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

June 15

The "Doom Book"

I'm not sure how I stumbled across it, but I was checking out our article at Doom Book and was thinking of expanding it, perhaps including the list of names it supposedly contained. After some admittedly quick Googling, I am starting to worry that the article is a hoax - every return I see looks uncomfortably like a mirror or near mirror of our article or else is about something else entirely. I don't doubt that our editors acted in good faith (that's not AGF or anything, you can preview Russo's book at Amazon and he does indeed mention it once in passing), but I'm starting to wonder how real this Doom Book actually was. Did it actually exist or is it a kind of metaphor for what was undoubtedly going on in Hollywood at the time? Was it like McCarthy's supposed "list" (i.e. just a scare tactic)? Can anyone find a reference independent of the Russo book? Perhaps even the list itself? Apart from my concern about the article, I'd like to learn more about the list. Matt Deres (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you search Google Books (not just Google Web) for "Doom Book" Will Hays you will get three pages of books that talk about it, many of which you can preview. Looie496 (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's something at least (I was searching under "doom book" list and just doom book and got nothing) in that it gives me a few references that predate the Russo book, but there doesn't seem to be anything substantive at all, just variations of "a list of 117 (or 130) names...". The name Wallace Reid shows up a lot, but he died in 1923 and the list was supposedly put together in the 1930s (at least according to our article). Considering that these were supposedly bound books delivered to studio heads there's very little out there. Matt Deres (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I found basically no hard references about a "Doom Book," but if you search for "Will Hays" and "blacklist" you find considerably more. It would be nice if there were better references. The names on the Hays organization blacklist don't seem to be publicly posted anywhere. Searching through LA Times and NY Times archives about Hays and the early MPPA turns up a lot of somewhat conflicting information, and no discussions of explicit blacklisting. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wives of Vasili IV of Russia

Does anyone have any information on the wives of Vasili IV of Russia. This site list Maria Pss Repnina and Maria Ekaterina Bugnosova-Rostovskaia as his wives. But who were they and were they Tsaritsa consorts of Russia? What is the Pss in the first woman's name.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't access that site, but I suggest Pss is short for Princess. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've now accessed it, and I'd still say it means Princess. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If this source[1] is reliable, then you're right. Additional abbreviations (which I've seen elsewhere when googling this question) are Css = Countess, Dss = Duchess, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but now, who are these women and were they tsarina or tsaritsa?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Brockhaus and Efron disagrees with fmg.ac. The 17 Jan 1608 date applies to the second marriage, to Maria Petrovna (Buynosova-Rostovskaya). B&E calls her a tsaritsa. The name of the first wife is sometimes given as Elena (the Russian wikipedia says she died 1592, before Vasili's reign).--Cam (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Measuring a civilization by the lowliest members

Beloved Refdeskians, please help where my Google skills are lacking! I've seen this quote about judging a society by how the lowest members are treated attributed to Dostoevsky, Churchill, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, the Statue of Liberty, and pretty much everyone who's ever been quoted, except for Oscar Wilde. Is there an actual, factual source? Foofish (talk) 05:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky at least wrote "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." (In The House of the Dead.) And the ubiquitous "Gandhi" quote you are talking about seems not to be reliably traceable to Gandhi, neither the "weakest members" nor the "animals" version. That's about as much as I can tell you.--Rallette (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This question was debated at some length on Wikiquote's Reference Desk a few years ago. Jeffq contributed three quotations, taken from The Columbia World of Quotations and Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations, which show the thought evolving. Here they are:

• A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization.
  • Samuel Johnson, 1770; quoted by the Rev. Dr. Maxwell in Life of Samuel Johnson by James Boswell (1791)
• If a test of civilization be sought, none can be so sure as the condition of that half of society over which the other half has power.
  • Harriet Martineau, Women, Vol. 3, Society in America (1837)
• Yet somehow our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is in the way that it cares for its helpless members.
  • Pearl Buck, My Several Worlds (1954), p. 337

--Antiquary (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You, Antiquary, are made of awesome. Thank you so much! Foofish (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A similar sentiment:

The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped. Hubert Humphrey, Remarks at the dedication of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, November 1, 1977, Congressional Record, November 4, 1977, vol. 123, p. 37287. Neutrality^talk 09:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Utilitarianism revisited

