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

December 8

Coronation

Who holds the world record for the most royal coronations in their lives? Usually a monarch is only crowned once but in some countries like the Holy Roman Empire, the Emperor could be crowned more than once.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many formal coronation ceremonies there were, but someone like Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor had an impressive number of monarchical titles, as King of Germany, King of Italy, King of Spain, and Holy Roman Emperor. That isn't even including his ducal or county titles which may have been "palatine" in nature, and thus may have counted as a ruling monarch as well. --Jayron32 04:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There are no coronation of dukes or counts within the Holy Roman Empire or anywhere I believe. Only Emperors and Kings are coronated and then there were some kings, like in Spain, didn't have coronations at all. Charles V was crowned King of the Romans, King of Italy and Emperor, but Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor was crowned twice as King of the Romans, once as King of Bohemia, once as King of Italy, once as King of Burgundy and once as Emperor for a total of six coronations. Could there be someone who beat that?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Second time in as many days I've heard people using the back-formed verb "coronated". It's "crowned", n'est-çe pas? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 05:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The OED lists the verb "coronate" as 'rare', but has examples from 1647. The word is regularly formed, and instantly comprehensible: the only problem with it is that it doesn't happen to be in common use. --ColinFine (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Usage: The hungry motorist stopped his coronate lunch. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A pun that doesn't really work unless you speak a bizarre dialect in which all the vowel sounds are completely wrong. 87.114.101.69 (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't work in my variety of American English either. I had to ponder for quite a while before I figured out the pun that was intended. Marco polo (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Do leaked US government documents carry intellectual property rights?

I stumbled upon this article on the WikiLeaks talk page: The U.S.'s legal options against WikiLeaks, Julian Assange. From what I can gather the first part of the article states that the government may try to use laws that prohibit stealing of government property to go after WikiLeaks. Now given that federal US government works do not generally carry copyright protection could these leaks still specifically be considered government intellectual property? Or would this fall under other laws specifically meant to protect confidential government intellectual property? –TheIguana (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be a good one. Anyway, the US will always try to find a way of getting him. Although I think the problem is not just him, but the people behind him too. Getting him into prison won't do any harm to WikiLeaks. Quest09 (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the article that you linked above, the copyright protection is only valid for US federal government for domestic use. This would be a case of copyright violation. Mr.K. (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What? I don't see that in the linked article. Works of the US federal government enter the public domain. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange is possibly a copyright violator too (no pun intended), although this is one of his smallest problems. He could also be charged with espionage (on the top of that sexual crimes charges in Sweden).

"In general, under section 105 of the Copyright Act,[3] such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law, sometimes referred to as "noncopyright."

The act only speaks about domestic copyright. The USA can still hold the copyright of those works in other countries.[4]"

Mr.K. (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a nice article on the various laws and legal theories behind the "theft of government property" charge when applied to the dissemination of classified information. It's complicated and legalistic and doesn't have anything to do with copyright. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. All documents have an inherent copyright except the government documents only have it outside the U.S.
Sleigh (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not in general. The PD status is typically (though not universally) exported to other countries via the Rule of the shorter term (which, if applied, limits the protection of a work to the protection granted in its country of origin). Does anybody know if the US has ever asserted copyright on its PD documents anywhere in the world? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there an equivalent to the board of governor's waiver fee for the UC/CSU system?

or anything else like the BOG waiver?THISBITES 06:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisbites (talk • contribs)

Have you tried contacting anyone at the admissions offices of any of the universities in the University of California or Cal State systems? --Jayron32 08:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad someone had a clue what the question was about. --ColinFine (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Irrationalist atheism?

All the major-league atheist writers base their position on rationalism and logic, but are there any who appeal explicitly to intuition and emotion? I ask because I recently read of a survey which revealed that more Britons believe in ghosts than in a deity, implying the existence of superstitious atheists. And of course many forms of historical paganism were essentially superstitious atheism, since "the gods" were utterly unlike later Abrahamic conceptions of an omnipotent, omniscient, personal thing. Since atheism and irrationalism/superstition are not conceptually incompatible, why is it not a more visible position? It would even seem in some respects to be a more robust, commercially viable alternative to the Dawkins-Hitchens-Harris brand, and immune to many of the charges leveled against atheism ("reductionist", "soulless", "spockish", "unsatisfying", etc.) There would seem to be an untapped market, a niche waiting to be filled by some Deepak Dawkins. Then again, perhaps stuff like Zen already fills this niche. Any thoughts? 166.137.9.3 (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The emotional argument for non-existence seems rather feeble to me. "Look into your heart... and you'll find zero existence for God." Just not very compelling from any standpoint, no? (I say this as an agnostic-atheist who indeed does not find God in his heart, but nonetheless finds that to not be very compelling on an emotional level.) I think part of the old difficulty here is that "atheism" doesn't say much about what you do believe in. Many of the atheist proponents are really advocating something else, e.g. a sort of extreme scientific materialism in the case of Dawkins and Hitchens. If I were looking for a more emotional atheism, it would probably be in secular humanism, which spends a lot of time emphasizing the importance of humanity (e.g. humans are all we have — no deities; this is the only life we have, so we'd better do it right; etc.), which has some emotional appeal. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are listed as secular humanists. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I disagree. (Incidentally, it was I who posted the query, from someone else's computer.) Speaking as an atheist of the rationalist school, I nevertheless feel more emotionally "comfortable" with atheism, or polytheism, or a mere "republic of ghosts", than with the paradoxes and abstractions of Abrahamic theology, which are designed to be both confounding and overwhelming. Monotheism feels almost inhuman to me. It defeats you rather than simply constraining or challenging you. On an emotional level, I like the idea of being able to piss off one god and then escape his wrath by moving to the next valley over. To me that feels natural and right. Also, in my view, an atheistic animism is far richer, far more emotionally engaging and personally empowering, than the streamlined, top-down character of most monotheistic religions. I don't actually believe in any of these things, having undergone a certain amount of logical toilet-training, but I'm inclined to that kind of system. And I would expect that many other people would be as well. Wouldn't it be a unique selling point for a writer to say something like, "Monotheism is wrong and harmful because it blinds us to the richness and diversity... yada yada yada." I'm just surprised there isn't a lot more explicitly atheistic hocus-pocus, considering the increasing acceptability of atheism in many parts of the developed world, along with the persistence of superstitious impulses in the same populations. LANTZY^TALK 16:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I detect a certain strain of emotionalism in a lot of the popular atheism, of the variety "i couldn't believe in a god who allows all these horrible things to happen". that's not logic or skepticism, so much as spite. Gzuckier (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is related to a very persistent philosophical paradox. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course you could argue that atheistic religions like Buddhism and Jainism are atheistic philosophies which appeal to intuition. Their followers would claim that they appeal to a spiritual reality thought. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's why I'm thinking that Buddhism serves this "market", which may account for the absence of irrationalistic atheist personalities. However, Buddhism is not explicitly atheistic. It often permits atheism, or at least nontheism, but it also tends to emphasize the irrelevance of the question. I doubt if any important Buddhist school has ever adopted an explicitly atheistic doctrine. That's what I'm looking for. Something explicit. Indeed, I'm not really looking for a "religion" per se, since atheism is not a religion but a philosophical position. I'm merely looking for someone whose atheism was motivated by emotion/superstition/intuition. Either an individual or a group. LANTZY^TALK 16:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't confuse Atheism with a capital 'A' (the express belief that no God, soul, or other transcendent 'things' exist, which is often associated with extreme forms of scientific rationalism), with small-'a' atheism (a slightly stronger form of milquetoast agnosticism that is usually anti-religious, but not necessarily anti-spiritual). Atheists (capital-A) do not believe in gods, ghosts, ghouls, or other super-natural manifestations which are beyond rational investigation; athiests (small-a) might believe in such, but resist organized efforts to dictate what they do and do not believe. very different types of belief structures, those...

You're the first person I've ever known who has made a distinction between "atheism" and "Atheism". Candidly, I suspect you may have formalized and codified a distinction that is, in reality, merely figurative. To say that a person is an "Atheist with a capital A" would, in my opinion, be merely a figure of speech, much as if one were to say that a person is a "Vegetarian with a capital V" or a "Trekkie with a capital T". LANTZY^TALK 16:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

An atheist does not believe in gods. 213.122.17.78 (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sort of. See Negative and positive atheism. Though, as Dawkins wrote, he doesn't think he's ever met a "strong atheist", the sort that affirmatively denies there can possibly be a god. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hell, I'm one! If "X" is understood to specify a particular set of logically incompatible qualities, then I'll comfortably affirm that "X" cannot exist. I affirmatively deny the possibility of married bachelors, square circles, and omniscient omnipotence. It all depends on how one formulates the definition of "god". I suppose, given the fact that no definition is authoritative, it is actually impossible to be an atheist about every god! (Someone somewhere might use the term to refer to a waffle made when the moon is full.) But certain characteristics are pretty unanimously attributed to Him by His earthly fanbase, and the sum of those characteristics is logical incoherence. LANTZY^TALK 18:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You can have a square circle in that you have a cylinder with its height equal to its diameter. That shape would be a circle when viewed from the top, a square when viewed from the side, and is in fact neither a circle nor a square. Googlemeister (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, Lantzy doesn't believe in cylinders, nor in light. But we have already established that a strong atheist position is one of emotion rather than one of logic, so as long as Lantzy never has to do anything important with photons or cylinders, and never teaches maths or physics, everything will be fine. They have a right to their beliefs. We only have to start worrying when textbooks come with "cylinders are only a theory" and "most scientists consider light a wave" stickers. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What's a person called who cannot conceive of there being more than one god, but believes there's not even one god? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Strong atheism would depend on epistemological absolutism, which is way out of fashion (everybody knows it's unscientific to declare yourself infallible). That article needs to express this idea somehow, because its opening sentence as it stands fails to distinguish positive atheism from negative. It needs to say something like "is an absolutely false statement" instead of just "is a false statement", because we normally interpret the latter sentence as expressing openness to other possibilities, what with us all being habitually open-minded. 213.122.17.78 (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The big-'A', small-'a' thing was just a pointer, not a label. The real distinction here is between those who reject the notion of transcendent beings on principle (e.g. there is no evidence supporting the existence of a God, therefore rationality excludes any belief in a God - infallibility has nothing to do with it) and those who reject religious doctrine as oppressive (e.g. Religions demand a belief in God because that gives them control over people's behavior, therefore the dictates of liberal society demand that we reject religion and its preconception of God). The first is a scientific rationalist rejection, the second a Marxist/socialist rejection. don't mix your modalities. --Ludwigs2 18:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Nietzsche's atheism ("I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time", "God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him.") was not a rational atheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not scientific rationalism, no. But Nietzsche was a precursor to Marx: his complaints about God were complaints about the way that religion misuses ideology to distort the thinking of the average man. --Ludwigs2 20:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your "big A" and "little a" atheist definitions are necessarily mutually exclusive. They don't seem terribly exhaustive on the range of atheism either. They seem to make something binary that is in reality a lot more varied than that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The point is that we cannot take the term 'atheism' as though it referred to a single simple concept which can be questioned on its rationality. If you want to make it more complex than I did, that's fine. --Ludwigs2 20:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I second Saddhiyama - I think the distinctions proposed here are simplistic, moreover - pointless. The originally proposed distinction between a capital and a small-letter atheist was really a distinction between a real atheist and an agnostic or an opponent of organized religion. The second distinction proposed, the rationalist/social atheist distinction, is even worse (don't get me started on using "liberal-society argument" and "Marxist argument" as synonyms of "socially-based argument" and of each other). These two alleged types are not mutually exclusive at all: one big reason why religion is deemed oppressive by atheists is precisely because it forces people to believe and obey irrationally, renouncing their own ability to think. Conversely, an atheist may say that one big reason why religion is so irrational is because this is its way of being an efficient tool to justify oppression. "Social atheists" may say religion should be rejected because it's oppressive, but they certainly don't omit the "rationalist atheist"'s argument that its doctrine is factually wrong or unsubstantiated: obviously, they couldn't argue what God has been invented for if they didn't start by arguing that He is invention and not a real thing in the first place. Would they say something like "Yeah, I guess God may well exist and be about to kill you and burn you in hell for not believing in Him, but still you shouldn't believe in Him, cuz that would greatly hamper the development of the means of production."? The social argument just adds some urgency to the rational argument (claiming that it's not just a false belief that needs to be rejected merely on account of its being false, but also one of particular harmfulness to humankind). And modalities are a fluid thing: compare "You must be a good boy!" - "to freeze water, you must bring it to 0 degrees C" - "to be in harmony with the universe, you must be a good boy". Really, the only point of such a distinction in real life seems to be to allow atheists who happen to be right-wingers or apolitical to somehow disassociate themselves from atheists who happen to be left-wingers.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There do exist "religious atheists" who believe there is no god, but do so on faith, rather than as the result of reason. A subset of the religious atheists are what could be called "bad faith atheists." These are people who are atheists, but only are so because they are mad at god. They really still believe in god because they do not have faith that he doesn't exist.

