Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

September 27

Lost license

Hello. This is not a request for legal advice, it's just something I've been curious about. When a doctor loses his or her license, how can s/he get it back? Does he need to go through med school again, or can he just reapply to the certification board or something? Thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 00:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

When you say "loses his or her license", I presume you're referring not just to cases of misplacing their physical license certificate, but to situations where the doctor's permission to practise has been removed due to professional misconduct or worse. If the authorities took action to deprive the doctor of their license to practise, I can't see them giving it back again in a hurry, unless it was just some abstruse technical issue that had no bearing on their general professional standing. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Doctors can lose their licenses to varying extents, so to speak. For some serious infractions the revocation is irrevocable, but a license may also be suspended temporarily. Sometimes a license may be recovered just by paying a fine, performing community service, and appearing before a medical examining board. One may also recover a license by challenging the examining board in court. Generally speaking, it's much easier to get a new medical license than to be readmitted to the bar. LANTZY^TALK 01:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I presume you're referring to some foreign place, since here in the United Kingdom, doctors don't have licen[c/s]es. They can however be struck off the Medical Register (though the article that links to doesn't have any information about the process, unfortunately). --ColinFine (talk) 07:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There is some information on the process in the UK in the General Medical Council article. Warofdreams talk 08:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the link I inserted redirects to the article you cited, and I don't see anything in it about being struck off. --ColinFine (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It would seem doctors in the UK now do require a licence (at least those on a specialist register, which I think covers every fully-qualified practicing doctor in the NHS), which they have to renew every 5 years. For practicing doctors this seems to mostly be a matter of keeping up with their CPD (continuing professional development) which means a few days a year in seminars and various rubber-chicken talks, and some reading and paperwork. So a doctor can lose their licence, and thus be effectively unable to practice unsupervised, if they don't keep up with that. A Powerpoint presentation which covers the process is here. In addition to suspensions from the GMR, that's also something you'd expect to happen if a doctor takes a lengthy time off (say to raise children) or works abroad. I've not found the procedure for reestablishing a licence (which will presumably entail satisfying the GMC that one is fit to practice). To what extent this will entail a formerly independent doctor having to return to pupilage for a while I don't know. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The GMC's page on this is here. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

My personal physician (general practitioner) in New England, who had a great rapport with his patients, made two serious errors and lost his license/got struck off the register twice. After he lost his right to practise the first time, and after he willingly and successfully completed some required rehabilitation and retraining programmes, the licensing board in my state eventually permitted him to resume under another physician's close supervision within an institution (rather than having a private practice of his own). However, he later reinserted a tube into a patient with fatal consequences, which lost him his license a second time. The board's chief administrator said the doctor wasn't repeating the same error; the only common thread was they both incidents showed a very serious lack of judgement. The doctor has been permitted to resume practice again, but under all kinds of restrictions and conditions. But I think it all depends on the nature of the offence, the state's laws, the authority's written regulations and its normal practices, as well as the character and personalities of the doctor, the investigators and the authority's members. Aiding an abortion was for many years in many places fully sufficient grounds to disqualify a doctor or nurse. In many places, aiding euthanasia or mercy killing still is. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What makes a musical performance great?

What makes a "great" musical performance "great", and not just merely "skillfully executed?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.80.119 (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good question. Ultimately, it's entirely subjective. You might think a particular performance was one for the ages, while I might be quite unmoved. However, if a group of listeners all agreed it was great, it would be interesting to ask them what exactly it was about it that made it great. I suggest there would be a variety of answers. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It also depends on what type of performance it is. A rock musician, for instance, might be thought highly of for their interaction with the crowd whereas a classical performance would have very little, if any, of that. Dismas|^(talk) 09:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What about: Harmony, and Variety, and Contrasts, Light & Shade {In the Musical sense of these terms}. In Philosophy where subjectivity is viewed-on as undesirable, perhaps we should study Music more. MacOfJesus (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Musical coordination, loud, strong vocals, charisma, on-stage banter, plus the unabashed balls-out sexual energy a group such as The Rolling Stones creates inside auditoriums when they perform live is what makes a performance great and which is why they have been frequently referred to as "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World". Aerosmith also put on fantastic live shows.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about this question earlier today. I used to think that with sufficiently sophisticated controls, a person could program a computer to make a truly great musical performance. After years of trying just that, I think "greatness" is extremely subtle and tricky to define. A programmer, or orchestra, may be able to pull it off, but I'm not at all convinced that greatness can be codified in words, at least at this point in time. It is something ineffable. Pfly (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh, I was thinking about this yesterday, after a conversation with a guitarist who is learning entirely by listening and copying. They told me that they didn't see the point in playing from written music because 'there's no creativity, you just play it exactly how it's written, like a machine'. Unlike, of course, playing back exactly what someone else plays! They didn't seem able to understand that playing exactly what was written, without interpretation, would give a poor performance and isn't what you're 'supposed' to do. No, not even in an exam. At that point, I struggled to explain exactly why machine-like reading of the music would be 'bad'. A good performer is expected to 'massage' the note-lengths and the tempo and the dynamics and even the pitch, where appropriate, to improve the overall effect, and that doesn't even touch on the many different timbres and effects a musician can achieve with their instrument: for example, a violinist has many bowing-effects available, some more subtle than others, that affect the 'feel' of a note or sequence of notes. That same violinist has types of vibrato to choose from, and can choose to play a single note in several different places on the fingerboard. 109.155.33.219 (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Rate of growth: population vs. investment

If a normal portfolio grows 7% each year (or maybe, 5%), and the population of a region grows at a rate of 1% year, does it mean that every family can be millionaire, provided they save some money and keep it invested? Quest09 (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, eventually everyone will be a millionaire as currency depreciates. Not all families share their wealth, and not all portfolios grow at even 5% per year, and some families grow at a very much faster rate, but yes, in many countries, many extended families are already millionaires collectively (including the value of property). The problem is that the value of portfolios can go down as well as up (in fact they have done so in the last ten years), and by the time every family is a millionaire, the cost of living will probably have risen to the point where a million in any local currency is not really a large amount. There are too many variables for answers to be precise. Dbfirs 10:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) if you mean real growth (more than inflation) then "yes, it can grow forever, and everyone can be a millionaire". Especially if you live in 1999, or at least more than 2-3 years ago with this financial crisis. If you don't mean +7% or +5% above inflation, if you only mean inflation, then the problem is by the time every family is a millionaire, it is not worth so much to be one. It's like if in 1882, you asked, "Is it true that in 200 years, every family can have 100 dollars just by working hard for 1-2 days???" Well, yes, but a hundred dollars is not what it was in 1882. 89.204.139.66 (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

But real growth can happen, and has (and is) happening, indefinitely. People, especially westerners (but even people in general) are continuously having higher and higher Standards of living (Here's a U.S. specific reference [1]). People, as a whole (though there are many, many, exceptions) live better lives than their parents, who live better lives than there grandparents (at least in terms of measurable things like life expectancy and purchasing power). As more minerals are mined and new technology invented, there really is more wealth to go around. Whether such growth is sustainable remains to be seen. It has been suggested that U.S. children today may, for the first time, have a shorter average lifespan than their parents ([2]). Malthus is famous for predicting that a growing population would soon outstrip our ability to produce food and, while such a scenario hasn't happened yet, there are people who continue to predict such a food shortage catastrophe. Buddy431 (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking a question about this below. 92.15.29.254 (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

is a zippo lighter supposed to turn on when you open it?

I just got a use zippo lighter and had it refilled. Is it supposed to turn on when you open it? (it makes a click). How do you use it? 89.204.153.235 (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the model of lighter that you have. The generic silver one does not turn on when you open it. -- kainaw™ 13:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested in our article on it: Zippo (which unfortunately however does not seem to go into the many flashy ways of lighting a Zippo practiced by the the initiated, and the bored.;) Generally, you must turn the wheel to cause a spark to light the wick. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that the questioner is confused by a common "trick" of opening the lid while also spinning the little wheel at the same time in the hopes that someone will be impressed. -- kainaw™ 15:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly easy to learn how to light a zippo as you open it (the classic is to 'flick it forward' but you actually push the cover open then quickly pull your thumb back on the flint wheel). Check out youtube if you have a lot of dexterity for some cool ways of doing it like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkDdQmiNlrA&feature=related Spoonfulsofsheep (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ideology

What is that makes people think their ideas are the answer to existence's problems? Possibly this is a question for the science desk, for I am interested in the neurological reasons, as well as the sociological, cultural, and historical implications. It would almost seem that if everyone agreed on one course of action that it would all go smooth, but it seems too that one ideology's solved problems open another set of disadvantages, e.g. socialism or theocracy. Thanks Wikipedians! schyler (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you what the behavioral phenomena is known as: positive illusions. You can take this to be right as I am never wrong about these things;-) --Aspro (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical corrections that do not advance the discussion need not apply — Lomn
Please. It's not a phenomena; it's a phenomenon. Write "This phenomenon is..." or "These phenomena are...". One is singular; the other is plural. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Illusory superiority? --Mr.98 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The OP also seems to be asking where on the nature/nurture axis it comes. I think it is the result of a neurological weakness (like say, being very bad at maths) which in some circumstances be reinforced by experience (say having overly uncritical parents who do not consider that anything little Johnny does can be wrong, so, if anything goes wrong it must be someone else's fault). Then a Authoritarian attitude or personality appears to develop.

A psychologist called Professor Bob Altemeyer has carried out some interest experiments on his students about the later personality trait. He explains this (in a very long winded fashion but well worth the effort) in his free download called The Authoritarians . Dominic Johnson maybe exploring the same thing in his new book, only I have not read it yet. Overconfidence and War: The Havoc and Glory of Positive Illusions. [3]--Aspro (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, my opinion is that it's a manifestation of territoriality. Most male animals compete to dominate a physical space; human males compete to dominate an intellectual space. Looie496 (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

One cannot live as a human without ideology. literally. the thing that separates humans from animals is the ability to create abstract representations of the world and act on them, rather than acting directly on the world itself (we can have a abstract concepts such as 'knife' or 'fire', imbued with certain potential characteristics and abilities, and then create and perfect physical instances of those concepts in different conditions, as we need them). The problem then becomes choosing between this abstract concept or that abstract concept that cover much of the same ground. for example, should marriage be polygamous (which maximizes the reproductive force of highly successful males at the expense of diversity), monogamous (which maximizes child care and social stability), or polyandrous (which maximizes the reproductive force of successful females)? There is no logical reason to choose between these three, and there is a decided friction where different where the ideas interact, and so the strategies are wrapped into ideological worldviews and enforced by the community to prevent conflicts. --Ludwigs2 21:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

One can be existential and ideologically free, at least as you propose it. This conversation is an opinion question. It's only interesting because somebody decided to "collapse" it into whatever. Shadowjams (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Existentialism (in all its forms) is a moral ideology. Existentialists spent a good deal of ink explaining to people how the should perceive the world, mostly through rejection of philosophies that create abstract value systems in preference to a 'natural' value system that arises out of immediate experience. No existentialist I know of advocates the abnegation of belief, merely the rejection of uninvestigated belief.

and yeah, it was a funky question to begin with. such is life. --Ludwigs2 15:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think "confirmation bias" seems like a plausible explanation for (or at least a contributory reason) why people cling so hard to what they believe to be right. (That is: they favour what they already have learned or somehow "know" from before, because the not changing anything (their opinion or belief) feels strongly comforting and reassuring). This is what is reflected in the proverb:
"The devil you know is better than the devil you don't."
And "confirmation bias" will still (or even stronger) hold up as an explanation in cases where the above mentioned: "positive illusions" and: "illusory superiority" do not apply.
--Seren-dipper (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Normal types of WHAT?

The article titled normal type is incomprehensible. I read the whole article. I'm guessing that it may be about types of people, but I can't tell from the article. I put a comment on this on the talk page in May and no one's answered! Can someone here shed some light? Michael Hardy (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is in the Sociology category, and seems to be about one kind of Personality type. It is poorly written. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It sure looks like gibberish, or even a hoax article, doesn't it? But a glance at the first sentence of Antipositivism will show you the realm we have descended into here. Looie496 (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd vote for deletion of the article as nonsense today, if it were posted to AfD. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I wish it was a copyvio or a hoax, but I fear someone actually created it in good faith, with the intention of improving Wikipedia's coverage of this subject area. Which depresses me. Karenjc 23:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Somebody might ask for help on the article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP that created it (also see Normal types) looks up to Germany although their English seems fine. No indication they're a hoaxer. I suspect as someone hinted above it's the sort of thing which may make sense to someone familiar with the field, but otherwise sounds like gibberish. The same is probably true of a number of science and computer stuff articles of course except perhaps then one of us is more likely to be able to make sense of them. Nil Einne (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Normal type--an analytical construct; a heuristic, interrogative tool that is used to describe the formation of social groups." Classical and modern social theory (2000). Google Books excerpt: [4]. Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a suggestion for a change of the article title at Talk:Normal type. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Global banding

Hi, I am from Germany and there is one phrase I do not understand. It would be very nice if you explained the meaning of "Please confirm your current global banding" to me. This is from an employment ad and I could not find out the meaning of global banding. Thanks --79.239.164.152 (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Could it be a misspelling of Global branding? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of English and a professional editor, and I have no idea what "global banding" is supposed to mean. Marco polo (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

globalgradingsystem. I have a funny stroy to tell yuo abuot this but i'm tied up at the moment.--Aspro (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

...currently pecking at the keyboard with a pencil clenched in his teeth, hence the tpyos.--Wetman (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is fuller explanation. [5]--Aspro (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Er, ah, yeah, that's much more understandable. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'll read it through, hope that helps ;) If someone's able to explain it in one sentence that will help, too. --93.104.171.143 (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

September 28

Germanian People's ( tribes )

Is it possible that some of the tribes could have been travelers who wondered into this area and did not originate from the same sorse as the other tribes.

my point here is I want to know If it's possible that some of these tribes could have been of the 10 lost tribes known as the house of Israel.If so they would have probably came tru the cascacus mountains around 600 bc after the fall of the assirian empire.my understanding is the Assirians was keeping these people around the caspian sea as farming slaves than no body knows what happened to them.I think some of the tribes went into Europe and find the debates over the germainian tribes intriging,is it possible that not all of these tribes came from the same sorse? have they done any genetics to see if this is possible or would the peoples of the house of Judia that was taken away bye the Romans and dispursed thru europe in I think 400 ad these are the ones known as the jews caused the genetics to be flawed because the 2 are brothers so they would have the same genes.I am not trying to mix religion with science or history debate.But I do believe that the reference of the 10 lost tribes is of the house of Israel that was captured bye the assirians in 800 bc and has nothing to do with the tribes dispursed bye the romans in 400 ad.not to insite rage here but for instance of the 10 lost tribes one of them was called the tribe of " Dan ".It seems to me that when you look up the germanian tribes and there origins you always get a lot of not sures and dead ends I do believe that most of the tribes probably came from Scandinavian but what if some of them just wondered in and could be of the lost tribes

I do not believe the 10 lost tribes just asimulated into there new surroundings,I think they stuck togeather and when the assirian empire fell they made a run for it,I believe they split up some went into Asia,some went toward Africa,and some went thru the mountains and into Europe.this would have happened about 200 years after they where taken as slaves.I also believe some even went back to there origins but we are talking about alot of people actually 5 times more that what wound up being dispursed bye the Romans that we call jews ( house of Judia ) 2 tribes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.3.91.224 (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The article Germanic peoples covers their origin. As to whether or not they could have been the "ten lost tribes", probably not likely. Germanic peoples can be reliably traced back to the earliest part of the Nordic Bronze Age, roughly 1700 BC. The "ten lost tribes" refers specifically to the Jewish people living in the Northern Kingdom during the days of the divided kingdom (Israel and Judah). The united Kingdom itself was only founded in about 1030 BC, meaning that when King Saul was founding the Jewish state, the Germanic peoples had been a roughly unified and identifiable cultural group for 700 years or so. When the "ten tribes" were "lost", which would have been fall of the Northern Kingdom in 732 BC, during that time the Germanic peoples were already well established in the red areas of the map below:

Germanic peoples occupied the red area in this map around the time of the fall of the Northern Kingdom

.

As to what happened to the "Ten Lost Tribes", there are very speculative hypothesis that the Ten Lost Tribes became almost every ethnic group in the entire world. No joke, the Wikipedia article contains speculations that the ten lost tribes later became connected to such disperate people as the Japanese, Native Americans, the Kurds, the Irish, and well, at this point, we've covered everything. What actually happened to them is probably less romantic; a proportion probably moved into the Kingdom of Judah (southern kingdom) as refugees when their own kingdom fell; they would have assimilated into the local population. Many would have been killed in the warfare or the forced exile to Assyria, the rest probably assimilated into Assyrian culture. --Jayron32 03:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We actually have an article Assyria and Germany in Anglo-Israelism. However, the overwhelmingly probable answer is that the great majority of the so-called "lost tribes" (who can only be counted as ten by splitting Joseph into Ephraim and Manasseh and including Levi, even though many Levites stayed with the southern kingdom) were culturally assimilated into general middle eastern populations (mostly Aramaic speaking) and lost their separate ethnic/religious identity.... AnonMoos (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that they found an entirely male-line descendant of Charlemagne, who, being a Frank, was German, which proved that he had picked up some Near Eastern DNA, that they tracked back to a time centuries before when the Franks, apparently, were staying around, I believe, the Black Sea. Make of that what you will. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind, 148, that while he may have been a direct male-line descendent of Charlemagne, he was certainly also the descendent of all the female lines - 1 per generation assuming no dynastic intertwinings - that had subsequently married the male line over those centuries, so one could only attribute the "Near Eastern DNA" to Charlemagne if it was on his Y chromosome. Similar considerations apply, of course, to all of Charlemagne's ancestors. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

According to QI, every European presently living is statistically a direct descendant of Charlemagne. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethnogenesis has always been traditionally expressed in terms of genealogy, but modern writers recognize in peoples like the Goths, cultural self-identification instead. Who are recognizable male-line descendants of Charlemagne? Wikipedia has an article Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups.--Wetman (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Tiptree titles

A lot of James Tiptree short story titles are (often fairly obscure) quotes from somewhere -- e.g. "She Waits for All Men Born" from 'The Garden of Proserpine' by Swinburne, or "The Earth Doth Like A Snake Renew" from 'Hellas' by Shelley. Does anyone know where (if from anywhere) 'And I Have Come Upon This Place By Lost Ways' and 'Your Faces O My Sisters! Your Faces Filled Of Light!" originated? They certainly *look* like quotes from something... Vultur (talk) 04:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on a Google Books search, it looks as though the first one is from a poem by Archibald MacLeish. I didn't find the second one, though. --Anonymous, 04:49 UTC, September 28, 2010.