Take this example. 20 people are stranded in an isolated island with no transport possible with the outside world for many days (due to any reason). The people are feeling hungry and some have started to fell ill. Then one of them opines that one among us must have to die, then we will practice cannibalism, and this will save most of us. Otherwise we all will die in hunger. Utilitarianism will argue since the killing of one individual in this particularly situation saves the lives of 19 people, so this act is ethically justified. So we can see utilitarianism has disregard for individuality and human rights. Then why do such an inhumane approach to ethics called utilitarianism is accepted so widely? --999Zot (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because you're killing a person who is doomed to death soon enough anyway? 75.40.137.154 (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The obvious solution to that moral dilemma is to just wait until somebody dies on their own, then eat them. This avoids the risk of the rescue party arriving right after they are killed. There's enough variation in people that someone is likely to die while others are still able to make arrangements for him (table arrangements, that is :-) ). StuRat (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes you just have to laugh about it... Mitch Ames (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A better what-if scenario might be that you don't have enough air to last until the rescue party is scheduled to arrive, so have to kill off people to save oxygen. StuRat (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In the example above, a utilitarian might argue that a single person decapitated in his sleep (or otherwise killed in some manner not involving pain or suffering) is less inhumane than 20 people starving to death in agony. But this depends, utilitarianism comes in many forms, and they don't all agree even in extreme cases like this. The classical argument against utilitarianism is that it could justify gang rape as long as the happiness of the perpetrators sufficiently outweighed the suffering of the victim. The utilitarian rebuttal to this is something along the lines of "true, but only in a very naïve definition of utilitarianism", and this leads to all sorts of different clarifications of what utilitarianism "really" means. If you're interested in this—you've been asking quite a few questions here lately—I can recommend the book Practical Ethics by Peter Singer. It contains many provocative arguments on various ethical issues from a rule utilitarian perspective, and I think it's a good introduction to that line of thinking. You're bound to disagree with much of it, but that only makes it all the more intriguing. Gabbe (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the need to kill someone sooner (rather than waiting for them to die), the "not enough air" scenario above has different "ethics" - the lack of cannibalism. If we're all starving we may commit two crimes - cannibalism and (possibly) murder, to survive. Whereas in the "not enough air" scenario, we commit only the one crime of murder. Some people may consider cannibalism (of someone who was already dead, ie you did not kill) more taboo and thus more morally reprehensible than murder. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the case of the example actually happened in real life, see R v Dudley and Stephens.--85.55.200.141 (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A related case was Alexander Pearce. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Bite the bullet. In trying to figure out what is morally right we have to weigh the relevant ethical principles against each other. Each principle all by itself is obvious and seemingly universal. They call them "prima facie absolute moral values," you know: "Peace," "Justice," "Respect for the choices of rational beings," "Do no harm," "Fidelity," "Love," "Sanctity of life," etcetera. However, they are only prima facie absolute. Life rarely hands us situations where only one moral value is relevant. We usually have to choose. So you ask "Then why do such an inhumane approach to ethics called utilitarianism is accepted so widely?" however it only looks that way in certain situations where we have to make that hard choice (Don't get me wrong, I'm no utilitarian. I don't consider "utility" to be one of those values, but some people do.).Greg Bard (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Typefaces with monospaced digits?

I am working on a print project that is full of numbers, and I need a typeface with monospaced digits.

Please do not tell me to just go with a font that is monospaced for all characters. It seems to me that those typefaces are not really designed for figures-only, as they give each digit too much width for my purpose.

What I mean is, I want "11" to be the same width as "10" or "12", so a column with numbers in sequence will not look funny. 75.40.137.154 (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried the usual, meaning most commonly used, fonts? I find that the majority of the fonts installed on this computer actually have monospaced digits, from Times to Garamond to Baskerville to Century. Though I suppose it may depend on what software you are using and all that.--Rallette (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Times doesn't. Try this test with the fonts:

   111111111111
   222222222222
   121212121212

Oh, and I forgot to say: I want a font with strokes that do not vary so much in width. This is for a calendar. I am trying to make something useful, not beautiful. 75.40.137.154 (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Then it could be just a question of settings. See for example this. In MS Word, which I used to test this, most fonts have monospaced digits by default (but then it is software for lawyers, basically). Whatever design software you are using, I suppose you should be able to specify monospaced digits, for any font that has that option.--Rallette (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I do a lot of graphics work, and I have several thousand fonts on my computer. For me, the most practical looking font for something like this would be Bell Gothic. I've also used Eurostile on calendars with much success. News Gothic, Gill Sans or Franklin Gothic are other options. — Michael J 08:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're on windows and don't mind the terminal look, fixedsys is a font that only has one official size, and all characters are the exact same width and height, and don't stray out of their box at all. i kan reed (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"the usual coffee maker business" -- Belle Epoque prostitution

I am reading E. Nesbit's The Incomplete Amorist. Two English men-about-town have settled in the artistic sub-culture Paris, with full access to its demi-monde. They are discussing an English young woman they know there, who has fallen into prostitution:

"She used to live with de Villermay," said Temple steadily; "he was the first--the usual coffee maker business, you know, though God knows how an English girl got into it. When he went home to be married--It was rather beastly. The father came up--offered her a present. She threw it at him. Then Schauermacher wanted her to live with him. No. She'd go to the devil her own way. And she's gone."