A person who philosophically calls into question science, uniformitarianism and the principle of induction on a highly intellectual level may also feel that it is a "leap of faith" to be an atheist or intellectually dishonest to claim that one knows that there is no god, and so instead is an atheist because they have, in their mind, made a leap of faith. Greg Bard (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The "mad at god" thing is only put forward by religious apologists. What you describe (no faith that god exists) is agnosticism. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Gustave Paul Cluseret

I am doing work on a Frenchman by the name of Gustave Paul Cluseret who fought in the American Civil War. I found a short biography of him on Wikisource. The writer of the biography referred to a biography of Cluseret written in the 19th century by either Jules Richard or Thomas Maillot (same person). I cannot find this biography anywhere, could I contact the Wikisource writer or could he/she contact me. I printed out this page on 12/1/2009, on the top of the page is written - Page:Men of the Time.djvu/270 - Wikisource

Thank you ``````` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.228.225 (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource is a sister project to Wikipedia, but is run independently of Wikipedia. What you need to do is contact the user at that site instead of here. To find them, you would click the "History" tab while viewing the article at Wikisource. There will be a list of people who contributed to that document. Just click the "talk" link next to any user who you wish to contact, and you will be able to leave a note at their Wikisource User talk page, much like you did here at this help desk. --Jayron32 20:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, be aware that Wikisource is different from Wikipedia in that it is basically digitized versions of public domain texts. That is, this is just a bunch of really old books. The person who entered the page at Wikisource didn't actually write it, they just copied an old book and put it up. So if the text contains a reference to another work, it is a reference used by the orginal author rather than by the person who uploaded the text. That original author is likely long since dead. It can't hurt to contact the person who uploaded the text in question, but given the way Wikisource works, it may not get you anywhere. --Jayron32 21:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and one last thing: Thanks for directing me to that article. Having read it, it looks like Mr. Cluseret was a really facinating character. I enjoyed learning about him. Another reason why Wikipedia is so cool. --Jayron32 21:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find the wikisource article form your description. Is there any possibility you could post the URL here? Thanks, --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

breakfast food

Is there a cultural reason as to why beef, chicken and fish is so much rarer then pork products like ham and bacon in terms of breakfasts of people in North America? Googlemeister (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Breakfast#United_States_and_Canada North American breakfast animals derive from those of the U.K. Historically in Britain, the primary meat animal for most of the population was the hog. If people raised and ate an animal for its meat, it was a pig. Other animals, such as cows (oxen) for work, or chickens for eggs, or sheep for wool, or goats for milk, were eaten only after their productive life in their main jobs was over. Pigs, on the other hand, are pretty much good for one thing: Eating. Thus, for most people in the U.K., the primary meat at all meals was pork. This sort of "stuck" for breakfast, since many other cultures which could have imported their breakfast-eating traditions into the U.S. don't eat meat for breakfast in any form. In otherwords, the only model the U.S. have for meat at breakfast is the English, and they historically ate pig a lot, and not just for breakfast. In many parts of America, I will note, steak-and-eggs is a common enough breakfast food, so it does occur that something other than a pig gets eaten. --Jayron32 22:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Americans have adopted beef and chicken as their staple meats for other meals, yet for some reason have stuck with pork for breakfast. Why is that? Are beef and chicken too flavorful for the morning? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

When bacon became popular at breakfast (break-fast) pigs were breed with a lot more condition (fat). Fat is a very rich form of fuel. Early in the day, fat is easily metabolised by the body to provided energy. Carbohydrates are better eaten later. In olden days, one did not see the obesity seen to day. When people ate traditional meals made from seasonal foods, they were able to regulate their appetite instinctively. --Aspro (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for that Aspro? While I cannot deny it is a possible explanation, it has rather the ring of one that somebody has made up.

Neither beef nor chicken are common for breakfast in England either MWalcoff, though they are both staples in the normal diet. I notice that most traditional breakfast meat and fish in England is smoked: bacon, kippers, smoked haddock. I don't think beef, lamb or chicken have ever been smoked very much. --ColinFine (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Introducing kippers and smoked haddock into the discussion is going off at a tangent to the OP's question. Fish is a high protein meal which was more fitting on the plates of the 'white collar' middles classes whom did not lead physically demanding lives. Bacon on the other hand is high density food. [1] ; [2]. Your question and scepticism, stands as a witness to the triumph, that the food industries marketing efforts have scored in winning people away from what was once common accepted knowledge. Someone remarked to me once, that Edward Bernays succeed in putting more Americans in an early grave than Hitler and the Japanese put together – and continued to repeat the feat every year. Think about it!--Aspro (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Aspro, the reason I mentioned kippers below (and presumably why others mentioned them) is precisely BECAUSE the original question mentioned fish in the very first line. HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it has to do with what takes longer to prepare? Smoked foods can be stored and be made ready quickly, but before refrigeration other meats would have to be killed and processed, and that would take too long. And even after refrigeration foods that can be prepared quickly would be preferred. Ariel. (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Kippers are breakfast food. They're pretty fishy.HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Kippers for breakfast? Is it St Swithin's Day already? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Could we have kippers for breakfast, mummy dear mummy dear? Got to have them in Texas, where everyone's a millionaire --Jayron32 03:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I do admit that outside of East Asian culture, I had not heard of eating fish for breakfast. Lox at a highbrow brunch, sure but not at a standard breakfast. The fast prep makes sense to me, since the traditional breakfast pork is in the form of cured meats, bacon, ham and sausage typically, and not porkchops or babyback ribs. Still, you would think that dried beef might fit in the fast prep criteria, and that is not common at breakfast in the US. I expect that it is then a combination between the fast prep and the lower cost. Plus bacon is very tasty. Googlemeister (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Dried beef IS a common breakfast food. See shit on a shingle. --Jayron32 15:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Modern Western breakfast traditions are not more than about 150-200 years old. Before that time most people had the same type of dishes for breakfast as for the rest of the meals of the day. That of course still makes it an interesting question why the various foodstuffs mentioned above are considered particularly "breakfast"-suitable, and considering the fairly short historical development, it should be fairly easy to come up with some answers. Are there any monographs on the subject of breakfast (that are not cookbooks)? --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about monographs, but there are various sites like this and this which make a start at explaining the meal's history. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

December 9

When did privacy become sacrosanct?

It used to be that there were phone books that printed names, addresses, phone numbers and in some cases, even jobs. Why was it okay then but now people freak out about cameras in public (which is PUBLIC). Aaronite (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an unusual question that's really asking us to compare apples with oranges, or in this case, phone books that listed a home address, with cameras that display where we are at any time of day or night. A very different level of information on a person. I'm not quite sure what the point is. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at, but public cameras can't exactly follow me home. I know there are many cameras. But seriously, even the authorities don't really care what you're doing. Aaronite (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

And you could opt out of said phone books, as well (see unlisted number). A lot of privacy is about who gets to control the information and what they allow others to do with it. But anyway, I don't see an actual Reference Desk question here. Public attitudes towards privacy have certainly changed over time, and since the 1970s at least people have gotten more concerned with the possible misuses of personal information. The explosion of "public" information since the 1990s, due to information technology, has certainly caused a lot of new issues to pop up in the public mindset regarding privacy, and the combination of internet information being easy to add and essentially impossible to remove has created an information environment pretty different than in times past. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Often in this context I hear the fear expressed that society will become like Nineteen Eighty-Four, a book which was written in 1948. 213.122.59.245 (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the desire for privacy has not changed very much over the last 50 years, but the topic comes to the forefront due to new threats to privacy. In 1970, calling people on the phone was expensive enough that cold calls were unattractive. Today, a computer will dial automatically, the call is nearly free, and human effort is minimized. In 1970, a camera would produce a paper picture that could be either published or filed away. Today, automatic face recognition can be used to generate movement profiles automatically and on a large scale. And the "not really care what you are doing" is a canard. If nobody cares, we don't need cameras and can save the expense. Data that has once been collected can be used and can be misused. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We have an article section, Privacy#History of privacy. I assume you're being sarcastic when you use the word "sacrosanct", because obviously privacy is not valued as much as things like property rights, free speech, etc. In the US, the most important privacy-related provision in the Constitution is the Fourth, which bars most searches and seizures without a warrant; as that article states, the roots of the Fourth are in English common law, where in 1604 one judge wrote that a man's home is his castle. In the 200 years since the Fourth, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly had to decide how far to extend this concept. Cars: Currently not a man's castle, mostly. His person: Counted as part of the castle. You can't search him without a warrant. Mostly. Privacy became a big social concern in the cities of the US when the 1900 Kodak Brownie camera became popular. Our article shamefully does not discuss this at all, but after millions of the cameras were sold, many citizens were outraged that street kids could take their picture in public, and the taking of photographs of private citizens in public places was apparently banned in a few small towns. This was a pitiful move against the tide, though. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You might also be interested in reading The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere by German philosopher and sociologist Jürgen Habermas. He chronicles the transformation of the public and private sphere from the Greek Polis and Oikos, until the creation and decline of the Bourgeoisie public sphere in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. P. S. Burton (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What a silly comparison. A security camera might show you doing all manner of embarrassing, illegal, or employment threatening things, a phone book tells where you live. (Also, what's this "used to" business? I've got this year's phone book right here.)

Sure "The Authorities" might not care about what you're doing, but a reporter might, the corrupt boss you're blowing the whistle on might, the minimum wage security guard who's collecting funny clips for YouTube might. APL (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand what Aaronite's getting at. I'd be more concerned about everybody and anybody being able to look up where I live (after all, isn't that why we're not supposed to post things like our phone numbers and addresses on the internet?) than some random security guard catching me picking my nose. After all, if you decide to pick your nose in public, there is a reasonable expectation that somebody might see you. If you don't want to be seen doing something, don't do it in public. Public is, by definition, not private. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaronite might be confusing phone directories with city directories. The latter are/were typically arranged in two sections, one kind of like the phone book, the other organized by streets and addresses; and they often had occupations, if known. Phone directories were published by the phone company and contained name, address and phone, UNLESS you were willing to pay extra (effectively "payola") to be unpublished. This ramped up a bit with caller ID becoming available, and now you have to pay extra to either have caller ID or to block your own number from being ID'd. Either way, the phone company makes money, and that's what it's really about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Since we didn't have a City directory article, I created a stub. Thanks for pointing out a (rabbit?) hole, Bugs.John Z (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

planning frameworks in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland

what is the difference between the Irish National Spatial Strategy and the Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queensuni89 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Here? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Planning framework in Ireland

Does anyone know what the difference is between the National Spatial Strategy for Ireland and that of Northern Ireland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feathercropper (talk • contribs) 16:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If you read the document linked to above - or even a small part of it - it should give you the answer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Death of King Henry VI of England

An editor posed the question on the talk page of Henry VI of England as to how exactly did Henry die? I have never seen the precise cause of his death written anywhere. Would other editors be able to shed any light on this matter. It has me curious as well; besides if the cause is known, the article needs to state this fact.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Lady Antonia Fraser (who is generally regarded as quite a good, if remote, source on these matters), he was "quietly done to death in the Tower of London". "The chronicler Henry Warkworth recorded that he 'was put to death... between eleven and twelve of the clock' " (The Lives of the Kings and Queens of England, p 138). I think this is about the closest you'll get to exactly how. Unless someone else has access to Warkworth, of course. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I have read before. I suppose nothing was noted at the time how he was quietly done to death. That line of course implies strangling but this is purely OR on my part!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

For many of this time period, there may not actually be any reliable contemporary accounts of their death. If he had been killed by his opponents, that's regicide, and said opponents probably have very good reasons for not being too public about the manner of his death. There's lots of people from the late middle ages for whom there is no accurate record of their death; sometimes modern historians can infer in general whether they died of natural causes or at someone elses hands, but beyond that, we often don't have specific, detailed analysis of how someone may have died. They didn't have autopsies and forensic science back then. Other regal deaths from this time period, for which the details are at best an educated guess, include Edward II of England, Richard II of England, the Princes in the Tower, etc. Usually, when a king was deposed, they were stuffed into the Tower of London for some time, and killed eventually, but those who killed him generally didn't widely publicize it, likely to prevent questions from being raised regarding how the current king came to the throne. --Jayron32 13:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

A. L. Rowse says of the death of Henry VI that he "died in the Tower on the night when Edward's younger brother, Richard of Gloucester, was there (21 May 1471)... Next day his corpse was exposed in St Paul's, where the body bled, telling its own tale." DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You had to be there.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I was there, but cannot recall a thing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Aren't many of them buried under the floor stones of churches in London? Dig'em up and let the forensic pathologists have their way with the skeletons, to reveal the manner of death, even if the killers are beyond the reach of the law. Edison (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Henry VI is buried at St George's Chapel, which I think you'd have a hard job getting permission to dig. Anyway, there's something a bit off about disturbing royal bones. DuncanHill (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Or any bones, really. But if there was sufficient justification for doing so, the royalness of the bones should not be a particular or additional deterrent. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Bones may not reveal much about the manner of death. Perhaps, if someone was stabbed or bludgeoned to death, but it is quite possible that many causes of death, natural or unnatural, leave no such permanent marks. Regardless of what CSI has taught us, forensic science is not magic, and even it is limited in what sorts of things it can prove. --Jayron32 17:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The skeletons of the alleged Princes in the Tower were examined upon their discovery, and the remains of Anne Boleyn were also analysed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Myth of Venice born whole from the Aegean or Adriatic?