Yes, it's MacLeish. The poem in question is: "L'An Trentiesme De Mon Eage". Karenjc 17:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The second one looks Whitmanish. DuncanHill (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Jane Harrison Tomkins, who wrote as Jennie Harrison. There is a Google Books snippet here which has a similar "oh my sisters" refrain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I searched on "filled of light", which is sufficiently unusual to yield limited results. There's an Emily Brontë poem that uses the phrase, but it doesn't seem relevant otherwise. I have couple of suggestions. There's an outside chance it could be inspired by an Alfred de Musset play called À Quoi Rêvent les Jeunes Filles. In translation, the phrase (snippet here) comes in a scene where a lover contemplates beautiful twin sisters, "... two forms so filled of light, two hearts as one / And either one might be her sister's mould ...". The other is a poem by May Sarton, "My Sisters, O My Sisters". Reading the critical analysis of it here, it seems to contain similar themes to the Tiptree story. But it's only a suggestion. Karenjc 19:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. 165.91.175.11 (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Portrait identification

Who is this

please? I have searched tineye without success. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Philip Mould would know. Ericoides 14:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you state on Commmons that it is your own work, perhaps you could enlighten us as to where you got it from? --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't paint it! Kittybrewster ☎ 15:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That was not what I meant though. If you could give some more information about where you found it, on the web or in real life, it might be helpful in the quest for a name. For example just a hint about a possible country of origin might do wonders (It bears some resemblence to the style of Joshua Reynolds). --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That might Alexander Cotswillow Grencham, inventor of the telescoping fish spear. or that might just be pure misinformation. --Ludwigs2 18:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Was his middle name pronounced "Codswallop"? AnonMoos (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

very possibly; he was a significant philosophical figure in the Nova Scotian Lowbrow Enlightenment, you know... --Ludwigs2 22:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Tineye does not find anything. In my experience, Tineye does not find things in non-American domains, which gives a few few grains of information that the portrait is in europe and not North American. 92.24.186.80 (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Countries

Why are countries referred to with female pronouns instead of gender-neutral ones? --204.184.214.2 (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Our gender-specific pronoun article says the origin of this practice is uncertain. --Sean 15:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It is also cultural. during WW2, Soviets referred to their country as the motherland, while Germans referred to the Germany as the fatherland. Googlemeister (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

See also this recent discussion of the topic at the Language desk: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 September 13#Grammatical gender in English as to states. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. The two Russian equivalents to fatherland, both common in WW2 propaganda, are feminine (отчизна) and neutral (отечество), but both stem from father. The only "mother-based" expression used in propaganda (родина-мать) is not a word but a poetic mixup of two words. On a lighter note, there's Odessa Mama. East of Borschov 17:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, the French word for "the fatherland", la patrie, is feminine. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the final comment at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 February 12#Do countries have gender? (got there from Wikidao's link) may be relevant to this discussion Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

can you give a company money?

Can a company like McDonald's or Microsoft or Coca Cola receive a donation from you (non tax-deductable, of course) to account for as 100% profit (donation)? How can I donate money in this way to Coca Cola or McDonald's, for example (to be used however they want, same as profit if I had bought one of their products but without the cost of producing their product and selling it to me). Can they create a "nothing" product that you can buy? (For example, is there a "nothing" product you can buy online, where you will literally get no delivery, though perhaps you could get an email saying you have successfully bought nothing for $779.50, or however much?) Thank you. 89.204.155.194 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing keeps you from doing so, but it is an accounting issue. First, it is not a donation in the general sense since donations often imply that they are given to a charity and the companies you mention are not charities. However, they do ask for free money in the form of stocks. The general concept is that you give money to the company. Then, you get a stock certificate indicating that you gave them money. You can sell that certificate if you like, but often you will hold on to it. As the company turns profit, they pass on a small amount of that profit to the people who own stock certificates - really as a "thank you" for giving them money in the first place. Now, you can resign a stock certificate - just giving it back to the company. So, it appears that the easiest method of giving money to a large company (from an accounting sense) would be to purchase stock and then hand the stock back over to the company. -- kainaw™ 15:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If both you and Coke were interested in this kind of transaction, I think you could just write them a check, and then they could give you a receipt that said "Donation - $779.50", or whatever.

I don't have any reference for this, but I note that smaller businesses will sometimes do this. Especially online. Many online cartoonists (or other creative types) will accept pay-pal donations. You send the money, then get a receipt. There's no charity involved, you're just contributing money to a small business. You occasionally see this sort of thing in the real world as well. (You go blue-berry picking at so-and-so farms, in addition to paying for your blueberries you might also be asked to make a donation to so-and-so farms to help keep the quaint, locally owned farm going.)

All that said, I suspect that Coke isn't interested in taking your money for nothing. $779.50 wouldn't make any difference at all to Coke's overall money situation, but accepting donations would probably cause a poor P.R. situation. Obviously, you can't donate money to anyone unless they're willing to take your money. (But you could use the resign-on-a-stock trick, Kainaw outlines above.)

(However, if you've got $779.50 burning a hole in your pocket, consider donating it to the Wikimedia foundation, of course.) APL (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you must insist on donating money to a for-profit company, just let me know and I will get such a company set up. Googlemeister (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that, even absent PR issues, Coke wouldn't cash the check. They would assume that either (a) you had (or thought you had) some clever way to extract millions of dollars out of them by getting them to accept a donation, or (b) you owed (or thought you owed) $779.50 to them for some reason, but they can't find it on their books, so they can't close it out. Even if they knew they were in the right, $779.50 just isn't worth the risk of dealing with legal issues. I feel like the auditors might be upset about money apparently appearing from nowhere, also.

Not part of your question, but related, are the concepts of consideration and peppercorn. These come up even in the case of nonprofits. For example, I once donated intellectual property to a nonprofit and received $10 as a peppercorn. The ever-present danger with receiving something is that the person may try to get it back! Paul (Stansifer) 16:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I recall a journalist or writer who sent cheques/checks for a small value - ten cents perhaps - to various well-known companies, and most of them cashed them. But if it would be better to give the money to charity, especially overseas charity. 92.24.188.89 (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Most large for-profit companies have affiliated non-profit organizations they contribute to. Instead of giving money to McDonald's, you could give it to their charity, Ronald McDonald House Charities. McDonald's makes this easy by putting donation boxes in their restaurants. Instead of giving to Microsoft, you could give money to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Coca-Cola has the Coca-Cola Scholars Foundation among other charitable efforts. —D. Monack ^talk 19:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as a "nothing product" you can buy, there was the iPhone app called I Am Rich, which cost $999.99 and did nothing except display a message to the effect that "I am rich." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Muslims of Southeast Asia

So far I know that Thailand has a specific region that has Muslim population significantly (Pattan) and Philippines also has a specific region that significant Muslim population (Moro). What about Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.148 (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We have articles on Islam in all four countries: Islam in Burma, Islam in Vietnam, Islam in Laos, and Islam in Cambodia. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Speaker

From House of Commons of the United Kingdom#Procedure: "Speeches are addressed to the presiding officer, using the words "Mr Speaker," "Madam Speaker," "Mr Deputy Speaker," or "Madam Deputy Speaker." Only the presiding officer may be directly addressed in debate; other Members must be referred to in the third person." A discussion has ensued on German Wikipedia why this is so. (In Germany, most people would consider it polite to address all the people present.) Might someone here be willing and able to shed some light on this question of protocol? Greets 85.180.192.221 (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a technique to stop people from using the word "you" – thus keeping everything more polite, supposedly. If one is technically talking to the Speaker, then it's, "Perhaps the Prime Minister could explain why he did such and such," rather than anything direct, personal and more likely to become disrespectful. (Interestingly, in the House of Lords, remarks are addressed to 'My Lords' – the House as a whole – although with the same effect that personal references are banned.) ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

expanding on the last, this is a system for maintaining order in the discussion. if members are allowed to speak directly to each other, then (at more irritable moments) the house will suffer from excesses of noise, as members direct comments to each other whether or not they have the floor. This would make it difficult to follow discussions on the floor and impossible to keep accurate minutes of the ongoing conversation. by requiring that all comments be addressed to the chair only one person can speak at a time, and all others have the opportunity to listen to what s/he says carefully. It's basically the same rationale that's used in formal debate (separate point/counterpoint periods, to ensure that both participants have equal opportunity to present their case) expanded to larger groups. --Ludwigs2 18:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit more than that — it's a kind of exceptional formality and politeness which is used in a few, but not all, legislative bodies. It's not just because it is practical (which is arguably is or isn't). It's a specific type of formality known as "Congressional etiquette" in the United States. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

He or she sits on the Chair and is thus the Chairman. Everything is addressed through the Chair for the reasons already given above. Here are the duties of the The Lord Speaker who resides in the other place for comparision. --Aspro (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we may have also missed the obvious out of over familiarity. The debating style of the House of Lords is courteous, even tempered and delivered (mostly) at a genteel pace. Whilst in the House of Commons, debates are much more of a cut-and-thrust adversarial style, with much uninhibited and noisy reaction to the wordage uttered from who ever holds the floor. The Speakers different powers and duties reflect this tradition. --Aspro (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The same thing applies in the US Congress. One addresses "The Junior Senator from California" instead of using her real name. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

@Everard: That is not quite the same thing, though, is it? Many thanks indeed to all of you. Your explanations make perfect sense, of course, and yet I wonder if this is all there is to it. Treasury provided the interesting piece of information that with The Lords addressing the whole assembly is the polite thing to do. So, apparently, directing whatever you say to the chair instead of the audience is not in itself more polite than the "European" way, but only by convention. After all, one might argue that talking to somebody who is actually in the room via a third person in the third person is a bit artificial (not that I mind; I confess I am a great fan of ceremony and ritual, particularly of the Anglo-Saxon variety), and that an insult in the third person is no less harmful than in the first person. So please pardon me when I keep nagging: What information is there on the history of addressing the Speaker only? On a somewhat tangential note: What happens (or rather happened, in the case of Michael Martin) when the Speaker himself is the target of criticism? Is he then directly attacked in the second person (I suppose so)? 85.180.192.221 (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the IP is misinformed. Deflection of the aggressive you is a feature of Italian, in which lei is a reference to the addressed person's (unstated) excellence, which is directly addressed. Aggressive informality, as when telemarketers address one by one's first name, may violate minimal requirements of decorum.--Wetman (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'm all for getting rid of excessive formality, but this trend has gone too far. Thank you for "aggressive informality" - I will use it. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion may be taking a wrong turn. I am, of course, not referring to the use of the grammatical honorific (which in German is, perhaps rather absurdly, the 3rd plural), but strictly to the practice of not addressing your real audience at all, but a sort of placeholder. 85.180.192.221 (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The formality is common in many committees in the UK, and serves to keep the discussion together, preventing the meeting from degenerating into private discussions (as Ludwigs2 explained above). Is it not used in US meetings? Dbfirs 22:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It is customary for members of the House of Representatives to address "Mr. Speaker" or (since 2007) "Madam Speaker." In the Senate, members address "Mr. President," who is not Barack Obama (the president of the United States) but Joe Biden, who as vice president of the U.S. is also president of the Senate. Biden is almost never in the Senate, so they're really addressing President Pro Tem Daniel Inouye, or, more likely, the acting president pro tem, who can be any Democratic senator. I don't think I've heard this convention used in places like city councils or boards of education or what have you, which tend to be much less formal. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly true. What they are addressing is the office which he holds, in this case that of the acting President of the Senate. They would never address Inouye directly on matters which concern him and his actions as a Senator. It's a bit of a convoluted disconnect, but they are addressing the Chair, not addressing the person who holds the chair. --Jayron32 04:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at our article Speaker (politics)? This offers insight on the role of the speaker in Anglo-Saxon legislatures. In one of my past careers, I worked for a state legislature in the United States, in which legislators followed the custom of addressing the speaker in the state House of Representatives and the Senate president in the Senate. I think that the roots of this practice are to be found in the ancient dual functions of Anglo-Saxon legislatures as both legislatures and courts. (The legislature where I worked is still called the Massachusetts General Court.) When legislatures serve(d) as courts, the speaker had some of the functions of a judge, moderating discussion. When legislatures debate and legislate, the speaker retains this function, and legislators address the speaker just as a trial attorney would address the judge. I strongly suspect that this is the root of the custom. Marco polo (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by your references to "Anglo-Saxon legislatures". The title of speaker was first recorded in 1377; the Anglo-Saxon period is generally held to have ended with the Norman Conquest in 1066, so to talk about the role of the speaker in Anglo-Saxon legislature is anachronistic. 80.254.147.52 (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I was sympathically adopting the OP's use of the term Anglo-Saxon (see above) to refer to (modern) English-speaking cultures derived from the English-speaking cultures of Great Britain. This usage is common in many European countries. Marco polo (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Socrates on Melos?

Dear Wikipedians! I write to you to inquire on philosophy and history!

I have learned of Melos, that which figures in the Melian Dialogue (416 BC). I wonder, therefore, did Socrates (469-399 BC) (or possibly Plato, as an opinion of Socrates is hard to discern from that of Plato) mention anything about the massacre of Melos? It seems to me to figure as something of a contemporary proof of the absolute wretched quality of the mob's tyranny - as perceived by Socrates or Plato, anyway.

Dear Wikipedians, I should be delighted and thankful to reecive your help on this matter. To me it reads like the most natural thing that, in search of evidence of Socrates/Plato's views, their comments on Melos should provide enormous help. Thank you in advance. 88.90.16.226 (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear IP. Socrates was not much given to commentary on particular political events, being more interested in the idealized abstractions of philosophy and reason. Aristotle would be a more likely choice, but I do not recall him having made any particular comments about the act. Massacres of that sort were not particularly uncommon in the ancient world (armies were often paid in war-spoils, which included things like trade is women and slaves); the only notable difference in this case is that the Melosians had no support from other cities and were particularly stubborn, which may have annoyed the Athenians a bit more than usual. --Ludwigs2 20:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

These weren't massacres...there were democratic slaughterings... Also at the time that the Battle of Melos, Plato would have been around 12-13.Smallman12q (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

OP IP here. I am aware Plato would be of that age, but I don't think it signifies to say he would be left untouched by it. My chief concern was if Socrates had had any opinion on it that he aired publically. Were he to have let this opinion show through to his students, then I imagine Plato would be able to produce a good argument against the Athenian democracy, should he share any elaborate view on the event. So far I've only been able to extract the historical account of Thucydides, but I trust people closer to Athens and Socrates/Plato may also have written something. Not yet sure if Xenophon, another contemporary, might have detailed reactions. 88.90.16.226 (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

There is speculation that Socrates was silent on the matter because Alcibiades supported it... though it may simply be that no record of his discontent is extant.Smallman12q (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC).

America entering the downside?