What the heck is "the usual coffee maker business"? Free espresso for whoever comes up with the most convincing explanation. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there is a well-worn idea relating to a wife making coffee for her husband in the morning, taken out of the context of domesticity, placed instead in the context of the prostitution business, the idea becomes referred to as "the usual coffee maker business." Just a guess. Bus stop (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This website of Victorian sexual slang has the following the entry on the word "Coffe house": "A necessary house.[toilet] To make a coffee-house of a woman's ****; to go in and out and spend nothing.". Though I have no idea if it is related to the above use of the word. (Probably not) --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like a conversation we are not meant to understand fully, but only to guess at. Other points are equally unclear, but suggestive: "The father came up--offered her a present. She threw it at him." Is this the father of "de Villermay"? Unlikely, though possible. Another father? And the next sentence: "Then Schauermacher wanted her to live with him. No. She'd go to the devil her own way. And she's gone." Who is "Schauermacher"? If we are only overhearing a conversation, we may not understand all the references overheard. Even "the usual coffee maker business" could be virtually meaningless. Bus stop (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Oh, I have no problem with the rest of the overheard conversation. "The father" is certainly that of de Villermay, come to Paris to tidy up his son's scrapes before the marriage to a nice girl back home. Schauermacher is just another young man about town -- notice the German name, emphasising the cosmopolitanism of their circle. It's the coffee maker that has me puzzled, and I see no reason why E. Nesbit wouldn't expect her audience to understand. The word "prostitute" never appears, for example, but the allusions are clear. -- I like the Mookychick reference to Victorian sexual slang, but "coffee house" is a place and "coffee maker" a machine. We are not quite there yet. Anyone got access to the OED? BrainyBabe (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Coffee maker business" here seems to refer to living together unmarried. Bus stop (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"When he went home to be married--It was rather beastly. The father came up--offered her a present. She threw it at him." So she had lived with this bachelor de Villermay, who had then left her to marry a respectable woman. (I think it was de Villermay's father - de V. himself would not come and see her again so his father did.) An arrangement where she was not quite a prostitute but not quite a kept woman: sex plus making him coffee in the morning. "It was rather beastly" suggests they had entertained somewhat divergent ideas about the nature and significance of their relationship (not that this necessarily means she had naïvely believed in a future together, or something). Does she reappear later in the novel?--Rallette (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she does reappear, falling further. After six months she is irredeemble. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reached the bit where she bounces back. But I won't spoil it for the rest of you. no coffee involved. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note—"coffee" is mentioned several times in The Incomplete Amorist. Bus stop (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What was her employment at the time that they met? Did she possibly work in a coffee house? The statement, "God knows how an English girl got into it", could be a reference to the likelihood that a French girl would be employed in a Parisian cafe—not an English girl. Bus stop (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Lawyers, Guns And Money by Warren Zevon, begins: "Well, I went home with the waitress, The way I always do ". Documentation for that can be found here. Bus stop (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Rallette has the most convincing explanation. She lived with him, had sex with him, and made him coffee in the morning. She was the coffee maker. There were no mechanical coffee makers (that I'm aware of) when this book was written in 1906. She got up, ground (probably pre-roasted) coffee beans with a hand grinder, then boiled water and brewed the coffee. There is no reason to assume that she worked as a waitress or in a café. What is surprising is that an English woman at that time (when English women were brought up to be prudent and proper) would get into such a relationship with a Frenchman whose intentions were unclear. Marco polo (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The status of "kept woman" is often discussed in literature of the period. It was assumed that it would be a constant temptation for women without inherited wealth or education. In real life probably many women probably did life happily for years in such a manner. But in literature there must always be the warning that it is a slippery slope to actual prostitution. And when a woman has fallen so far, there is no way up again. Fowles' The French Lieutenant's Woman has digressions on this topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BrainyBabe that it is not clear what "the usual coffee maker business" refers to. If "coffee maker business" refers to "a kept woman" shouldn't we find other instances of this use or related usages? I kind of doubt that E. Nesbit is having her characters invent references, or assigning significance to turns of phrases—unless there was already some precedent in actual language usage. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

There is at least one related usage, but American rather than British. Apparently there's a Coffee Grindin' Blues, dating from 1929, which includes the line 'I'm a coffee-grindin' mama, won't you let me grind you some?'. In his Barrelhouse Words: A Blues Dialect Dictionary Stephen Calt explains this as being 'From coffee-grinder, a conventional slang term for prostitute (DAS). The expression probably derives from coffee-house, an 18th- to 19th-century term for vagina (F&H, 1891; Partridge).' The abbreviations refer to Wentworth and Flexner's Dictionary of American Slang, Farmer and Henley's Slang and its Analogues, and Eric Partridge's Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. I wish Calt were citing coffee-grinder from a dictionary of British slang though, since Nesbit's characters were apparently English. --Antiquary (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the explaination is similar to Rallette but not quite? Coffee maker might effectively be an euphemism for a woman who is living with (and having sex with) a man. Officially she is his 'coffee maker' and that's why she lives with him (I presume making it more than once a day). Whether she makes many coffees is not really relevant (perhaps for guests to keep up appearances). Since 'English girls' aren't supposed to be doing that sort of thing, you won't find it much in novels set in England. It's supposedly more common in France (and I guess other countries were coffee is popular and their girls aren't so 'nice'), whether or not that's true, so if it was common you'll primarily find it in novels by English authors set in such locations of that era. Nil Einne (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"Coffeemaker" as a euphemism for "common-law wife" is plausible. In the US, newspapers would refer to a woman as a "housekeeper" when she was murdered by the man she lived with in a tumbledown tarpaper shack with a dirt floor. Edison (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

question on Yugoslav republics

In the former Yugoslavia there is say a town. And, then there is a municipality with the same name, which includes the town and many surrounding settlements. So it could have anywhere between 10 and 200 settlements. Well, the problem is that many wikipedia pages treat municipalities and these towns as the same. I would like to start separating municipalities from towns. Would that be okay? I am not sure. Sometimes I think it would be good, at other times I think it wouldn't be. :/ (LAz17 (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)).