I read this myth a while ago, and can't find the specifics - someone claimed it was born in a particular year - can anyone help me?

Thanks all - thanks to the ref desks in general - I've been hassling you a lot recently, and I get useful answers every time Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The birth of Venus (mythology).

I don't think this fits with the city of Venice, which while on the coast of the Adriatic seems unlikely to be born whole or in a mythological manner. I suspect you might mean the goddess Venus? Googlemeister (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere at home I have an old book on Venice, which I'll check. That said, I suspect Googlemeister may be correct (mis-hearing Venus as Venice). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Our article on Venice describes a gradual development into a powerful city-state in the 9th to 12th centuries, and no indication that it was named after the goddess-of-a-similar-name. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The similarity of name is an artifact of the Anglicized form and its pronunciation. "Venice" is "Venezia" ("Venetsia") in Italian, and "Venedig" in German. The name is derived from the Veneti tribe, and has, as far as I know, nothing to do with Venus the planet or Venus the goddess, both of which are known to rise from the waves on occasion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I started out in agreement with Googlemeister, but I'm beginning to think there may have been such a Venetian foundation legend after all. This extract from Dana Facaros & Michael Pauls Venice, Venetia and the Dolomites (London: Cadogan Guides, 2007), p. 110, refers to something not a million miles from the OP's myth:

Venice has always been so different, so improbable, that one can easily believe the legend that the original inhabitants sprang up from the dew and mists on the mud banks of the Lagoon...According to Venetians' own legends, the city was founded at exactly noon, 25 March 413, when the refugees laid the first stone on the Rialto.

--Antiquary (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, Antiquary - I missed your post - that's a nice quote.

There was always a tradition where the Doge would go down to the sea and ceremonially marry the sea. Corvus cornix_talk 19:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it was the author of the half-remembered text being mischeivous, conflating Venice and Venus - not impossible - but I'd love it if the research could continue - it just feels to me like the sort of thing the renaissance Venetians would have claimed about their beloved city. Adambrowne666 (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Venice was not named after Venus, but medieval and Renaissance authors sometimes did make the link. A good place to check on this is "Myths of Venice: The Figuration of a State" by David Rosand, who gives some examples of literature that make the connection. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam - great help - the book is on the shelves of the library where I work! Adambrowne666 (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

African-American names

is there a website where i can find african-american names for girls and boys like letisha, latanya or something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.98 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Typing the words "African American names" into Google returns a bunch of sites that do exactly that. --Jayron32 16:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Or you can watch football and basketball (WNBA for the latter); that'll give you some ideas. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See [3] for several lists of such names, as Jayron suggested. There are also random name generators which create names generally sounding like these. Edison (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

POW Camps in WW2 Germany - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag_Luft_III#The_.22Great_Escape.22

I have a number of questions concerning this article:

Whilst I am sure everything has been accurately researched, some of the behaviour of the Germans & POWs seems highly unlikely

1. "Luft III issued "Non-working" German civilian rations which allowed 1,928 Calories per day, with the balance made up from British Red Cross parcels and items sent to the POWs by their families"

Why wouldn't these parcels be confiscated? The German war machine is bombing British cities by night, murdering thousands of Jews and other minorities in concentration camps, but for some reason food parcels are deemed "un-touchable" - I don't deny this happened, I just dont understand Germany's logic behind it?

2."The Germans paid captured officers the equivalent of their pay in internal camp currency (lagergeld) which was used to buy what goods were made available by the German administration"......"As British government policy was to deduct camp pay from the prisoners military pay, the communal pool avoided the practice in other camps whereby American officers contributed to British canteen purchases"

A camp currency seems reasonable, but somehow these "wages" are reconciled against the officers' salary - This implies some sort of dialogue between the camp's administrators and the payroll of the RAF - This seems highley unlikely in the middle of a war? - Also the British government's policy doesn't surprise.....they are still treating their soldiers badly (I am British BTW)

3. "Hitler eventually relented and instead ordered Himmler to execute more than half of the escapees. Himmler passed the selection on to General Artur Nebe. Fifty were executed singly or in pairs"......"The British government learned of the deaths from a routine visit to the camp by the Swiss authorities as the Protecting power in May; the Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden announced the news to the House of Commons on 19 May 1944"

This makes no sense whatsover.

Hitler decides to murder 50 POWs but then permits inspectors to sniff around the camp? Again I'm sure it's all correct - but if you don't care about mass murder, why would you allow an official visit.....What exactly is going to happen if he refuses?

I have the deepest respect for the POWs and I'm sure this article has been meticulously researched - I just find some of behaviour at odds to what would happen in the middle of a war? Jaseywasey (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See Red Cross parcel for the first one. With these parcels, British POWs had a better diet than the Germans, and could use luxuries like chocolate to bribe, and I assume later blackmail, the guards into getting them things like cameras for forged documents. For thje 'logic' behind it, see the Third Geneva Convention. 92.15.30.71 (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand about Red Cross parcels. However, the Germans looted their way across Europe.....why would they not steal these items? Also, if you are a guard a the camp - why allow yourself to be bribed.....simply confiscate the items? Again I'm not denying the historical records - I just don't understand why the Germans behaved the way they did?Jaseywasey (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, this wasnt Chicago. 92.15.30.71 (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an historian but I think the Nazis considered British and North American POWs as 'Aryans', and so treated them much better than the Russians or Poles, who were treated brutally and mostly starved to death. I understand that Russia had not signed the Geneva Convention was one of the reasons given. They may have been thinking that nice treatment would encourage Britain at least to capitulate. There were German POWs in Britain, so there was a lot of tit-for-tat. They may have thought that news of a soft life in POW camps would encourage soldiers to surrender more readily. You could read some of the many memoirs of POW camp life. "World War II The Autobiography" edited by Jon. E. Lewis is an anthology of excerpts from memoirs and first-hand accounts of WW2 and would be a good starting point. A few of the German command had been POWs in Britain during WW1. 92.15.30.71 (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that many of the POW camps were run by the Wehrmacht or the Luftwaffe, that is the "regular" German military, which was largely outside of the politics of Germany at the time. The "regular" military tended to be much less ideological vis-a-vis Nazi dogma. Other groups like the Sturmabteilung and the Schutzstaffel were part of the Nazi party and so had different views and likely behaved differently towards prisoners. This attitude difference is evident in the fictionalize account of the event, the film The Great Escape. The interactions Commandant of the prison camp towards the plainclothes agent who brings in prisoners is telling, and likely roughly on par with the actual relationship, in many cases, between the "regular" German military and the Nazi party. --Jayron32 21:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The US and Japan treated POWs mutually badly, or murdered defeated soldiers rather than taking them prisoner. The US treated German POWs very well in general, sending them to the US, where they worked on farms in many cases. Many returned to the US after the war. While in the US, they got packages from Germany, and some took correspondence courses from US colleges, with credits transferred to German universities, all while a war was going on. While there were certainly atrocities and war crimes, there was relatively good reciprocity between the US and Germany. Jewish US prisoners in some cases were separated and sent to slave labor camps where they were brutalized and worked to death. Gentile US prisoners, especially aviators were treated very well, considering how the Germans treated most prisoners. Edison (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This has made me think that all the accounts or films of POWs I've seen were based in officers camps. I wonder how camps for privates were - the privates were required to work, the officers were not. 92.15.0.115 (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

http://kiuchi.jpn.org/en/nobindex.htm has a fascinating account of POW camp life for Japanese POWs in Soviet Union after the war. --Soman (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

With regard to question #2: military pay is sometimes highly structured and non-negotiable, unlike private employment. For example, see this chart for a description of United States military pay grades. If the same conditions existed in WWII, then the Germans would be able to determine a captured officer's base pay without having to consult an enemy government. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

did people used to think the moon changes shape?

Did people used to think the moon waxed and waned changing shapes? (When I look at it, all I see -- probably due to my knowledge of it -- is a circle, partially dark). If they used to think it changed shapes, when did they realize it was actually a circular shape as visible all the time, just sometimes partly dark. Thanks. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You can see the "darkened" part of the moon paritally even when it is a crescent shape. That would have been plainly obvious even to the ancients. What significance they assigned to it probably depends on which culture you are discussing. --Jayron32 19:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

it's not "plainly obvious" because in the ryme of the ancient mariner, there's a star inside the crescent! Next answer, if you please... 82.234.207.120 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Re "the ryme of the ancient mariner": SO WHAT? This tells you nothing about anyone but Coleridge, in the 19th century. It's like saying, "Indians greet you by saying 'How!'" -- because that's what old Hollywood writers tell us.63.17.66.60 (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you see when you look at a crecent moon. The fact that some people will draw pictures of a star inside a crecent is irrelevent to the fact that, when you look at the night sky with a crecent moon in it, you still see the rest of the moon, albeit darker. Again, what the ancients used to explain the darkening of the moon is a different concept, but any person can go out at night, look at the crecent moon, and see the rest of it. --Jayron32 21:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

See Earthshine, or the stubby Earthlight (astronomy) for why this is. Buddy431 (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit: I also think that a lot of those pictures exaggerate how prominent the Earthlight is. If you look at how bright the lit portion of the moon appears in those photos, it's clear that in many cases, the earthlight would be hard to see. I'm not denying that the Earthshine isn't visible under some circumstances, but it's certainly not obvious most of the time, especially in cities with a fair amount of light pollution. Buddy431 (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever looked up under a really dark sky? The dark segment is very visible. Of course, we all grow used to living under conditions of very bad light pollution nowadays, but that would not apply to people even 300 years ago. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "star inside the moon" thing is referred to as a "star-dogged moon" and there are a number of sites out there that talk about Coleridge's particular use of it (example1, example2). Matt Deres (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Our page on the moon says "The ancient Greek philosopher Anaxagoras (d. 428 BC) reasoned that the Sun and Moon were both giant spherical rocks, and that the latter reflected the light of the former." Libration of the moon allows an earth-bound observer to conclude that the moon must be roughly spherical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SemanticMantis (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Shortly after publication, Anaxagoras was executed as a heretic by the followers of Apollo and Helios. Googlemeister (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Anaximander of Miletus definitely believed the moon actually changed shape - he thought it was a hole in one of the tubes or wheels filled with fire that surrounded the cylindrical Earth, that its waxing and waning were due to the hole itself constantly changing shape, and that stars were just smaller holes of the same kind. See Anaximander#Cosmology. Other myths and legends, such as the ancient Egyptian idea that the waning moon was being gradually consumed by Set in his pig form, would suggest a belief at some point that the moon itself really did change shape. It's true that sometimes earthshine does illuminate the dark face of the moon quite well, but at other times it is completely invisible. If you didn't know that the moon is three-dimensional, or that it shines by reflected sunlight, you might not necessarily make the connection that the ghostly apparition in between the horns of the crescent moon is just the rest of it, still there but gone darker for some unexplained and probably quite scary reason. Karenjc 22:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, as I haven't read my Egyptian mythology in a very long time, but I thought that they believed that Ra wouldn't allow one of the gods to have children during one of the days of the year, so one of the other gods started gambling with Khonsu, the moon god. After toying with him for a while, this god eventually got Khonsu to wager hours of his light, ultimately getting him to bet away 5 days of it (one for each god, since they weren't days of the year). Khonsu was so weakened by this that he could only shine at full strength for a few times a month, and during the rest of that time he was either collapsing or building up his strength. Of course, I could be totally wrong, so do correct me if I am. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In Egyptian mythology contradictory ideas could easily coexist; it can get very strange and confusing. I believe I've seen the bit about Set as a pig somewhere before, but I don't know if it was at all a reliable source. The story about the moon god and the days of the year is mostly correct, but as far as I know it's only found in the writings of Plutarch, who claimed to be relating genuine Egyptian stories but referred to most of the gods by Greek names (see here, section 12). A. Parrot (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I kinda got that sense; similar things happen in Greek mythology, where Hephaestus was either thrown off the mountain by his mother for disagreeing with her or by his father for siding with his mother. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't totally losing my mind. I'll have to read up on it after I finish reading Faust; listening to a metal band grunt about Egyptian mythology only gives one a tiny sliver of it, after all. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

So is it fair to say that for many thousands of years only really stupid people thought the Moon actually changed shape every day rather than being something circular in aspect which was differently illuminated through the lunar cycle? In earlier times, with less pollution, persons with good vision would have been able to see the "dark" portion of the moon easier than in urban areas today, thus allowing them to assert that it was a partially bright circular body. (Added) Oh well, I suppose that official religious views or opinions of great thinkers that the Moon was some creature changing its posture, or a hole in the sky with light shining through, could exist in the minds of ancient persons who could every night see (if they had 20/20 or better vision) that it was a partially bright circle with some surface detail visible which stayed in the same relative place as the supposed creature moved around or was eaten or the hole got smaller. It could be like the story "The Emperor's New Clothes." Similarly, today we have bloviators on US TV and radio and politicians who deny folks the evidence of their own senses and still have have large followings. Edison (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll agree with you're first statement, but it's perhaps a bit kinder to replace `stupid' with `unobservant and/or uncritical'. Seems to me that earth-shine and libration, coupled with a relative lack of particulate matter and light pollution in the atmosphere should make the spherical nature of the moon apparent to any serious enquirer, however ignorant s/he may be. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is obviously circular, but it probably wasn't obvious to everyone that it was a sphere. But most people probably did not need to know anything about the moon aside from its phases. A few philosophers and scientists may have thought about it every once in awhile, but why would most people care? And are we much different today? Maybe we today know more about the moon than any ancient person, but can an average person today talk about the moon in great detail? I don't think I can even explain how an eclipse works, for example. (Remember when Mars was relatively close to Earth a few years ago? How many people thought we would be able to see it up close, as if it would be as close as the moon? People don't know anything about space...) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

December 10

Who was Edith Macy? I can only find info on a conference center that bears her name.

