? which district is new? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.202 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under Districts of Pakistan it says:
In May 2005, the Punjab provincial government created a new district by raising the status of Nankana Sahib from a tehsil of Sheikhpura District to a district in its own right.
and an article in Dawn (newspaper) is cited. --Anonymous, 16:31 UTC, October 28, 2009.

samurai really cut peasants?

Did samurai really test new swords by cutting through peasants, or is that apocryphal? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criminals, yes, but I haven't heard anything about plain old peasants. Vranak (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tsujigiri --151.51.28.42 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean Tameshigiri? -- 128.104.112.149 (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here living in Japan, I am told that it also was used on random unluckies as well as weak children. Which, being a kid's teacher here, doesn't sound half bad some days... ;) Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can a psychopath know right from wrong?

--190.50.94.45 (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Gilisa (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On an actually helpful note, let me refer you to the Psychopathy article. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, many serial killers and other kinds of dangerous mental patients with agenda of causing harm were aware that what they are doing is wrong, by any set of standards, and showed signs of relief that they have been caught as well as recommending that they should never be released because they will do it again. Many understand that that there is something "wrong" with them and some even are god fearing and see themself as evil. If they chose not to embrace basic values we live by, doesn't mean they are not familiar with them. Remember, many of them have to function in normal society incognito for quite some time. 124.169.15.112 (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USA airplane crash records from the 1950s

I'm trying to find records on light airplane crashes in Ohio in the early 1950s. The FAA website doesn't yield anything, the NTSB database begins in 1962, and Google doesn't seem to yield anything. Any idea if I can find this information online, and if so, where? Nyttend backup (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some light airplane crashes mentioned in the Department of Transport Special Collections website, but most accident reports there are of larger aircraft. Here's the link; go to "Historical Aircraft Accident reports", then search by year. --NellieBly (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information! As you probably guessed, my crash isn't on this page...any other ideas, anyone? Nyttend backup (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you contacted the National Archives and Records Administration? They might have agency records that predate any online database. Unfortunately, there is no NARA library in Ohio, but perhaps if you call them they can direct you to a local resource that can help you. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who had jurisdiction for investigating light aircraft crashes back then? Perhaps no one but the local police authorities has records. Rmhermen (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the Civil Aeronautics Board. You probably would have to contact NARA about this, or dedicated plane-crash buffs (of which there are). There are, if I recall, sites that will let you order crash reports on historic crashes (for a price). But I don't know the specifics, unfortunately... --Mr.98 (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information! I was spending some time volunteering at my local historical society today (the only one in the room who knew how to use a computer :-() and was shown a photograph of a small aircraft being hauled out of a lake by a floating crane. If I understood the other volunteers rightly, it was a newspaper photo, but they didn't have any other parts of the newspaper, so I was being asked to find this crash online so that we could learn when the newspaper was dated. I should note that they had asked someone else to try to check CAA records (I suppose this to mean Civil Aeronautics Authority; they thought this was what the acronym meant, but they weren't sure), but this hadn't yielded anything, as far as they knew. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While it is impressive that we have an article on the United States government role in civil aviation, unfortunately the articles never mentions general aviation so we can't tell if light aircraft crashes were investigated by CAB or only commercial ones. Rmhermen (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't say so, but local police haven't had the right to investigate accidents in the US since well before 1933. By the 1950s all aircraft accidents reported to the authorities were without exception investigated by the feds - either the CAB (or later on the NTSB) or, in case of federal offenses like hijacking or bombing, the FBI, sometimes in cooperation with the CAB or NTSB. Local authorities were involved in instances where a general aviation pilot was found to have committed a non-federal offense (say, flying a crop duster drunk), but the accident itself would always have been investigated by the feds.
However, this ignores the very real possibility that the accident wasn't reported. A lot of accidents occur unreported, especially among pilots operating under the figurative radar - smugglers, unlicensed pilots, drug runners, people who distrust or dislike the government, and the like. It's quite possible that someone under those circumstances might simply write off the cost of the aircraft as being worth less than going to jail or attracting the feds' attention. --NellieBly (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent article on loss of sense of self following brain injury

Can anyone refer me to an article which deal with similar subject that was published during the last two years?--Gilisa (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a loss / change in the sense of self as one of the psychological sequelae of a trauma in general, or the acute loss of propio(re)ception as a result of posterior parietal lesion? --Dr Dima (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dr.Dima, I meant change in the sense of self as a result of traumatic brain injury, and if you know one such article from the last two years which review (preferably)this issue and address the psychological aspects of these lesions it would be of great help.--Gilisa (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, psychological aspects of brain injury are pretty far from my field of expertise, so I can't recommend any particular article. Sorry about that. However, when I google-scholar it like this, lots of interesting stuff comes up. And yes, Google Scholar is a verb now :) --Dr Dima (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Well, I didn't know that it become a verb so I didn't try it!:). Anyway it's not my field of expertise either-but like you I'm in the neuroscience business and Just submitted my first article for publication. Thanks for the help! --Gilisa (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with your article! --Dr Dima (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Google (verb)!Alansplodge (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I was thinking that he meant something else. Once there were not much differences between the efficiency of google scholar and just google in regard to searching scientific papers.--Gilisa (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

memorial to Flight 990

Is there a memorial for the victims of EgyptAir Flight 990 located anywhere? If yes, what does it look like?24.90.204.234 (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's one at Newport, Rhode Island[8][9]. --82.41.11.134 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why isn't "atleast" one word?

I think it shoudl be wikt:atleast —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.235.46 (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have never seen "at least" written in one word. If it becomes an accepted usage, then we will adopt it into Wikipedia, but unless I am very much mistaken, "atleast" is not generally considered to be correct. Falconusp t c 22:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it be? Rebracketing only happens occasionally. --Tango (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this would better be asked at the language reference desk? Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In future, yes, this kind of question should go there. I don't think there is any need to move this one over, though, I doubt they'll have a better answer that it has already got. --Tango (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "I think it should" is equivalent to saying "people should spell it that way". But clearly very few people do, so they're not going to be swayed by your suggestion. There's been a trend in recent years to respell things like "a lot" and "a while" as "alot" and "awhile", but they've still never been recognised in any dictionary I've ever seen. To adopt "atleast" would also require "atmost", "atbest", "atworst" and "atall", for consistency. Language change is a natural process, but these would be change for its own sake. "Afew Good Men"? I don't think so. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Alot" is a common spelling mistake, but I've never seen "awhile" before - is that really coming into fashion? Also - since when has the English language been in any way consistent? --Tango (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Awhile" is a spelling that I use all the time. I had no idea that it was nonstandard, though now that I think about it, a high school teacher did dock me a point for that once. I much prefer "awhile" to "a while", though apparently that's not a world-wide accepted usage. I guess one mark of how common it may be is the fact that my spell checker does not flag "awhile." I'm in North Carolina, USA. I'm wondering if this usage varies by location, as I have not had any issues with using it here? Falconusp t c 03:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have always used "awhile" (one word) as an adverb. My most recent edition of the COD (1989) approves this use, as did Samuel Johnson in my copy of his Dictionary of the English Language (1827). The meanings are not presented as identical, however. Bielle (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "awhile" is quite common. It appears 3 times on the current version of the Miscellaneous ref desk, for example. But I'll be sticking with "a while" for quite a while yet, thanks very much, reactionary old thing that I am. I guess personal preference comes down to what one has seen most often. I grew up with "a while", which has always seemed completely natural to me because it's sort of synonymous with "a long time" (and one would never write "along time"). But younger folks have been proportionately more exposed to "awhile", so to them, it's not eyelid-batworthy. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Awhile" has been an acceptable word for centuries, but it doesn't mean quite the same thing as "a while". It's adverbial only, and means "for a while". To quote Partridge's classic, if dated, "Usage and abusage", "Awhile" for "a while" is catachrestic when while is a noun. 'I shall stay here for awhile' is incorrect for '...for a while'. Such a sentence as 'They followed the inlet for awhile along the edge of the bank' brings one up with a jerk; "for a while" or, simply, "awhile" would have been correct. So, given that I'm on this reference desk awhile, let me tell you that it's acceptable. "Alot" and "Atleast" are not, however. Grutness...wha? 22:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. So, "I sat there for awhile" means "I sat there for for a while", and that's why it has to be "I sat there for a while". -- JackofOz (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. You can say "I sat there awhile", but it sounds pretty dated, and - oddly - it's started to return from its contraction and will often be written as "I sat there a while". Grutness...wha? 00:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A sometimes-common American contraction that has not yet become accepted or standard yet (i.e. it would get corrected by an editor or circled in red by a teacher) is "alright" for "all right" by analogy with "already". But "all ready" and "already" usually mean different things, with the latter adverbial in roughly the same way that "awhile" is — for example, "We'd already been sitting in the office awhile when..." I can't yet see a similar use for "alright" or "atleast", although perhaps the colloquial use of "all right" as a reinforcer of another phrase might justify "alright's" eventual introduction in phrases such as "You could tell that we were quite unhappy with the whole situation, alright, ..." where writing "we were quite unhappy with the whole situation, all right, ..." might be confusing. I'm not arguing for "alright's" introduction, just positing a possible purpose or rationale. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It brings to mind the well known hymn, Lead Kindly Light... "And with the morn those angel faces smile, which I / Have loved long since, and lost awhile!" John Henry Newman, 1833. Perhaps you could start by using "atleast" in all your correspondence. When enough people pick it up: Voila! it becomes standard English. It might take a while (aha! "awhile" and "a while" are two different things). My father remembers when the verb "show" was invariably spelt "shew" in the UK. We have a very democratic language.Alansplodge (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican City and the freedom of panorama