It would be best to try to get some consensus on this on a relevant page, for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yugoslavia. My inclination would be to separate out the distinct topics, but there may have been a reason for combining articles on the two - for example, in the UK, parishes often contain a single village and, in these cases, there has been a move to have just one article describing both the parish and the village. Warofdreams talk 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

June 16

Arab Ships sewn with thread

I've read several Judeo-Islamic, Chinese, and English sources that stated the Arabs used to literally sew their ships together with coconut thread as opposed to using nails. All of these sources mention how frail these ships were. If this is true, why did they continue to use such a flawed design for hundreds of years? The Arabs came into contact with all sorts of people with different ship building techniques, so it's not like this is the only method they knew. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you assume that the ships would be frail and that the technology flawed? The Kon-Tiki, which was held together by hemp rope managed quite an extraordinary journey. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"All of these sources mention how frail these ships were." And there is a big difference between a one man raft and a 20 man boom. The book I'm currently reading says one modern boat built in the traditional manner (all wood, no nails, and plenty of sewing) weighed 140 tons. Plus, I'm pretty sure there is a big strength difference between hemp rope and coconut rope. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It was not a one man raft. It had a crew of six men. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Coconut fibre rope is properly called coir. "Hemp is the best fibre, of great strength and durability, flexible when wet and wears to the last rope yarn. Best is Italian then European, New Zealand and St. Helena. The Admiralty dismiss Indian hemp as not suitable for reliable cordage. Coir is light and floats, does not absorb water, stretches before parting but very low strength."[2] Alansplodge (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

As to why the Arabs used coir over iron nails... It was probably a matter of cost and availability of materials. Coconut palms could be found just about everywhere the Arabs sailed. So building/rearing a ship with coconut thread was relatively cheep. Iron, on the other hand, was not found everywhere. Deposits had to be located. The ore had to be mined, transported, smelted, and worked into nails. That made iron nails relatively expensive. Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense to me. It's better to have a ship that can be repaired anywhere with a cheap materials and low-level skill set, than a stronger ship that required relatively higher-tech, scarcer, more expensive materials. Also consider: How many coir-sewn boats could be built for the cost of one iron-nailed? How much more buoyant is the coir-sewn boat? SemanticMantis (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I also found this snippet at Maldives:

"(coir) is stronger than hemp," wrote Ibn Battuta, "and is used to sew together the planks of Sindhi and Yemeni Dhows, for this sea abounds in reefs, and if the planks were fastened with iron nails, they would break into pieces when the vessel hit a rock. The coir gives the boat greater elasticity, so that it doesn't break up."

• nb I'm not sure in what sense (if any) coir is stronger than hemp. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

We may be bringing a prejudice to this, thinking as we commonly do about sewing and thread being used to construct nothing much more substantial than articles of clothing. There may be more to their methods of construction than meets the eye. I would guess that holes were first bored through the wood with some kind of an auger in a separate step, before thread was laced through the holes. And then I would guess that a protective substance was coated onto the "stitches" after completion. The thread itself may have been pretreated to enhance certain properties before even being used. But this is just guesswork on my part—I am not familiar with the actual process. Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct about your assumptions. They actually had to sew up the sides of the ship before they even added the ribbing. The only thing they added to the stitching on the inside was vegetable oil. On the outside, they plugged up the space of the drill holes (not filled by the stitching) with more coconut fiber and some type of gooey substance. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Another reference to the strength of coir rope here: "It is a very elastic, rough rope about one-fourth the strength of hemp but light enough to float on water." Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

THE HISTORY AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE DHOW has a lot of information about the origins of this technique which "go back to Egypt's primitive times". Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I know from wp:or that hemp is much stronger than coir, when comparing twisted cordage of the same ply and diameter. Do we think the Ibn Battuta is just wrong, or is perhaps coir stronger when comparing cordage of different diameter, but same weight-per-length? SemanticMantis (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there's a clue in the quote above; "The Admiralty dismiss Indian hemp as not suitable for reliable cordage." Hemp is a cultivated plant - perhaps the varieties available at that time and place were not very good. Alansplodge (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I always thought that Indian hemp was a synonym for the marijuana plant? --TammyMoet (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Indian hemp variants are the primary source of cannabis. They also provide fiber, but of comparatively low quality. BTW, Hemp#Cordage states that hemp rope for naval use tended to rot when wet unless carefully tarred. This might explain why it was not used for an application where it is in permanent contact with water. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, because (pre petro-chemicals) tar was a product of coniferous trees and wouldn't be available in the Indian Ocean. Alansplodge (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, more because it would be very hard to keep a piece of rope that runs through and works against an underwater plank tarred. Tarring had to be repeated over and over again to be effective. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

For an example of something "sewn together" which is quite strong, think of a suspension bridge. The advantage of this technique is that it's both strong and flexible, to allow for thermal expansion, wind buffeting, vibrations, etc., which might bring down a more rigid bridge of that size. This approach also produces a lighter, less expensive bridge. One potential disadvantage, though, is that the increased surface area of all those cables means more opportunity for corrosion (or rotting, if plant fibers were used), so continuous preventative maintenance is required. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethical egoism vs rational egoism