My daughter's Girl Scout project is to find out who Edith Macy was. I cannot find anything about her on the internet. The only thing that comes up is the Edith Macy Conference Center in Briarcliff, NY. How do I search for historical figures that (apparently) aren't that well known? Even the Girl Scout site I was on had very little information about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.25.75 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A search through Google Books: [4] turns up some promising results. She appears to have been the wife of an industrialist named V. Everit Macy. Wikipedia has an article about the conference center here: Edith Macy Conference Center and about their upstate New York estate, Hathaway (Tannersville, New York), but does not have any articles about either of them (perhaps it should, given the book references). You can probably piece together details from the Google Books search I linked above. --Jayron32 00:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC) You start by searching for Edith Macy, and that leads you to a pertinent page on the Girl Scout's site. From the information gleaned there you search for Edith Carpenter Macy, which leads you to what looks like a biography, or at least an extended text on the woman, within the context of her girl scout work. Those are the only two links from the searches that I looked at in any depth. I suspect the second search will yield more gems. As Jayron says, google books is always a good place to look for this sort of stuff, as is the internet archive (although not in this case, it turns out).--Tagishsimon (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

About half way down this page there's an article, in yellow, on V. Everit Macy and Edith, including a photo of the woman. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I have started a stub article about V. Everit Macy. I will probably start one on his wife tomorrow. --Jayron32 04:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

British Monarch Coronation

When the Queen was crowned all those years ago in Westminster Abbey she signed a document which I'm guessing is some form of legal document that officially makes her a monarch. Does anybody know what the text of this document is? --Thanks, Hadseys 02:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There may well have been a document, but whatever it was, it did not "officially make her a monarch". The document that did that was the Act of Succession Settlement, which provides that the new monarch accedes on the instant of the demise of the old monarch. Everything else is just window dressing. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) She appears to be[5] signing a copy of the coronation oath, which ran as follows:

"Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?"

"I solemnly promise so to do."

"Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?"

"I will."

"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"

"All this I promise to do. The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God."

Note that the oath, and the coronation itself, don't make her the monarch. The law makes her a monarch. The coronation, and the oath, are just ceremonial. Marnanel (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm — so if she had refused the oath, what would have happened, exactly? --Trovatore (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll let an expert handle that. A sort-of parallel arises in the US presidency. The new president becomes president at noon on 20 January, because the law says so, but he cannot execute the duties of his office until he is sworn in. If he refused to swear he would not cease to be president, but he couldn't legally do anything in the capacity of president. Whether such a situation would apply in the UK, I couldn't say. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 09:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced - for starters, a new king or queen does everything a king or queen is meant to do from the moment they succeed, and coronations take a long time to organise, (Edward VIII of course never was crowned). I'm also not sure that there is any legal requirement for a coronation. DuncanHill (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What is it you're not convinced about (not that I was trying to convince you of anything): the detail of what I wrote? or that it was an appropriate parallel? (I did say it was a "sort-of parallel") -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 17:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Queen could do all the things involved in "the office of Queen" before she was crowned. If Westminster Abbey had collapsed in early 1953, and the coronation put on hold indefinitely, she would have carried on giving the royal assent, dissolving and summoning parliament, receiving ambassadors, and all the rest, without being crowned. So, I'm not convinced about the parallel with the swearing in of an American President. DuncanHill (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair call. But see my later post 3 posts below. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I broadly agree, but I believe that the Queen holds the Coronation Oath to be a binding one and not just a ceremonial nicety. She has referred to her oath in several speeches. Alansplodge (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "just ceremonial" was the wrong phrasing for me to use. It was a serious oath, but it was not what made her the monarch. Marnanel (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In other words, UK monarchs have traditionally taken the position that it's not enough to just become the monarch and then spend their lives in splendid idleness. No, they have work to do, and lots of it, and this is their formal and solemn promise to adhere to the terms and conditions of their "employment". Plus, the Act of Settlement requires the monarch to "join in communion with the Church of England". Apart from the fact that all monarchs since the early Georges have already been members of the Church, how does a new monarch demonstrate they are satisfying this requirement? The Oath at the Coronation would seem to fit that bill, so it may not be as entirely superfluous to their monarchy as we generally seem to think. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The obvious way to be in communion with the church is to take communion (ie. the Eucharist), the oath isn't necessary. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Tango, welcome back. So, that's all that's necessary? Nothing formal, just turning up at Church on one occasion? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've finally got internet access in my new flat (after nearly 4 months) - two ISPs each failed multiple times to get it set up. The church has its own definitions about who counts as a member, but I think being baptised (and maybe confirmed later) and taking communion occasionally is all they really look for. --Tango (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The depends on what you mean by "binding". It isn't legally binding, since the Queen is the "fount of justice" and can't be taken to court anyway. Monarchs generally consider it to be morally binding. The legal position should the monarch not abide by their obligations under law and oaths is very unclear - it would be a constitutional crisis. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate more, she became monarch the instant her predecessor died. While the law establishes legal succession in the UK, the actual passing of the monarchy from one monarch to their successor is considered automatic; there is no regular interregnum in the UK (in other monarchies, historically, there would be pending election of a monarch or official coronation of the same). See The King is dead. Long live the King. for a related article on the topic. --Jayron32 03:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that page has deteriorated since I wrote it a couple of years ago. Now it restates the same idea over and over again using identical examples from several countries for no reason. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Somali names

Is there a website where I can find Somali names commonly used by male and female? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.42.226 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If you type the words "Somali names" into google, you get many such websites. --Jayron32 03:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Somalis has a few. --Sean 16:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

All of the Somalis that I meet in London have Islamic names; Muhammad is very popular. Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Why can't I find street gangs in Compton, CA on Google StreetView?

I tried looking around Compton through that utility, but never found any group of young men in similar colors (not even red and blue) congregating at street corners. I never found any two guys appearing to make a drug transaction either. (I have found graffiti in various places, though, but not a single drawing of body chalking anywhere in my streetviewing travels.)

How come Compton looks a whole lot cleaner than it has been portrayed in media? Does Google have a policy of Photoshopping out serious criminal elements from their images, or what's the deal here? --70.179.178.5 (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"How come Compton looks a whole lot cleaner than it has been portrayed in media"? Maybe it is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There exists an extensive community of people looking for odd or unusual things on Google Earth, which has, at times, included crimes in the process of being committed. I'm not aware of any specifically for Compton, but you can find all sorts of strange shit if you hang around the right forums. To get you started, I recommend the Strangest Sights on Google Earth slideshow. You can, for example, see a house on fire, or a capsized boat. In Chicago, there even is a kid about to shoot someone. Buddy431 (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Drug Deal, in Chicago, street fight in San Fransisco, Public Urination all over the place, etc. A good site for this type of thing is Street View Gallery. Searching "Crime" gets a number of scenes. Buddy431 (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And in Bergen, Norway, you can find two guys chasing the camera in scuba gear [someone insert link here]. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Here you go - couldn't bring myself to edit your comment, even with an invitation! DuncanHill (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the more unlikely scenarios from Streetview features Wayne Coyne of The Flaming Lips taking a bath outside his house. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 15:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the article you linked to, "Compton had 75 murders in 2005" which is just under 1 every 5 days on average. Considering many of the bodies probably aren't even found in places that you can see on Google Street View (and perhaps a few are murders despite the absence of bodies), the chance you're going to see a bodychalking is going to be slim. Of course there would be some chalkings which aren't classified as murders but it doesn't really change the point. (Note unreported murders are mostly irrelevant since if the police don't even know someone is missing they wouldn't be body chalking.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt they even do that chalk outline of bodies for murders since you might end up disturbing forensic evidence. It is also not needed since you can just take some photos to record the body position. Googlemeister (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Identify a 18th-century painting of three sisters

Resolved

I wonder if there are anywhone who can help me identify a painting of the following description : it is made in the 1770s or 1780s and depicts three young adult sisters. They sit together writing, sewing or doing something similar; one is visible from the front, the two others in profile. The sisters are dressed in frilly white dresses and they have large, powdered but still brown hair in the hair style typical of the period. I do know that this is a painting made by one of the most famous English 18th-century painters, but I have forgotten the name of the artist as well as of the painting. Are there anyone who could assist me in identifying this painting? As I understand it, it is a famous painting, so some one whith knowledge of 18th-century painting may very well know it. Thank you in advance. --Aciram (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it on the internet? Kittybrewster ☎ 14:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe The Ladies Waldegrave (1780-81) by Joshua Reynolds? ---Sluzzelin talk 14:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, Sluzzelin, that is the one! Kittybrewster, I actually saw it on an old piece of paper with no text, and it was hard to find it on the net just because I had no names, but now I have both. Thank you very much! --Aciram (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

'Free' education that's too expensive

It's possible there's some term for this that would make a search easier. I'm looking for a few examples of countries that offer 'free' education to all children (at least primary education), but the children or their families have to provide uniforms and all equipment such as pencils and paper. I'm trying to introduce children to the idea that there are other factors beyond just going to school in whether children have fair access to education (many many more), but I want something fairly simple to point at to start them thinking. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a standard complaint in parts of society about the Australian public education system. However, my observation is that many such students carry the latest tech gadgets and their families holiday in Bali every year. In genuine cases of hardship, support is usually available to cover costs of uniform and material. My point is that, while the education is technically not totally free, the complainers are really often trying to justify a different set of priorities where education is not high on the list. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In my school district, at least at the high school level, education is "free" but still subject to fees (for participation in some classes, activities, etc, in addition to enrollment fees), school lunch cost, and all supplies must be bought by the family. However, it also works to where low-income families can have fees waived or reduced, get school lunches for free or a reduced price, and either receive vouchers for school supplies or receive school supplies from various charities (I can't remember which system we currently have regarding people unable to afford school supplies, but I know it is one of those two). The only fees I can think of that cannot be waived or reduced are optional, with the exception of a cap, gown, and class stole for graduation senior year, which costs about $60 USD (~ £38) and can be paid up to three months after ordering, so the families have some time to collect the money. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

While interesting, I'm really looking for a few countries whose education system I can investigate in a bit more detail where this is actually a barrier to education, without extra funding to help the poorest. I know I've read cases from such countries (but cannot remember which), where usually there are other barriers too (the economic value of the work the children could be doing, cultural resistance to formal education, lack of perceived value of education for women, etc), and I'd like to be able to start simply and build. I recall specifically reading of countries which are trying to get all children a primary education, by providing schools, but many children do not attend, or attend rarely, or drop out, for these reason. I'd also ideally like to start with a country very different from the UK, to get them started, then bring it back to problems in the UK and similar countries: I'm hoping this will give a sense of scale and a feeling for similarities and differences, it being easier to see this stuff in a culture that isn't your own. But to do this, I need a few countries to start me off. Do you know of such countries? 86.161.208.185 (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

From a quick search for 'free education can't afford uniform pen paper' [6] mentions Colombia, [7] mentions Nicaragua and [8] mentions Kenya but I suspect this isn't uncommon in many developing countries (obviously only those with theoretical free education). Note that one complicating issue is that even if subsidies exist, things like corruption, lack of awareness etc (combined with what you've already said and including in some cases racism or similar problems) means that they may not always reach those in need. Subsidies may also be general for the parents rather then specifically targetting school supplies for children. And the subsidies may only cover those in extreme poverty (when they actually reach them) but not those where it's still a barrier. Nil Einne (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Are mobbing victims sometimes at fault?