Has Vatican City the freedom of panorama? --88.76.242.171 (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to people at Wikimedia Commons, the answer is no, because it has Italy's copyright laws, and Italy does not have freedom of panorama. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Andorra, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, and San Marino? --88.77.238.36 (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • If it's not on that list, then we don't know. But in general, Liechtenstein follows most Swiss laws, Monaco follows most French laws, and San Marino follows most Italian laws. --M@rēino 14:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any copyrighted buildings in Vatican City? --88.78.239.248 (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can copyright a building??? Googlemeister (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, they're creative works, and like (almost) all creative works they're copyrighted when they're new (so I can't just make a new copy of the Burj Dubai in Las Vegas). The specific issue here is panoramafreiheit; whether a mere photo of a copyrighted building infringes on the architect's copyright. In some places it does, in some it doesn't. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 16:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the buildings be out of copyright, though? I'm not sure if the 70-year rule applies to buildings? I'm pretty sure all the architects for Vatican City are Dead. Also I don't think the Church would sue you for copyright infringement on IP for a building. --JoeTalkWork 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed (I think that's 88.78.239.248's point above), all the major one as surely much too old. This also hold for sculptures; most of those will be too old as well, but there are some modern sculptures like this one. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that there can be copyright issues even with very old buildings—aside from having changes made at various times, things like lighting arrangements (e.g. the Eiffel Tower's) can be copyrighted in some jurisdictions. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the buildings in Vatican City are so old that their architects are dead; see Domus Sanctae Marthae. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Investing in precious metals

How are people obtaining precious metals for investment purposes? What's the least risky way to invest in gold, silver, and other precious metals? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can't offer financial advice, above all "least risk" advice.--Wetman (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when can't we offer financial advice? I don't think that's in our "no advice" charter. Granted, our advice is probably worthless. But what people do with their money is their own business. I'm sure someone who does investing knows the least risky option here—there is always risk, of course, but there are definitely levels of risk (risk is, after all, a commodity in the financial world). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really comfortable with people using the Refdesk to advise other people to buy INTC or AAPL because they are undervalued? Your argument about their actions being "their own business" could also apply to legal or medical advice, right? We aren't supposed to offer "professional advice", which probably just means "advice you ought to be getting from a professional" — like the guy trying to find out how to hang that sign across the road a few months ago. It's not just legal and medical advice we should be avoiding, despite the fact that this page only says "legal and medical" up at the top today. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without offering advice, I will say that there are three main methods: 1) investing in shares of companies that mine precious metals; 2) investing in exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, that purchase and hold precious metals in proportion to share purchases; and 3) purchasing physical precious metals. There may be other methods besides these three, such as relocating to a region where trace amounts of surface gold occur and panning for gold. Each method has its own risks, in addition to the risk that the price of precious metals could fall after you make your purchase, which is a risk for all three. For method 1), the risks include the risk that the company will prove insolvent or face other unforeseen difficulties, including poor management and many others, as well as the other risks associated with buying stock in any company. There is also a risk that precious metal stock prices will prove more volatile than the price of the precious metal itself. For method 2), there are some similar risks as for method 1), including potential bankruptcy or fraud on the part of the company that underwrites the ETF. For method 3), in addition to the risk of falling prices shared with the other methods, you face the risk of theft or other partial or complete loss of your physical investment. There is also the historical risk of a gold confiscation order (which poses a less direct but still real risk to investments using methods 1) and 2)). Because these methods have risks that are different in nature, it is really a subjective judgment which method involves least risk. To the extent that risk differs among the three methods, market forces should have incorporated the risk into the price. If any of these methods offered a given return at a lower rate of risk, market forces should have bid up its price to the point where risk was equalized with the other methods. Also, the assessment of risk may differ for two different people depending on their circumstances, assumptions about the future, personal inclinations, and so on. You really need to inform yourself about the alternatives and make a judgment for yourself. Marco polo (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where does one buy physical gold or silver? Certainly it's not just from the companies that you see advertised on TV. 71.54.238.131 (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your local coin dealer stocks bullion coins and possibly small ingots. They will quote you the day's buying and selling price for each type (Krugerrands, for example) if you call them on the phone. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just reading about the recent increase in people panning for gold in the U.S. Here is one such article: [10] Rmhermen (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should avoid offering individualized investment advice, for the same reasons we avoid legal and medical advice. Generalized discussion of investment concepts, however, do not seem to be as problematic, and I have no problems with Marco polo's fine discussion. Conventionally, it is assumed that ETFs are the lowest-risk way to invest in precious metals, since ETFs largely avoid the risks of investment in mining and operations companies and the risks of personal ownership of the metals. It must be understood, however, that ownership of precious metals in any form is a highly risky form of investment, since precious metals prices are so volatile. In addition, precious metals generally have underperformed other investments in most periods, so there is a highly unfavorable risk-versus-reward analysis. John M Baker (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If one is going the route of purchasing physical metal, there are several options, including purchasing pre 1964 US coins on ebay or from a local seller of coins. Googlemeister (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The least risky way is to invest with high confidence in a commodity that will be increasing in value. You need to know why, though, it will be increasing in value. I used to get wisdom from a local radio show, Money Talks. I noted that gold would be increasing; it did, massively. I noted that uranium would be increasing. Ditto. Still, you have to have the empathy and intellect to distinguish good advice from sketchy speculation. In short, the distilled wisdom from competent professionals is the easiest and surest way to make money in this fashion. Vranak (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good joke. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to efficient market theory, publicly traded investments reflect all available information. Thus, it would be impossible for a radio talk show reliably to provide investment information that would out-perform the market. Of course, someone following the advice of the talk show might get lucky, as Vranak apparently did. John M Baker (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get lucky because I didn't invest. It was purely an intellectual exercise. Second, if you have guests talking about why a certain commodity will likely become more valuable, then you're not dealing with luck at all, you're dealing with valid information. The reason uranium was touted to be a good investment was that China was investing heavily in Pebble Bed reactors to meet their burgeoning energy demands. It's pretty simple stuff. Vranak (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the information, in this case that China was investing in reactors, was equally available to other investors, who were able to take it into account in valuing uranium. Thus, the price already reflected the possibility that demand would rise because of China's increased needs. You can consistently outperform the market only if you have information that is not available to the market, or if you are smarter than everyone else in the world who invests in the market.
However confident someone may be about increases in the price of uranium, it's probably not wise to start stockpiling it. Warofdreams talk 21:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very long time later but came across this while searching for something else but it seems likely confirmation bias could easily be at play. In fact the OP themselves said something about 'you have to have the empathy and intellect to distinguish good advice from sketchy speculation' which sort of screams confirmation bias and seems very common in these sort of financial situations. If you do well, it's because your a smart investor. If you do poorly, you just got unlucky. In this particular case it's even worse because we're talking about a solely hypothetical situation. Perhaps you don't remember how the same host told you in 2006 how Greek bonds were an excellent investment or how they said in 2007 that the price of oil was likely to keep growing and reach $400+ a barrel by 2011, and how sure you were the host was right at the time on both these. A better test for a hypothetical scenario would be if you were to construct your own virtual market with however much virtual capital you feel is suitable and invest appropriately based on this advice (preferably including brokerage fees etc) and see how you go. Even if you don't want to make it so complicated, at the very least write down all of what you believed rather then going by memory. Of course while this mostly eliminates the risk of you remembering the 'smart' advice which you believed but forgetting the 'dumb' advice you believed, it doesn't do anything about the fact even if you do outperform the market, you can't really prove it was because you're a savvy investor as opposed to someone who got lucky. (There could easily be others out there who did the same thing and got 'unlucky'.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Efficient markets hypothesis indicates that it is impossible to predict future prices. What might look like a trend is just a random sequence. 92.24.25.252 (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge to the Reader novels

When I was a kid I used to read old Ellery Queen novels. Before the last chapter the author posed a challenge to the reader. All of the clues to solve the mystery had been presented throughout the book and the reader was challenged to solve the mystery before reading the conclusion. Are there any current authors who have similar styles? (Encyclopedia Brown doesn't count, as it is written for kids) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.29.109 (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly the same, but the Colin Dexter always claimed that the mysteries in his Inspector Morse novels could be solved by the reader before the solution was revealed. He didn't write anything explicitly in the novels to say when that was, though. Also Colin Dexter is more than a bit clever, so they are pretty difficult to solve. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an entire genre of those, called whodunits. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

comparison and contrast on multiculturalism in USA and multiculturalism in Canada