What is the point of difference between ethical egoism and rational egoism? --999Zot (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Read the third sentence of Ethical egoism. --Jayron32 03:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The article Jayron32 suggests is faulty. Ethical egoism is the belief that the interests of the self are paramount, even if hedonistic or subjective. Rational egoism holds more narrowly that the self is the proper beneficiary of ethical action, but that values must be rationally identified, not merely subjectively or at the level of sensation. Aristotle's, Spinoza's and Ayn Rand's philosophies and the philosophies of various but not all Stoics are forms of rational egoism. μηδείς (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Forms of ethical egoism that are not forms of rational egoism include Thomist Catholicism, Nietzscheanism, and the satanism of Anton LeVay. μηδείς (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Faulty, how so? The question is about philosophical terms which have a more or less generally accepted meaning. Something you check in a work of reference, basically, so you'll excuse me while I defer to reputable authorities. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy both give succinct definitions which are equivalent to those in our article "Ethical egoism", whose first sentence in turn is essentially taken from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, under "Egoism". Based on these three authorities, I'd say the generally accepted meanings of the terms are roughly these: rational egoism holds that selfishness is rational, while ethical egoism holds that selfishness is ethical. (Salt and pepper with iff's and other formalities to taste.) In particular, on these definitions rational egoism is not a flavour of ethical egoism, for a rational act can still be held to be unethical, and ethics can be irrational. A hedonist rational egoism is perfectly possible, too. What Medeis calls "rational egoism" could be called "rational ethical egoism", and indeed has been so called. And so as not to leave it dangling, "rational ethical egoism" and "rational egoism" are compatible, but again, they are not the same thing.--Rallette (talk) 07:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(Cont'd) Of course we also have an article "Rational egoism", where it is noted that Ayn Rand used the term in the sense "rational ethical egoism". Since Rand's ideas are popular, this usage may be frequently encountered. Anyway, Rand was not merely defining rationality by reference to self-interest, as "rational egoism" in the standard sense does.--Rallette (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rallette, that does help. Now lets take the normative ethical position to applied level. So according to Rand's rational self-interest robbery will be wrong, but robbery will be ok according to rational egoism, right?

And from the article Ethical egoism, "Ethical egoism does not, however, require moral agents to harm the interests and well-being of others when making moral deliberation; e.g. what is in an agent's self-interest may be incidentally detrimental, beneficial, or neutral in its effect on others." So ethical egoism approves of robbery, right? --999Zot (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, for Rand, robbery would be irrational, and thus wrong, basically because it is ignoble and base, and nobility is what a rational being strives to attain. (As far as I understand her, and using my own words.) But Rand has a comprehensive theory. Rational egoism as such is neutral here. Ditto ethical egoism. Ethical egoism and rational egoism are fundamental positions, or classes of theories even, and you need a lot more before you have a theory of ethics that can be applied to conduct towards other agents. So to be clear, I need to answer your question in two different ways. If you mean to ask, "Is rational egoism (or ethical egoism) compatible with holding that robbing others is all right?" then the answer would be yes (imagine a very vulgar social Darwinism or amoral hedonism). But if you're asking, "Does it follow from rational egoism (or ethical egoism) that robbing others is all right?" then the answer is no (as in Rand).--Rallette (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. the thesis of Rational Egoism is no more that Egoism is Rational than the thesis of Logical Positivism is that Positivism is Logical. Ethical egoism is the broader notion that the self, rather than the collective, or the priesthood, or the state, or so on, is the proper beneficiary of moral action, and rational egoism is the belief that those values which benefit the self should be rational ones, not random or subjective "do whatever you want" ones. The rational in rational egoism refers to the types of values that benefit the ego, not the rationality of the moral position itself. μηδείς (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, this is a question of terminology: not something to argue about but rather something that needs to be cleared up before argument can begin. The standard usage in (analytical) philosophy is that "rational egoism" is a theory of rationality. Probably the most common nonstandard usage is that of Rand (or authors influenced by her), by which "rational egoism" is a theory of what kinds of values are worth pursuing. My answer was based on the standard usage, and I did note the other usage exists. I hope this is now clear. And also, rational egoism by the standard definition does not state that ethical egoism is rational but that egoism is rational, that is, self-interest is the measure of rationality. This leaves open the question of what constitutes self-interest, which might be whim, pleasure, social status, divine illumination, whatever.--Rallette (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The phrases have meanings in context. There is no point in specifying ethical egoism if the debate is only about ethics--in that case you just call it egoism. The point of saying ethical egoism is to differentiate it from other terms such as psychological egoism. The same for rational egoism on a narrower scale. The person who uses the term rational egoism is leaving the fact that he is discussing ethics for granted, and is differentiating his position from, say, what he would perhaps criticize as, say, subjective, unenlightened or hedonistic egoism. In neither case does use of the phrase rational or ethical egoism have to do with arguing that egoism of any sort is necessarily rational or ethical. (No socialist calls socialism "rational socialism" because he thinks socialism is rational.) Rather the qualifying terms are meant to differentiate those notions from egoism in fields other than ethics or forms of ethical egoism that are not based on normative reasoning from those which are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

With fuel prices these days, could it be cheaper to ship gasoline from Venezuela?