According to this, http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.us the average height of Americans is not only now less than western Europeans, when it used to be greater, but Americans have actually become slightly shorter than in the recent past. What is the cause of that? Thanks 92.15.29.254 (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Fluoridation? ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the author's paragraph about height, "Recent Stagnation"? By the way, he has to support several of his claims he's making there — I question whether influences of immigration are magically made irrelevant by simply requiring the data to be from native-born Americans. Also you'd need to show that the most recent decline is statistically significant. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that "recent" on his chart means a difference of one data point between 1960 and 1970. I'm not sure I'd put a lot of faith on that little data, and it is not that recent. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it has something to do with the weight of the world on our shoulders? Just a thought. . . DOR (HK) (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It was the 1960's. Apparently weed stunts your growth. --Jayron32 06:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

September 29

Moscow's former mayor

How does the President of Russia have the authority to dismiss the mayor of the city? Is this similar to the U.S. House of Representative's control over Washington, D.C.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.110.200 (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Constitutional princples in Russia are a little more "fluid" than they are in the U.S. Russian politicians look at such constitutional princples as a rough guidelines, but ultimately not a big impedance to doing whatever they want whenever they want. For example, when Vladimir Putin had to leave the office of President because of constitutionally mandated term limits, he simply had his successor appoint him Prime Minister, and simultaneously had all of the interesting powers of the President shuffled to the office of Prime Minister. Aside from half-assed attempts to legitimize such moves, Russian leaders operate on the Rule of Law: He who rules makes all the laws. So, whether or not Medvedyev had the formal power to remove the Mayor, he did it, and everyone there kinda accepts that how Russian politics works, so it's sort of a fait accompli. The tradition of Nomenklatura dates to the Soviet Union days, but it appears alive and well under post-Communismn Russia. --Jayron32 03:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The mayor of Moscow is technically a governor. The Russian President not only nominates but also has the last word in appointing governors. In 2005, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation ruled that this did not violate "the principles of division of power and federalism [...] in the current historical circumstances". (Richard Sakwa, Russian Politics and Society, Routledge, 2008, p 277). This is very briefly brushed in our article on governor. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, there ya go then. --Jayron32 04:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The rules are a bit more complicated than what I wrote, but it boils down to that. For more context, I quote from the same page in Sakwa's book: "This decision has been seen to indicate the spinelessness of the Constitutional Court vis-à-vis the authorities, and thus its inability to act as a bulwark against authoritarianism." ---Sluzzelin talk 04:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, so I wasn't completely wrong in my assessment of Russian politics. --Jayron32 04:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(My point :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 04:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there no States' rights in the present Russian government system? Is there any sense of home rule or the right of people in a local area to choose their own leadership? Obama has no power to sack the Mayor of Washington, D.C. in the US, by comparison. The Queen or the Prime Minister of the UK cannot (to my knowledge) sack the Mayor of London. Does the Emperor of Japan have the authority to sack the Mayor of Tokyo? Why should some pipsqueak head of state in Russia be able to remove a Mayor of a Russian city from office? Edison (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "states". The Subdivisions of Russia are a very complex melange of relationships, while Russia is technically a federation like the U.S., it would be better to say it is a federation very unlike the U.S. This melange is reflective of Russia's history, especially of its expansion eastward from its Eastern European core. Some subunits of Russia do have a level of autonomy akin to U.S. states, however these are mostly places that aren't "Russian", strictly speaking. These are generally the Republics of Russia, which are mostly places that are populated by non-Russian ethnic groups. Of the Federal subjects of Russia (Federal Subject is the administrative division roughly equivalent to a U.S. State), the parts of Russia which are essentially Russian (that is, historically and ethnically Russian) are the Oblasts of Russia. Oblasts may technically have a certain degree of autonomy, but practically they are no more autonomous than, say, English Counties. This is more realpolitik than anything. Those places that are most ethnically Russian get the least autonomy because they generally don't revolt against the government, being Russian themselves. Those places more likely to stir up trouble because of ethnic differences are given more power over their own business. Moscow is technically a Federal City, but functionally this is probably equivalent to an Oblast in all but name. --Jayron32 05:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

India is considered the largest democratic country in the world. Yet the Governors of states of India have always been appointed by the President. The situation in Russia has been similar to India after Putin's reform of regional administration in 2004. Moscow is one of the federal subjects, just like Saint Petersburg or Yakutia or Belgorod Oblast or Tuva. The regional leaders are appointed and sacked by the President. (Like the First Minister of Scotland, they are nominated by the regional legislature and appointed by the President). They used to be elected until 2004. In all Russian cities apart from Moscow and Petersburg, mayors are elected (although they may be sacked by the regional governor, according to a recently adopted law). --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer to the question is that Russia's constitution gives its president the authority to dismiss governors, including the mayor of Moscow, who counts as governor of the Moscow region. The Russian president is able to do this, whereas the U.S. president is not able to dismiss mayors, because the United States and Russia have different constitutions. Marco polo (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So yes, this is vaguely like the situation with the District of Columbia: in both, the relevant constitution grants the national government some control over the local government. Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Visas For Medical Treatment In the United States

Re: Visas For Medical Treatment In the United States

I would like to know how many Visas were issued in 2009 to Foreign Nationals for the purpose of receiving medical treatment in the United States.

Could you direct me to sources that would provide this specific information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseTemple (talk • contribs) 04:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That may be hard to find. United States visas are divided into a dizzying array of classes, while the government keeps stats on how many visas of each class are issued, none of the classes is expressly for "Medical treatment", so it is likely that such people are admitted under another class, such as B1 or B2 visa, which covers non-immigrant visas for business or tourism, I guess that if you are getting medical treatment, that may technically be "business". There are also W-class visas which appear to be technically "visa waivers", which may be a sort of "catch-all" for people who don't fit into other categories well. --Jayron32 05:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Kitty Kiernan

Would anybody happen to know the exact birthdate of Michael Collins' fiancee Kitty Kiernan? Her Wikipedia article just gives the year. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone knows. Her gravestone doesn't say. No source I can find says anything, and a blanket of lack of knowledge is more likely that just one or two sources that I've missed. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Geography/Travel question

Am looking for a "tourist destination" known for its large closet (could be one of its variants like cupboard or cabinet) It was built in the 19th century by a dedicated woman.

Its annual festival in August attracts fervent crowd

i did search on wikipedia / other sources

Would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.38.92 (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Difficult questions we can answer immediately, impossible ones take just a little longer, so please bare with us. Are you thinking of L'Armari de les Set Claus. The parish hosts a festival there each August.--Aspro (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

grammar
Nudist? Otherwise, you mean "please bear with us". 92.15.9.254 (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia share in the puzzle's prize money?--Wetman (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If this is it, then the answer is Andorra and I've found the cupboard gets mentioned in this destination guide where (surprise, surprise) its gets described as the “interesting cupboard with seven keys.” Top Attractions, Also mentioned in Wikipedia's Casa de la Vall article and else where but not (as the OP states) the English versions. Casa de la Vall A festival begins there on the first Saturday in August and lasts for three days.--Aspro (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As Wetman points out, this question relates to a regular prize trivia competition - the current question is here. We often get people posting today's question here in the hope that refdesk volunteers will do the legwork for them, and I've never yet seen anyone admit upfront that there was cash available for the right answer. I've no idea whether anyone has actually claimed the prize thanks to the refdesk, or if so, whether gratitude has led to a donation to the WMF, but if $100 would come in useful to you, you see a question of this type and you know the answer, it's always worth checking the website before you respond here. Karenjc 15:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the quiz itself is a sad, sad joke. We'd had questions from it here before, with people giving serious applicable answers (answering to hints like: this amazing structure is known worldwide and the like with places that really were known worldwide) only to later find out the answer was some ridiculous roadside attraction housed at the gas station in Middle-o-nowhere, Forsakington county, Central US. As has happened again with this very question, btw. TomorrowTime (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Some so-called "attractions" really deserve to be called "repulsions".  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of 'Indian' to refer not only to natives of the Americas, but other indigenes

In The Fatal Shore, I see the word 'Indian' used more than once to refer to the Aborigines in accounts by the first colonists. I was amazed. Of course, Cooke et al didn't think they'd hit upon the East Indies. So did the term, after Columbus's mistake, become a sort of colloquialism to refer to 'natives'? Is anyone else aware of this?

Thanks - sorry for the clumsy prose - am tired. Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The OED lists the word indian being used for the natives of the Philippines as early as 1697, so yes it appears indian frequently meant just about any native. The word Indies was loosely used to mean any place far away and foreign so it wasn't much of a stretch to call the peoples there Indians when you didn't know they were Maori. meltBanana 14:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen many references state that "Indie" is short for "Independent" and was used to refer to any land that was independent of the colonial governments of Europe. If that were true, referring to all "indie" people as "indians" would make sense. However, it is absolutely false. "Indie" is derived from Indus, a landmark in a specific area of the world. The land around Indus was known as East Indie and West Indie. I'm sure there are also references to North Indie and South Indie as well - though South Indie would be nothing but water. -- kainaw™ 14:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Your statement may be true of "India" or "the Indies", but "Indie" doesn't exist in English other than as a modern abbreviation for "independent". --ColinFine (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing but water, Kainaw? Well, depending where in India you're south of, it could mean Sri Lanka (when Sir Arthur C Clarke died, there were various reports that he'd died in India, on the ignorant journalistic assumption that Sri Lanka is part of India and not a separate sovereign nation).

In school, I distinctly remember being taught a poem that made reference to "Austral Indians", which was a poetic way of referring to Australian aborigines. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you head south of the Indus River, you will see water, water, water, and more water. The Arabian Sea is not known for a plethora of islands. -- kainaw™ 12:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all - I really like it - doesn't seem to be reflected in fiction set in those times. Shouldn't we amend the 'Indian' article to reflect this? Adambrowne666 (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Cook wrote in his diary of 1769: "Seeing some of the natives on the other side of the river ... I order'd the yaul in ... In the mean time the Indians made off " (he was referring to the Maoris). By 1872, Millet wrote: "The ‘aborigines’, as they are now styled ... Captain Cook would in his older time have called ‘Indians’". Apparently, Cook thought that they all looked alike! I've never heard "Indian" (on its own) used to refer to anyone outside the Indian sub-continent in modern UK usage, except for "Cowboys & Indians". Dbfirs 08:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Choosing a 1950s standard of living

If everyone in a western country decided to only work part-time and only spend as much as would give them a 1950s standard of living, what would happen to the economy? 92.15.9.254 (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what that means -- in the U.S. at least, the 1950's were pretty prosperous, and the main "lifestyle" difference between then and now is the ever-increasing proliferation and sophistication of technological gadgets. Also, in the 1950's, there were a lot of semi-skilled labor jobs that paid reasonably well, so that a man without much education could still often support a family. And a man in a professional or middle-management position usually could support his family at a middle-class level of comfort on just his one income... AnonMoos (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how answerable this is regardless, but you'll need to define what you mean. Does "1950s standard of living" mean that I spend only what would have been spent in 50s dollars (discounting 60 years of inflation)? Does it mean that I only spend money on things that I could have spent money on in the 50s? Do I just try to project a budget forward, but can divide it how I like? What standard defines the "50s standard of living"? If everyone is doing this, does this mean that those below the poverty line magically get enough money to meet this new standard? And backing off a bit, is the point "what would be the impact of a 50s SoL?" or "what would be the impact of no full-time work?", because those are two very different questions that probably shouldn't be conflated. — Lomn 13:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The question already said "spend as much as would give them a 1950s standard of living". You have asked several extra questions which the OP is not responsible for. 92.29.117.59 (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You're responsible for removing ambiguities listed if you want a hard answer. Fluff is easy, as is demonstrated below. It's also not useful. — Lomn 17:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The question is easy to understand and the meaning clear. This is not a kindergarten. I feel as if I've asked "What is two plus two" and then you come back saying "Can you define what two means? Do you want us to multiply them or divide them? It's your fault I don't understand" and so on. 92.24.190.229 (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Providing short-form answers: a net drop in consumer spending (the probable result of the "50s SoL" thing) hurts a consumer-services-based economy. Check out the last few years in the US. However, if all work becomes part-time, companies can cut costs and offer jobs to more people. You'll have to redefine "unemployment", since that usually means full-time work, but some new balance point will be found. The supply/demand curve will adjust to new practical realities. Economies are complex systems, and would that we have a Glooper that could perfectly model the whole thing. — Lomn 13:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

From a U.S. perspective, the question doesn't make much sense. In the 1950s, my grandfather, who had less education than me but a job with a roughly similar skill level, was able to afford a much larger house than I can afford, even with my partner working and contributing to pay our mortgage. He was able to afford a car for himself and another for his wife, and he was able to support his wife and three children, none of whom worked; whereas my partner and I share a car and both have to work just to meet our own basic needs. While we have computers and a router, which my grandparents did not have, in other ways our "standard of living" is no higher than theirs. So, I would have to increase, not decrease, the hours that I work in order to afford my grandparents' standard of living in the 1950s. Marco polo (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting to be told that the standard of living has declined in the US since the 50's - that's shocking. 92.29.117.59 (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, you probably have a longer expected lifespan than your grandfather, and access to better medical care. You can probably afford to get a greater variety of goods from all over the world. Standard of living is a very complex idea, and there is considerable disagreement on how to measure it. Buddy431 (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised people have problems understanding the question. See this http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/ 92.29.117.59 (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

All that your graph shows is that workers are more productive now than in the 1950s. I'm sure that I generate more value for my company from a week of work than my grandfather did. However, I see a smaller proportion of that value than he did, because profit levels today are at record highs, as are levels of executive compensation, so most of the value that I create accrues to the compensation of executives and shareholders, whereas my grandfather would have seen a much higher share of the value that he produced reflected in his salary. This explains why an American with a given skill level would have to work more hours today than in the 1950s to achieve the same standard of living. The main exception would be the minority of Americans who are senior managers or who live from investment income. They enjoy a much higher standard of living today for the same number hours of work as in the 1950s. Marco polo (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The situation in America is shockingly different from what I had assumed, if what Marco Polo says is general experience. I was not expecting US standards of living to have fallen since the 50's. But here in the UK you could go without buying all the things that have become commonplace since the 1950s such as central heating, tvs, fridges, computers, gadgets, large quantities of clothes, fancy foods, various types of entertainment, foriegn holidays, and many other things, and thus spend only a fraction of your income to get a 1950s standard of living. The cost of houses may have risen in real terms, but as people still buy houses I still think you'd still have a lot of surplus income. The cost of food is now a small fraction of what it was in the 50s. 92.29.117.59 (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Many people in the UK spend half their income on housing and fuel, and only a small amount on tvs, computers etc. I think that many families would not be able to survive on a single income even without these things. -- Q Chris (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Its easy to forget that the quality of housing has risen in the UK since the 1950s, despite the tiny room sizes. A lot of people lived in slums, which were bulldozed in the 1960s or at least modernised and upgraded. Strangers would share rooms, where now they would live in flats. The flat lived in by the well-paid Michael Caine character in The Ipcress File was slumy and seedy, even in the 60s. Other 60s literature depicts similar seedy conditions - eg Saturday Night And Sunday Morning and so on. Only the better housing from the past survives, the slums have gone. 92.15.7.179 (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am. In the 1950s there was almost no central heating and not many people had cars, nobody jetted abroad for their holidays, so you would have used little fuel. In the 50s food at a guess may have cost a third of the household budget, now the cost of food is very much less especially for 1950s style meals. This more than offsets a rise in the cost of housing. In the 1950s I think most people rented, and rents are cheaper than buying, particularly in council houses. There is very much more 'disposable income' now than there was in the 50s. 92.24.190.229 (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

To give you an example of how standards of living have changed since the 1950s: In 1950, U.S. households spent 20.6% of their income on food, according to the USDA. In 2008, it was 5.8%. Spending on clothing has dropped from 10% to about 2% -- thanks, Vietnamese sweatshop workers. That's 23% of income that can go to other things, such as electronics, vacations, or whatever. In the 50s, so I've been told, American families almost never ate out and rarely took fancy trips. New Yorkers had their honeymoon in Niagara Falls, not in St. Lucia. Houses often lacked air conditioning. Families usually had one car -- or even no car, imagine that. TVs were super-expensive -- as much as $4,000 in today's money. Forget about having four or five TVs like families may have now. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the ramifications of the circular flow of income you would expect GDP per capita to drop to 1950s levels. If you ignored the export market you would expect that unemployment would remain more or less constant if everyone decreased their willingness to work by the same amount. People would make less stuff, but receive less income with which to buy it. You would expect a shift in employment away from complex and luxury goods towards foods and essentials.124.171.93.13 (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In the USA of the 1950s it was rare to see a woman work outside the home, and you never saw females over the age of 30 looking like Sharon Stone and Madonna (both of whom are 52 years old); however, cars, tvs, fridges, etc. lasted much longer than they do now, the crime rate was drastically lower, the schools better (yet students never questioned what their teachers said), people trusted their government, and were more insular in that they didn't care what went on outside the United States; this was probably because, as one editor pointed out, relatively few people travelled abroad. In my opinion, the 1960s offered a more stimulating lifestyle than the staid 1950s.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Schools were better" and "students never questioned what their teachers said"? Cars, TVs (2 channels, none of them 24/7, or even 24/anything, I suspect) and fridges may have lasted longer, but also had much less functionality and used much more energy. Jim Crow laws were in full effect, and I would expect that much of the romanticized upper middle class suburban lifestyle did not apply to minorities. I just hit upon another interesting factoid from the latest US census: Today, there are 14.5 times more people in the lower 20% income bracket than in the upper 20% (and the upper 20% now earn more than half of the overall income). 40 years ago, that ratio was 7.7:1 [6](sorry, German source). That redistribution certainly affects the middle and lower classes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several tv programmes which perfectly illustrate the average US middle-class lifestyles and mentality such as Father Knows Best and I Love Lucy. Then there are two excellent 1950s films where one can see the difference between the standard of living and social mores in the USA. These are Sunset Boulevard where an actress was deemed old and unworkable at 50; and the brilliant A Place in the Sun. Just compare Elizabeth Taylor's family's tastefully rich lifestyle as depicted in the 1952 film to the vulgar, Baccalian display of wealth in the 80s soap opera Dynasty!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I should step back from my earlier statement and concede that the standard of living per hour of work in the United States has risen not only for senior managers and the rich, but also for people who are not white and for single women of all colors. Their opportunities for gainful employment have certainly increased since the 1950s. However, I would still argue that for white males and white married couples in the United States who work for a living and are not senior managers, an hour of work buys less "standard of living" today than it did in the 1950s. The median white American family household may have a slightly higher standard of living than in the 1950s, but I think that this can be more than accounted for by the additional hours worked by wives. Marco polo (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