Is there any website where it compares and contrasting on multiculturalism in USA and multiculturalism in Canada? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.139 (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look -- Cultural mosaic. Vranak (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any better result than this?

final total from benefit concerts

Is there a final total from the "I Love the Islands" benefit concert series? Will someone write an article on the concert series?24.90.204.234 (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your mission, should you accept it, is to collect the online news reports concerning the series and report their contents at I Love the Islands concert series with <ref></ref> to the sources you've used. This tape will self-destruct...--Wetman (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do an article on the "I Love the Islands" benefit concert series, but it was deleted. Plus, with several news reports on the event, they can be quite a bit confusing. When I tried to create another article, my request was declined. If anyone can please help me out, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a formal WP:Articles for deletion discussion? Was it listed for WP:Speedy deletion? No one can really "decline" your attempt to create or recreate a new article except a consensus of several users, unless either the article had incredibly-grave flaws to begin with, or an administrator was abusing his or her powers. I have no idea how worthy your article was or might have been, but there is some due process involved. And very skimpy or biased articles which are still more than just propaganda or self-promotion should be considered for improvement or merger with a better, bigger article (in this case, for example, one about the tsunami) before outright deletion. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the OP is talking about. No article titled I Love the Islands has ever been created. Additionally, since the OP does not have a registerred account, he does not have article creation privileges. --Jayron32 12:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Th. Roosevelt and John Davis Long - conflicting versions

Before his career as US (Vice-)President Theodore Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy under John Davis Long. According to the Roosevelt article, "(Because of the inactivity of Secretary of the Navy John D. Long at the time, this gave Roosevelt control over the department.)"

The Long article, however, states that "Long served with vision and efficiency through the next five years, organizing the Navy for the challenges of the Spanish-American War and the expansion that followed, and laying the groundwork for the growth of the "New American Navy" fostered by his former assistant, President Theodore Roosevelt."

Surely, both can't be right? Could someone with historic insight please elaborate? Asav (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you post this on the discussion page of both articles so that other editors interested in the topic can get involved over the coming months (and years). Here on the Refdesk posts are no longer read or commented upon after a week's time or so, and I imagine it'll take more than a week to drum up an editor knowledgeable in this field. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can also use the {{contradicts|(Other article name)}} tag on both articles. Add {{contradicts|John Davis Long}} to the Roosevelt article and {{contradicts|Theodore Roosevelt}} to the John Davis Long article. Exxolon (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can gather, TR was only under Long for about 1 year while Long was SecNav for 5 years. So perhaps he was a slacker when TR was under him, but figured it out in the last 4 years he was in the job. Googlemeister (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need names of specific theories or names at play here

Say a man does something extremely heroic and saves a whole city from catastrophy by single handedly disabling the criminals and defused the bomb. So everybody in the city celebrates and considers him a hero and becomes a national celebrity. Then, the next night he accidently hits a child with his car and this child dies. It was clearly his fault because of negligence or something like that. The courts and the public are undecided how or if they should prosecute this hero. What specific theories or ethics, or whatever are at play here? --Reticuli88 (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that the RefDesk is not a discussion forum right? You seem to be asking for our opinions. Unless I am wrong and there is more nuance to your question, I don't see that it is anything beyond a moral dilemma. Zunaid 14:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
God, what's with everyone saying that I'm trying to start a f*cking discussion. For all those who took Ethics in school, what specific ethics are taking place. btw thanks for moral dilemma answer despite your scolding. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your question "what specific ethics are taking place" is unanswerable. Ethics aren't things that "take place", they're things that exist in the minds of people. This is why you're asking for opinions - who knows what "the courts and the public" might think in any given situation? What is "the public" anyway? Now, if you were to ask a specific legally focused question such as whether there is any precedent for a prosecution being dropped in such a situation, we might start to get somewhere. --Richardrj talk email 14:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
honesty, personhood, utilitarianism, victimless crime: these are examples of moral concepts with an objective existence (if you adhere to moral realism) which could be valid answers to questions on the reference desk like this question. 213.122.5.194 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly not asking for anyone's opinions. I assumed that there were specfic names of any ethic theories or anything like that, I guess not. When I have this discussion later with my teacher, I will simply tell her that this is a case of "moral dilemma" instead of "_" ethic theory or whatever. Excuse my extreme ignorance on the topic. But still, not cool on the scolding. --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll get scolded less if you take an extra minute before clicking "Save page" and try to be as precise as possible with what, exactly, you are asking for. You've been asking interesting questions but they have been very vague in the particulars, which leads most pedantic Refdesk visitors to scold you for being irritatingly imprecise. Tempshill (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In most rule of law nations, the two events are totally separate. I recommend you do a google news search for firefighters that have committed various crimes. Turns out the "but he's a hero" defense doesn't go too far in practice. --M@rēino 14:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such a past might constitute a mitigating factor under law, although the wikipedia article on these only really discusses mental health not prior good character. Aggravation, mitigation, and mercy in English criminal justice by Nigel Walker[11] discusses the effect of meritorious behaviour on sentencing:
Sentencers are sometimes influenced by a principle which seems to be retributive in spirit: that deserts can be reduced by meritorious conduct. [Discusses cases where people make amends for crimes prior to being caught and receive a reduced sentence.] More remarkable are cases in which the court is influenced by meritorious conduct which has nothing to do with the offence or trial. Men have had prison terms reduced or suspended becaus they have fought well in a war, saved a child from drowning or started a youth club (p. 111)
(references supplied in the text) It also mentions a case in 1982 where a man, Reid, had saved 2 children from a burning house and had a sentence of 3 months for burglary commuted to a conditional discharge. The reference to retributive justice is interesting, and may indicate one ethical principle involved. --Lesleyhood (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think in the situation as named there would be much official, ethical leeway. Doing one good thing, and then doing one bad thing—those are going to be regarded as separate events from a legal point of view. If the latter is truly accidental, then it doesn't even matter if they've done the good thing, technically. (Accidents happen, and we have legal systems that make some accommodation for that.) Assessments of whether it was truly accidental, though, might be influenced by perceptions of the honesty and integrity of the fellow in question.
A more problemic situation, though, is what happens when someone who is currently doing something Very Good, also is doing something Somewhat or even Very Bad. This is a common trope in fiction—there is sometimes a question of what serves the greater good prosecuting someone for their crimes, or letting them get away with it and continue their good work. For the relative ethics discussion, see, e.g. utilitarianism. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are various examples of this sort of thing. To take a recent example from down here, Marcus Einfeld was a highly respected lawyer and later judge. He was held in very high regard by groups such as Jews and indigenous Australians for his advocacy of human rights. He was named an Australian Living Treasure, and was often touted as a future Governor-General. Then he was nabbed for speeding, by a speed camera. He is wealthy, and he should have just paid the the fine and be done with it, even if it did mean he lost his licence for a while. God knows, he could afford taxis. But he claimed the car was being driven by a friend of his. It turned out this friend had died a couple of years earlier (which he knew, because he sent expressions of condolence to her family). Then he claimed it was a different person of the same name as his friend, which was a total fabrication It just went from bad to worse, and he's now in prison, having been stripped of all his official honours and all his standing in the community. In an interview shortly before he went to jail, he said (unbelievably) he didn't think he'd done anything wrong. He's usually referred to now as "disgraced former judge Marcus Einfeld". -- JackofOz (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moral character might be relevant. The line (in the criticisms section) about "situation specific traits, rather than robust traits" caught my eye. The man in your example nobly saved the life of the child he then later negligently killed. We can judge him for his overall altruism, and his general will to defend the city, which he appears conflicted over, in that he will defend the citizens from bombs but not by being careful with his own car; or we can say that we shouldn't generalize about his character in that way, and should treat the two incidents separately. 213.122.5.194 (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bible (in Leviticus) command not to give privilege in judgement to honorable or to miserable person. I guess that this could be your starts point-search for articles on ethics that refer to this notion.--Gilisa (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such a series of events could be referred to as 'The rise and fall of so-and-so'. --JoeTalkWork 21:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and the swastika