Normally, if you read the literature (in psychology or similar fields) it is considered common wisdom that anyone could be a mobbing victim and that they are indeed victims, not contributing to the process. However, following my personal experience and hearsay (not very reliable, I know) it seems that almost always the victim was at least partially at fault. The victim normally engaged in a certain dynamic, being victim (perhaps at the beginning) and hitting back (being also nasty or passive aggressive). Is there any psychologist who developed a theory in this direction? Are there any other reliable sources of this phenomenon (mobbing victim engaging in the process of being mobbed). 80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Note for confused Americans: Mobbing in this context seems to be what we would call "bullying," not in reference to crowds or the mafia. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant actually workplace bullying, nothing related to the mob.80.58.205.34 (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you are referencing a complex social phenomena. I don't think there could be a simple answer to the question you ask, but I don't really mean to discourage others from trying to respond more substantively. Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I also do believe that really anyone could be a victim, similarly to any crime. However, if you consider passivity to be a contribution to the dynamic, then I'll say that some victims do contributed to it sometimes. "Don't be a victim" is also a common phrase in the counseling of bullying/mobbing (potential) victims. However, I wouldn't, by any means, say that the victim are at fault somehow. They simply didn't know how to react in such a situation. Quest09 (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What kind of bullshit is this? Because someone doesn't react to an uninvited act of aggression in the way you want them to, they are somehow at fault? That the situation is predictable to outside observers doesn't place any responsibility on the act of the victim of an act of aggression or violence. That the victim could have behaved differently doesn't somehow make them "at fault" in any way. If I go walking, at night, in a dangerous neighborhood and start flashing money around, that may mean I am stupid, but such stupidity does not remove some fraction of responsibility from the person who mugs me. The responsibility for violence lies 100% with the perpetrator of that violence, and no fraction belongs to the victim. Decent people don't commit acts of aggression and violence, period. It doesn't make a bully more decent because his victim was "asking for it". --Jayron32 20:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

People who claim that violence solves nothing are apparently not well educated about violence. Googlemeister (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, come on. We are discussing this in the context of bullying. I'm not sure that bullying has a positive effect on society in any conceivable way. I'm sure some case could be made for some situations where a person is injured or killed by the deliberate act of another which is a net benefit to society. But this is not the context of the question asked here. Your comment, while true, is apropos of nothing and unrelated to the question being asked. --Jayron32 20:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to second Jayrons rejection and surprise at such a theory. Even if there are certain psychological "victim" behavioral mechanisms, and as far as I know there have been studies in behavioral patterns of victims of both bullying as well as assault and torture, it would never ever be the fault of the victim, but entirely the fault of the aggressor. And this would apply both in law and psychology. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to third that too. 92.24.190.135 (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Conflict is a great teacher for humanity. Individuals who are not exposed to conflict as a child are less able to cope with it as an adult. Overprotecting people from bullying as a whole may not be beneficial in the long run. Googlemeister (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the macho view. That's what bullies say. If someone is bullied at work, are you saying the victim should thump their boss, and that then the problem will be solved? 92.24.190.135 (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Googlemeister. Conflict is a useful thing, as is learning how to deal with conflict. At some point, however, there is a distinction between legitimate conflict, whereby people have a legitimate mutual disagreement, and someone just being an asshole. Assholery isn't excusable. People do need to learn how to deal with an asshole on a personal level, but when assholery rises to the level of causing real harm to other people, the assholes need to be removed from society. One can learn how to properly manage conflict and still not need to tolerate obnoxious acts of violence. At what level does bullying need to be tolerated? Do we allow bullies to gang up on people and isolate them socially? Do we allow bullies to hit other people, uninvited? Do we allow them to rape others? At what level is the line drawn when it crosses over from acceptable to unacceptable? You must be able to draw that line somewhere, and once you have drawn that line, it isn't the victims fault in any way once the bully has crossed it. --Jayron32 20:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your general position, Jayron. Now, what about situations where the victim had been deliberately and persistently provocative? When they finally get what they "were asking for", are they still zero percent at fault? "I was provoked" is not a defence the perpetrator can use; but the victim might nevertheless come in for some criticism for making the violence more likely than it might otherwise have been. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what I am trying to say has been a bit misunderstood. I am not claiming that it is the fault of the victim that they are being bullied, just that some of the draconian attempts to completely eradicate bullying, while well meaning, may in fact be doing more harm then good. Children who have never been put under strain will develop into adults that do not know how to manage situation that involve strain, and any adult who tells you that they do not encounter stress in their life is either the luckiest person on earth, or untruthful. Googlemeister (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(UNDENT)(edit conflict) @JackofOz: You have to define provocation carefully. It depends on the context whether an act should reasonably be perceived as prococative, that is whether a "reasonable person" would judge the act to elicit a certain response. A quiet, nerdy kid on a playground isn't being "provocative" if a bully shows up to kick his ass every day just because he's bored. That's not provocation. The victim is not responsible. If a woman wears revealing clothing to a bar because she intends to have sex with a man that night, but a man who she doesn't specifically ask to have sex with her roughs her up and forces himself upon her, that's not provocation. The victim is not responsible. If a drunk man in a bar starts to threaten and make sexual advances against my wife, he's not a "victim" of the asskicking I am going to attempt to deliver to him. What he did is provocation. @Googlemeister: Expecting children to get bullied at some level, and preparing them for that fact, and teaching them how to deal with that situation is good. Teaching children how to avoid being bullied is good. Allowing the bullies to go unpunished because it teaches other children to "deal with conflict" is just stupid. There is zero evidence that allowing bullies somehow makes children better adults, while there are lots of studies that show that allowing bullies has a detrimental effect on children. Seriously Googlemeister: Show me studies which show that children who are protected from bullying grow up to be lesser adults. Seriously, put your money where your mouth is. You keep claiming this to be "true". Prove it. --Jayron32 21:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Our article on Helicopter parenting has some relevant references I suspect. Googlemeister (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

An entirely unrelated issue. The issue of individual parents who take such an interest in their children as to prevent the child from making, and learning from, their own mistakes is completely different than saying we should let kids get beat up so they can learn a lesson. Completely different. Protecting people from violence is not the same as allowing children to learn independence, to say that it is seems rediculous. Again, show me a study that shows that bullying benefits the kids that are bullied. You keep saying that it does, but then you refer to unrelated issues. --Jayron32 22:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

@Jayron32: just imagine a situation when a child gets bullied, reacts correctly - informing the teacher, or by whatever other socially accepted means he has learned - and is able to get the bully punished. Would the bullied child feel empowered? Would the bully re-think how he interacts with others?

Obviously, this is not the question asked. Expanding my answer above: see also the official UK campaign of "Don't be a victim" here: Indy_Sagu#Charity_supporter. Again, victims, although they can and should learn how to protect themselves. are not at fault, even if as victims of some crime sometimes they might feel guilty. Quest09 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Violence is conflict, but it is not the only kind of conflict. Bully is conflict, but it is not the only kind of conflict. Bullying is harmful and affects a child's view of themselves and others, often leading to 'victim-like behaviour' that makes them the target for more bullying, even into adulthood: it doesn't make them stronger. This is the same deal as abused children ending up with abusive partners in adulthood. A life free of bullying is not a life free of conflict, a life free lof violence is not a life free of conflict: conflict presents in many more healthy ways, and can be resolved by children. Finally, "just imagine a situation when a child gets bullied, reacts correctly - informing the teacher, or by whatever other socially accepted means he has learned - and is able to get the bully punished. Would the bullied child feel empowered? Would the bully re-think how he interacts with others?", well, that's the dream. Many schools are working on a way to make that happen, and a few think they've cracked it. But, at a lot of schools, that wouldn't at all be the 'right thing to do', and would just make it worse. If the child is in an unhealthy social environment that allows or encourages bullying as 'part of being a child' or 'something you have to learn to cope with' or 'teaching the victim to fit in', there is almost nothing that child can do to avoid it: they can move, or they can kick up enough fuss that the system has to change. The second option relies on their being a broader system or society that disapproves of bullying, and risks retribution from the bullies either inside or outside school. If most people think dealing with bullies is an essential life skill children have to learn, there is nowhere a child can reliably turn for help. 86.161.208.185 (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

"Making them stronger" means making them more aggressive. This is not any solution but is like a situation where a superficial peace is kept in a possible Middle East where every country has nuclear weapons and lives in fear of other's responce. People live in this fear in for example UK sink council estates, and its not a pleasant experience. Might is not right. 92.15.28.181 (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Bullies will often play the "look what you made me do" game, trying to assign the fault for their bad behavior from themselves to the victim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The bullies aside, one could argue that the parents themselves should actively abuse their children physically and mentally in order to prepare them for the abuse that they are probably going to suffer from other people in their adult lives. (In general, this world is terrible, and therefore we must prevent our fellow humans from getting dangerous illusions and forgetting that fact; and the way to prevent such illusions is to personally do all we can to make sure the world remains as terrible as possible). However, both letting children be bullied and abusing them personally is wrong, precisely because it's so good and correct. This approach is so wise and useful to the children that it will give them a false sense of over-confidence that adults will always make such wise and useful decisions. Instead, we should strive to make stupid decisions, so that children get used to the fact that in this world, people inevitably sometimes make stupid decisions. Specifically, children should get used to the fact that adults will ruthlessly seek to deprive them of all the valuable bullying experience they need. In this world, you'll have to learn to be tough and stand up to the overprotective adults and actively fight for your right to be bullied. We live in a world that is so harsh and mean that you can't even count on adults to bother to let you realize how harsh and mean it is. The children had better learn to deal with this evil, and we shouldn't prevent them from doing that by trying to fix it.

P.S. Ehem. <Sarcasm>. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mobbing question section break

This has been an interesting discussion, but again the original question was about work-place "mobbing", which is very clearly defined at Mobbing#Checklist of mobbing indicators, and does not generally involve physical violence. I think the OP is asking about "targets" of that particular kind of collective adult behavior, and I haven't seen anything yet about any studies on how or why a particular target is selected to direct that behavior at, or to what extent, if any, some of those targets do "bring it on themselves" due to their own workplace behavior. It seems at least certainly not always the case that such behavior is "provoked" by anything actually about the victim him-or-herself (and such behavior is of course never really "justifiable" – one must be civil, for example, even to trolls at the RD!;). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it is helpful to draw a line between violent and non-violent behaviour. Non-violent behaviour such as verbal abuse and shunning are more harmful and long-lasting in their effects than having a fight. 92.28.246.75 (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

taiwan, singapore, education

1) the curriculum of Chinese literature (what does it cover)in high school (Taiwan), & time spent per week in that subject

2) the curriculum of Chinese literature (What does it cover) in high school (Singapore) & time spent per week in that subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.153.2.2 (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Who was the first actress in Germany?

It seems that most nations in Europe did not allow proffesional female actors until the second half of the 17th-century. I wonder: when was this allowed in Germany - and could anyone give me the name of the first German actress? I am most interested in theatre history, and I would be gratefull. Thank you. --Aciram (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

We had a similar question over two years ago: "Woman on the stage in Germany", where references pointed to Catharina Elisabeth Velthen as a possible candidate, in the second half of the 17th century as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I see, thank you for linking it. It says that the first actresses appeared in 1654, and that Velthen was active from the 1680s. Is she the first actress whos name is known? Are there information about her somehwere on the net, and if not, could you given me the year of her birth, death and first known appearence? --Aciram (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. I was only able to read Christel Weiler's review of Claudia Puschmann's Fahrende Frauenzimmer. I can't read the book itself full text. The only hit I got for "1654" (in that book) gave me a snippet mentioning a request submitted by George Jolly's troupe for permission to play in Basel; the request clearly includes women in its staff description.

The article doesn't say whether the troupe would have performed in German language. If we count performances in other languages: the German article on Ariana Nozeman states that she performed at Frederick III, Duke of Holstein-Gottorp's court, as well as in the German cities Flensburg, Rensdorf, and Neumünster during a Northern European tour lasting from 1649 to 1654. Susanna van Lee appears to have been another female member of the same troupe. The performances were held in Dutch (which, at the time, was better understood in Northern Germany than it would be nowadays). I found no references for the absolute first woman to perform on stage in German. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way; you seem to have knowledge about the subject. Do you known the name and years of the first actress in France, Portugal and Russia? Or perhaps someone else here knows? If anyone knows, answer any one of those above you now off; I would be gratefull, as I have a great interest in women- and theatre history.--Aciram (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My knowledge on European (or any) theatre history is wafer-thin. I did a little bit of research, and scanned several books on the history of theatre, and the history of women in theatre, but found no clear (or even vague) answers to your questions. I hope others will know or find more. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

December 11

Horses in Michael Clayton

I just watched Michael Clayton (film) and I am confused about the part with the horses. One minute Michael is talking to some rich guy who had just hit a person with a car and the next he is racing his own car down a country road only to see some horses. He just stands there staring at the three horses. Was that supposed to be symbolic of him apologizing to all of the farm people that the company U-North had hurt? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

My hazy memory is that he just happened to see the horses, not that he was specifically going to go look at them. He saw some horses, he was feeling low and irritated with the rich guy (and maybe guilty), and he got out to look at them. And coincidentally that weird choice by him happened to save his life. That's how I remember it, anyhow. Not that the horses were meant to be deeply symbolic of his work with the farm people — more that he was in awe of them and feeling adrift. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no significance. It is simply good Videography. schyler (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Military Hardware in Use by the Guomindang in late 1930s

I'm looking for details of any military hardware that the Guomindang used when fighting the Japanese specifically in the period shortly before WW2, and more specifically field guns and anti-tank guns. Can anyone help out? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Just checking that I've got the right people the National Revolutionary Army? - they were called the Koumingtang when I went to school. Our article on the NRA says "Some divisions were equipped with 37 mm PaK 35/36 anti-tank guns, and/or mortars from Oerlikon, Madsen, and Solothurn. Each infantry division had 6 French Brandt 81 mm mortars and 6 Solothurn 20 mm autocannons. Some independent brigades and artillery regiments were equipped with Bofors 72 mm L/14, or Krupp 72 mm L/29 mountain guns and there were 24 Rheinmetall 150 mm L/32 sFH 18 howitzers (bought in 1934) and 24 Krupp 150 mm L/30 sFH 18 howitzers (bought in 1936)". The Rheinmetall and Krupp sFH 18 howitzers seem to be the same gun from a different factory. Does this help? Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It does indeed help, thanks. I am especially curious about the German guns in their armoury. Thanks a lot. I didn't check the article, because, in all honesty I did not expect this information to even be there. Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

See also Sino-German cooperation (1911–1941), and the wikilinks from that article. User:Miborovsky is (was) our resident expert on the topic, but you may need to reach him by email these days. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That's incredibly fascinating. I knew Germany had played a role in the modernisation of China in many respects, but I never knew it extended as late as that. Thanks! Fascinating read! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to track down the weapons listed. I'm fairly sure that the Solothurn Autocannon must be the Solothurn S-18/100. I'm a bit suspicious of the 72mm mountain guns (the only mentions on Google link to this article); I think it's actually this[9] weapon. We have an article on the Japanese copy - Type 41 75 mm Mountain Gun. Have you seen the WP article German-trained divisions in the National Revolutionary Army? Alansplodge (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Another snippet - this forum[10] says that "Bofors 75 mm Mountain Guns. This was a Krupp design taken over by Bofors in 1919 and later improved.... In 1928 Turkey bought 184 pcs of the 75 mm L/20 followed in 1932 by an order for 48 more. Turkey could however not pay for all and at least 72 of these guns were sold to China where som were captured by the Japanese." Alansplodge (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks! All of this is really useful for the little project I am working on. Thanks a lot! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Kumari Fulbright details?