Venezuela's fuel wouldn't cost more than 25¢/gallon, last I checked. With fuel being $3.50-$3.60/gallon in my neck of the woods nowadays, would it be cheaper just to order it from Venezuela and have them shipped to my address?

Let's say I ordered 100 gallons at a time. The fuel itself would be $25. Of all the shipping options I have available in Kansas, which of them would help me come out ahead of just filling up at a local station? How much would it cost per gallon after all those shipping fees? --66.142.211.104 (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Commodities shortages, whether famines or fuel crises, are politically caused. There is more than enough cheap petroleum available from easily accessed land based wells for America from the American mainland. The high prices are caused by regulation, taxes, and uncertainty, all of which are political issues.

The gas crises of the 1970's (1970s energy crisis) were caused by external pressures 1973 oil embargo. Iranian revolution, met by domestic statism. One of Reagan's first acts as President was to repeal price controls. This caused the 1980s oil glut. Regulation since Clinton (and with the complicity of GWB and approval of Obama) has returned to the burdensome level of the Carter era. The solution is not to subsidixe Chavez, but to end the self-imposed leftist political suicide of the United States at home.μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Venezuela, and some other countries, massively subsidize gasoline for internal consumption. They aren't going to subsidize it for shipment to the USA. Also they wouldn't even be able to refine enough to meet a significant fraction of US demand. Looie496 (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And, of course, Venezuela is rationing both gasoline and electricity, given that Chavez is using both to stay in power. μηδείς (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Long answer: I seriously doubt Venezuelan tariffs would allow for that to be economical (try searching for Venezuelan tariffs on Google... I'm too lazy to do it on my smartphone). What's more, with an industry like gasoline where the big boys roll: if there is a way to do something more economically within the law (and often outside the law... IIRC Iranian oil makes it to the US, just at a premium), it will be done.

Short answer: no. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not commenting on this particular case, but it's not always true that "Commodities shortages, whether famines or fuel crises, are politically caused". Some commodities are rare, and are in short supply, regardless of how efficient that supply might be. That's part of the thinking behind a gold standard. A famine following a natural disaster has much more to do with difficulties in acquiring and transporting food at a cost which can be afforded by those in need - in such a case, there can potentially be a political solution to the famine, if the government or an international agency is minded to distribute free or cheap food at a loss, in order to avert starvation. Warofdreams talk 10:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Reality has a way of catching up with people... including dictators. Shadowjams (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Is that a reply to me? If so, I don't follow how it relates to my comment. Warofdreams talk 11:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget the export and import duties you would almost certainly have to pay (if you wanted to do it legally). The best clue that it wouldn't work is because if it did, people would be doing it already (and on large enough scales that the price of gas in the US would be the lowest you can get it under that method, so you wouldn't be able to make a saving by doing it). --Tango (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition to export and import duties, there would be fuel tax due to both the federal government and to the state of Kansas. Attempting to move fuel across borders without paying those duties and taxes would amount to the smuggling of contraband. If you pay the taxes and duties, there is no way that you can ship the fuel more efficiently or at a cheaper price than the cheapest-price gasoline available in your area. The reason is that profit margins on gasoline (at the cheaper service stations) are minuscule and would be greatly exceeded by your higher cost relative to corporate oil companies because you would not be able to realize the considerable economies of scale that they can achieve. Marco polo (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Land worth negative value

I was recently thinking about the Silverdome, which was sold for a ghastly $550,000 at the height of the Great Recession. However, the Detroit area is rife with economic problems in government, so it wouldn't surprise me if the taxes are considerably higher than the purchase price.

Theoretically, this means that if the value that could be extracted from the land were even slightly less, then it would be unprofitable to buy.

Has there ever been a case where a landowner was unable to sell his land because the taxes or other governmental burden was too high? And in such a situation, is there a legal clause in any jurisdictions that would allow the owner to forfeit the land to avoid the taxes (thus turning the land over to the municipality/state), or is it conceivable that an entity would be an unwilling owner of land and forced to pay taxes and perform maintenance for property it didn't want to own (and would those taxes even be enforceable legally)? Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article Abandonment that mentions dereliction of property but does not try to describe the legal consequences, let alone do so for all jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions allow depreciation in property value to be deducted from other corporate income. A non-corporate individual whose assets are less than the tax levied has these possibilities: 1) Seek an agreement with the taxation authority on an extended payback plan, 2) Borrow money or 3) Declare personal Bankruptcy. Becoming fugitive or dead might also work. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Abandonment is actually an old common law concept that carried over into much of English and American statutory law. While I'm no expert on it, it's one of those interesting ancient law concepts that comes up considerably in messy legal situations to this day. The tax implications are largely an IRS question, and so a tax expert would have to comment on those.

That said, abandonment is philosophically indistinguishable from property and its philosophical equivalents. Shadowjams (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree with your premise that the taxes are higher than the value of the property. Virtually everywhere in the USA that uses property taxes sets the taxes as a small percentage of the assessed value of the property. If you buy a property cheap, you can petition to have that cheap price be considered the new assessed value, and that's usually a winning argument. So if the assessed value is $550,000, then the Silverdome pays $29,519 a year in property taxes (at the link, select "Oakland County", then "Pontiac"). --M@rēino 18:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You are simply taking assessed value, which is determined by government agents, as a given. Of course such assessors] will find a positive, that is, taxable, value. μηδείς (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

When did a sitting president last lose a primary challenge?