What is the legal status of the swastika in Israel? --88.78.239.248 (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal and could lead one who carry it immediately to detention.--Gilisa (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the conversation here, are there any exemptions for literary/scholarly usage? -- 128.104.112.149 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under what law? This Times article of 2007 says "There is no law explicitly banning anti-Semitism in the Jewish state, simply because it was never expected to occur." If you can cite a reliable source then we can add this to the Swastika article, which mentions legal issues in a number of countries, but not Israel. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 23:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the large Palestinian population, why is anti-Semitism so unexpected? --Nricardo (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point Nricardo. However, the Palestinian you are talking about are Israeli Arabs and while Jews haterd is not unfamiliar to part of them (but certainly not to all) they don't express it by using Nazi symboles mostly. More interesting is that large part of them aconsider the holocaust as the worse crime ever. Without getting into discussion about this, their anti Semiti is mostly based on extreme Islamic views and not on racial ideas. It's not that there are not Israeli Arabs who adore Hitler and the Nazis, but you can't find a neo Nazi groups among them. Those who undermine Israel among them or involve in terrorist actions are doing it as part of their identification with Palestinians, or (and in many cases BTW) as part of their Islamic ideology/ Arab nationalism and publicly they spek out against the Zionist's and not against all Jews. --Gilisa (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can provide a handful of sources for this, but all would be in Hebrew. There were no specific rules against anti Semitism in Israel until lately. However, there are in Israel about 600,000 non Jewish Russians and Ukranians who immigrated to Israel from the former Soviet union after the the iron curtain fall. They immigrated to Israel under the law of return but they mostly have no connection to Judiasm or to Jewish life, they just had the right to immigrate to Israel because they were married to Jewish people or because they are the granchilds of one who was married to Jewish person. Since 2005 several Neo Nazi groups were caught in Israel and the Israeli parliament made rules against anti Semitism. Also, in 2006, a swastika tatoo was found under the armpit of an IDF soldier of Russian origin (only his grandfather is Jewish) -he was detent, his interent connections were checked and it was found that he was active to at the least two years in eastern European neo Nazi forums. Then, on an interview to the Israeli media his mother spoke out against Jewish people, and many parliament members, one hand with police officials, asked whether cacelling the Israeli citizenship of this family and sending them back to their country of origin is possible-however then the laws didn't allow it. Nevertheless, members of neo Nazi groups were charged under the laws against racism. But today there are also specific laws against neo Nazi activity and Nazi symboles.--Gilisa (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating, Gilisa. For future reference, could you provide the name of this soldier? Is there an article on the Hebrew Wikipedia about this case? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they released his name. Here is a story about it. There's also this one about a gang of neonazis. TastyCakes (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great work TastyCakes! BTW, they did release his name as much as I can recall, but I can't find it anywhere now.--Gilisa (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Black, Asian, Hispanic ethnic minority American literature

Can anyone name a few books I can read that are written by a member of an ethnic minority who is not Black, Asian, or Hispanic? Any author from anywhere else (Europe, Middle East, India, etc...) would be acceptable. Thank you. -hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 23:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of such books, but I will start by naming some of the writers found here on WP, and you can check the articles for titles that might appeal to you: Bharati Mukherjee, born in India; Frank McCourt, born in Ireland; Jerzy Kosinski, born in Poland; Vladimir Nabokov, born in Russia . . . In fact, just type "any nationality-American" in the Search box in the column to the left, and then scroll down the article to the section on Notable "Any nationality-Americans", looking for sections on writers or literature. Bielle (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria I am using are: a writer with a WP article who was born outside the US, but who was a naturalized US citizen at some time in his/her career and, as requested by the OP, was not “Black, Hispanic or Asian”. Here are a few others: Janwillem Lincoln van de Wetering, born in Holland; Deepak Chopra, born in New Delhi; Amitav Ghosh, born in Kolcata; Saul Bellow, born in Canada, of Russian parents; Thomas Mann, born in Germany.
Ayn Rand, from Russia. --Jayron32 01:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And how could I leave out May Sarton of Belgium? Bielle (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Silva is Portuguese American. --Nricardo (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But note that Germans, Belgians, Russians, etc. aren't ethnic minorities in the USA: they're all whites. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They may be all "white" (or not), but even if they are, they can still be "ethnic minorities", which relates to ethnic origins outside (in this case) the U.S. and has nothing to do with skin pigment. And to Nricardo's addition of Daniel Silva to the list: I think he was born in the U.S. I was just providing names of writers born outside the U.S. who later became American citizens. Bielle (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By that standard, everyone is an ethnic minority: even English and Irish ancestries are a minority of the population. The only really clear definition of "minority" is the Census Bureau definition, in which the only "ethnicity" category is Hispanic/Latino status. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first challenge was figuring out who would qualify as an American ethnic minority, but not Asian, Black or Hispanic. How about Native Americans? “Here First” edited by Arnold Krupat and Brian Swann was the first Google hit (Amazon). “Native American Literature” got 140,000 hits. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Via this search, I find, amongst others, List of German Americans#Authors and writers, List of works by Piers Anthony (who was English), Hugh Wheeler (ditto), Gordon R. Dickson (Canadian).
In non-fiction, there's Richard John Neuhaus (author of books on politics and religion who was Canadian), Wafa Sultan (author of a book on Islam who was Syrian).
And so on.
See also the literature, author or media sections in many of the pages in Category:Lists of American people by ethnic or national origin AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Native Hawaiians includes novelist Kirby Wright. List of Native Americans doesn't seem to have any writers, which can't be right. --Lesleyhood (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vine Deloria, Jr.. And can somebody please explain to me how someone from India is not Asian? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Erdrich and Sherman Alexie are of Native American descent. Asians to many U.S. English speakers refers to east and southeast Asians. Catrionak (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.42.186 (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

does everyone hear the days music while going to sleep

as youre going to sleep does the symphony you heard that day play itself to you in your head distinctly - not that i would confuse it with real sounds, i know its in my 'minds ear' - or is it just me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.144.111 (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listening to a symphony every day is not normal, and suggests you're deeply involved in music, which makes it less peculiar that you should hear music as you drop off to sleep. A musician I know has composed songs in his sleep, which he says is aggravating because he feels obliged to wake up and write them down. 81.131.63.58 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hear music all the time. I place it as a side-effect of being a stage actor at a young age. I quickly learned the skill of being to recall anything that I hear for a rather long period of time. To this day, I can listen to people talk and then repeat everything said just by playing it back in my head. Music is the same - except that it sticks with me. I can play back songs in my head very easily, but I cannot stop it. Right now, the theme to the Late Late Show is playing on repeat. -- kainaw 01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not hear music in my head almost ever. Occasionally an odd earworm, but certainly not every night. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So... Some people have similar traits and others don't. I wonder if we have a template answer for "Some people are like you and some are not. Some people agree with you and others do not. Some people like you and others do not. etc..." -- kainaw 02:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you wrote a second sentence, Mr.98. Your first one bamboozled the heck out of me. It almost reminded me of Hans Richter's Up with your damned nonsense will I put twice, or perhaps once, but sometimes always, by God, never.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
That's a good question. I had a very similar one actually: whether most people can play at will music they heard before in their head or that only those who have a kind of musical talent can do it. --Gilisa (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you can't play the violin, you won't be able to play the piece of music on the violin. I'm not sure I understand your question. 86.139.237.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I've noticed that when I'm awake but dead tired, I can hear complex music (like a symphony) in my mind's ear much more vividly than when I'm wide awake. It's not music that I heard that day and it's not stuck in my head, it's just ordinary song recall but with higher-fidelity instruments. Is that what you're talking about? -- BenRG (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that as well-and the neurophysiological basis for that was not well studied yet.--Gilisa (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Listening to a symphony every day is not normal" - speak for yourself, Barbarian! ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan Schulz, do you have any idea what is the specific complexity of the music that BenRG hearing in his head?--Gilisa (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean specified complexity? Sorry, that is complex, but unspecified. Also, I don't know what BenRG is hearing. But according to Leonard Bernstein, Beethoven's symphonies have the property that "the next note is the one you would least expect (but that afterwards seems to be the only possible choice)". So we can give a lower estimate of the Shannon information of a Beethoven symphony. Since there are 12 half tones, the least expected one must have a probability of no more than 1/12, which gives us at least 3.58 bits/note. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may hijack this thread to take it in a somewhat different direction: I've noticed that in the presence of a rather loud and monotonous noise (when riding in a small boat with an outboard motor, for instance), I often start to "hear" music within the noise—yes, sometimes whole symphonies or other complex pieces. This is more inescapable and "real" than an everyday earworm or imagined song in one's head; it approaches being an actual auditory hallucination. Is there a name for the phenomenon? A neurological explanation? Deor (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deor: unless the music is so distracting that you're unable to concentrate, I think the formal name for the phenomenon is "good imagination." But if it is causing you trouble, then you might want to have an ear doctor or a psychiatrist check you out for Musical ear syndrome, which I believe can happen if you have too much exposure to ear-damaging noises like outboard motors. --M@rēino 16:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deor: contrary to M@rēino, this is a recognised and normal phenomenon, but I can't for the moment recall where I've read about it or what it's called. Roughly, when you hear broad-spectrum (approaching "white") noise with some slight 'structure' your brain tries to make more sense of it than it contains, and you perceive the result as music - I've experienced it when riding in a noisy coach at speed, and in bed at night when I can just perceive some faint constant noise like distant motorway traffic, a fridge motor downstairs or the like. A similar phenomenon may be experienced visually, especially if driving at night while tired, when a barely-seen roadside object such as a pillar box is momentarily perceived as a person, including detailed features like sex, age, clothing and even demeanor. Such visual 'false positives' are understandable as a legacy of millions of years of evolution during which mistaking a pattern of shadows as a leopard many times cost little, while mistaking a leopard for a pattern of shadows just once would be fatal. The auditory musical equivalent is a little harder to unpack. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a slightly different direction again: I don't usually hear music when I'm going to sleep. But I almost always hear music in my head when I wake up. This has been happening for as long as I can remember. As often as not, it comes from I know not where and has nothing to do with my external life. This morning, it was a recurring passage from Granados's Valses Poeticos, a piece I know and love, but which I haven't heard for months and about which I haven't been having any conscious thoughts lately. Maybe I should start cataloguing my "morning mental music". -- JackofOz (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as I can remember, I've had a constant musical 'jukebox' playing in my head. I never confuse it with 'real' music heard with my ears, but it's there all the time. I can skip to a particular piece of music if I want, or a relevant piece is chosen without conscious thought. One sibling has the same thing, so I know it's not just me, but I'm aware that people who don't experience it think it's a bit weird. Siblings are useful for "it's not just me" moments. 86.139.237.128 (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deor, there's is a bunch of stuff on this general topic in Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain. White noise or the like seems to be a great way for the brain to start imagining, even hallucinating sounds. Count yourself lucky if you hear symphonies. When I am around white noise the sounds of babies and toddlers crying arises, to the point where I am unsure whether it is real or not. Pfly (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the ballad The Sweet Trinity why is the body of water referred to as a "lowland sea?" Is this a body of water below sea level? Bus stop (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lowlands is a region of Virginia. Similarly, lowcountry is a region of South Carolina. -- kainaw 02:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, kainaw. What would be referred to, the Atlantic Ocean off of the coast of these states? I am thinking that perhaps it is a poetic and grim reference to drowning, and not to any particular, actual body of water. Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest version (Child 286A; see the first external link in our article) seems to use "Neatherlands" and "Low-lands" as synonymous—as indeed they roughly are—so one might assume that in that version the ship was imagined as sailing in the seas off Holland when it had its distressing encounter. What, if anything, was pictured by the singers or composers of various variants of the song, by no means all of which mention a "lowland sea", is perhaps an unanswerable question. John Jacob Niles's comments may be of interest. Deor (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. All very thought provoking. And it got me to this. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Finance Question