U.S. homicide rate per 100,000 people, 1950: 4.6. In 2007: 5.9. So the crime rate was lower back then, but perhaps not drastically so. Incidentally, the murder rate peaked in 1980 at 10.2. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Back in the 1950's, a school janitor would very often have made significantly more than a school nurse, etc. -- perhaps due to unquestioned implicit assumptions about who would be supporting a family just as much as any blatant overt sexism. Lessening such pay disparities in the 50 years since has had many positive features, but it also contributed to the situation where nowadays there are very few such school-janitor type jobs where someone without much education can support a family at a fairly comfortable (though working-class) standard of living on his single income... AnonMoos (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if its true that you would have a better-than-1950s standard of living in the UK even when unemployed and recieving the dole/welfare. 92.28.242.150 (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Whose 1950's standard of living? Better than the poorest? Almost certainly, although (especially if you're trying to live a 1950's life) you will miss out on much of the social support and interaction that are an intangible (but measurably important) part of the standard of living. But at least the housing will be much improved, if you have it, which greatly reduced child mortality. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of the average? Median, if you like. I disagree about losing social support - it does require a positive decision to move away from your parent's and friends neighbourhood. If we are talking about the UK, you could arrive at parties on a bicycle (or tandem bicycle if you're feeling lucky) rather than a car. They wrote letters in the 50s, a few people had telephones. You could use computers in your local library for free, although that would not be strictly 1950s, but more like freeriding. I understand that there is at least one couple in England somewhere who live entirely as if they were in the 1930s in every detail, although 1930s electrics would be illegal now. 92.28.254.154 (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I live in a very 50s way by choice (or poverty); no TV, no car,no microwave,no landline phone ,no washing machine or dishwasher.The only modern device I have is a computer and the net access is from an independent supplier and costs a pound a week.I repair clothes instead of throwing them away and have no bank account,mortgage or credit cards.I actually enjoy it and don't miss the stress of debt or longing for the latest consumer goods.Hotclaws (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Adopting a 1950s lifestyle would mean no TV (for the majority of Americans); no computer; no healthcare insurance; no friends of a different race or nationality (and few of a different religion); an average $1.72/hour pay for an average 40.3 hours of work per week (manufacturing wages), or $69.16 a week. Just 2% inflation and an average 3.3% prime rate. One car per family; no air-conditioning; oh, and be sure to invalidate your polio vaccine (widely available only in the 1960s) and a whole host of others. Open heart surgery? Forget it. Figure on an average of only about six years education per adult. The household budget would be spent on food (20.6%, vs. 7.6% in the past decade), utilities (20.9%, vs. 18% in the high oil price 2000s) as well as clothing, footwear and furnishings (14.2% vs. 6.5%, [thank you, China]). DOR (HK) (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In some ways, healthcare distribution was less problematic in the U.S. in the 1950s -- doctors made housecalls, and people with solid union or middle-class jobs often had relatively little difficulty paying for most needs... AnonMoos (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

India visa

When trying to apply for a visa to India online, I keep getting redirected to what it refers to as "Third Party Companies" with a big warning that I have to agree to let the third party company submit my visa to the Indian government. I do not trust the Internet, so I begin with the assumption that these companies are just scams. Do you have to submit the visa application through a third party company or can you submit it directly to the government? -- kainaw™ 18:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Indian government outsourced most of it's Visa operations (except for Diplomatic and Official Visas) to third parties in 2001. The majority of countries are covered by VFS Global. For citizens of the USA, Travisa Outsourcing are the company that handles all requests. Nanonic (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

cars industry maps

I notice for the articles PSA Peugeot Citroen, Fiat S.p.A., and Renault S.A. have maps which shows the locations of their factories around the world. So what about Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi, Jaguar, Opel, Nissan, Mazda, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and Bentley? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.61 (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress. Please feel free to join us. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

cuban history

where can I go to read fidel castros' inaugrual address? 75.209.201.175 (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I found some speeches here but nothing that's obviously what you're seeking. There are a couple from January 1959, but none from February when he was sworn in as Prime Minister of Cuba, and none from 1976 when he became the president. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Clock in tower bongs 13 times

Thirteen bongs at 1 o'clock

I live near a one hundred year old County Court House. The tower clock on top of the building was installed in 1906. When it "bongs' on the hour, it sounds just like many grandfather clocks I have heard. It "bongs" two times for 2 o'c;ock, 3 "bongs" for 3 o'clock, etc etc until it "bongs" 11 times for 11 o'clock and 12 "bongs" for 12 o'clock - 24 hours. However lately I have noticed it "bongs" 13 times for 1 o'clock, A.M. or P.M. I have verified this over this last week. Now the question is: Is this normal? Logic tells me 1 o'clock should give me one "bong" just like a grandfather clock does. Perhaps I missed this in the past and it has ALWAYS "bonged" 13 times for 1 o'clock. Do some "grandfather" clocks give 13 "bongs" for 1 o'clock? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a bright, cold day in April by any chance, is it? -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A grandfather clock in my house bongs once for 12 and 1. Grsz¹¹ 02:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Striking clock says that gonging once for 1 o'clock and twelve times for 12 o'clock is "most common". WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If the mechanism is a hundred years old, then it is probably suffering from wear on the cogs and triggers, so some adjustment or replacement of worn parts might be overdue. I once mis-adjusted a chiming clock so that it chimed continuously every hour (until the clockwork ran down). Dbfirs 07:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dbfirs's point is a good one. Our 1930s mantel clock frequently gives an incorrect number of bongs (most often around 12 and 1 o'clock), with a record of 27 bongs (at five o'clock in the afternoon, I think). We think it adds character, which is handy given that a clocksmith said that the cost of getting replacement parts fitted (in our case) would probably exceed the value of the clock. Brammers (talk/c) 08:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just recorded the thirteen bongs at 1 o'clock today - half hour ago. Count them - the first bong is at 2 seconds and the thirteenth is at 39 seconds of this video. What's up? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

again, most likely this is a fault - I can easily imagine some piece wearing down so that at 1:00 it gives the chimes for both 12 and 1 (for a total of 13). However, the only way you are going to find out for sure is to get off your couch, go to the court house, and ask. It's highly doubtful they are unaware of the problem, and are most likely (1) waiting for replacement parts, (2) waiting for an expert in old-fashioned clock towers, (3) waiting for the funds they need to request one or both of the previous, or (4) waiting (in classic bureaucrat style) until someone complains loudly enough to overcome their innate inertia. --Ludwigs2 17:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What a great idea! Got off my office chair and went over and talked to them about it. They didn't have a clue, since they can not hear it inside the building. Now they have something to work on.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 18:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Some clocks in stableyards strike 13 for one o'clock because it was easy to miss one bong and so not get back on time after the lunch hour. Unfortunately I can't remember where I heard this.86.135.17.199 (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

September 30

Polygamy in Jamaica

Is polygamy legal or illegal in Jamaica? Is polygamy a common thing in Jamaica? 99.245.73.51 (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

According to Legal status of polygamy, the map at the top has Jamaica colored orange, which means that it is illegal there. --Jayron32 04:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

...which is, of course, a different matter than its frequency. If by "polygamy" you mean not only legal marriage but long-term partnerships, that is entirely another question, and much more difficult to get hard information about. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance of pedophilia

Discussion closed per talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh boy...so I got into an argument with a friend the other day about the acceptance of pedophilia. Her argument was that pedophilia will be accepted in the future, much as couples of mixed races or of the same sex were once not tolerated in the west but now are; I think the two are extremely different and that human nature is more involved. What would my fellow wikipedians say about this? (And I'm not trying to start fights or be vulgar or anything)  ?EVAUNIT神になった人間 04:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC) It seems very unlikely for it to be "accepted" any time soon in the way your friend describes. You might want to consider some of the history of it, though. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC) One thing to consider is that, while the age of consent has changed at various times throughout history, it has always been accepted in nearly all cultures at nearly all times that there is some age at which children are too young to participate in sexual activity. Not to be gross, but while we can debate whether or not, depending on cultural context, 14 or 15 may be too young for sexual activity, what about a 3 year old? Seriously, confusing the difference between whether or not consenting adults can mutually agree to have a sexual relation with each other and whether an adult can introduce sexual activity to a child too young to know what the heck is going on? That is a problem. No, pedophillia is never going to be acceptable. --Jayron32 05:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Yes. Note that in your two examples (mixed-race and same-sex relationships between consenting adults), there is no psychological/developmental harm done to either party due to the nature of the relationship itself. and I wonder if this section should be "closed" before it gets too out-of-control...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC) WP:NOTCRYSTAL. This isn't a place to speculate aimlessly. But I will note that the links already given above make it clear that it is not "human nature" that stops the behavior; humans have at various points in history found it totally within their nature to find it socially acceptable. Current cultural/social/legal outlooks in the West frame it as an issue of consent. We don't really know how it will look at it in the future. It could change, it might not. Sexual mores are not static in the slightest. There certainly is a sizable (though hard to estimate) population of pedophiles which makes it hard to suggest that it will somehow just go away or is otherwise "unnatural." That doesn't mean that society will accept it in any large way, though. I'm not sure there's much beyond that than giving of opinions. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC) You may want to check out Child Sexuality. There some taboos about child sexuality that society could probably survive just fine without (for better or worse), but (as that article makes clear) child sexuality is fundamentally different than adult sexuality. It's difficult to imagine that it will ever be acceptable to pretend it isn't. APL (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Question on source

Hi. I am not sure where to ask this question, and I hope I asked in the right place. There was an addition to Columbia writing professor Janette Turner Hospital's wikipedia page because of an article on the Gawker website that listed her as "The World's Haughtiest Professor." I guess... it just doesn't sound very nice to do to someone. It was just ammended today, apparently, and the wikipedia article's sentence acts like it has happened in the past. Is Gawker really that credible of a resource to list an article like that? It just to me, seems very cruel. I think this professor's email did come from a place of wanting to better her former USC students and from the excitement of her new place. Several other people (on the Gawker comments page) have also wondered if the wikipedia reference is a little "scary."

I apologize if I am asking this in the wrong place. If anyone can can explain to me how or if that edit was fair and why, I would be grateful. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about the way it is written seems a "off". Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.19.247 (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. You are likely to get a better response if you post the question to the "talk page" of the article in question, just use the "discussion" tab when you are viewing the article to access the talk page. If you think this needs more attention, then perhaps the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is a better place to ask, since it was specifically set up to discuss issues of source reliability. --Jayron32 06:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Jayron. I will try to copy and paste this in the places that you said! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.19.247 (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Geography/History Question

I am looking for the preserved building (heritage building) which was residence (at different times) of

1. Beloved leader 2. A well-known poet 3. College Professor

I failed to get the info from wikipedia/Google searches I would appreciate any help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.38.92 (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What geographic region are we talking about here? I assume this is an important structure, but we'd need to know where this is about to narrow it down for you. --Jayron32 06:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure but the region is historically very significant (in World history)

It's not exactly official policy, and this particular one is history now, but we are not here to help people with the WorldAtlas geography quiz. You are meant to find the answer on your own.--Rallette (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Château de Chillon incarcerated a poet and a politician. I expect it's probably not the right answer, but I also think you might well be looking for a prison.-- WORMMЯOW  10:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are some more clues....[7]]--Aspro (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And they had a winner! Longfellow National Historic Site WikiDao ☯ (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I never knew George Washington was referred to as "Beloved Leader". TomorrowTime (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

North America is Best America!--Saddhiyama (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Feminism and Misandry one and the same thing ?

Resolved

Is Feminism and Misandry one and same thing ? I am sure no. Then why our article on Feminism automatically directs to same thing. Click Feminist or Feminism you get to Misandry. ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism. I am cleaning it up now. --Jayron32 06:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

MEPs affecting who can become president of Hungary?

According to his article, Péter Bárándy "was nominated to the position of President of Hungary, but he stepped back because only few MEPs supported him". Do Hungary's MEPs have more authority than ordinary citizens in choosing the president? I tried to check President of Hungary, but it's a redirect to List of heads of state of Hungary, which says nothing about how any leaders are chosen. Assuming, by the way, that "MEP" is Member of the European Parliament; please correct me if applicable. Nyttend (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Elections in Hungary doesn't help much either - it says "Presidential election in Hungary are not elected by the general public but by deputies" (a statement that's not well written and not referenced either, and is quite rightly tagged as needing expansion). Astronaut (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

He's elected by Parliament - see The Constitution on Wikisource. Nothing about MEP's having any formal rôle, but a president would surely want to have broad support from others who also represent his country abroad. DuncanHill (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ayodhya Verdict

Dear reader,

I am a bit confused about the Ramjanmabhoomi case which is going on. I had a query that what was the monument or religious structure which existed there in the first place? Was it like first there was a temple then the Muslims demolished it and made a mosque? Or maybe there was a Mosque and the Hindus erected a temple by demolishing it and again the temple was demolished to erect a Mosque? I am sorry if I am writing in a confusing manner but I have deep queries about the Ayodhya Verdict and the Ramjanmabhoomi case. Please include links and other site also if you can as it will be of much help. Thank you very much in anticipation. sgtmalaypandit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgtmalaypandit (talk • contribs) 13:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't claim to know the subject, but we do have an article: Ayodhya debate, and it seems to be long and well sourced. Does that help? TomorrowTime (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternate names for the Kingdoms of England and France in fiction. Any suggestions?

Anyone here who shares my interest for High-fantasy and Medieval europe, and perhaps literature as well? Fantasy, if in any way unclear mean elves, dwarves, orcs, goblins, trolls and wizards, and so on. A world much like that of Lord of the Rings.

Ambitiously, I've been playing around for a long while with the idea of mixing fantasy and medieval europe together in a fictional world, and things have eventually started to take shape. There's been a lot of creating of nations, world-terrain and history etc. which must be completed before I can focus fully on the writing of the novel(s?) itself. This is slow and detailed work, but also very rewarding. I'm taking the most important and interesting nations from the high medieval period in Europe, such as England, France, Castile, Aragon, Leon, Portugal and creating fictional nations based on those and their cultures, and occasionally parts of their history. But I cannot/won't use the real names of nations and cities so I have come a long way in making my own nations, cities and terrain but I'm not entirely done yet.

Coming up with alternate names for the nations resembling France and England have proven extremely difficult. So I was thinking I have nothing to loose by asking you fellow wikipedians for suggestions. What could be good alternate names for England and France without these names becoming too similar to the original names?? Remember that the names still have to sound English and French respectively.

I will be grateful for any suggestions, should you have any :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikkert7 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Krikkert7 (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose Albion for England would be too clichéd? TomorrowTime (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You might find inspiration from the names of some of the super- and sub-continental masses given to the area in deep prehistory. Much of what's now England was once the subcontinental mass of Avalonia, although Scotland came from Laurentia and some of the North Sea from Baltica; try poking around in those articles and the related ones linked from them. Indeed, you might find in geology a wealth of ideas. For example, the Conan-esque comic series Sláine was set in (what's now) Britain and Ireland during the Pleistocene glaciation (I think near its end) - the resulting lower sea level gave the authors a chance to have an Ireland that was vagely familiar (whereas Avalonia was so long ago and everything so different it might as well be anywhere on Earth) but opened up huge dank wetlands between the islands, giving the authors endless scope for tulgy mires and rum henges, without people having worry about whether the The Lord Weird Slough Feg's unwholesome fortress is now a shopping centre in Cork, where red-haired maidens were sacrificed in what is now the car park behind Argos. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You might find Category:Mythological islands to be fertile ground too; don't worry if they're "in" the wrong oceans now - what use is an evil wizard if he can't move the odd island around? I'd also recommend Robert Bartlett's Inside the Medieval Mind (particularly the "Knowledge" episode, which I imagine you'll find on YouTube) - the crazy stuff people believed (the dog-heads, the sky-bloke climbing down the anchor chain into the graveyard) is almost Swiftian in its inventiveness. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks for replies. Albion isn't all bad, but it's more of a place-name IN england rather than actually being a name to replace the name england. But thanks. keep em coming if you have any ;) i've found a decent name for England through the other replies, although i will keep looking for more. But I'm still very much blank when it comes to france. I've tried to bend the word France in every possible way, and tried completely different things as well but it just dont get right. So, France anyone? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikkert7 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Krikkert7 (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Breton name for France is Bro-C'hall (actually Breton for "Gaul", see also name of France). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Take names for (historic) parts of France and apply them to the whole. Aquitaine, Occitania, Auvergne, Septimania. Or stick with good Latin Gallia or Celtica. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Albion isn't a place name in England, it's the oldest known name given to the island of Great Britain (maybe 6th Century BC). In Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, Brutus of Troy arrived in Albion and evicted the giants who were the sitting tennants - his chum Corineus threw one of them over a cliff - and renamed the island after himself (allegedly). It's a really good read if you're into fantasy (there's a very readable Penguin edition) but it was seriously regarded as historical fact before the 17th Century. Another old name for England which Geoffrey and C. S. Lewis use is Logres or Lloegyr; Lloegr is England in the modern Welsh language. The Cornish language name for England is Pow Sows[8]; it literally means "Saxon Country"[9]. The old name for Brittany (also used by Geoffrey) is Armorica. Alansplodge (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

To get an idea what some other authors chose, see also Istanbul Not Constantinople". For France, there are several examples of Gallia, but also Bretonnia, Mérovence, Montaigne, and Terre d'Ange

I didn't say Albion was a place in england, i just meant to say it had more the SOUND of a place-name in england. probably because there are many places called Albion in other english-speaking countries, and if there had been a place in england called Albion i would not have been surprised. But I actually did not know Albion was a former name used for england. I looked it up and you were right, of course :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikkert7 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Krikkert7 (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Do any of the names of the Heptarchy work for you? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Or how about Deira or Bernicia? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How about New Jerusalem? DuncanHill (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the ones I've read in the past include: Albion (Michael Pryor), Avalon (Stephen Lawhead), Brittania, Prydain (Stephen Lawhead again, among others), Ancelstierre (Garth Nix), Araluen (John Flanagan's Ranger's Apprentice), Alba (though this more often refers to Scotland, I believe). You might also wish to look at the names of the Celtic tribes that the Romans recorded in Britain in the early CE, for example, the Icenii, among whose number is Boadicea/Boudicca. Or there's the Germanic Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, etc., which could lead to names like Saxanglonia, etc. Wessex is a good candidate for an expanded kingdom, given that they were a dominant cultural force in Dark Ages Britain. Tolkien's Rohan is very Anglo-Saxon era English - their language is the same as Old English.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steewi (talk • contribs) 01:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And Albania is an alternate name for Alba. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Island of the Lion. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

WRT France, some of the names it's had in the past or in other languages include: France, the Frankish lands, Frankreich, Gaul, Gallia, Isle de France (on analogy with the island in Paris), Langue d'Oil (by analogy with their pronunciation of the word for "yes"), Transalpine Gaul (which could be shortened to Transalpinia or Trasalpine. In a different direction, it was not unusual to name a whole area after a smaller piece of land that was the centre, so something off Paris (which was also Lutetia) might work; or after a person, Louis is a common one, but primarily post-medieval. Charlemagnia is a possibility. Perhaps reading through History of France deliberately looking for appropriate names might be helpful. Steewi (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Anglia for England. East Anglia is the present name for the estern part, but there is currently no West, North, or South Anglia. 92.28.242.150 (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That reminds me of an old joke. Everyone knows of places like Sussex (land of the South Saxons) and Essex (East Saxons) and Wessex (West Saxons). Rumor has it the North Saxons were celebate which is why they died out so quickly (figure it out)... --Jayron32 01:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence#Public_hearings

Why did the countries speak in French alphabetical order? English is the UN's official language, so wouldn't it have made more sense for them to speak in the English order? --J4\/4 <talk> 15:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

English is not the UN's only official language - the United Nations article lists all six, which includes French. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 15:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

But why did they choose French over one of their other official languages? --J4\/4 <talk> 15:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

They don't always conduct their meetings in English. Sometimes they mix it up for political reasons. I can't find the cite, but I recall reading that at least once they held a meeting in a non-english language just so they could mix up the seating arraignment and put the USA with the "E"s and not the "U"s. This may be an urban legend, however. (I would have expected such an anecdote to appear in Official languages of the United Nations) APL (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Until relatively recently, French was the customary language of international diplomacy. The Almanach de Gotha was in French for that reason, and for the same reason when it was revived recently it changed to being in English. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

To Sam Blacketer's point, our pretty lengthy article Lingua franca is good reading. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

famous examples of parents who abused or neglected their children?

like fritzl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.219.178 (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Joan Crawford ?