So the primary politics are distant, but the battelines are being drawn for the Republican nomination. All eyes are on Palin, Pawlenty, Romney etc, but none are on Obama because as a sitting president he is almost certain to be his party's nominee. My question is when was the last time a sitting president contested but lost the battle for nomination, not counting people who did not seek a second term (such as Johnson, though he could be considered an example). Many thanks, 91.85.140.182 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I can't think of any sitting president (who sought re-election) that has ever lost a primary challenge. Several (like Johnson) decided not to run ... and some of them might have lost if they had run... but that is pure speculation. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, and I don't want to start an argument, but... why answer, then? Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 14:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The list of US presidents that didn't serve two consecutive terms is fairly short - just read the Wikipedia articles on each of those and see why. --Tango (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure it has ever happened in the Primary election system (which is not all that old, all things considered). As you noted, there have been times when a sitting President was eligible for re-election and declined to stand (indeed, before Franklin Delano Roosevelt, every two-term president voluntarily meets this requriement out of tradition), however I don't know of a case where a sitting President, since the Primary system was put into place (the first proper primary election occured in Oregon in 1910, see United_States_presidential_primary#History). There have, however, been cases where a sitting president did not receive his party's nomination, depending on how you define "party". Andrew Johnson was nominally a Democrat, but was officially the member of a coalition of both Democrats and Republicans known as the "National Union". The National Union failed to materialize as an actual political party, he sought the nomination from the Democratic Party, his former party before the civil war. He did not receive it. See 1868 Democratic National Convention. Also see John Tyler who bolted the Democratic-Republican Party to join the Whigs in 1836, and was elected as the Whig Vice President in 1840. He became President on the death of William Henry Harrison, and quickly became so disliked that he was thrown out of the Whig party shortly thereafter (see John_Tyler#Policies). He was essentially partyless for the rest of his Presidency, and though he attempted to form a break-away party and run for the Presidency at its helm in 1844, he ultimately withdrew from the 1844 election and supported the Democratic Party candidate, James K. Polk. See United_States_presidential_election,_1844#National_Democratic_Tyler_Convention. It should be noted that neither Tyler nor Johnson were ever elected as Presidents in their own right, both ascended to the Presidency on the death of their predecessors, and neither were very popular men. --Jayron32 15:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There any number of "what ifs" that are interesting to speculate on... would Charles Cotesworth Pinckney have defeated John Adams if the Federalist Party had held a primary before the election of 1800? If Teddy Roosevelt had run for a (third) term in 1908, would William Taft have run in opposition (and who would have won if there had been a primary system)? Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• If I take your question, "When did a sitting president last lose a primary challenge?", exactly as you worded it, then the answer is June 8, 1976, when Governor Reagan defeated President Ford in the California primary. I think that the first time that a sitting president lost a primary challenge would be April 2, 1968, when Senator McCarthy beat President Johnson in Wisconsin. Before the 1960s, there were very, very few primaries -- caucuses and conventions, yes, but not many primaries.--M@rēino 18:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• In the past, (before primaries) in my home state, national convention delegates were selected in state party conventions. The state party convention delegates were in turn chosen in county caucuses (which were not widely publicized), in which all persons (might have been restricted to registered voters) who wished to do so attended a meeting at some location such as the county courthouse and "caucussed." Typically officeholders from the party in the county their friends and families, and persons from the party holding patronage jobs and their families and friends were establishment presence to swamp any random citizens who showed up, but if there were sufficient dissidents(activists or persons paid to show up by some financial interest) they would get a proportionate share of the delegation to the state convention. A primary resulted in a far larger proportion of the voters having a say. Edison (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

online translator

Is there a online translator for translating Somali into English and English into Somali? Also, is there an online Translator where you translate Arabic into English and English into Arabic and at the same time it gives you the English transliteration of the Arabic text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.41.211 (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Google Translate is the best online translator I know of. It does Arabic, although Somali doesn't seem to be on the list. --Tango (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Comparison from 2011 v 1991 & 1991 v 1971

After just watching The Silence of the Lambs, it struck me that the film looked "modern" e.g. clothes, hair-styles, cars, (although as a Brit, I am not that familiar with US vehicles) - obviously some of the technology was a give-away.

However, if you look at a movie from 20 years prior to this "time" e.g. Dirty Harry, the difference is astonishing, the clothes, fashions, vehicles and also casual attitudes to "racism" & "sexism" are so very "dated"

Another more extreme example would be Back To The Future

Marty McFly travels from 1985 to 1955, which is another world to him, but to me, 1985 (26 years ago) seems very similar to today

• The clothes Marty wears could be "normal" for 2011 (but note he had to get changed into 50's "gear")
• Marty's haircut is passable for modern-day style
• Van Halen (played in the movie) are still touring - How many bands from the 50's were still popular in the 80's?

Obviously the big give-away (as usual) is the technology, the Sony Walkman looks so old fashioned & the also the Camcorder

So my question is:

How can there be such big changes through the early decades?