In case of shortage in working capital,as an adviser to the company what factors would you consider in advising whether to sell its assets or use them as collateral to acquire loan to solve shortageSolit (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the company will have future need of the assets? Whether they are core to the company's business or represent a side-project (e.g. property which is rented without being directly used in the business)? Whether anyone will lend money, and at what sort of rates, and how much they'll lend against the assets? Whether the company is better off reducing in size (due to falling markets, recession, etc) or continuing as before? This is a vague question and would be different for each business. --Lesleyhood (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would calculate the Net present value of each choice. 92.24.25.252 (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

16th century units of length in Venice

Hi - finding it strangely difficult to find what the Italian equivalents of feet and inches were in 1580. Can anyone help? Adambrowne666 (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[12] --151.51.28.42 (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I don't read Italian - the google translator's not helping either. Is there an equivalent in English? Adambrowne666 (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says a "Venetian foot" is 12 inches or 0.347735 metres (or 34.7 centimetres), although the Italian Wikipedia says "once" is ounce, not inch, which is "pollice". But assuming it is "inch", then an inch is "12 lines" or 0.028978 metres (or 2.89 centimetres). So they were a little bigger than today; I think a modern foot is about 30 centimetres, and an inch is 2.54 centimetres. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't really need to read Italian to follow that page -- it gives you the names of the units, and their equivalents in metric. You would only need to know Italian if you wanted to translate the names into English and say things like "Venetian foot". As to "ounce" and "inch", both English words are derived from the Latin "uncia" meaning 1/12, corresponding to 1/12 of a foot or a pound (the pound-size measure in ancient Rome was divided into 12ths, not 16ths, as in troy weight). --Anonymous, 19:26 UTC, October 31, 2009.

As a Christian I am having trouble understanding docetism. Can someone explain this term further in simple English and that of John 1:14?--LordGorval (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to mainline Christianity, almost since the very first days, one of the central tenets has been that Jesus Christ was fully human. He had a real body and a real mind and experienced emotion and pain and all the things that a real human does. Docetism states that this is wrong; and that Jesus Christ had no real body, but that interactions people had with him were an illusion. The first chapter of the Gospel of John explains the relationship of Jesus with God and with Man; "The Word" is Jesus Christ, so it says both "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning" (John 1:1-2, NIV) which says that Jesus is God, and has been so since the Beginning (i.e. Genesis and Creation) and John 1:14 establishes the other part of Jesus's character, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." That is, God became human, and that human is Jesus. Docetism was one of the tenets of Gnosticism, and early version of Christianity that had a lot of complex differences from the version that became "mainline Christianity.", and has for a long time considered heretical. --Jayron32 12:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might also be relevant here that docetism became a popular variant of Christianity about 30 years before the Gospel of John had been written - and that Biblical inerrancy is a fairly recent concept (heck, the Bible is a recent concept compared to docetism), so early Christians would not perceive the conflict with any of our current books of the Bible much of a problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, Stephan, but I thought I should note that what Stephan is saying may well be accurate, but I think it should be phrased more as an opinion. Whether or not docetism was really "popular" 30 years before the writing of John's gospel (as well as the exact date of John's writing, for that matter) is a matter of scholarly dispute, as the records are not conclusive. And frankly, while Stephan is 100% right about inerrancy's recent emergence, I'd say you're almost 100% wrong to suggest that the inconsistency of docetism and the gospel of John wouldn't have been seen as a problem in early Christianity (although your phrasing there was a little hard for me to follow--perhaps you were making a different point?). After all, much of the writings of early Christian figures denounce "heresies" (including docetism), and the phrasing of the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed are chosen carefully to reject certain ideas about the nature of Jesus. Stephan's larger point (that early Christians would have a very different view of "scripture" and what it means than modern Christians often do) is, I think, indisputably accurate. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken. But the Nicene creed dates to 325, nearly 10 generations after docetism became popular, and 150 years after it lost much of its appeal. And some scholars even claim that one of the purposes of the Gospel of John was to counter docetism and related beliefs. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very fair points: John may very well have served that purpose (it strikes me as very reasonable, at least). And your point about the Creed is well taken--I probably shouldn't have used it as an example. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Avatar. Doecitism is the belief that Jesus was (merely?) an avatar of The Almighty. It's the opposite of Arianism, the belief that Jesus was (merely?) a human inspired by God's Spirit. Tevildo (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arianism does/did not claim that Jesus was "merely a human". It only sees Jesus as "begotten" (i.e. created at some time, not forever coexisting with the father), not of the same substance as the father, and subordinate to him. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting thoughts from each of you all. I am considering what you all said and am looking at a comparison of early English versions. The earliest I see the name "Jesus Christ" (whatever spelling) in John 1 is in verse 17. I see in the Tyndale version (1526), as well as later versions, it refers to "word" as "it", for example: ....we saw the glory of it... It makes me wonder if in fact all that was really meant was that of the spoken word and nothing else. Interesting new word of "avatar" that I have not heard of before. In my Random House Dictionary it says the definition is an enbodiment or personification, as of a principle, attitude, or view of life. Arianism is defined as the doctrine, taught by Arius, that Christ the Son was not consubstantial with God the Father. Not in any of these verses do I see that Jesus is "human" or was made "human." In verse 17 I see but grace and truthe is made by Iesus Christ... and ...but grace and truthe came by Iesus Christ. So I guess what I am saying is that something close to what User:Stephan Schulz said of "begotten" is something created at some point. Also User:Tevildo points out that doecitism is the belief that Jesus was an avatar of the Almighty. Perhaps then Jesus could be an embodiment of the ultimate moral life ("The Almighty") - a principle and view of life, not necessarily an actual human being, but instead an attitude of a view of life. Where does it say Jesus is a "human being" in the Gospel of John? .....or in any Gospel?--LordGorval (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read John 1 in context, it's clear (well, as clear as 1900 year old Greek texts with multiple levels of copying and translations get) that it all refers to Jesus, i.e. Jesus is the word that has become flesh. At least that is the interpretation that mainstream Christianity has given this text. The official line is that Jesus is both fully man and fully god, i.e. that his human body was real, not just an illusion (as docetism claims). See trinity. Note that these details have been the cause of violent riot, anathemas, murder, the major schism of the Church (see Filioque), and general mayhem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear to me. Who's "official line" are we talking about? I have read over the Gospel of John as well as all the other Gospels for several decades - and at this point I am convinced more than ever that the name "Jesus" was not meant to be interpreted as a person in the flesh, however just the spoken word of a concept related to morals. Keep in mind that us "humans" have been given this item called common sense and it tells me that "Jesus is the word that has become flesh" doesn't make sense. I do believe you went around my question, so I'll repeat it: Where does it say Jesus is a "human being" in the Gospel of John? Please give me the exact verses - you know, references like Wikipedia requires - none of this ...interpretation that mainstream Christianity has given... That sounds like this term called original research that I thought we were to stay away from.--LordGorval (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what you are doing (reading and interpreting an ancient primary source) is original research. But that's fine. We're not working on an article. See below for a more concrete answer to your question. I have no personal preference for one interpretation or the other - all I can do is tell you how things have been interpreted historically (or rather, a small part of that - I'm no expert, and not even much of an amateur on early Christianity). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The best place on Wikipedia to read about "the Word" is probably the article Logos, which discusses the Greek word the author of John actually used. There you will see some of the connotations the word Logos has/had, which might help you understand what was meant. Outside of this case, Logos is not usually translated as word.
As to the humanity of Jesus, I don't think any of the Gospels straight-out say "Jesus was a man", although it is implied: you can see one person's summary of the relevant parts of the Gospels here. It is made more explicit in other books in the New Testament: for example, you can read the second chapter of the letter to the Hebrews (Hebrews 2) here (New International Version). Read from verse 5 and find such as "he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death". Whether you consider other Christian writings from the 1st century AD that found their way into the Bible as meaningful as you find the Gospels is up to you. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary books