Fred and Rosemary West. Alansplodge (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The four abandoned children of Sugamo. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of focusing on the negative, why don't we look those parents, by who actions, ensured that their children really achieved something. Something that is ensures they are remembered down thought the next generation. [10] Cough, cough! See a pattern?--Aspro (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Joan Crawford, see Mommy Dearest (c.f. "no more wire hangers!") --Jayron32 03:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The US pinko scientist who developed the atomic bomb, J. Robert Oppenheimer, wanted to give his children up for adoption, per a TV miniseries. Einstein had a child, Lieserl Einstein, which he totally ignored and neglected, and we don't even know when she died. Stalin was not known to be a good father. Edison (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Henry VIII of England. He not only declared both his daughters Mary and Elizabeth illegitimate, but at one stage he had even threatened to execute Mary for her failure to recognise him as Supreme Head of the Church of England.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Henry's contemporary Ivan the Terrible, Tsar of Russia, murdered at least one of his own children in a fit of rage. He may have been mentally ill, not that that excuses it. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Edison - while WP:BLP doesn't directly apply as the subjects of your comments are deceased you should think before slinging terms like "pinko" and wild accusations around. There's nothing in the Oppenheimer article to suggest that happened and a TV series is hardly the best source for this kind of information. We don't know and probably never will know the exact history of Lieserl Einstein. Only Stalin can reliably be cited as a bad parent based on his article. Exxolon (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Akihabara massacre

Does anybody know what happened to Tomohiro Kato?, it says he was indicted in 2008, for the June 2008 massacre, but his trial? nothing else was known about. Thanks. --190.178.174.205 (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

He is still on trial. See[11] and [12].Oda Mari (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

SAT essay writing

Hey guys. I'm taking the SAT in about 2 weeks. The section I'm practicing last-minute is the essay section. I'm doing about 1-2 practice every week for the past month or so. Are there any tips (general or specific) you can give (other than practice)? I mean like, styles of writing, how I should build my argument, what kinds of exampls I should use, that kind of thing, to help me make a few last-minute improvements to my essay? Also, what would be the best course of action if I need to write about a topic that I absolutely have no position on (something that really bores me- the SAT essays are usually pretty interesting I'm told but just in case I'm unlucky ;) or that I can't think of any examples about? Many thanks. 24.92.78.167 (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Good general advice for this type of essay writing is to focus on structuring your argument. In the first paragraph, introduce your topic and clearly state your position. In the next two to three paragraphs, use examples from history, literature, etc to support your argument. Each example should be its own paragraph. Finally, include a concluding paragraph that sums up your argument and restates your original position. While this is admittedly a very simple way to structure your essay, it is very effective, and the essay graders want to see above all that you can present an argument in a logical fashion. Best of luck. --GreatManTheory (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Consider the grader. Some college assistant professor or graduate student will have to plow through a hundred dreadful essays. Learn what the grading criteria are and make it easy for them to award many points to your effort. Do not fill the essay with grammatical errors and bad syntax. It sounds like you are very well prepared so do not panic; just jump in and do the same effort you have done on your practice essays. I got a great essay score with less preparation than it sounds like you have done. If you know nothing whatever about the topic, then just tap dance, using clues from the question, while avoiding exposing your ignorance. I recall tap dancing successfully through an essay question about the "Fin de siècle" without a clue that it referred to the end of the 19th century rather than the end of some unspecified cycle, and the "martyrdom of Polycarp," without knowing why the person being killed sounded like several fish. Edison (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A very reliable colleague of mine recently told me that he had read a study that basically established a pretty linear relationship between the length of the essay and the final score. Googling around, I suspect he was talking about this story from 2005, and this study. I don't know if this still holds or not. It might be worth looking into. It signals, of course, a very poor grading rubric, but hey, gaming the SATs is an entire unfortunate industry. It is worth remember that the SAT is a very specific test, and finding out exactly what you will be graded on is the only sane strategy. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can answer practice-test essay questions (in eg. [13]) to your own satisfaction, you should be all set. Good luck! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What? "To your own satisfaction" doesn't mean a thing. It's to the satisfaction of the grader. A good answer for him might be a ridiculously bad answer to the grader. The whole trick of it is figuring out what the graders want. That's the whole point of test prep. I might find 5+5=8 to be a perfectly satisfying answer, but it's not going to get me a good score! Unlike the multiple choice answers, the essay test isn't something you can test yourself on and say, "oh, I would have gotten a 9, that's great," because the grading of it is far more subjective. Writing lots of samples by yourself is no recipe for anything without knowing what a grader wants. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Without a grader to write for, you have only yourself to write for. You don't get to write for a grader until you take the test. By the time you find out what the grader wanted, it's too late. When you have practiced enough to satisfy your own standards of quality sufficiently and in accordance with your understanding of the information and tips about the test given to you in the the test-prep, you are ready for the test. If you find believing 5+5=8 to be personally satisfying, you are ready to do poorly on the test. But what else could being "ready for the test" be...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Extra tip: graders tend to respond positively to humor, unless it is poorly executed, in which case they don't. ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Trial of adolescents as adults

What are some arguments which have been made in support of the idea that adolescents should be tried as adults, either in certain situations or in general? Also, what arguments are commonly made against this position? Citations would be appreciated in both cases. --99.251.211.17 (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Some relevant terms: Defense of infancy, Age of majority, Minor (law), Juvenile court, and of course Minors detained in the global war on terror.Smallman12q (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Motto of the Netherlands

Why is the Netherlands's official motto in French instead of Dutch? --70.245.189.11 (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Principality of Orange from which the House of Orange takes its name was in France... AnonMoos (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As AnonMoos says, this was the motto of the House of Orange, which originated partly in France. However, the dynasty was also partly German. Until the 20th century, the common language of the European aristocracy, regardless of the country where they resided, was French, and aristocratic family mottos were invariably in French. Furthermore, when the Netherlands adopted this motto, in 1815, it controlled what is today Belgium, whose elite spoke French. The use of a French motto was probably partly intended to win the loyalty of the country's southern elites. Marco polo (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the Prince of Wales has a German motto: Ich Dien... AnonMoos (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

CEGEP Curriculum

Hello. Where can I find the CEGEP curriculum standardized across Quebec for second-year Calculus (university level for Science students)? Thank you in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

October 1

Reminiscing the dictatorships

I met many Romanians who think Ceauşescu time was nicer then today. In Russia Stalin is again celebrated, even, to some extent, by state officials. I recently spoke with some older Germans who lived in Nazi Germany and they were talking about those days with great pride. Also if you talk to other eastern Europe countries older residents, many will tell you that they lived better in those days. In Italy even Berlusconi once talked about his great early childhood under Mussolini...

Is it that people really lived better lives under dictatorships, or are they simply reminiscing their youth and they simply miss it? Is there any other explanation for this truly remarkable phenomenom?

--92.244.159.130 (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

We all like to imagine that living under a dictatorship is an ugly, grueling experience. However, most people do not notice much of a difference - their lives go on pretty much as usual. In fact, sometimes their lives improve (dictatorships can be quite efficient about certain kinds of political and economic changes). The problem with dictatorships is the utterly brutal way in which they deal with those suspected as being 'state enemies', the irrationality of many of their foreign and domestic policies, and the the fact that the populace has no control over the government (meaning that many policies of the regime are against the populace itself). put in concrete terms, if you are a baker you can live a nice, quiet, comfortable life regardless of what regime you live under; everyone wants bread, so you'll always be able to make a living, and it's not something that's likely to bring you any unpleasant notice. If you decide to hold a book-reading club in your shop after hours however, nothing much will happen to you in a society with constitutional rights, but in a dictatorship that could land you in some 'very serious' hot water if the government became suspicious about the activity (and by 'hot water' I mean long-term imprisonment, loss of property, torture, or death). Most Germans under the Nazi regime, for instance, had no idea about the Nazis excesses, and were actually quite proud of the German war success and the increased standard of living that the Nazis brought to the nation. Most Russians lived comfortable, productive lives from the time of the revolution to the fall of the Soviet Union. In short, politics is nowhere near as significant in most people's daily lives as it might seem in hindsight. --Ludwigs2 02:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In the 1930's the US government interviewed elderly African-Americans who had been slaves, and they often said very positive things about how good their life was as slaves. They were young then rather than elderly, and they remembered a time of relative prosperity rather than the Great Depression. (A third factor, of course might be that they were afraid to say how horrible it all was.) As for Stalin or Ceauşescu, the first two factors might apply. People who were being imprisoned and tortured might not have such fond recollections of the two dictators. People who were slackers enjoying the "to each according to his needs" might recall fondly a time when socialism handed out low priced subsidized food to those of limited ability who did not work hard. Edison (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to "afraid to say how horrible it was": an elderly relative who fought in the First World War never mentioned it to anyone I know of while he was alive, except to make lighthearted jokes, but after his death we found a letter written not long after his medical discharge, detailing some of the worst. A not so elderly relative suddenly, out of the blue, reacted to a comedy sketch about the Blitz with "It wasn't like that! Don't believe them, we didn't just carry on like nothing happened. People were dying, and we were terrified. It wasn't like that." At the time, being a teenager, I was puzzled because it was clearly a comedy sketch. Now, I understand that she had lived with this for decades, never talking about how bad it was, surrounded by propaganda. Still, the propaganda of the Blitz lives on, because parents hid the truth from their children rather than talk about how bad it was, and those children tell their own children. Don't believe them. It wasn't like that. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a question of psychology, not history. Old people always recall their youth with exaggerated fondness, and the present with exaggerated dismay, even if objective improvements have occurred. This is not to say they're senile fools, merely that they're conflating (or at least strongly associating) the inherent qualities of youth with the incidental circumstances that marked theirs. It feels better to be young than to be old, therefore the world feels better to young people, therefore old people remember a world that felt better than it does today. Quite a few old people are perfectly capable of rising above this reflex and acknowledging, intellectually, that yes, society has manifestly advanced, we've become less sexist and racist, wonderful new technologies have appeared, etc. etc. Others are unwilling or unable to make this leap. LANTZY^TALK 04:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A couple of the cognitive biases involved would seem to be, then, Rosy retrospection and the Reminiscence bump. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

For concrete examples, see Ostalgie and Jugonostalgija. Both of these articles are pretty short, but it's a start, I suppose. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Jugonostalgija" has some pretty solid factual basis, but the last ten years of Ceauşescu's reign were a very dark period with many major problems in Romania (especially if you lived in Bucharest), so I'm not sure what there is to be really nostalgic about... AnonMoos (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean - considering the violence that accompanied Ceausescu's overthrow, you'd figure a return to those times would be the last thing people might want. On the other hand, while not all was peachy in Yugoslavia, it still managed to maintain a semblance of the "socialism with a human face" ideal, and your average Janez, Ante or Mujo were pretty well off. Of course, if you'd listen to some politicians from the ex-Yugoslav area, you'd think the country was even worse off and more grimly oppressive than Romania, so it's all in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"you'd figure a return to those times would be the last thing people might want" - and yet... Rimush (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've known plenty of people from Eastern Europe, and none of them speak highly of the Communist days. We're talking about a time when the consumer products (e.g., women's sanitary products, clothing) where terrible, you couldn't even get bananas at the grocery store, few people had cars, TV and radio were lousy -- not to mention the risk that you could wind up destitute -- or working in a uranium mine -- because you happened to say the wrong thing when the wrong person was listening. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Those who are nostalgic will point out that in exchange there was virtually no unemployment, less crime, and a clear sense of law and order and that "things were not so bad if you simply avoided political issues". Don't forget that "back in the good old days" there was no war, a very important factor when you read about the First Chechen War, Yugoslav Wars, 2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots, Nagorno-Karabakh War, 2008 South Ossetia war, etc. Flamarande (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, you had the Soviet war in Afghanistan. And with the Cold War over, most former Soviet Bloc countries have been able to reduce or eliminate conscription. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Proof of identity in antiquity

If a Roman slave were to have somehow escaped his master, what could have prevented him from going off to some other place and living as a free peasant/sailor/thief/whatever? Assuming the slave was fluent in the language, and not visibly of a non-Roman race, how would anyone have been able to tell? How would anyone be able to prove that so-and-so was or wasn't a slave? To frame the question more broadly, what means existed in that time to prove one's identity to a stranger? A letter could easily be forged or stolen. Unless I'm overlooking something obvious, I imagine that impostors must have been incredibly common in that time. LANTZY^TALK 03:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I expect the Romans had slave catchers as skilled as those in the antebellum US South. Physical characteristics or accents could be a clue. The locations of friends or relatives could be a clue. Finks or "spotters" could be useful. Edison (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Communities prior to modern times were much closer knit than today; even in urban areas, neighborhoods tended to all know each other. If a slave escapes from Rome, and three days later a stranger shows up in a village three days walk from Rome, well, it doesn't take a genius to at least detain the stranger until someone who could identify whether or not he was the escaped slave showed up. According to Slavery in ancient Rome, harboring an escaped slave was a crime, and professional slave catchers were used to find the escaped slaves. --Jayron32 05:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And as to the OP's "thief" suggestion, I suppose that a life of crime, be it thievery, banditry, prostitution or piracy, would indeed have been the most viable option, in most cases. There are exceptional individuals and exceptional situations, but they are exceptions. How much, I wonder, do we really know about the Roman underworld?--Rallette (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Human branding--Aspro (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

But what can you do when you have arrived to where you wanted to escape to? You are very conspicuous: a stanger with no land, no money, no shop, basically no income or no friend: wherever you turn up, people will have suspicions that you are running away from something. If you tried to be employed in a city, maybe you stand a little chance. But then you need skills, which, if you were born a slave, would be pretty hard to acquire. --Lgriot (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In Roman times, elementary-school teachers were often slaves... AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Slaves who worked as teachers were exceptions and conspicuous. They were almost always ethnic Greeks, who would have stood out in most parts of ancient Italy. Also, their learning and refinement would have set them apart, and they probably lacked the strength and/or skill needed for the manual labor that might have been available for vagrants. As for the bulk of slaves, who were agricultural laborers, options would have been limited. Purchasing a piece of land to farm as a free peasant somewhere would not have been an option, as 1) it would have involved dealing with a magistrate who would inquire into one's origins if one were not known in the area, and 2) it would have required more money than a rural slave was likely to accumulate. Farm labor on an estate was not an option in most places unless a person was already a slave on that estate. Slaveowners presumably had enough solidarity not to "poach" one another's slaves. Even if a farmworking slave were within a day's walk of Rome or another big city (and there weren't many big cities), he would probably not have skills that were in demand in the urban economy. Much of the menial labor was already done by urban slaves. Travel through the countryside would not have been an option for most escaped slaves because of the expense of paying for food and accommodation, or the risk of being caught stealing food to eat or sleeping rough. Again, even if they did try to travel, where would they find a livelihood? Urban, artisanal slaves might be able to hide some of their earnings from their masters and build up enough money to move and set up shop in another city, but their trade would make them easy to find, and slave hunters would probably have little trouble tracking them down. For all of these reasons, probably most slaves did not bother to try to escape. Those who might have been successful might fall into two categories: 1) Urban slaves who worked on the side and were somehow able to save enough money to pay for passage to their foreign homeland, where they could adopt a disguised public identity and survive with the help of family members and neighbors. The expense to an Italian slaveowner of pursuing a slave outside Italy would probably not have been worthwhile. 2) As Rallette says, a life of crime might have been an option for escaped slaves, particularly prostitution for female slaves. Marco polo (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how often this would have happened in reality, but in Roman law there were extensive provisions for becoming a freedman, and the kind of rights and duties a freedman would have. Slaveowners apparently often freed their slaves in their wills. It wasn't as good as being born free, of course (but you could be born free even if one of your parents was a slave). Adam Bishop (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

They did have some identity documents in Roman times. For example, see Roman military diploma and Libellus. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent answers, everybody. But as for human branding, I doubt that it was ever widely employed in Rome, except perhaps for gladiators and certain classes of criminals. Edward Gibbon writes that the Romans were careful not to acquaint the slaves with their own numbers, so consciously avoided dressing them distinctively or otherwise making their status conspicuous to the eye. It was this fact that inspired my original question, since, if slaves were unable to recognize one another, how could anyone hope to recognize them? But y'all's answers have more than penetrated that mystery. LANTZY^TALK 01:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the United Kingdom

This section on the British Protocol is a little unclear to me. Does the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU not apply in the UK? --CGPGrey (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

RUNNING HORSES WITH RAINBOW IN THE SKY

I have posted on my flickr account a painting that's been in my family's possession for years, but it has no name nor I.D. of the artist. It's an art print, which means it was copied off of already established painting, but I don't know how to look it up or to go to find any answer to it's identity. Here is the link: www.flickr.com/photos/53676559@N07/?saved=1 If anyone knows more about it, I'd really appreciate some info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.70.73.208 (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if you took another photo square on to the painting, you could see if Tineye comes up with anything.