I'm having trouble finding details. It says the former beauty pageant winner "kidnapped, bound and tortured" her ex-boyfriend. Why?? Who tortures someone? And, like, how? She's only getting like 2 years and 6 years of probation or something, so it must not have been some heinous, eviscerating torture. What happened? Thanks. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Google is your friend (not that I think much of the Daily Mail):http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337474/Kumari-Fulbright-jailed-having-ex-boyfriend-kidnapped-tortured.html.

It looks like plea-bargaining to me. And before anyone asks, not worth a Wikipedia article IMO. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

East Polynesian contact with mainland Australia

I'm thinking about writing an article on the initial settlement of New Zealand from East Polynesia about 1280 CE. The settlers spread from NZ to Raoul Island and from there to Norfolk Island. I'm trying to track down a reference for a brief mention in the 2009 The New Oxford History of New Zealand, p 27, which says "Norfolk Island settlers may have continued westward. Lord Howe Island was not discovered, despite its high visibility, but adzes of East Polynesian type have been recovered from the coast of New South Wales". The ref given by the New Oxford covers the lack of Polynesian artefacts on Lord Howe but not the adzes from NSW.

I've found Evidence of Polynesian Culture in Australia and Norfolk Island, but the age of the article and its lack of any scientific dating of the finds makes it unsuitable for a Wikipedia ref.

Can anyone point me to a more authoritative and up to date account of such adze finds? This will only be one line in the article I write, and can be left out if no such account is available.-gadfium 19:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

http://pacificarchaeology.org/index.php/journal may have something useful, or at least someone there may be able to provide a more useful link. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have searched SCOPUS without success. Perhaps I am not using the right keywords.-gadfium 18:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Columbus

Map similar to what Columbus would have relied on. (With a modern map of America super-imposed.) He was aiming for Cipangu, now known as Japan.

Why did the Spanish monarchs believe Columbus when he said that Earth was round? Didn't just about everyone during the Middle Ages think that Earth was flat? --J4\/4 <talk> 20:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The belief that people in the Middle ages thought the Earth was flat is largely a myth, described at Myth of the Flat Earth. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No. See the very first entry in our List of common misconceptions. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If you read that article, you will see that it is a misconception that Columbus argued the Earth was its present shape and diameter. Instead, he was making an argument that he will "wrap around" to the right edge when he sails past the left edge, which he thought due to an analysis of the world's source code: the bible. He also played a lot of games where that happens. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

only people who live where you can't see the horizon (forests, hills) ever think the earth is flat. People living where the earth is "flattish", like the ocean or a desert, can clearly see objects rise up into view as they come over the horizon, which can only mean the earth is curved. Gzuckier (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. If I didn't know the earth was round and was looking out to sea as the sun rises over the horizon, just from looking at that I wouldn't know for sure the earth wasn't flat. In what way would the horizon look different if the earth was in fact flat? 82.44.55.25 (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If as you were looking out to sea a tall sailing ship were to approach you from beyond the horizon, the first thing you would see would be the tops of its sails, then the rest of the sails, then the deck, and finally its bottom hull and wake. And the reverse if it were going away from you. Ancients mariners may have observed that no matter where they were in the sea, the surface of the sea fell away from them toward the horizon, which would happen if the Earth were a globe and not a flat plane. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks :) 82.44.55.25 (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knew the earth was round. In fact scientists had correctly calculated the size of the Earth. What Columbus was arguing was that the earth was much smaller than most scientists believed it was, and therefore it was possible to sail from Europe to what we would now call Japan. (Back then Europeans lumped to all kinds of different people together as "Indians") APL (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

To address a related legend, His crew was threatening to mutiny, but not because they were scared of falling off the edge of the world. They were afraid that columbus was wrong about how small the world was, and that they would not have nearlly enough food to make it to Japan.

The crew was right, of course. If America didn't exist they would have all starved to death in the middle of nowhere.

It seems to me that Columbus was wrong about everything important. He just got really lucky.APL (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

N.B.: As a Christian, Columbus may have been familiar with Isaiah 40:22 where The Earth is described with the Hebrew word chug which means "inscribed in a circle." schyler (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

N.B.: A circle is not a sphere. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

To expand on what APL said, it wasn't that Columbus was right and everyone else was wrong. The opposite was true. The prevailing scientific wisdom was that there was the world was about as big as it actually is, and that therefore it would take a very long time to get from Europe to Asia by sailing west. Columbus mistakenly believed that East Asia was a lot closer to Europe than it was. The right question to ask is how Columbus managed to convince Ferdinand and Isabella to back his voyage when all of the leading minds of his day knew Columbus's premise -- that he could get to Asia in a reasonable time by sailing west -- was wrong. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Columbus wasn't even the first European to reach the Americas - (see Leif Ericson). History gives him far too much credit. --Tango (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Europeans weren't even the first people to reach the Americas - History gives them too much credit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't dismiss the importance of the Age of Discovery. The Europeans travelled to Asia, North and South America, Australia and Antarctica and returned to tell the tale and not the other way around (Discovery de facto means more than to be the first to go somewhere, it also means to go there, return and spread the news). For good and ill the European explorers discovered and connected the whole world leading to the first true Globalization (as in connecting the whole globe). Unless you truly want to believe the writings of Gavin Menzies. Flamarande (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I can believe that learned Europeans of the time knew the size of the Earth pretty accurately. But what basis did they have for estimating how large the Eurasian landmass is? Did they have access to (reliably translated) longitude measurements made in Japan or China? 84.239.160.59 (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

@mwalcoff I wouldn't be surprised if there were political reasons for supporting the voyage. Or, it could be as simple as using Columbus for a temporary "look, we support exploration/trade" point among some noble group, expecting he'd be forgotten in due time. Actually discovering new lands was a pleasant bonus. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not all leading minds thought that the voyage was impossible. Paolo_dal_Pozzo_Toscanelli, whom Columbus knew, was of the opinion that such enterprise was not only possible but that it would also yield a high profit to its discoverer. But that was not the only motivating information Columbus had access to. If you calculate distances, as Columbus did, using the Italian mile (1,238 meters) instead of the Arabic mile (1,830 m) you get a much shorter West route to Asia. Adding to this the fact that Spain was eager to achieve a competitive advantage against other European countries after the tour-de-force of the Reconquista, believing the logic of Columbus sounds unsurprising. Trustinchaos (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. If you calculate the distances, the units of measurement are irrelevant. If you use the result of someone else's calculation and misinterpret the units, then you get different (and in this case wrong) distances. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

yes, you are absolutely right here. We cannot call that calculating. Columbus didn't calculate the distances himself, just read the maps using the Italian miles. Trustinchaos (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There are unsubstantiated but (in some cases) plausible suggestions that Columbus may have heard mariners' stories of lands far to the west, which he interpreted as being China and Japan. See Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, and also Brazil (mythical island). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the opportunity cost may have been an important part of their decision to allow the voyage, the potential loss of a couple of boats and an annoying man that kept begging for them to send him off into the unknown comapred to the potential huge benefits if he was right. Or, I think there were already suspicions going around that there was another whole continent in between, so even greater chance of a huge success for the same small cost. Also it is said that around the same time Giovanni Caboto (or however you want to spell it) heard the tales of Bristolian fishermen that had apparently been to this 'New World', where there were so many cod it was possible to walk across the sea on their backs and scoop them up in baskets. But that is, I think, off the original point of the question. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Royals may have been familar with manuscripts describing the Voyage Of Saint Brendan which took place in the 6th. century. See Brendan#Possible_link_to_Columbus I understand that British fishermen sometimes reached Newfoundland, although I'm not sure when that was. There were myths of Atlantic islands such as Hy-Brazil. To the Royals, the venture must have been seen as a good gamble, with an expected high return if it succeeeded. I don't know how much money they invested compared to other investments or as a proportion of their income. 92.28.246.75 (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There have been speculations that Columbus visited Iceland in 1477... AnonMoos (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely Iceland was a known territory at that time though since it had been under continuous population (and even their own bishop) for the previous 500 years. Googlemeister (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

December 12

Font sizes

I've been struggling with a bit of font design, and I think it might be useful to add the following to Point (typography):

The em size (and hence the point size of a font) does not include any leading (the space between the lines).

It seems to be a great discovery I have just made which will clear up a lot of my confusion. Is it actually true? (Maybe I don't mean leading, since leading seems to include the whole body of the type as well as the space between the lines. Not sure what the word is for space-which-isn't-body.) 81.131.4.151 (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Leading is extra space added between lines. For example, a 10-point font might be designed (for example) so that the capitals and ascenders (bdfh...) extend 6.2 points above the baseline, while the descenders (jpqy...) extend 3.2 points below the baseline. Then when the baselines are played 10 points apart, the descenders are always clear of the following line by 0.6 points. This amount was chosen by the designer of the font as the closest spacing that, in his/her judgement, would not crowd the lines together. It is space between the lines, but it is not leading, and it does count in the 10-point size of the font. Sometimes, especially when setting wide lines of text, you might choose to space the baselines farther apart, say 12 points. That is leading, in this case 2 points of leading.

You have to imagine the old days of hot metal typesetting (or cold metal before that), when the letter would actually be formed into a piece of metal 10 points high, but would not quite reach to the top or bottom of that piece of metal. To do leading, an actual strip of lead would be inserted between the lines of letters; in this case, a strip 2 points in size.

--Anonymous, 04:47 UTC, December 12, 2010.

Leading says that it is the distance between the baselines, so the leading in that last example (10 points of sort (typesetting), 2 points extra) is 12 points. It doesn't say what the extra strips are called. Photoshop backs this up, where a block of text with point size 12 and leading set to 12 will be "solid". On the other hand, right there in the Leading article is a contradictory example: CSS seems to use leading to mean "space between ascenders and descenders" - the example with no leading does not have all the lines printed on top of one another (as is the case in Photoshop with leading set to zero). So I don't know. 81.131.4.151 (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Captain Alatriste

Did the fictional character Captain Diego Alatriste ever exist or was he based on an actual person in 17th century Spanish history? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

¡Buenos días! According to the article on Spanish Wikipedia here, he is a fictional character. There is further discussion (in Spanish) here which seems to come to the same conclusion, though I only have un poco de Spanish. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh what a pity. I saw the film the other night and I was hoping he had truly existed. Thanks, Ghmyrtle.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Your fantasies can be just as intense with a fictional character. Really, there's no rule against it, and it wouldn't make you any weirder. Have fun! 82.234.207.120 (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but my interest stems from purely historical curiosity, nothing else.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The following is a joke. Please don't remove it. Um, I wasn't expecting a response. I was just trolling you. Uh, mission accomplished? 82.234.207.120 (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoever removed this "admission" of trolling (made by me from a previous address): it was a JOKE. A real troll would NOT admit it. So, please don't remove my contributions in the future. If Jeanne feels offended by them, I suppose she could remove it, this being her thread... Otherwise don't edit other editors' contributions please... Thanks! 80.14.250.12 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

According to our Captain Alatriste article:

"His name comes from Sealtiel Alatriste, Pérez-Reverte's Mexican publisher and friend, and from the legendary Don Juan Tenorio, who is indeed his grand-uncle"

and our Don Juan Tenorio article says:

"Don Juan Tenorio: Drama religioso-fantástico en dos partes, is a play written in 1844 by José Zorrilla. It is the more romantic of the two principal Spanish-language literary interpretations of the myth of Don Juan."