Hi : ) I'm really just curious and anyone can interpret this question however they want, but what books written since the 1980s and up do you feel have importance in the literary world? I mean what novels written do you think would provoke meaningful conversations in an English classroom. I've come up with The Things They Carried and American Psycho, which are just two I've discussed in my own classes. Thanks! ?EVAUNIT神の人間の殺害者 14:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A brief perusing of the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction brings up a lot of great books: The Road, Middlesex, Gilead, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay (one of my personal favorites), Beloved, etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Modern Library 100 Best Novels includes Midnight's Children from 1980 and Ironweed from 1983, and, from the readers' list, the following:
I noticed a lot of Charles de Lint and L. Ron Hubbard in the readers' selections, as well as quite a lot of science fiction/fantasy/horror, which is not represented in the editors' list. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the Pulitzer, you might like to look at winners of the Man Booker Prize. --ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not wishing to get all elitist about it, but 'readers choice' is not likely to yield 'important' books, as most people vote for the books they like, whatever the supposed criteria of the choice is. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then they would be important for being popular, and probably influential because of that. —Akrabbimtalk
The difficulty with such selections is that we have no way of knowing how large the sample of 'voters' was (possibly too small to have statistical validity), whether or not they form a truly representative cross-section of the reading public (unlikely, since to begin with they're probably self-selected out of an already unusual group), and whether or not an organised campaign may have skewed the results towards, as a purely hypothetical example [;-)], a particular writer with a cult following. My personal take on that list is that, speaking as an SF/Fantasy fan myself, it seems markedly skewed towards SF/F texts, a couple of which are poorly regarded even by most SF/F fans (ObPersonal, but based on 35 years in the Fannish community). A more truly representative survey would be more likely to have been conducted by a professional survey company on commission from a major periodical or similar institution. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the authors of the books listed above, I would probably say that the list above at least gets some partially right. I would expect that Ender's Game would be counted as the most significant Sci-Fi book of the past 30 years, if I had to choose ONE Sci-Fi book in this time frame, that would be it. Likewise, I see a few Stephen King books up there; the only one of his to have the sort of "literary impact" beyond popular literature may be The Stand, though it may just miss the 1980's. Certainly John Irving should be on any such list, and A Prayer for Owen Meany is a good one, though The Cider House Rules would be equally a good choice. Toni Morrison's Beloved and Salmon Rushdie's Satanic Verses are also good calls. Other authors one could mine for good books since this time may include Tom Wolfe or another member of the New Journalism school. The Right Stuff and Bonfire of the Vanities could likely be classics. Lots of John Updike's work comes earlier than this, but The Witches of Eastwick fits the timeframe nicely. If one would extend the list beyond novels to playwrights, David Mamet likely will have produced some classics, Glengarry Glen Ross for one. --Jayron32 19:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And of course it is worth pointing out (as should be somewhat obvious), that "impact" is a hard thing to guess, and authors that are considered "critically important" today may be of little impact in 100 years, whereas authors of "popular" works may have had their critical standing revised once they are no longer seen as "genre" writers (I suspect Stephen King will probably be given higher standing as a "writer" some decades after he has passed away). --Mr.98 (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Stephen King? That wouldn't have been my suspicion. :-)Bielle (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give it 100 years, people will find him quaint and take him as a seminal writer of our day. Perish the thought, I know... but stranger things have happened. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

color or non-standard black peoples marry whites

For Asian i notice ther is two types stnadad asian and white marry and US BOrn Asians and whites for US Born Asian man to marry white women actually accounts 40% What about for color not fully standard black to marry white, would it be higher for black women to marry white man? Becasue data show for black man to marry white is 71% for standad blacks then what about for non-standard black women to marry a white man. Could it be up to 40%?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's article Interracial marriage in the United States may have the statistics that you're looking for. Two things worth pointing out: (1) Even in the United States, same-race marriages are still more common than mixed-race marriages, but the numbers are changing quickly in recent years. (2) Americans don't refer to any people or racial groupings as "standard" -- I think the word you want might be "common" or "prevalent". The word "standard" is misleading because it suggests some sort of official approval. --M@rēino 16:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art print wanted

Why can't I find a print of That Which I Should Have Done I Did Not Do by Ivan Albright anywhere? Mike R (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want a print, for sale, or just an image? The image is at http://www.tfaoi.com/newsmu/nmus40a.htm. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to buy or receive free of charge a legal poster-sized print of the work to display in my home. I hope that clarifies. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This link [[13]] is from the Art Institute of Chicago, which owns the painting. It has the history of ownership and printing, which doesn't list printing as a poster, so it has probably never been produced as a poster. There's nothing listed in the Museum Shop. An email enquiry to the Museum might be able to elicit an answer as to the possibility of it being printed. Steewi (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did Marx show high regard for India's past?

Marx's contempt for India is rather famous. "I share not the opinion of those who believe in a golden age of Hindostan...". However, I read in a book a quote attributed to Marx which basically says that "We Europeans owe our language and religion to India". The writer doesn't specify the sourced work. Did Marx anywhere in his works express high regard thus for India's past? --Advaidavaark (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Marx had a dim view of religion, I doubt that he said this, and if he did, it would not necessarily indicate high regard for India's past. Marco polo (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you had the original quote, it would not be hard to trace, if it was from Marx or not. In any case, Marx generally thought that India and the rest of Asia were notable for being the subject of Western imperialism, being fairly backwards, and for their own brand of Oriental despotism that kept it from advancing through the various historical stages he felt were inevitable. Considering he thought that Asia had in general "fell asleep in history", it is hard to hold that he really had a high regard for its past. If he did say that particular quote, it is one thing, out of context. In his general analysis, Asia in general, and India lumped in with it, do not constitute much of what I would consider "high regard". Perhaps there are those better schooled in Marx on here though that can give more information on this. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The quote seems to be from The Future Results of British Rule in India: "...we may safely expect to see, at a more or less remote period, the regeneration of that great and interesting country [India], whose gentle natives are, to use the expression of Prince Soltykov, even in the most inferior classes, "plus fins et plus adroits que les Italiens" [more subtle and adroit than the Italians], whose submission even is counterbalanced by a certain calm nobility, who, notwithstanding their natural langor, have astonished the British officers by their bravery, whose country has been the source of our languages, our religions, and who represent the type of the ancient German in the Jat, and the type of the ancient Greek in the Brahmin." In the same document, he states "Arabs, Turks, Tartars, Moguls, who had successively overrun India, soon became Hindooized, the barbarian conquerors being, by an eternal law of history, conquered themselves by the superior civilization of their subjects". This all looks quite genuine; he had a high regard for India's history in many respects, but did believe that, along with much of Asia, it had failed to progress through the economic stages which he saw in much of Europe and regarded as broadly progressive. Warofdreams talk 14:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What did 'fell asleep in history' mean? To mean it would seem to imply he thought Asia had fallen asleep a while ago and therefore had not well advanced since then. Therefore it's possible he felt Asia had been advanced before then otherwise they would be always sleeping Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's a fair summary. Basically, his claim was that it had become stuck in what he described as the Asiatic mode of production - initially, this represented a major advance on previous modes of production, but most areas of Europe had moved through the Antique and feudal modes, and were reaching the capitalist mode of production. The summary under mode of production might be a more useful introduction than our actual article on the Asiatic mode, although that gives more detail on the ways in which the concept is controversial. Warofdreams talk 14:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sainthood of Edward the Martyr

Why was Edward the Martyr canonized, and is he the patron saint of anything? --99.251.239.89 (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of Catholic saints were not necessarily canonized "for" anything; it's sort of a posthumous "lifetime achievement award" for good Christians. Among his acts which may have led to canonization was his support of Benedictine monestaries; the Wikipedia article on him notes that he seized land from nobles in order to establish several monestaries; as such he could be seen as a keen supporter of Christianity. Furthermore, in the late 10th century, Christianity was not firmly entrenched in society. I'm pretty certain that his own mother, Ælfthryth, was not herself a Christian, and she has by some accounts been implicated in his death. The article does have several details on his involvement in the Church, so you can likely decide for yourself why he was so honored. --Jayron32 20:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canonisation may be of interest Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about the gentleman in question, but knowing his name would be enough to give me a good guess at why he was canonized. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Penguin Book of Saints says of him "He had not in fact died for religion, and he provides a good example of the honour due to a martyr being given to one who simply suffered an unjust death." He doesn't seem to be the patron of anything and he isn't even patron of a City of London church - the place is packed with churches named after Saxon saints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansplodge (talkcontribs) 00:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

Religious stance on origin of life

So far, science knows much, but not all, about the chemical proceses that led to the origin of life: likely elements, likely conditions, etc. As far as I know, religion would still atribute the begining of it to a divine intervention, but don't interfere in the discussions about molecules, enviorment, element reactions, etc.