Strangely, this seems to be a popular subject matter for paintings/prints. There was a similar question a few months ago and my search for asn answer to that question revealed something odd going on with Google, which prompted me to ask this other ref desk question. Astronaut (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ethics in Law

May a lawyer write threatening letters to an organization and then single out one member of the organization? This is the example: A lawyer where I live was being asked to comply with the CCRs of our HOA and he wrote a letter very short " Leave us alone, I'm a lawyer and I will sue you." One person on the HOA has asked for further investigation and the lawyer sends that person the same type of letter to his personal email but used the word "backoff" or I'll sue you.

It seems against some sort of ethics to write letters like that with no explanation of what sort of violation the organization or person has caused. I called the ABA and the person flippantly said he has a right to free speech and then asked I should ask a lawyer. But how can a lawyer just write a letter telling someone they will sue them any time that lawyer doesn't get his way?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeowMix16 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No idea what HOA or CCR means, or what country or indeed what continent you live in - but in general the best person to talk to would be a lawyer or your local bar association/council or law society - basically whoever is in charge of regulating that brand of lawyers in your jurisdiction. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that ABA stands for American Bar Association? Googlemeister (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

HOA = Home Owners Association, CCR = covenants, conditions & restrictions. Anyone can write a letter saying they will sue - whether it is a serious possibility is another question. Sounds like this has reached the stage where you need to get some professional advice on how to enforce your CC&Rs. Collecting random opinions from strangers on the internet is not going to help you. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And some terms of HOA are unconstitutional and would not be upheld in a court, so the threat of a lawsuit may not be baseless. In any case, professional advise might be worth consideration. Googlemeister (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a strange use of unconstitutional. I assume you refer to the US Constitution, which mainly affects the actions of the federal government. An HOA may try to have restrictions that don't match national law, state law or local by-laws and that would not be upheld in court, but that does not make them unconstitutional. The HOA isn't the federal government, and isn't acting on its behalf. It's merely a private organization trying to enforce restrictions it doesn't have the right to./Coffeeshivers (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

While I agree the usage is strange, it may be possible that some terms are in fact unconstitutional. Actually I was specifically reminded of this guy Kiwi Camara and the controversy he got himself into surrounding his description of this Shelley v. Kraemer case. In that case in 1948, it was decided that racially-based restrictive covenants aren't in fact unconstitutional (but they can't be enforced in court since that would be unconsititutional), however it was a specific issue before the court which suggests the people trying it didn't think it completely impossible that the it could be unconstitutional. And I also wonder if the same case nowadays would come to the same conclusion. (Definitely I suspect there are some countries outside the US where HOA terms could be unconstitutional even if it isn't possible in the US.) Of course even if these cases of unconstitutional HOA terms do exist they would only be a small minority of problems with HOA terms. Nil Einne (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeing the words 'ethics' and 'law' in the same sentence jarred with me a bit. Now that I have recovered a little... There is a blog of legal eagles that are dedicated to fair play (in the law world) called Groklaw. They don't sort problems out for anyone, but they are quick to comment on injustices. Post your questions there. You are more likely to get better opinions than here. --Aspro (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Who started WWI?

Serbia assassinated the heir to the Austrian throne, but Austria-Hungary acted like a complete jerk in response by invading Serbia instead of trying to resolve the conflict through peaceful means. --70.245.189.11 (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

We have an article Causes of World War I which goes into this in great detail. You really can't meaingfully say "Serbia did" anything, because "Serbia" wasn't a country; much of the sadness of the 20th Century arises from whole populations being held responsible for the misdeeds of an unrepresentative few of their number. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I have read, much of the blame can be placed on those people, mostly Austrian, who persuaded their Emperor to start the war with Serbia, as well as with those few people in Serbia who acted in a provocative way. Personally I blame the politicians. The Austrians had been hoping to invade Serbia for some time, though, they wanted more land, for some reason, and Serbia was one of the last little countries left near them. Technically though, a country, as an area of land, cannot start a war by itself, and very rarely does the entire population of one country decide to do the same thing at the same time. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This article may shed some light on the matter: May Overthrow. There was a strong Pro- Slavic movement in the Habsburg Empire, which by 1914 was a cauldron of various nationalist movements within, all seeking independence.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that the consensus among historians is that Germany ultimately started it, by giving an ultimatum to Russia that Russia could not possibly accept. When Russia refused, Germany militarized, and from that point on every party had to act at maximum speed in order to avoid being put at a strategic disadvantage. Everything that happened before Germany militarized was containable, but after that, nobody was capable of turning back. Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to correct a few statements that were made, there is no evidence that the Serbian government as an entity directed the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne. The heir was assassinated outside the territory of Serbia by Gavrilo Princip, who was not a citizen of Serbia. There is evidence that Princip was linked to certain Serbian military officers, who might have had a hand in plotting the assassination, but it is not correct that the government of Serbia directed the assassination. It is also not correct to say that Serbia was not a country at the time. It was in fact an independent kingdom. Marco polo (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The Black Hand was behind the assassination.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to back-up Marco Polo; the Kingdom of Serbia was a fully autonomous country - the Principality of Serbia became independant of the Ottoman Empire in 1867, was given international recognition by the Treaty of Berlin (1878) and became a kingdom in 1882. 16.1% of its population were killed in the war, the highest rate of any participant nation. Alansplodge (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A significant share of the blame for escalating an Austro-Hungarian/Serbian diplomatic crisis into a general European war must be placed squarely on the shoulders of Kaiser Wilhelm II. In the fifteen preceding years he had strongly alienated Britain and driven it solidly into the French camp by building up the German surface navy (see Fleet Act, High Seas Fleet, Tirpitz Plan etc.) — even though for Germany and Wilhelm the surface navy was mainly a shiny militaristic toy without great practical (as opposed to prestige) value, while for Britain (which was not self-sufficient in food, and would starve without regular imports), having the biggest surface navy was an essential matter of basic grim survival, and the British were determined to spend whatever it took to match and exceed the German ship-building efforts, regardless of cost. The result of all this was that when the war came, the German surface navy didn't seriously challenge the British navy outside the North Sea, and didn't have any overwhelming superiority within the North Sea. If by not building up its surface navy, Germany could have kept Britain from taking the side of France, then Germany would have been a lot better off without Wilhelm's navy. Also, he must bear some responsibility for the rigid German mobilization plans, which called for aggressive pre-emptive attacks in response to military mobilizations by other powers, without allowing for flexibility or diplomatic finesse. And the man had some definite personal issues (such as hating his mother because she was English) which didn't improve his decision-making skills. AnonMoos (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No single individual or group of individuals started World War I. Gavrilo Princip fired the shot that killed the Austrian heir, but this need not have started a world war. The war was the result of the decisions of several leaders in a number of European countries motivated by the lust for power and grandiose ideas of personal and national glory. I agree with AnonMoos that Kaiser Wilhelm II was high on the list of individuals who share the blame, though recent research shows that he was encouraged to take the position that he did by the German officer corps. The German military elite perceived that Germany had overtaken Britain as an industrial power and were eager to defeat Britain, France, and Russia to prove once and for all Germany's mastery of Europe. If the German military elite had not taken this attitude, which led Germany to offer unconditional backing to Austria in its dispute with Serbia (and Russia), Austria probably would not have dared risk war with Russia by delivering an impossible ultimatum to Serbia. Marco polo (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Probably" as in OR? Flamarande (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice that the Austrian Empire was then the major ally of the German Empire and not to support it would leave Germany all but isolated in Europe (a very bad position). Fact is that the Russian Empire, British Empire were simply afraid from the strengthening German Empire and France was very interested in avenging itself from the Franco-Prussian War and regaining Alsace-Lorraine. So these three allied themselves in the Triple Entente against the German Empire and the Austrian Empire. All these alliances were made years before the war began. The German Empire on the other hand believed that it could win a quick short war against France and the Russian Empire at the same time. Everything was ready, all sides were armed to the teeth, really itching for a "short and glorious" fight, and just looking for a pretext to start the slaughter. Blaming mainly the Germans is unfair: all of them were responsible. Flamarande (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Flamarande, you are just as "guilty" as I am of offering your interpretation and reasoning (yes, OR), so spare me the dismissive accusation. Of course Germany and Austria were allies. That does not mean that Germany had to offer Austria a blank check. As I said, leaders from several countries were to blame. I do not blame Germany exclusively. Austria was partly to blame for its oppressive policy in the Balkans, which sparked the initial incident and which colored Austria's attitude toward Serbia. However, it is hard to imagine Austria taking such an inflammatory approach to Russian-backed Serbia if the Austrian leadership did not know that the Germans would back them no matter the consequences. It was Germany's carte blanche to Austria that drew Russia into the conflict, triggering the whole mechanism of opposing alliances. No, Germany was not solely to blame. Austria certainly shared in the blame, as did France, eager for revenge as it leapt to Russia's defense. However, without Germany's adventurism, Austria would have had little choice but to find a diplomatic solution with Serbia and perhaps to admit the failure of its Balkan policy. Marco polo (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The German-Austrian alliance didn't mean that Germany had to offer Austria a blank check, agreed. However you're forgetting that someone had just murdered Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir-apparent to the Austrian throne on broad daylight. A diplomatic solution after that was all but impossible. War was the inevitable consequence, the only question was how many countries were going to get involved. Notice that the German Carte Blanche to Austria didn't somehow force Russia to stand behind Serbia. All sides stood by their alliances because everybody believed that their side could win. Flamarande (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely unsurprising that German and Austria would be so close. Prior to the German Empire, the two were integral parts of the (admitedly weakly organized) German Confederation. The German question over whether or not a German nation would include, or not include, Austria dominated central European politics for most of the years leading up to World War I. --Jayron32 04:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the German question was more or less resolved by 1871 (way before 1914). It seems to have re-appeared only after WWI (read:German Austria). Flamarande (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

One other issue that is a bit ancillary, but not often brought up, was the role of the Scramble for Africa, of which Germany was a late comer. While both France and England were trying to establish contiguous empires in Africa, Germany kept inserting itself smack-dab in the middle of their regions of expansion, carving territories right in the way of French and English expansion. After all, German East Africa is the main reason the Cape to Cairo Railway was never completed. This was not the only issue at hand, but inevitible tension over Africa was certainly a contributing factor towards the tension between Germany and the other Great Powers. See Agadir Crisis for a place where tensions in Africa flared up between Germany and France/England prior to WWI. --Jayron32 01:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The article Causes of World War I seems to summarise the background quite nicely. Flamarande (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You might also be interested in reading Barbara Tuchman's books The Proud Tower and The Guns of August. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and may I also suggest C.L. Sulzberger's Fall of Eagles which offers proof of direct Black Hand involvement in the Sarajevo assassination, as the author personally interviewed members of the organisation. Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra discusses how the Russians were dragged into the conflict and paid the highest price of all for their participation in the war, not only by the incalculable number of deaths in combat, but as it also led to the complete overthrow of the government and wholsesale murder of the Romanovs (not to mention the countless others) by the Bolsheviks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

People often seem to forget, though, that kaiser Wilhelm II put a lot of personal time and effort into trying to prevent the war, in the preceding months, though he had given into the demands of his own politicians and military commanders over the preceding years. A popular theory seems to be that he was trying to postpone the war slightly, as Germany was not quite ready, but it is rather unfair to blame him for all of the conflict that resulted. His alienation of Britain, as well, was a diplomatic failure, he had wanted to simultanously ally with the British and build up an equally large navy to maintain his country's status as an important nation. This failed partly as the British at the time were very proud of their vast navy, so much bigger than any other and saw Germany as a potential threat.

As always, though, there were a few people within each country involved that pursued their own agendas without regard for others, and perhaps for the consequences of their actions. That has always been the case, and is still now. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Switzerland

Why is Switzerland always neutral? --70.245.189.11 (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer is because its neutrality was established in perpetuity by the Congress of Vienna. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The idea (and practice) do go back a bit further, though. There was the Defensionale of Wil in 1647, toward the end of the Thirty Years War, where the confederate states declared "permanent armed neutrality". ---Sluzzelin talk 16:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Or that in 1477 the Swiss discovered that the best offense is a strong defense. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't I read somewhere that it was declared neutral partly to stop them sending their mercenaries to fight in everyone else's wars? Switzerland has been involved in a few wars recently, they were, though not through choice, on the french side through most of the napoleonic wars, and have played host to a short civil war more recently. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

See, e.g., the article Neutralität in German, French and Italian in the online Historical Dictionary of Switzerland.. To summarize the salient points: Neutrality has been a maxim of Swiss foreign policy for so long that it has become part of the country's identity. Political science identifies five purposes of Swiss neutrality: (1) contributing to the integration of the Swiss cantons, (2) preserving Swiss independence, (3) maintaining free trade even in wartime, crucial for import-dependent Switzerland, (4) serving the geostrategic interests of the European powers by maintaining the power balance in the center of Europe, and (5) providing diplomatic and economic services to other countries in wartime. These purposes have shifted in importance throughout history:

Neutrality came about gradually after the Swiss defeat in the Battle of Marignano 1515 ended Swiss expansionism; the first official declaration of neutrality by the Swiss Diet dates to 1674. In the context of an Old Swiss Confederacy uncomfortably divided - like the rest of Europe - into Protestants and Catholics, the policy of neutrality had the dual aim of keeping Switzerland out of Europe's religious and dynastic wars, and preventing them from splitting up the Confederacy itself; it therefore served both an external, defensive and an internal, unifying purpose.

The French invasion of 1798 ended Swiss neutrality as the Helvetic Republic, now a French puppet state, became an ally of Napoleonic France and a theater of the Napoleonic Wars. Neutrality was restored after Napoleon's defeat, when the European powers recognized Switzerland's "perpetual neutrality and territorial inviolability" at the 1815 Congress of Vienna. They probably did so with the purpose of maintaining balance and peace in Europe: as long as neutral Switzerland controlled the strategic Alpine passes, no Great Power could gain this key advantage.

The internal cohesion brought about by the continued policy of neutrality played an important part of the efforts to fully unify Switzerland in the 19th century, as the multicultural confederation had to resist the dividing pull of the nationalist movements in France, Germany and Italy. Neutrality was consequently enshrined in the 1847 federal constitution (although not as a goal in itself, but rather as a means towards preserving Swiss independence) and successfully maintained up until the present. Even during the World Wars it was not violated (except Swiss airspace in WWII), probably because the warring powers appreciated the benefits (trade, diplomacy, technology transfer etc.) of a neutral Switzerland; in addition to deterrence (of disputed value) by a Swiss Army committed to try to repel any invader.

During the Cold War, a very strict interpretation of neutrality became government doctrine, keeping Switzerland out of the UN, NATO and the precursors of the EU, even though the Eastern Bloc generally considered Switzerland to be on the side of the West. Swiss neutrality policy was loosened somewhat after the end of the Cold War, allowing for tacit participation in some international organizations, which however remains a very disputed subject in Swiss politics.  Sandstein  18:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not be neutral?
"You know what the fellow said — in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace — and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." Fron the 3rd man. Need I say more?--Aspro (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Einstein Swiss (among many other things)? I mean he lived in Zurich in 1905 when he came up with special relativity. Googlemeister (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If every country did the same and enshrined perpetual neutrality in their laws/constitutions, we could do away with war tomorrow. Of course, then we'd have a massive unemployment problem on our hands, but that might still be better. This message has been brought to you from Pie-in-the-Sky Land. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Pie-in-the-sky land hasn't met non-state actors apparently. Rmhermen (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If all countries always avoided conflict, someone would surely come along soon to exploit that. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack Handey said something about that... AnonMoos (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

lol, that's worth quoting here: "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world because they'd never expect it." :D WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This may be an impossibility, but surely that wouldn't work if all countries do indeed always avoid conflict as in the original premise. There is no need for appeasement if you know the other side isn't going to get into conflict with you. In other words, for someone to take advantage of the situation in the way you specify, that means the notion of everyone avoiding conflict has already failed. Nil Einne (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. My comments are further to the notion that such a situation would be "pie in the sky". WikiDao ☯ (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic summary. Could you clarify what you mean by the "except Swiss airspace in WWII"? My understanding was that they shot down Allied and Axis aircraft equally. My understanding was that that didn't violate neutrality because 1) the hostile aircraft were "invading" Swiss airspace, and 2) there wasn't bias to one side or the other. -- 174.31.192.131 (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Sandstein was mainly referring to the Federal Council and Henri Guisan's reaction to pressure from the Third Reich after Switzerland had shot down a number of German aircraft in air combat during the Battle of France. On 20 June 1940, Switzerland issued a ban on air combat, apologized to Germany, and even released and returned all German prisoners and confiscated aircraft to Germany, without asking for any compensation. This is seen as a breach of neutrality according to the Hague Convention of 1907 (Section V, Chapter II, Art. 11 [14]) which states that "A neutral Power which receives on its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war." Some of this is covered in our article on the Swiss Air Force in World War II. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sci-Fi story mystery

I am looking for the name of a science fiction story in which the author describes the evolution of an alien race as it merges with technology so as to more easily explore the cosmos by eschewing the slavish necessities of biology. The beings then become machines entirely, then they are described as evolving into what (if I recall correctly) the author describes as "beings of pure energy" or "pure light". The passage that I am referring to is only a few sentences long. I do not recall if the story is part of a novel or a short story, could be either. I want to say it was an Asimov story but cannot remember that with any certainty either. Does anyone know what it might be? Much thanks for any help! 128.151.32.169 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for Spider Robinson's (with Jeanne) Stardance trilogy. Or, at least, it fits the general description here. → ROUX ₪ 20:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, from what I can glean of it, even though there is no text search, I don't think that's it - seems too cheesy. The story, if I'm remembering right was of the speculative hard SF genre, which makes me want to say it was Asimov, or maybe Heinlein. The only other detail of the story I can remember is that the aliens were described as being able to store their thoughts "in crystalline form" or some such, before evolving into their "pure light" form. Sorry I know this is incredibly cryptic! Arrrgh, so frustrating. 128.151.32.169 (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Stardance is explicitly not hard SF (and frankly was one of those books much better read as a teenager; rereading at 30 years old, well, it sucked.) And with what you're saying, I am convinced I have read the same story, which makes it almost certainly not Heinlein, as I find him objectionable at best. Asimov maybe, or Niven? → ROUX ₪ 20:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suspect you are remembering an Asimov short story, I think it's called Let there be light. *checks link* Nope, The Last Question. I occasionally remember it and have to look it up again! 109.155.37.180 (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC) (2 edit conflicts!)