Which suggests (inconclusively): he is a character based on a character based on a myth, if that makes any sense in-universe (I haven't read the book or seen the movie, are they good?). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not read any of the books, but the film is excelent. Viggo Mortensen is convincing in the role. The historical personages were portrayed realistically unlike the mess Hollywood made with The Tudors and Braveheart.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought Polanski's film version (The Ninth Gate, 1999) of Pérez-Reverte's The Club Dumas (1993) was better than the book. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Alatriste didn't exist. Perez-Reverte explains how his friend believes in Alatriste as a real man. From a Patente de Corso text in El Semanal magazine in Spanish:

[...]Mi amigo no es muy de leer libros, pero el capitán le suena bastante. Hasta el punto de que, descubro sorprendido, cree en la existencia del veterano soldado de los tercios. «Qué bueno –termina diciendo– que te inspires en personajes reales, como hiciste con la Reina del Sur.» Me lo quedo mirando, para comprobar si habla en broma. Pero no. Lo dice en serio aunque es mejicano, como digo, y oyó decir más de una vez que Teresa Mendoza es personaje de ficción. Entonces comprendo que el tiempo y el extraño azar de la literatura, incluso para los no lectores –o especialmente entre ellos–, han hecho su trabajo. Y sonrío feliz, de medio lado, enseñando el colmillo como un lobo satisfecho.[...]

— Arturo Perez-Reverte, Las fronteras (difusas) de la ficción [11][12]

Regards. emijrp (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas gifts

What is the most popular type of Christmas gifts? Adult lady to gentleman? Gentleman to lady?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's touching that you asked for the most popular types of Christmas gifts just to avoid being cliche, knowing that by yourself you would probably have picked one of them! Everyone should be as original and creative... 80.14.250.12 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have lived in four different countries, and I'd have to say the most popular (and cliched) gift from a gentleman to a lady is probably perfume or jewelry; women tend to give their men cologne or shirts/sweaters.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Which century were beds used?

Birth of Louis VIII of France in 1187

In which century did the European (in particular western) nobility switch from sleeping on straw pallets to beds?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're defining as a "bed" here. Do you mean when did mattresses become used, as opposed to raw straw? They are very old indeed, dating back in Europe to at least the Romans. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I knew the Romans, Egyptians and Greeks used them, but I was talking about the four-postered, curtained beds with mattresses that were used in the late medieval period. In fact, one of the French nobles taken as a prisoner by the English after the Battle of Agincourt paid part of his ransom with his bed!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Our article on four poster beds is not very informative in this respect, but it does say that a number of extant beds date from the 16th Century. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

They pre-date the 16th century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My Usborne Time Traveller Book of Knights and Castles (seriously) has the lord and lady sleeping in a four poster. This is set in 1240. I seem to remember there is a manuscript illumination of similar events, not sure when that dates to. It must be in Wikimedia somewhere... 81.131.0.97 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Commons category Beds in art has many examples of medieval depictions of beds. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder to what extent the usage of 4-poster beds increased as the Little Ice Age progressed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded an image of a bed used in 1187 in France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking at the very same picture. Nice accurate date and location. However there is Commons:File:Saxon_State_Bed.jpg, which links to a history of furniture (available on Gutenberg) which talks about Saxon beds. 81.131.0.97 (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Lovely drawing but no date is given, not even the century.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"A drawing in the Harleian MSS. in the British Museum is shewn on page 25, illustrating a Saxon mansion in the ninth or tenth century." (Blah blah blah, still apparently talking about the same MSS) "Other woodcuts represent Anglo-Saxon bedsteads, which were little better than raised wooden boxes, with sacks of straw placed therein ..." 81.131.0.97 (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Why the Christian population isn't growing in India?

Apostle Thomas went to India and preached the gospel there. 19th century missionaries went to India and established Indian churches. After many centuries of evangelism, why the Indian Christian population still remain small? Indian Christians make up 2.3% of India population. I know that many Northeast Indians have accepted Christianity, but not the Indo-Aryan Indians who are the majority. Is it difficult to convert brown people? 17:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.73.51 (talk)

"...is it difficult to convert brown people"? Yes, if you use ridiculous stereotypes. And in answer to the general question, why do you think the people of India would wish to convert to Christianity? They have well-established religions of their own. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a better question is why Christianity was more successful in Europe, the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa than it was in Asia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, because they didn't use violence to convert people in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.191.230 (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

See Goa Inquisition. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's an answer to "Why would they want to convert": I've known some Christian Indians, and the reason they converted was because of the lack of a caste system in Christianity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that rather depends. In some Christian churches, most notably the Catholic Church, women are virtually second-class citizens. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You get Catholic guilt instead. Bargain! 81.131.0.97 (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just telling you what they told me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Err, you might want to have a look at Caste system among Indian Christians... --BishkekRocks (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Birthdate of Isabelle of Hainault

There are two different dates of birth (and places of birth) for Isabelle of Hainaut, Queen consort of Philip II of France and mother of Louis VIII. Some give her birthdate and birthplace as 5 April 1170 and Valenciennes, while others say she was born in Lille on 23 April 1170. Would anyone happen to know the correct DOB and corresponding birthplace? Thank you in advance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this likely to be a Julian/Gregorian calendar thing? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not with an 18 day discrepancy in the 1100s, more likely these are dates conjectured from her father's movements or the usual time for confinement of the mother in that era. In other words pretty close to being entirely made up, I would be dubious of any accurate date from that era especially women, but then even the DOB of the previous king Louis VII of France is not stated with any accuracy. meltBanana 21:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, so perhaps the discrepancy arises from the chronicles that are the sources for this stuff? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and other sources. For example, while I don't know specifically about the French kings, there are some published itineraries of English kings, like Henry II. (In fact you can read Eyton's The court, itinerary, and household of Henry II on Google Books.) By examining chronicles, charters, and whatever other dated documents are available, it is sometimes possible to determine exactly where the king was on any given day (or approximately, if there is a gap in the dates). If his wife is known to be pregnant on a certain date, and a child is mentioned on some other date, then all that can usually be said with certainty is that the kid was born between those two dates. If a specific birth date is recorded in a chronicle, the chronicler himself may have been there to witness it. Otherwise, where would he get such information? There was no birth registry, and a medieval person, even a royal one, may not have even known his/her own birth date. They could have been born in "spring", and if the day was a feast day or some other important day, it may have been remembered later, but probably not. Death dates were more important, and they are more often recorded (just like Easter is a more important holiday than Christmas). Adam Bishop (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Pipe Rolls records royal - and a few noble - children's DOBs, so did many chroniclers. Also when an heir came of age his or her DOB would need to have been known. Elizabeth I's birth has been recorded almost down to the exact hour.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's true, but Elizabeth is almost as far away from Isabella as we are from Elizabeth. Things were a lot more organized then. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The earliest sunset

Is there any name for the day of the earliest sunset? Such as there is for beltane for example. According to www.timeanddate.com the earliest sunset in the northern hemisphere is tonight, or perhaps tommorrow, at 15.51 in London. Being an aethiest, and being a late riser, today is the turning point of the year for me. Thanks 92.28.249.229 (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Midsummer would be the (neo)pagan term for the Summer solstice, when the day is longest in the Northern Hemisphere (whereas Beltane "is considered a cross-quarter day, marking the midpoint in the Sun's progress between the spring equinox and summer solstice.").

Winter solstice, the shortest day in the Northern hemisphere, occurs on December 21 this year. You may also be interested in our article on Day length. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

But what you seem to be talking about is timeanddate.com, which does show the earliest sunset ("3:51 PM") to be occurring around now (+/- a few days). But notice that length of day does reach a minimum at 7h 49m 43s around Dec. 21/22, which is the winter solstice. Solar noon is shown to vary there, too. Interesting question. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Like the OP, I have celebrated this day of earliest sunset for the last fifty years, and also the day of latest sunrise in early January. The effect seems to be seldom recognised by others, and it is just a consequence of the drifting of noon from its clock time. See Equation of time for details. The dates change slowly over the centuries, so they will probably never become an established festival. Dbfirs 22:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The pagan name for the Winter Solstice is Yule. Corvus cornix_talk 22:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note the question is about celebrating the earliest sunset. I'm already well aware of the shortest day etc which is not the same thing. 92.15.5.93 (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that (depending on how you measure it) that "time" will depend on your longitude, time zone, and your time measurement criteria. It's a lot more straightforward to state which is the shortest day.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that - I would imagine that the earliest sunset is on the same day for everyone in the northern hemisphere. 92.29.117.8 (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There appearer to be a confusion of terms here. Even though water clocks were surprisingly accurate, the time difference we're talking about would hardly register on them and would not register at all on the minds of the pagans. What they would have noticed: is the 'least' westward point that the sun set, before heading west again. Although henges seem to be a phenomenon of the British Isles it is quite possible that early man used stakes as sight line to the horizon to act as date markers right into Christen time (just as some chapels were built to point to the rising of the sun on their saints day). What's more, this method could still drive a calendar which is more accurate that the one we use today. So the answer is no; as the earliest sunset is just an artefact made more discernible by our regular clocks set to display mean solar time. Even if you were born before the development of clocks, it would still be a turning point for you as this is more to do with the characteristics of your own particular body clock. Your clocks are probably synchronised more strongly by the onset of darkness. If festivals were based on individual body clocks it would be very confusing for all concerned--Aspro (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC).

I'm simply asking if the day of the earliest sunset has a name. Nothing to do with water clocks or 'circadian rythmns' etc. 92.28.245.105 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem. Your "simple" question is based on a misunderstanding: there is no "earliest sunset" every year. Sunset depends on many factors. For instance, sunset at my current location is much earlier than 100 miles away from me, simply because I live in a very mountainous region, while 100 miles away is relatively flat. The sun sets earlier here because the mountains form a higher horizon than in the flatter regions.

Your longitude also has a major impact on sunset. I've lived in Anchorage, Alaska, where the sun sometimes is only up for a few hours each day, making the sunset as early as 3 pm local time. Much further north, the sun never even rises for a portion of the winter.

If what you're looking for is a specific day of the year that the sun sets earliest in general, that would be the same as the day with the shortest available sunlight in general (ie. Winter solstice). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Valdemar III of Denmark

Does Danish history recognize this man as King Valdemar III? I've seen many other sites call Valdemar the Young, the son and co-king of Valdemar II of Denmark, Valdemar III instead.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Danish Wikipedia article on him calls him Valdemar 3.. Corvus cornix_talk 22:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but how reliable can Wikipedia be.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This photo has him listed as "Waldemarus Tertis". Corvus cornix_talk 23:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

There's plenty of results from Google Books[13]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The photo provided by Corvus cornix lists Valdemar II of Denmark's son as Valdemar III. The text above it is about the person Wikipedia calls Valdemar III of Denmark but the image is related to another person, the son of Valdemar II who lived a century earlier. Surtsicna (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Then the Danish Wikipedia article is wrong, since it uses that image. Corvus cornix_talk 17:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Somali dance niiko

What is this dance in somalia called Niiko? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.35.111 (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't have an article on it (yet), but it can be seen on youtube here[14][15] and apparently more authentically from East Africa here[16]. Thanks for asking; someone may be along soon with more information! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

December 13

The Big Bang Theory

Hi all. Pausing the video in the starting of The Big Bang Theory I have discovered this image. What is the story behind it? I guess the photo is in public domain. Thanks. emijrp (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

According to this (fairly interesting) website, the picture is apparently of a routine amputation during the American Civil War. The soldier in the picture, oddly, is looking at the camera; the operations were also usually performed while the soldier was conscious because medical science had not progressed to the point while anesthesia was in common use. Xenon54 (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, by the 1860s chloroform and ether were quite common on the battlefield and were used in the majority of surgeries and amputations. Some soldiers requested not to use them, out of fear that the anesthesia would kill them (and a lingering "moral" argument that one should "face" surgery directly), but that was comparatively rare. This photo was clearly staged in one way or another — remember that photos at that time were not quick affairs, but required everyone to pose for a few minutes, and in any case, this is not exactly a "natural" pose for anyone involved. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely they were aware that you could use heavy doses of whiskey or other forms of ethanol as an anesthetic... Googlemeister (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The doses required would have too many complications (vomiting, uncontrollable behavior, alchohol poisoning, etc.). Just giving someone a little bit would only make them tipsy, and possibly less compliant when the physician starts cutting. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if that image [17] is in the public domain, if so we should maybe get it. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be PD considering its age. Why not ask over at the Ref desk on copyright just to be sure. I agree it would be good to use in a relevant article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely PD in the United States. PD-because-of-age can be complicated, but there is really no doubt that anything before 1890 is in the PD in the United States. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously a staged photo as this is simply not how amputation was done. First a tourniquet was applied. Then an assistant pulled back on the flesh. Then the surgeon used scalpels to cut the flesh so that enough remained to cover the stump after surgery! Then cut through the muscles, ligaments, etc. Then a linen "retractor" to protect the flesh, all before employing the saw.[18] The old sawbones weren't all hacks. Rmhermen (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Issue with research project and annonymity....