But what would you think would happen if at some point in the future the study of the origin of life gets so advanced, that scientists become capable of designing a controled experiment that recreates such conditions and success in creating life from inanimated elements? Wich would be the religious reaction to that? MBelgrano (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any response they would have would be countered by Occam's razor. However, just because they would have figured out how it happened, it wouldn't necessary prove that the divine didn't cause it, push it along, or set it up or whatever. It certainly doesn't prove that there was an interference, but that is what faith is for. —Akrabbimtalk 02:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I think it's likely many would suggest that the experiment, which had been carefully set up by scientists, even proves that the divine hand guided the origins of life, since it takes a conscious mind to design the necessary conditions. (Note: I'm not making this claim or interested in arguing its validity. But I think it's a likely claim, under the circumstances MBelgrano describes.) Jwrosenzweig (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Science seeks to explain HOW things work whereas religions seek to explain WHY they do what they do. Religions will always be involved in questions of creation for this reason. Pollinosisss (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It is a tedious cliche (and, unlike many cliches, it isn't even true) that science concerns itself with how questions, but only theology is equipped to answer why questions. What on Earth is a why question? Not every English sentence beginning with the word 'why' is a legitimate question. Why are unicorns hollow? Some questions simply do not deserve an answer." -- Richard Dawkins 81.131.64.122 (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a great example of a straw man.–RHolton14:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a joke about this; God challenges some scientists to create life from scratch, so they think, no problem, and they go grab some dirt; God says they have to make their own dirt first. Or something like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Sagan's recipe for making apple pie from scratch starts out: "First, create the Universe". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a huge fan of Richard Dawkins, but I agree that the "how vs why" thing makes little sense. Science has explained the seasons and the tides and the motions of the planets; it's explained why the sky is blue and why it rains and why there's a funny smell after a lightning strike; it's explained why blood is red and why our armpits smell and why we get sick. Science has an excellent track record with "why" questions. -- BenRG (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all "how" questions. The "why" questions are the metaphysical questions. Here we have in mind the non-material causes of material things.Pollinosisss (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think (or I'd always assumed) that how-vs-why was supposed to be about gathering facts vs providing explanations. I suppose you could take it to be about physics vs metaphysics instead, but I don't think that leaves you any better off, because science keeps answering the metaphysical questions. A lot of the questions I asked above were once considered metaphysical. There are some eternal metaphysical questions, but the referent of those questions keeps changing. At one time when people talked about the origin of the universe they were talking about 4004 BC, but then science explained the formation of the earth and the question became where that matter had come from; that was explained by stellar nucleosynthesis and the big bang, and the question became what had caused the initial conditions of the big bang; that was explained by inflation and reheating, and the question became the origin of the inflation; and you can still put God in that gap, but he may not be safe there for long. -- BenRG (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You will always require a first cause though won't you? Wouldn't this cause have to be ontologically prior to matter, putting it beyond the power of science? Doesn't this mean that religion will always have a role to play? Pollinosisss (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're only "how" questions because you want them to be. "Why is the sky blue?" is a perfectly good "why" question that science has answered. The truth of the matter is that religion doesn't answer any questions at all, beyond "Because god said so, that's why." Matt Deres (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Science has told us how the sky is blue, not why it is so.
An interesting possible answer to the "why is the sky blue" question could be "the sky is blue because it is best for it to be blue". I myself find that to be a much more satisfying answer than "because god said so".Pollinosisss (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you find satisfying about a non-answer? "The sky is blue because that's best" is meaningless; first cousin to "because god wills it", but without even a pretext of explanation. Matt Deres (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If "how vs why" equates to "physical vs metaphysical" then Dawkins' quote above applies quite nicely. The metaphysical version of Why is the sky blue? has about as much utility as Why are unicorns hollow?. Some "why" questions are just not worth contemplating. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not true, Matt, that "religion doesn't answer any questions at all". Religion is mainly based on faith or belief, and has never pretended to do otherwise. It answers questions in its own terms; you can take those answers or leave them, just as one might disbelieve a whole host of predictions based on scientific knowledge, such as the one that confidently proclaimed that humans could not possibly survive vehicular travel above 15 miles an hour. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say it's not true and then support the opposite with every word thereafter. Religion answers no questions beyond "God wills it" and that's been true ever since our hairy ancestors first thought about why the sun makes crops grow or why rainclouds make thunder or even why murder is such a bad thing. No evidence, no open-minded consideration of other options, just an attempt to get themselves to "god wills it" in a way that satisfied the writer. I've never heard the 15 mph thing, though people always say stupid stuff and I don't doubt that someone said that. After evidence piled up, what happened next? The scientifically minded folks observed what went on and amended their ideas. The religious folks contributed as much to the event as they always have: if it works, it's god's will; if it doesn't, then it was never to be. Matt Deres (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Religion answers no questions beyond "God wills it" ', is something that can only really be said by someone who has never tried to understand a real religion. In my Catholic childhood, I was never given 'God wills it' as an answer to any question, although the question of God's will did come up in the context of the Passion and Holy Orders (please follow the links and read the ledes, rather than assume...). This is largely because the sort of questions we were looking at with religion were nothing like the questions we answered scientifically: they were questions of ethics and how you should behave, and how the world should be. Questions we explored with religion from an early age were things like "what should I do when someone is mean to me?", "What should I do when someone looks sad?", "How should we behave when someone makes us cross?", "How should we act towards people who are less well off than ourselves?". When we got older, the questions got more difficult and had less clear-cut answers, but none of them had the answer "God wills it" or "God did it". 86.142.224.71 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it is possible to generalize a "religion reaction" to scientific accounts of things that are previously considered the provenance of religion. In previous instances of this happening (accounts of speciation; accounts of the origins of the universe; accounts of the stability of the heavens, etc.), there are a whole range of reactions. Some scientific results are resisted; some are accepted with modifications; some are accepted 100%; some lead people to reject certain religious accounts; etc. It varies quite a bit between religious traditions, as well as individuals. You can easily imagine some religious people rejecting the ground rules of the experiment, or of insisting that there is always a little room for God in the unknowns (God of the gaps). You can imagine some seeing the scientific account as simply a naturalistic account of God's work. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that science can explain everything simply because I'm not sure that human mind can understand everything and is unlimited in relation to its ability to understand the physical world. For example, I'm not convinced that humans will be able to extract a formula which tell which number is prime number (but it may well happen-or that they have different mate that we can't understand). Or, for instance the Gödel's incompleteness theorems that according to some postmodernist philosophers indicate in the most scientific way that science can't know everything (even it's realy not as simple as they think). I think that the greates question that science is facing is not "how life were form" but what is cognizance -because if it's a product of neuronal activity, it must have physical characteristics (e.g., mass, volume) and this is something hard to imagine to be solved (we don't even have yet a good operational definition of what it's-but when thinking on it, if we do have, then we already solved this question).--Gilisa (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Science can answer all your questions and more, but if you don't accept its implications, then you can still find a place for religion and gods. Science has answered questions about life and death, about how we got here and why no one knows where we'll be going, but that hasn't stopped religion, has it? Imagine Reason (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good article. It is religious in the sense that I can't understand it. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

Holocaust

Is there a link where I can find a full list of the restriction imposed upon the jews by the nazis, prior to ghettoization? I.e. jews must not own radios, bicycles, cars etc? --Thanks, Hadseys 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This[14] might be a good place to start looking. It concentrates, naturally, on the Holocaust itself, but they seem to have some prewar material as well. PhGustaf (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you have already taken a look at Nuremberg Laws, which are the framework for any further restrictions. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are American textbooks so verbose?