The Last Question is what I was about to suggest too. Looie496 (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

*reading*128.151.32.169 (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It has a somewhat similar narrative but not the story I am looking for. It's only a paragraph or two, could've even been the opening paragraph, and describes what the aliens did in a very chronological form: "first they learned to do this, then they did this, then they left behind their bodies and evolved into this, finally they learned how to do this and became this". I would recognize it immediately if I saw it. It's at least a couple decades old and essentially describes the concept of transhumanism before the term was in any wide use and takes the idea to a kind of fantasy endpoint. Anyway, I doubt I'll ever find it again but thanks for everyone's suggestions so far. 128.151.32.169 (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's in Arthur C. Clarke's novel 2001, A Space Odyssey. Hang on a moment and I'll find the exact passage. Antandrus (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Here it is -- Signet edition, 1968, Chapter 37, p. 185: "But the age of the Machine-entities swiftly passed. In their ceaseless experimenting, they had learned to store knowledge in the structure of space itself, and to preserve their thoughts for eternity in frozen lattices of light. They could become creatures of radiation, free at last from the tyranny of matter. -- Into pure energy, therefore, they presently transformed themselves; and on a thousand worlds, empty shells they had discarded twitched for a while in a mindless dance of death, then crumbled into rust ..." Antandrus (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

YEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!1!1!one! WIN!!! That's it!! Thank you so much!128.151.32.169 (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! This is why I (and probably many of the rest of you!) love the Reference desk. :) Antandrus (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally this theme ("we threw way our brains and began thinking only with light") is reminiscent of the end of Blood Music, and of the beginning of Consider Phlebas (where an injured AI grumbles to itself that it's reduced to thinking with mere real light, rather than fancy hyperspace light). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 00:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

First thing I thought of was the Organians. Seems like a recurring theme in sf. 64.62.206.2 (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Flags at half-mast

Quite often (or at least more often than I think is reasonable) I'll see flags at half mast. It always makes me wonder why. Just now, a friend of mine posted some pictures on Facebook of the flooding in Richmond, VT. Because it's after 1800 on a Friday, I doubt emailing the town will get me a response until at least Monday. So, does anyone know of anywhere online where I might find national or statewide reasons for flags flying at half-mast? I'd prefer a listing for VT specifically as far as the statewide portion of my question. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 22:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Doing a bit of digging about this occurrence, I think it's due to the recent return of a National Guardsman's body to VT. [15] It would still be nice to have a listing somewhere though. Dismas|^(talk) 22:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Michigan flies at half-staff from the announcement of the death of any Michigan member of the armed forces until his burial.[16] I had thought it was just a workweek. Rmhermen (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2

RCMP

Why does the Canadian police still use horses for transportation? Wouldn't motorcycles or police cars be more practical? --70.245.189.11 (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The RCMP has been driving cars for about as long as the car has existed. Ceremonially, they will ride horses when, like, riding in parades and stuff like that. But for standard law-enforcement purposes, they use cars like every other police agency. Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police#Modern_era has picture of the various cars they use. --Jayron32 01:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police#Equipment_and_vehicles is also good information. --Jayron32 01:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

When they say "Mounted", they really mean it. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Clarityfiend) Even in today's day and age, a cop on a horse can be a very practical law enforcement presence. The height makes them quite visible, which both helps the officer see things around them, but also makes their presence very known to everyone about. They're frequently used in crowd control, where their large size and imposing presence are very big pluses. See Mounted police for some more information. Evidently, the United States uses them to patrol the Mexican border as well, where the terrain is not so suited for motorized vehicles. Buddy431 (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I am sure that the RCMP uses horses in law enforcement. However, they do not do so any moreso than other law enforcement agencies. Heck, the city police where I live has a mounted unit, and its not that big of a city. Buddy431 brings up a good point; lots of law enforcement agencies use horses. However, the RCMP does not use them to the exclusion of other transportation methods (which is what the OP implied) despite the word "mounted" in their name. --Jayron32 02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

While there may be other polices forces who use horses as much as or more then the RCMP, however I would be careful with general comparison to other law enforcement agencies.

While the Malaysian police (PDRM) evidentally do have mounted units, I don't know where these are used, but I don't think they are used much. There are some pictures and stuff of them on parade, but the only discussion of the PDRM mounted unit I could find in a reliable source is [17] which just mentions it briefly in the context of a wider story about the Perbadanan Putrajaya mounted unit. The story also mentions some advantages of mounted units. Although I guess you could call that a law enforcement agency of sorts (although as our article notes the term is primarily a North American one and usually refers to police forces in particular), I don't think mounted units for city council enforcement teams and the like occur much at all in most parts of Malaysia either. For example the Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur evidentally has a mounted unit as well but again I don't know what they're used for (this site [18] suggests they're primarily used as sport for the enforcement agents). Living in Malaysia for 19 or so years of my live I don't think I ever saw in action whether on the news or in person any mounted units.

Our article List of mounted police units#New Zealand mentions a mounted unit for the New Zealand police but I can't find any mention or pictures of it in a reliable source and from this discussion [19] it seems that while it once existed, it's fairly long dead (how long appears to be in dispute). From [20] it appears mounted units may be somewhat dying in the US too.

In other words, the use of mounted units depends a lot on local conditions, expectations and traditions IMHO. So while the RCMP are not unique in their use of mounted units, others don't have them at all and some of those that do use them a lot less then the RCMP and others agencies which use them a lot (relatively speaking).

(In a similar vein, the New Zealand police use motorcycles a lot less then the Malaysian police.)

P.S. It's not clear to me that the OP intended to imply the RCMP use horses to the exclusion of other modes of transpoort. They may have simply been intending to suggest that in their opinion, motorcycles and cars would always be better.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Last night I saw an old edition of the BBC comedy quiz QI. The subject of the RCMP came up and there was an extended gag about them trying to chase drug dealers up stairs while on a horse (I think they knew that most of the audience understood that the RCMP don't often use horses now). BTW, about 20 years ago in the City of London, I saw a mounted policeman and a police patrol car racing from opposite ends of the street to answer an emergency call at a bank. The car won but only just; the mounted officer won a round of applause from the bystanders. Alansplodge (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Toronto police ride horses sometimes too. I've never seen them catch anyone like that, but I have seen cars pulled over by police on bicycles. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Silver Saddles" detail, was an old NYPD term. Much photographed.--Wetman (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do American businesses accept Canadian coins?

--70.245.189.11 (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Because they're (currently) close enough to the same value that it's not worth risking a sale and antagonizing a customer over a few cents. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2!! I had this response written for the original question of "Do they" and then it got changed to "Why do they"It depends. For the most part the answer is yes. If you're dealing with the owner of the store, they tend not to. If you're dealing with just some hired help, they'll just pass it off to someone else as their customer just did to them. Banks won't accept them though. Dismas|^(talk) 02:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, they only do in states near Canada. When I lived in New England, I probably got at least one Canadian coin back in my change about once a month or so. Being of nearly identical size and shape as American coins of the same denomination, they are easily confusable, so no one bothers to check. Stores in New England take them freely and give them as change freely. I now live in North Carolina, and in ten years, I haven't gotten a single Canadian coin since being here. Not one. I would have noticed by now, probably, and they really don't make it this far south. If a clerk got one, they quite possibly wouldn't accept it, simply because they wouldn't recognize it. --Jayron32 02:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Having actually made the mistake of including Canadian coins when trying to pay for something on a visit to Raleigh, I can confirm that they will just look at you funny and ask for American money. Also despite being 26 at the time, they wouldn't accept Canadian ID when I tried to buy beer! → ROUX ₪ 03:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've occasionally received Canadian pennies and quarters as change, and I live in Missouri. --70.245.189.11 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In my part of the country, I only notice a Canadian coin in change once every 5 years or so, but I did once find a Croatian(!) coin... AnonMoos (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure 99% of the time because the clerk didn't look close enough to distinguish between Lincoln and QEII. Grsz¹¹ 03:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I get them in California once in a while. Maybe more often than I notice, since I probably spend some without the other person noticing either. I notice them mostly after vending machines reject them. 64.62.206.2 (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

When I worked retail in California some years ago, we were told to try and get rid of them as quickly as possible by putting them in customer change. They couldn't be filed with the bank, and most people don't want them, so they were considered undesirable to have mixed in with other change. We were told similarly about dollar coins, which were too much of a hassle (and people also didn't want them). This was some years ago now so maybe the attitude on dollar coins has changed (I've seen a lot more of them in the last five years or so than I did before). --Mr.98 (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It works the other way too. Along the border in Canada, American money is usually accepted at par (or according to a fixed rate where one American dollar is worth some specific number of Canadian dollars - I remember they do this at the McDonald's at the border in Windsor). Throughout the rest of southern Ontario, since the border isn't too far away, it's pretty common to see American coins. I get them as change frequently. The difference in value is minuscule. One time I paid bus fare in Toronto with a handful of American quarters! American bills are usually accepted too, but I guess the farther away from the border you get, that might be rarer. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the above is bogus. I have seen Canadian cents and five cent pieces in rolls of coins which come from the bank. The bank cannot afford to pay someone to carefully examine each coin to see who minted it. Some foreign coins make it easily through US bank coin counting machines. If they are about the right diameter/thickness/weight they are accepted by the bank and sent on to someone else in a roll of coins. My bank accepts foreign currency as well, and deposits it to my account at today's exchange rate. Edison (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It works in Europe as well, from what I have seen in foreign countries, that is, within five minutes of the hotel, there are some shops that accept, or at least used to, british money, though at a slightly worse exchange rate than the banks. around the southeast coast here there are a few shops now that will accept euros, rather than sending away a potential customer simply because they have the wrong money, they can now slightly overcharge them for the inconvenience. I expect this is not the case, though, further from places with lots of tourists. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Here in southern England, I get a US quarter in place of a 10p roughly as often as I get an old shilling, and used to get a frank: that is, not very often, but often enough to recognise it. Shillings I keep, quarters I try to pass on. Franks were worth holding onto until the next trip over there. Machines don't seem to accept quarters. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

For the purely conventional aspect of coins, see Unit of account.--Wetman (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

cuddly gourds

I remember seeing a chenille gourd in a mail-order catalog a few years back. But I'm trying to remember which company sold chenille gourds. I can't seem to find them. Can anyone help me out, please? Thank you.24.90.204.234 (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried typing those two words into Google? I just did. → ROUX ₪ 07:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I did, even the same for Dogpile. Still, nothing relevant.24.90.204.234 (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Number Plates on cars being blanked-out on TV

I started noticing a few years ago that TV news reports (in the UK at least), started to blank-out number plates when footage of celebrities' or politicians’' cars were shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaseywasey (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

While I think this is reasonable, this practice now seems to have escalated to that virtually every number plate is now obscured.

Two recent examples - an episode of "Fifth Gear" showing a test drive of a new car - and even more incredibly, I just noticed two successive videos on MTV - the first one was blocked out "professionally", the second one just had a black rectangle super-imposed on top of it?

So my question is - Has a law changed recently, or have all TV companies made a decision to "blank" number plates and secondly is this going to happen for dramas/films....surely these numbers are fictional.....but that's what confused me about this occurring in music videos? Jaseywasey (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that it's about number plate cloning - if you've just stolen a car or want to use yours for a bank robbery, you could find a similar one on TV and get some dodgey plates made up. Alansplodge (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Too complex to be true. The perps can just drive down the street and pick up the first tag that fits their purpose. Unless, of course, the car is really unique (in which case cloning makes little sense). East of Borschov 10:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

One reason is simply that it's easier to do, which means producers are more likely to do it on the chance that it's necessary. Consider:

ten years ago:

lawyer: Although I don't know of any specific case law, it'd still be better if we blanked the number plates when we show the cars

video editor person: Eek! I'd have to manually do that on thousands of frames on the Avid. It'll take me aaaages

lawyer: Don't bother then

but now:

lawyer: Although I don't know of any specific case law, it'd still be better if we blanked the number plates when we show the cars

video editor person: That's not too hard. I can have the Avid do a track matte with an automatic mosaic filter on it. It'll take me a couple of hours.

lawyer: Better safe than sorry

These days there are options (and particularly some plugins) for things like Avid and Final Cut that let an editor locate the area for a track matte in real time (the editor just watches the video and keeps their cursor over the area to be blurred). Even with a bunch of different elements to blur (these days they do faces, number plates, offensive t-shirts, and sometimes advertising and street signs) that only entails a pass through for each blur locus. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Vatican City

Are there any registered cases fo births in the Vatican City? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.195.43 (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Republics Democracies

Besides the US, what "republics" "democracies" are actually republics democracies? Most (e.g. the UK, Canada, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands) are really constitutional monarchies. --70.245.189.11 (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Map of Representative Democracies.

We have a List of republics. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On the right is a map of Representative Democracies according to [21]. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The US not a direct democracy either when it comes to voting for president. Never forget the Electoral college. The countries you list are democracies. We vote for our government. I know this has been covered many times before on these desks. 24.83.104.67 (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

But isn't Canada a constitutional monarchy rather than a democracy/republic? After all, Queen Elizabeth II appoints the members of the Senate and can veto any law passed by Parliament, or even dissolve Parliament altogether. The same is true of the UK and other Commonwealth countries, just replace "Senate" with "House of Lords". --70.245.189.11 (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confusing your terminology. Democracies and constitutional monarchies are not mutually exclusive. Canada is both, as are Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark and other countries. Technically, the Queen could do those things you say but she only acts on the advice of her Canadian Prime Minister. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

But she can fire the Canadian Prime Minister, as well as the British and Australian Prime Ministers. --70.245.189.11 (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No, only the Governor-General of Australia or Canada can do that. No British monarch has thrown out a government since the English Civil War and although theoretically they have the power to do that, it would have to be followed by a free election so not really all that despotic. Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Alan's first statement is wrong; the G-G is (officially) just the monarch's representative and anything the G-G can do, the monarch can also do personally. However, if the monarch started doing things unilaterally in any of these countries, the result would simply be that there would very soon be an end to the monarchy, hopefully without the need for a civil war this time. --Anonymous, 04:57 UTC, October 3, 2010.

Plus, even many republics aren't remotely democratic. China, anyone? 24.83.104.67 (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone got the up-to-date republic/monarchy:democracy/not democracy diagram? Do we get to blame the US education system for this recurring misunderstanding? 109.155.37.180 (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Vatican City

Was what we said last year. See this archived discussion for possibly relevant points. Have any of the countries shifted out of their boxes since then? 109.155.37.180 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to point out the obvious. "Democracy" is a 'prize' word, and many politicians in many countries are more than willing to claim it regardless of the actual political system involved. objectively, however, all you can say is this:

• There are a large number of countries that have democratic features (e.g. institutions that ostensibly give political power to the general populace to some small extent, those these are often facades)
• There is a smaller number of nations that actually grant actual (rather than ostensive) political power to the general populace (though often this is indirect power - operated through representatives - rather than direct power)
  • Many of these systems are tiered, allowing the populace more influence in local politics but curtailing their influence in national politics
• There is a small number of nations that allow the general public to influence national policies in any direct way, through national referenda of some sort
• There are no nations that are democratic in the strict definition of the term (generally speaking - and ironically - those who advocate for fully democratic systems are usually labeled anarchists or communists, with unpleasant results)

Democracy is a very difficult system to set up, and an incredibly difficult system to maintain, for reasons that Aristotle outlined thousands of years go. basically, democracy requires citizens who are ideologically committed to the democratic process and mature enough to be able to place collective interests ahead of personal interests, otherwise democracy collapses quickly into an unstable mess. --Ludwigs2 23:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the lesson here is the formal constitution of a country is not necessarily what makes it democratic or undemocratic. The British North America Act, 1967, which forms the core of Canada's constitution, clearly says that the governor general (appointed by the queen) can reject any bill passed by Parliament. But nowadays, the governor general (who is really chosen by the prime minister) always assents to the legislation passed by Parliament when the government asks him to. Canada only remains a monarchy because its people know this is the case. On the other hand, there have been some republics with completely democratic constitutions that were entirely ignored. The Soviet Constitution called for more or less free elections and human rights. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

May we assume you mean the British North America Act, 1867? --Jayron32 23:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As in Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea? Astronaut (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Baralongs - Southern African ethnic group

Just reading Baden-Powell's report on the Siege of Mafeking. In it, he makes reference to a group called Baralongs. He lists them separately from Whites and Natives in the casualty lists. Does anyone know anything about them? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

a google seach gave me this, which claims they are one of the Bechuana tribes of the great interior plain of the transvaal. --Ludwigs2 23:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) archive.org has:

The Baralong take their name from their earliest recorded chief Morolong, under whom, according to tradition, they migrated from a country in the far north, probably the region of the lakes, about 1400 a.d. After four generations they reached the Molopo River and settled their first permanent residence somewhere near Mafeking. Here for many years the tribe enjoyed peace and increased in numbers and wealth, reaching the zenith of its prosperity in the days of the chief Tau, about the 14th in descent from Morolong. Sections of the tribe had at various times migrated eastwards and north- westwards, but their loss was made good by recruits from alien tribes such as the Batlaping and Batlaro, who had submitted to the Baralong.