Hello, I am doing a project in my college level antrhropology course. The topic of this research is interaction between domestic (American) students and international students. Since the interviews i do with students obviously will have different points of view, related to their nationality, should i create a Chinese fakename to keep a Chinese student anonymous? I want their identity safe but i wonder if it is important to say that they are Chinese. It seems odd to call said person "Jason".

Additionally: if i SHOULD create a Chinese "cover name", how would i go about this and make it sound reasonable? I imagine that since I am American it is difficult for me to understand Chinese naming conventions, and I don't want to tell my readers that I interviewed Jay Chou .....

Thanks for your response in advance! 137.81.118.126 (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you anonymize your students by, for example, using Latin letters for the non-American students and Greek letters for the American students or maybe letters and numbers? It would be truly anonymizing, and it would allow you to use two distinct systems to keep the groups seperate. --Jayron32 02:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this somewhat alluding to the idea that a "fake name" is not truly anonymizing? To my knowledge it is done in quite a few legitimate, world-known anthropological writings.... 137.81.118.126 (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't allude to anything. I was just throwing some ideas around. You'll find I never allude. I state. --Jayron32 03:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that you haven't interviewed Jay Chou, I can see the rationale behind giving fake names, but I think you'd have to make it clear in your writeup that you were using pseudonyms, and on that basis, you could just call them 'student A', 'student B' etc, as already suggested. I'd think that otherwise you might be seen to be applying stereotypes, and you risk accidentally using a name of a real student. Perhaps you should ask the college teaching staff about this though? ...and try not to misspell anthropology if you are studying it ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope its pretty clear that that "spelling" is more a typo than anything else, but 2 points for actually seeing it, i didnt :P

Anyway, I am considering discussing this with the professor, but seeing as it is Sunday night, i thought id get a head start on the situation. Your mention of avoiding stereotypical names is well noted, because even if i do this with american names, there are many which are so stereotypical that we automatically choose. Tim, Sam, Sally, John, Jim, Ben, Sarah, etc..... Having student A,B,C, and Student α, β, γ seems to make sense. If i take this method, i have two questions.

1) Should i refer to them as Student D, Student β, etc, or simply D or β in place of the name?

2) Should I discuss the issue of pseudo names within my paper itself?

137.81.118.126 (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1) Either system seems fine 2) Probably not, since you are using letters rather than names like "Billy" or "Chang" its is plainly obvious you didn't happen to find some bizare part of the world where everyone has a letter as a name. However, the advice to contact your professor seems best. These kind of questions can be answered quickly by him, and as he is likely working in the field right now, he may have ideas about established practices. --Jayron32 04:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd start with 'student D', and maybe just use 'D' later, where you needed to refer to him/her again: "Student D is a female Science student from mainland china, in her early twenties. When I asked D about how she got on with other students, she replied..." (assuming this is the style of interview you are using - you probably get the idea). And yes, you should discuss why you haven't used real names in the paper: anthropological research often involves such issues, and showing an understanding of them will look good. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely what i was getting at, the discussion of the issue, not just the mention of its implimentation. Thanks alot everyone, your reflection on this is very helpful.

137.81.118.126 (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

..... I'm thinking about being frank and open about the situation and actually mentioning the Jay Chou thing, just as a proof of how easy stereotyping can become.....

137.81.118.126 (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes. Except you then run the risk of overdoing the 'anthropologist' stereotype, who stumbles blindly into his/her fieldwork without a clue what is going on, and after a heroic struggle involving strange beasts, mysterious diseases, and frequent misunderstandings, emerges clutching the Golden Fleece an exemplary exposition of the complexities of human cultural experience. (see Clifford Geertz for the archetype). Try not to overdo the reflexivity... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

An extremely valid point.... Im just trying to relate this to the anthropological texts we've read as well. So i want to show my knowledge of the situation, but if i over extend it it can look bad, almost like i'm explaining something to a small child.... i vaguely get the golden fleece thing though, haha.... ill try to illustrate my points concisely then without listing the actual stereotypes in question etc etc

137.81.118.126 (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's always difficult to know where to pitch your writing at. You don't really want to write for your professor, as he/she probably (hopefully?) knows more about the subject than you, so you think you don't need to explain anything. But as you say, you aren't writing for a small child either. I was told that the best person to bear in mind is 'an educated outsider': maybe in your case a fellow student who's studying Ancient Greece rather than anthropology (and knows about the golden fleece ;) ). Explain why you're identifying people the way you are, but remember this isn't the topic of your paper, so you don't want to get side-tracked. Mostly though, with a topic like this, you need to let the people you are studying speak for themselves, so if they seem concerned about anonymity, it will show through anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What i really love about this project is it really does make us think like anthropologists, after reading a few books and some criticisms of their authors. So far i have 1.5 pages, 3 paragraphs for my paper (double spaced) The first para explains what i am looking at, with second para talking about viewpoints causing complexities, and third para explaining the anonymity issue. I am now at the "meat" part of the paper and i think it is intended to be a 5 to 8 page paper...... I think i covered the details surrounding the issues "enough" but not too much.... or at least i hope ^_^; Thanks again!

137.81.118.126 (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Good luck with the paper... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I consider this topic now closed. Thanks again to all who have given input, you make this place great! :)

137.81.118.126 (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

3D in China?

Hey, I noticed the 3D TVs have started appearing here in the 'States, but you still need to wear those awful goggles to make out the 3D, and the company claims it's "working on" a way to ditch the goggles. However, I was in China about 3 years ago and in a certain airport (Beijing or Hong Kong, I think) I saw a display screen showing various advisories (don't leave luggage unattended, be ready to get searched, check in at the appropriate time, etc.). One of these involved a cascade a falling coins (why, I do not remember). I vividly remember that the cascade was in pretty good 3D, my mother even remarked on it; we were not wearing the glasses, obviously. What was this? How was it done, and why does it not exist here? Thanks. 24.92.70.160 (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a personal suggestion.... this seems to be a technology based question. Maybe youll get a faster response if you post it in Computers and IT?

137.81.118.126 (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Displays with lenticular lenses can be Autostereoscopic. They're suitable for were you can be reasonably sure the subject will be standing within its narrow viewing angle. The idea has been around for a long time and been demostraited a number of times.--Aspro (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Donaghcloney, County Down

Would anyone know exactly how far the Northern Ireland village of Donaghcloney, County Down is from the town of Lurgan? I did a Google and some say it's 2 miles away, while others give it a distance of 4 or 5 miles. I need the info for an article I'm currently working on. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Google Maps driving directions says it is 5 miles. 212.123.243.220 (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bing Maps[19] says 5.5 miles and that it should take 13 minutes to drive or 1 hr 46 mins to walk. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. Now I'll add it to the relevant article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The hand in the coat

Why is the hand there?

I have noticed a common detail at many portraits of XIX century people: in many of them, the subject of the portrait placed his hand inside his coat while posing for the artist. Is there some reason for this? MBelgrano (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This distillation of an academic article about the subject seems to imply that it was just a visual custom at the time, quite old, and associated with being "manly boldness tempered with modesty." I see it as somewhat like smiling wildly is in modern photography — something everyone is encouraged to do just because everyone does it, and whose contrived nature becomes clear when you juxtapose it against other time periods when it was not the custom. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, in modern pop culture, it is by far most often associated with Napoleon. There's a Wikimedia Commons category commons:Category:Hand-in-waistcoat with a lot of pics... AnonMoos (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, it gives the subject something to do with their hand rather than just have it hanging limply by their side. Dismas|^(talk) 16:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Banks private or public

Are the twelve Federal Reserve Banks private or public entities?Smallman12q (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Public, and chartered by Congress, but with considerable independence.

"The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

"As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

"The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5

-- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

lifestyle forum for living better?

Flame me if you want, but if I buy a $500 coffee machine that runs like a champ for the next seven years, and the control version of me just keeps buying instant like a chump, I both save money and have a higher quality of life. Is there a forum devoted to all the things this is true for? (shoes that don't deteriorate, etc etc etc). Thanks. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sure there are thousands, but Lifehacker springs immediately to mind, although it's not strictly a forum. Skomorokh 15:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

In Britain there is Which?, which publishes many reports comparing the merits of groups of consumers goods, and moneysavingexpert.com Apparantly Consumer Reports is the American equivalent of Which? 92.28.245.105 (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Neal Stephenson blurb

The "Biographical Info" section on this page about the speculative fiction author Neal Stephenson reads as follows:

Neal Town Stephenson issues from a clan of rootless, itinerant hard-science and engineering professors. Born on Halloween 1959 in Fort Meade, Maryland – home of the National Security Agency – he grew up in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, and Ames, Iowa, before attending college in Boston.

He began his higher education as a physics major, then switched to geography when it appeared that this would enable him to scam more free time on his university’s mainframe computer. When he graduated and discovered, to his perplexity, that there were no jobs for inexperienced physicist-geographers, he began to look into alternative pursuits such as working on cars, agricultural labour and writing novels.

His first novel, The Big U, was published in 1984 and vanished without trace. Zodiac: The Eco-thriller is his second novel. On first coming out in 1988 it quickly developed a cult following among water-pollution-control engineers and was enjoyed, though rarely bought, by many radical environmentalists. The highly successful Snow Crash was written between 1988 and 1991, as the author listened to a great deal of loud, relentless, depressing music. …

Neal Stephenson now resides in a comfortable home in the western hemisphere where he spends his time – when not sidetracked by his computer, rollerblading or parenting – attempting to make a living out of writing novels and the occasional magazine article.

This material is credited as an "[e]xcerpt of the biographical blurb from a book jacket". Does anyone know which one? If you could include an ISBN and page number in your response that would be ideal, as I intend to cite it in an article. Any help appreciated, Skomorokh 15:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Snow Crash. Here is the page courtesy of Google Books. Note that the text you quoted isn't complete. It's a little mangled. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

List of dances in India

Why assam floc k dances are not included in " list of dances in india" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.12.34 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Party affiliation statistics for career federal civil servants in US.

Are any statistics available that relate to the party affiliation of US federal employees? I am really only interested in career employees, not political appointees. If that is not available, I would be interested in party affiliation of public sector employees in general. ike9898 (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesus in a manger

Where in the bible does it talk about Jesus, the baby child, being in a manger?--LordGorval (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that in Luke? Googlemeister (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

See http://www.multilingualbible.com/luke/2-7.htm. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

O.K., I see it. According to the Wycliff version it says:
And sche bare hir first borun sone, and wlappide hym in clothis, and leide hym in a cratche, for ther was no place to hym in no chaumbir.
I realize this is old English, however I am still interested in the modern words for "wlappide" and "cratche". Apparently "cratche" is manger. Is that correct?--LordGorval (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding wlappide, here is a quote from this etymology site: LAP (3), to wrap, involve, fold. (E.) Doubtless frequently confused with the word above, but originally quite distinct from it. M.E. lappen, to wrap, fold, Will. of Palerne, 1712; 'lapped in cloutes' = wrapped up in rags, P. Plowman's Crede, ed. Skeat, l. 438. β. This word has lost an initial w; an older form was wlappen; thus in Wyclif, Matt. xxvii. 59, the Lat. inuoluit is translated in the later version by 'lappide it,' but in the earlier one by 'wlappide it.' γ. Lastly, the M.E. wlappen is a later form of wrappen, to wrap, by the frequent change of r to l; so that lap is a mere corruption or later form of wrap. See Wrap. Looie496 (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

EO doesn't agree that "lap" and "wrap" have the same origins,[20][21] but they are certainly used in in an "overlapping" way. !!!!

And "cratche" is probably a transliteration of "crèche", which nowadays is used specifically to mean "nativity scene" or "manger scene", and which means "crib", "manger" or "stall".[22] The word crèche derives from the Germanic word from which we also get "crib". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And although "cratche" suggests "cradle", that word has a different origin.[23] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Punishment for sexual traitors in 1944-45 after WWII ?

I have seen and read so much about a certain phenomena in the closing days of World War two; in the nations occupied by Germany, local women who hade sexual relationships with German soldiers where treated very badly by their own country-men when the war ended; they were beaten, had their hair cut and where terrorised in many different ways. They where considered to be traitors for no other reason than for having had sex with German soldiers. I am not here to discuss that matter in particular, but it made me wonder about a question I haven't been able to answer. In the occupied nations, there where also female personel from Germany, where there not? In that case, there would also have been sexual relationship between German women and local men? My question is: was local men, who hade sex with German women, harassed and treated badly and judged to be traitors, in the same way as local women who had sex with German men were? I have not been able to find anything about this issue. Thank you. --85.226.41.42 (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Without wanting to sound like I am doubting whether that happened or not (sexual relations between German women and local men), have you found any evidence that it did indeed happen? That would be your starting point. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

French Military in First and Second World Wars

When people refer to the French military being somewhat lacking in battle, I believe they are referring to their conduct in the First and Second World Wars, but what events are specifically intimated? What retreats, losses etc are being referenced? Thanks. 92.11.32.186 (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)