I've wondered this a long time. Americans with their long working-hours must have the smallest amount of free time in all of the English-speaking world, and yet American textbooks are extremely verbose. Why is this? I would have assumed that conciseness would be valued. Even college textbooks are verbose, but these are dwarfed by the textbooks meant for adults. As an example the textbook Getting Things Done is full of padding and repetition - it is written more like a memoir than a textbook, as the author introduces anecdotes and stories and writes as a first-person narrative. Yet the essentials of it can be got just by looking at the diagram. It also just repeats the same ideas found in other self-help books. Another textbook I've begun reading tells you in several pages all about the authors lifestyle and that of her friends presumably to illustrate the point she's making, which could be fully described in two lines. No offense, but I'm doubtful that books like this would find a publisher in the UK. 78.151.139.162 (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Textbooks (at least in America) are complicated by the fact that there is an immense amount of money involved. Publishers can make huge profits just by spitting out new shiny editions each year. Other companies can make huge profits by buying large amounts of used textbooks for much less than they are worth, and then selling them back to the next batch of students for the typical blown-up price. Couple that with the requirement placed on college professors to mandate their students to get the newest edition of a textbook rarely used in class or for assignments, and you have an industry. —Akrabbimtalk 01:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Textbooks are constantly being reprinted. Perhaps regularly adding material is a way of justifying the new editions? Have textbook page numbers gradually increased over the years? Pollinosisss (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never read it, but judging by our article Getting Things Done isn't a textbook. It is a self-help book. Are you using "textbook" to mean any non-fiction book? If so, that isn't the standard usage. Non-fiction books are often intended to be entertaining and/or thought provoking rather than just informative, that is why they are often more verbose than they need to be. Actual textbooks, intended to educate someone on a subject, are usually only as long as they need to be to get across the information in a way the intended audience can understand. --Tango (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Textbooks are generally written by people with a very narrow focus, the antithesis of a Renaissance man. How many eloquent people do you know who have an esoteric interest, academic or otherwise? Vranak (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very many. I had plenty of good lecturers at uni (a couple of bad ones, of course). --Tango (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think both the books referred to above were textbooks. Getting Things Done is about how to organise your home office. The second book was definately a textbook. Part of the problem may be writing textbooks in the style of a self-help book, but in any case I am still puzzled by why even self help books should be so very verbose, repetatitive, and simply copy ideas from other books. Calling them self help books is not an excuse. Perhaps they are written by hack authors who merely rehash other authors ideas without having any personal experience or research to contribute. Perhaps the bigger American population means that publishers are willing to print books that would have proportionatly lower sales than publishers in other countries would find acceptable. 92.24.132.67 (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the beginning of our article Textbook, "They are produced according to the demand of educational institutions.". Unless you know of an educational institution that teaches 'organising your home office' and has set this book as a textbook that they work from, it seems unlikely to be a textbook. If it were a textbook, you are right that it would almost certainly be written in a more concise manner. Self-help books seem to be generally written with very low expectations of their readers, which is why they are written in the manner you have noticed. That people buy them in large numbers I leave you to fit into your worldview however you see fit. 86.142.224.71 (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Textbooks in America must be politically correct. That explains a lot.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even American textbooks, in the narrow sense that 86.142 is using are still very verbose and whaffley and have been for decades. A better definition of a textbook may be books for instruction. They do not have to be used in educational institutions. Arguing about the nomenclature does not alter the problem. 92.24.132.67 (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of a genuine textbook that you consider excessively verbose? --Tango (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May You Help Me?

Hi, I watched on T.V. the case of Eric Walber, a teen murdered by a gang in 1998 in Louisiana, USA. All of those involved were convicted and one of them, Michael Weary, was sentenced to death. I want to know if he was executed or if he's still in prison. I just found a pdf. of Louisiana V. Michael Weary, but nothing more. Well, thank you. --190.50.100.174 (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The crime was committed in 1988. Weary was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death in March 2002. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Louisiana on 24 April 2006. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on 27 November 2006. Weary's appeal for post-conviction relief was denied in district court in February 2007, which ruling was set aside by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and the Capital Post Conviction Project of Louisiana (CPCPL) took over the case on 1 April 2008. On 26 June 2009 the Supreme Court of Louisiana granted a writ of Certiorari to the Twenty-first judicial district Court and granted 180 days from the date of enrollment in which to file a supplemental application for post-conviction relief.
26 June 2009 + 180 days = 23 December 2009.
So he's still in prison (probably the Louisiana Penitentiary (Angola), and there's a lot more litigation that would have to happen before he could be executed. - Nunh-huh 03:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Nunh-huh. --190.50.100.174 (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An easier approach: notice he is not listed on [Searchable Execution Database] 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cats, drawings of

Can anyone point me to an article about these cats or the artist thereof? And I'm not talking about the lolcat. Dismas|(talk) 03:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous cartoonist of cats (after Garfield's creator, of course), is likely Kliban. The ones on the comforter have less black line than Kliban tends to use, but you should take a look for yourself. Bielle (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comforter in the picture appears to be this one, so I'd definitely say the artist in question is Kliban. --LarryMac | Talk 14:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both! Dismas|(talk) 18:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times Crossword

Heads up to Wikipedians: we get a name-check at 21 down in Sunday's puzzle :) - Nunh-huh 04:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the spoiler. PhGustaf (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone care to share for those of us who don't get the Times and would have to drive at least a half hour to even find a copy?  :-) Dismas|(talk) 14:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to Google that for you: ta-daa! (spoilers, btw.) The third result. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...Hold on, he doesn't give the questions! Well, I suppose he'd get in trouble, since they charge. Woops. Vimescarrot (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go... 21D: Like online medical advice for kids? (Wikipediatric) - the theme was fake portmanteaus. (portmanteuax?) Vimescarrot (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (sort of). Portmanteaux is the French spelling. In French, all -eau nouns (including eau itself, "water"), take the plural -x, hence portmanteau > portmanteaux. But whether French plurals belong on naturalised English words is another question. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on that: English plural, the section on Irregluar plurals#Irregular plurals from other languages. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racial attitudes toward children

I guess the humanities topic this fits under is "society". Does anyone know if there is a name- or anything else- for the phenomenon of people of one race finding all the babies/small children of another race automatically "cute"? Americans would be most familiar with the now taboo idea that all black babies are cute, but I have reason to believe it extends beyond that. Thedoorhinge (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of such a so-called "race" specific phenomenon. "All babies are cute," is a belief supposedly held by some. Newborns who arrive by Caesarian section are believed to be cuter than those experiencing vaginal birth as their forms don't such any of the birth trauma or stress, like misshapen heads, for example. The paler the basic skin tone of a newborn, the more likely it is to appear mottled, which is not usually considered attractive. Is this what you mean? Bielle (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Allow me to quote my friend, a white American who lives in Japan and caused me to wonder about this: "I was talking with a Japanese teacher at work the other day and explained to her that all the foreigners who I've asked have agreed with me that Japanese kids are adorable and virtually all of them are handsome or pretty. She immediately disagreed, and insisted that many are quite ugly and it's foreign babies with their blue eyes, rosy cheeks and cute little faces that are the cutest. She said she'd never seen an ugly foreign kid. I'm wondering if there is a term for this phenomenon." Add to that my own knowledge of the cliche of white people saying "black babies are all so cute". Thedoorhinge (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, the taboo here in the United States is with ANY sentence that boils down to "all people of a certain race have a certain trait in common." I would also add that many cultures across the world treat babies in a way that's almost diametrically opposite to the universal fawning that babies get in America. I've heard a lot of people say that, back on the shtetl, superstition dictated that you not praise your baby to strangers, with explanations varying (someone might kidnap or hurt your baby, demons would give the baby misfortune, etc.). It's possible that Japan has a variation of that, but I'm not as steeped in Japanese culture. --M@rēino 18:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect what you are describing is just a baby variation of the common "they all look the same" approach people have to races they have less direct contact with. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do a thesis on it and then it could be called Thedoorhinge's foreign baby effect. ;) Vespine (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

multiple names for Middle Eastern figures

Mahmoud Abbas (Arabic: مَحْمُود عَبَّاس‎ Maḥmūd ʿAbbās) (born 26 March 1935), also known by the kunya Abu Mazen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halcatalyst (talkcontribs)

Arabic name explains pretty well. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 18:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who in the Obama Administration determines U.S. WTO policy?

I was recently at a conference during which a speaker commented that Obama blocked Palestine's bid to join the WTO as an observing member. This caught my attention, as I had once heard another speaker mention that the amdinistration is considering offering Iran an updrade to full-member status (it is currently an observer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wto#Accession_process).

My question is the following: whose traditional job is it in the executive branch (that is, the presidential administration) to determine/advocate WTO policy? I'm not sure if this would be an offical position or a part of someone's portfolio -- perhaps unofficially. Possible departments could be State or Treasury. This is further complicated by the hush hush nature of WTO negotitions, as the US's influence in the organization is used largely at closed door meetings.

Thanks for your help!

Dan 130.64.34.185 (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally Ron Kirk in the Office of the United States Trade Representative, although of course you can bet that non-routine stuff (particularly things Israel/Palestine and Iran) it's mostly a function of the overall foreign relations policy regarding that matter, so State will really be in charge. In practice they'll sit down and have an inter-departmental chinwag, but you can bet HRC is the one doing the wagging. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 23:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2