...and more. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks, but why would B-P list them seperately from the Natives? DuncanHill (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Good question; I'll have a look in Tim Jeal's big fat biography and let you know tomorrow if I find anything. Alansplodge (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The term "public subscription"

I find few instances of the term in Wikipedia or elsewhere on the web, and even fewer explanations. My interest stems from a passage in American Gods, in which a certain project in Lakeside was to be funded by the city council and any shortfall to be made up by "public subscription." Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This is basically the same as a stock or bond. Anyone has the option to purchase a subscription. The purchase money is used to pay for the project. The purchase amount (and more) is paid back over time. -- kainaw™ 23:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Another version is a pledge of a gift toward a worthy project, without any expectation of being paid back, The latter would be a "loan." Edison (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Donations from the members of the public" would be my translation.Alansplodge (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Public appeals have been a pretty common way of getting things built, particularly community resources and public memorials. Subscriber lists for such projects were generally published, so the identity of donors and the amount they donated were usually a matter of public record unless anonymity was requested. Bigger donors might get a permanent mention on a plaque on the finished school/hospital/library/whatever. Enhanced reputation for the donor, who thereby appeared generous, socially responsible and (of course) rich enough to afford to give money to good causes. Funds for the project (maximised by the public nature of the subscriber list, since stinginess or absence would be noted by your contemporaries). But Wikipedians know all this anyway, don't we? Karenjc 14:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

October 3

English Conquests

How come it was so easy for the English to conquer all the other Celtic people of the British Isles save the Scots? Why didn't any other continental power seize the opportunity in justifying an attack to aid any of these nations? Was it because most Europeans viewed the Celts as a lesser people and barbarians even though they converted to Christianity long before they did? When I say Europeans, I'm referring to the Germanic people that rule much of Europe in the Middle Ages.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't easy, and it took hundreds of years. They never really conquered Wales or Ireland either (or even Cornwall, at least in the sense that they never totally displaced the Celtic population as they did in the rest of the bit that became England). I'm not sure I understand your second question, but the Celts were generally not considered barbarians, since it was usually them who went around converting the barbarians elsewhere in Europe... Adam Bishop (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The conquest of Wales, Ireland and part of Scotland might be better described as Norman expansionism, The English didn't have a lot of say in anything after the Battle of Hastings. Various branches of the Norman aristocracy carved out an empire that extended as far as Italy. Alansplodge (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Jutes, Saxons, Danes and Normans invaded and settled too.
Sleigh (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, there were no great powers in Europe in the 12th Century except the Byzantine Empire who had their work cut-out at the time. France tried to help the Scots (see the Auld Alliance) but they had plenty of other distractions. Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A major fact is that a divided nation is easier to beat and to conquer than a united one. Neither Wales nor Ireland had a central government with a king. Wales seems to have several feuding rulers (the single exception seems to have been the rule of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn) who always conspired and fought each other. The Normans/English simply took advantage of this advantageous situation (Divide and rule). Same goes for Ireland, while Scotland, having a king and a central government, proved a harder target. Flamarande (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If we're talking about that many centuries after the original Anglo-Saxon arrival, then no one much cared what was happening to the Celts anymore; the Pope apparently thought it was a great idea for the Normans to conquer Ireland (although he was English, after all). By then most of Europe was crusading against Muslims and pagans, or they were involved in the war between the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, France did attempt to assist the Scots and considered assisting the Irish. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

They didn't just consider it. Fribbler (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It basically comes down to economics. The Celtic regions were the poorest as far as creating food was concerned, so they had to devote almost their full resources to keeping people fed, and were not able to outfit and maintain large armies. As for other countries invading to support them, that sort of thing never happened before the 20th century. Nations invariably acted to benefit themselves, not to support others. Looie496 (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Armies launched against another country as support for a third country has occurred countless times in history, if those countries had a mutual defence treaty. Not unlike similar campaigns in the 20th century. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Differences between performances of the same opera

Tonight, I attended a performance of Il barbiere di Siviglia by the Jacobs School of Music; while I own and have listened to recordings of many operas, I've never before seen one live, so I'm curious — besides the singers themselves, what differences could I expect to see between two different performances by two different opera companies? For example, in this performance, Don Alonso was blind; is he always blind, or could that be an interpretation by tonight's director? Please understand that the first question refers to any and all opera, not just Barbiere. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Opera performances by different companies resemble each other most when you put the CDs on. When you see them -- everything is different. The entire artistic conception of the staging, who goes where, what props, the costumes, the colors, -- and whether the staging will even be approximately like the traditional view of the historic or mythic time represented in the opera -- will change from director to director. That's one of the things that's so fun about it. I saw a brilliant performance of the Barber of Seville earlier this year in Los Angeles in which the first half was completely in black and white; and the second half gradually added color, in costumes, sets, until by the finale the stage was flooded in all the colors of the spectrum, a feast for the eyes and ears both. Usually, but not always, if the specific stage direction says that a character is blind, the director will honor it, but they may not. Antandrus (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It could be interpretation, or an attempt to appeal to the audience, or simply a matter of money and other limited resources. Some operas are just too big for even the largest opera houses (and their present-day audiences), so you see dozens of different scaled-down, simplified, shortened versions. Some began mutating from the moment they were first presented (Don Carlos). On the other end there are compact operas like Pagliacci that don't need this kind of surgery. East of Borschov 08:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's much like different productions of the same play. You can see Hamlet in period costume or in modern dress, in luxuriously or sparsely decorated stages, the full 5-hour original or some shorter version, and so on. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Did the trains really run on time?

A cliche about Fascist states was that the trains ran on time. Did they? Was there any truth in the Fascists claim that they ran things in general better than they were run in non-fascist states?

The Fascists ran WW2 badly - they made bad decisions, such as opening up two fronts, wasting human talent and having resources diverted to pursue genocide, and their disproportionate punishments, eg. shooting people for disloyalty, often alienated the local populations. 92.24.186.80 (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Mussolini made trains run on time" - this has been clearly listed among our "List of Popular Misconceptions" article on Wikipedia.  Jon Ascton  (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The trains running on time claim was Italy under Mussolini in the 1920s, while opening two fronts was Germany under Hitler in June 1941, so I'm not sure that there would be any close connection between the two... Here's one relevant URL (not by professional historians): [22] -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Both fascists, it hardly needs to be said. 92.24.186.80 (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

But frankly that's not even totally true. Italian Fascism and Nazism were not the same thing at all. They were both totalitarian, to be sure. But they differed in their ideologies, styles of governance, and economic policies considerably. And making the trains run on time, versus being successful in war, are not the same thing at all. One is about internal organization, another is taking calculated bets on international outcomes. They are really apples and oranges. Having a good metro system doesn't make you good at war; being good at war doesn't make you have a good metro system. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"And making the trains run on time, versus being successful in war, are not the same thing at all." Nobody has claimed they are. The second sentance in the Nazism article confirms that they were fascists, as I think 99.9% of people would agree. 92.24.186.80 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It says it was a "unique variety of fascism," which doesn't contradict at all the point I was trying to make. The fact that 99.9% people don't know the difference between Italian Fascism, Nazism, or Stalinism doesn't make them all the same thing. And if you aren't trying to make a comparison with running WWII and running the trains, I'm a bit befuddled as to the point of the second paragraph of your question! --Mr.98 (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hair splitting. 92.24.189.222 (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

List of common misconceptions lists the trains thing, although it is incompletely sourced. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Italians didn't choose a second front in Italy; the allies invaded Sicily and then mainland Italy; the fascist government of Italy lasted only a fortnight after the latter invasion began. Prior to that, Italy was wilfully employed in campaigns in Africa, the Mediterranean, and the Balkans - see Military history of Italy during World War II. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Germans chose to invade Russia as far as I am aware, with Britain still fighting, the second front I was referring to. 92.24.186.80 (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should re-state the main question: Was there any truth in the Fascists claim that they ran things in general (including railways, wars, economies, etc) better than they were run in non-fascist states? In other words is there any evidence that fascists states were better run than other kinds of states such as capitalist states, communist states, etc? 92.24.186.80 (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As to the trains, see the Snopes link pasted above, which gives a pretty plausible answer with a reasonable set of sources. (Basic answer: not really.) In any case, it's hard to make a lot of judgments on this, given the limited sample size (a handful of "Fascist" countries, a limited time scale, not being able to re-run the same situation with a non-Fascist country and see what happens differently, the fact that the democracies were in a particularly bad economic spot during most of the time in question which might make them a bad comparison, etc.). As for wars, the "Fascist" countries did a good job when it came to overpowering nearby countries that weren't really expecting them to attack. They weren't so good at winning the long war, though. Whether that is because they were "Fascist" or not is not clear. (I don't think the "democracies" won because they were democratic. In fact, the major cause for the defeat of the Axis powers was not a democracy at all, but Communist Russia.)

I think the best broad generalization about totalitarian states in general is that they probably were able to make certain categories of decisions quicker and earlier than states that require lots of deliberation or have lots of types of checks and appeal opportunities in the system. So for example, the Nazis were able to pass really, really sweeping public health measures (some of which we today find pretty horrific, to be sure) in a matter of months after getting into power, the sorts of things that would have been totally derailed and impossible to get through in a place like the United States, where the entrenched interests would have been very powerful and the system of passing laws is purposefully slow and convoluted. That's not necessarily a good thing — it meant that a lot of bad policies were passed without any oversight along with maybe a handful of ones that we might consider reasonable from today's perspective. They got to forego a lot of "politics as usual" that is characteristic of Western democracies, but that's again not necessarily a good thing.

I think on the whole the evidence is probably not very strong at all that Fascist states did much of anything decidedly "better" than non-Fascist states, but on the other hand, it really depends on what you mean by "better". If remobilizing, starting wars, and systematically pillaging and killing off various minority groups is "better", then they do that better than democratic states, to be sure. Compare, for example, the US's attempts at compulsory sterilization of the mentally ill to the Nazis'. In the US, with its complicated federal/state system, its oversight, its legal challenges, over the course of decades it only sterilized some 60,000 people against their will. The Nazis did something like 400,000 over the course of one decade. They did that "better". But that's not really a very good thing from a modern perspective. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You claimed above that the Nazis were not fascists. Make your mind up. 92.24.189.222 (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Mr.98 never said any such thing. He said that German Naziism and Italian Fascism were two different things. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Quote: "Fascism and Nazism were not the same thing at all." 92.24.189.222 (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Second-Year CEGEP or Freshman University

Hello. I come from Ontario and graduated from high school. I'm studying in Quebec and it's my first time in university. Am I eligible to apply for second-year CEGEP instead of university to save on tuition? (By completing CEGEP, my four-year degree would take three years.) Do I sacrifice the quality of my education by doing so? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you are specifically eligible, but think of it as sort of equivalent to going to a college instead of a university in Ontario. The quality of education is probably not worse (and maybe it's actually better), but it will be less prestigious. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

List of -woods

I'm looking for a list of all the cinematic -woods in the world. There is this nice list here but it doesn't mention Nollywood (it mentions Nigerian cinema but I want to know all the -woods) so I'm not sure if it's complete. Jasonberger (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

All? Don't forget So-Sollywood in Shanghai.--Wetman (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is always Pinewood as well, here in England. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wilmington, North Carolina is sometimes refered to as "Hollywood East" due to the presence of EUE/Screen Gems studios, which claims to be the largest in the U.S. outside of Hollywood. --Jayron32 23:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

WW II Hugarian History

To your knowledge was there a group of party named either Romai II or Rome II or Roman II. I read about them in a WW II memoire and would like to know if anyone has any details about such an organization.

please send your response or link to <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubscher (talk • contribs) 18:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed your email address to deter spammers; as it said when you posted your query, email addresses should not be posted here and any replies will be made here, not by off-wiki means. I also removed your first, duplicate posting of this query, which you made while signed out. If you are concerned that your IP address has been linked to your account name because of this, and you wish to have that edit hidden from public view, you can request this at WP:OVERSIGHT. Karenjc 20:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Hungary during World War II does not mention any such group. Do you have any context on the group? Like, were they a resistance group, a pro-Nazi group, a Hungarian-Nationalist group, Political Party? Any additional information you know could help us find more about them. --Jayron32 23:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Passport when out of State

I'm a college student attending college in Washington D.C. I'm originally from New York. I wanted to know whether or not I could get a US passport while I'm attending college. I would like to travel/study abroad next year and it would be nice to have the passport before then. 147.9.230.223 (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. You don't need to have specific plans to travel in order to get a passport. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Many people here in Vermont have passports just to make getting into/out of Canada easier, though they had no specific plans when they were getting the document. Dismas|^(talk) 18:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're asking because you are not originally in your state of origin or permanent address (which I gather from the heading), that doesn't matter at all. Your passport doesn't say where you live on it (unlike a driver's license), so it's not like putting your dorm address (or whatever) will make a difference in the long run, just where they will mail it when it is done. Here are the requirements and the forms. I took my forms to my local post office and got it all squared away not long ago. You just need to have the right forms of identification and proof of citizenship (e.g. a state driver's license or ID plus a Social Security Card or birth certificate), along with the paperwork. It takes a few weeks to process if you aren't paying extra for rush handling, so the sooner the better. Large post offices (e.g. not just "annexes") often have passport handling capabilities and cameras for the photos. If you go here and put in your zip code and select "passport application services" in the box, it'll show you which post offices nearby can handle the application (you have to do it in person the first time, since they need to check your ID documentation). Again, it's not like a driver's license where you have to go to a local DMV and etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Unknown object

unknown object

Tell me and we'll all know......
This object was found on a Lake Michigan beach years ago, near a lighthouse. The lighthouse does not have a clue what it is. It may belong to the lighthouse, or it may be just an object that fell off a boat, or something just washed up on shore. It is the size of about 8 inches across at the top points. It is lite and made of a metal, perhaps aluminum. Perhaps a part of a breast plate of a children's costume. No writing on the back side to furnish a clue of age. It looks like it may have been in the water for a long time before it finally washed ashore on the beach at the lighthouse. Any guesses?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it mostly flat? The ridges may be to help with grip while stepping on it. The stars suggest something where decoration matters. My wild guess would be the step of a coin in the slot seaside telescope. Does it have any holes in it for attaching it to something? Do you have a picture from another angle? Might be a Fire dog or Andiron. 92.24.189.222 (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't think to take other side and back pictures. It is several miles from me, so sometime in the future I'll get several pictures and ask question again (if not solved meanwhile). Does NOT have any holes in it (that I remember, and I took picture today). Something related to a seaside telescope makes sense as it is in a tourist town where there are modern coin operated telescopes. Perhaps it is off an older coin telescope. It does have what appears to be designs where it would be "attached" to something. You might be on to something here. Yes, it is mostly flat with a slight curve to the item, like it wraps onto something. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Further: The item was metal, probably aluminum. It was NOT heavy, but rather light. It seemed to be something of before the 21st century, but after the nineteenth century. Don't believe it has anything to do with fireplaces or where there is high heat. Do believe it is something where decoration matters - coin operated telescope perhaps!(?), of maybe decades ago since it has always been a tourist town for the last 100 years where this item was found.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Further again: the shape gives the impression it may have gone around a metal pole (6 inches or so), so that the object could have moved with the telescope when viewing at different angles. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Stars=stars! 92.24.189.222 (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

English idioms and proverbs game

Is there a website where I can play a game involving English idioms and proverbs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.160 (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Idioms and Proverbs

Is there a website where I can find proverbs and idioms in Arabic, Persian, Somali, Bengali, Hindi, Urdu, Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam, Gujarati, Marathi, Oriya, Assamese, Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashto, Baloch, Lur, Turkish, Uzbek, Tajik, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Turkmen, Azeri, Qashqai, Kurdish, and etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.160 (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Try wikiquote. there is a link to it near the bottom of the wikipedia main page. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Welsh queens/princesses

Has there ever been any wives of native Welsh kings and princes that held the title of Queen or Princess?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Eleanor de Montfort, Princess of Wales and Lady of Snowdon. Mikenorton (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Any Welsh queens from before the 1200s?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

According to our article History of Gwynedd during the High Middle Ages, Ealdgyth, daughter of Earl Ælfgar, wife of Gruffudd ap Llywelyn and then Harold Godwineson was the only woman to "to have been known as Queen of Wales and then Queen of England in turn", but sadly there is no reference given to support it. Mikenorton (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)