• Roaring 20's
• Depression Era 30's
• Wartime 40's
• 50's as shown in BTTF
• 60's hippy movement/flower power
• 70's as shown in Dirty Harry
• 80's - yes I agree there is an 80's style, but not that different from today

But the last few decades are very similar (apart for the massive advances in technology) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaseywasey (talk • contribs) 17:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on certain parts of your analysis. Firstly, hairstyles have changed a LOT from the 1980's to today. Men generally kept their hair longer in the 1980's. Marty McFly's mop looks very dated to me; men today seem to keep shorter hair on average (though of course, there are men who then as now keep very long hair). Secondly, facial hair has changed a LOT. In the 1980's, men either wore the "porn 'stache" or were clean shaven. Since the mid 1990's there has been a wide explosion of men who keep goatees; prior to the 1990's the only people who wore goatees were supervillains in comic books. Women in the 1980's wore some very different hair styles, this big front poof was ubiquitous and unique to the 1980s. Have you seen women in blazers with sholder pads or in leotards and leg warmers recently, except as an ironic homage to the 1980s? The oversized sweater with the torn out collar? I do agree that things have been relatively stagnant since the mid 1990's, with the only significant fashion trends in the past 15 years have been goth/emo and the "combforward" hairstyle you see on young hipster men. The average person dresses and keeps their hair relatively similar to what was seen in, say, 1995 as they do today... --Jayron32 18:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you use the word "stagnant" to describe unchanging fashions. I would call them "stable" or even "classic", as I don't appreciate having to toss out my entire wardrobe on a regular basis. The more interesting question is why fashion designers, who obviously want us to have to continuously buy new clothes, have been less successful at changing fashions lately. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Styles of eyewear have also changed significantly , particularly for women. Business wear has changed: "casual Fridays" did not begin until the end of the 1980s, and were a very marginal phenomenon; nowadays, it's the few workplaces that have formal dress codes that stand out. This also goes for clothes for going out: most fancy restaurants would not admit male clients who did not wear a tie in the 1980s. That's disappeared too. Styles of footwear have also evolved greatly once you're outside the "kids wearing sneakers" demographic. --Xuxl (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to distinguish between "youth" styles and "adult" styles... a men's business suit from 1930 would not seem at all out of place if worn to a business meeting today. The biggest difference would be that in 1930 you would wear a hat with it, while today you would not. And the hair cuts would be about the same as well.

Women's fashion has changed far more dramatically than men's fashion. Blueboar (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

While business suits haven't changed, men's hairstyle has changed a lot. Men today don't use the same sorts of styling products like Dippity-Do and Vitalis and stuff like that, men's hair has a much more "natural" look today than in, say, the pre-1960 time period. The "slicked back" look of most men's hair is very dated to a pre-1960 time period. Hair in men from that time period had a heavier, greasier look to it almost universally. While men do certainly use hair products to style their hair, they get very different results today. --Jayron32 18:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with most of the above. Also note that there are meta-answers as well. First, the joke of the movie was Marty being a fish out of water in 1955 so they purposefully pointed out and highlighted the differences for comic effect. The second will be your age (speaking to the OP). If you were alive in 1985, you'd be less conscious of the differences that have accumulated over the last 25 years because they're part of your general mindset of what constitutes "normal". I'd also like to add that I loved that series of films a lot more before I became conscious of the massive and blatant product placement everywhere. Matt Deres (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding The Silence of the Lambs mentioned above, I remember a behind-the-scenes documentary on it, and in it the costume designer for the film mentioned that she specifically strove for more ageless clothing for everyone, rather than what would have been characteristic of the early 1990s. Costume designers and hair stylists in Hollywood often face this choice: Do I make the actors look snazzy (but possibly ephemeral) or timeless? Just look at the recent Lord of the Rings series. One of the reasons all the male actors have very long hair (rather than something more contemporary) is so that kids will be able to watch the films thirty-five years from now without laughing at (what would by then be) ridiculous early twenty-first century hairdos. My guess is that around the advent of home cinema in the early 1980s Hollywood realised that there's a lot of money to be made on old films, and consequently started taking more care to make many (but not all) new films more timeless with regards to clothes and haircuts. Gabbe (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, one of the things which "dates" the original "Star Trek" series is how stuck in the 1960s all of the hairstyles and costumes are. How many of the alien species have females which look like 1960s Go-Go dancers, just painted green or something. Uhura's beehive belongs squarely in the 1960s. By the time they got to the Next Generation and later series, the costumes seem to be deliberately more "timeless" as you note; which is why episodes of ST:TNG and ST:DSN seem to stand up much better in terms of seeming more realistic, you can't look at an episode in ST:TNG and say "That is so 1989", the way you can say "That is so 1969" with the original series. You could air The Next Generation today and it would blend in just fine. It's not like there weren't contemporary styles they could have used which would have dated the show, but they deliberately chose clothes which are harder to place in a specific era. --Jayron32 21:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: casual attitudes to "racism" & "sexism" are so very "dated" in 1971 films compared to 1991, it could be that the civil rights movements of the 50s and 60s, into the 70s, caused a huge change in general attitudes towards women and non-white Americans in general. Some relevant links might be African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968), Native American civil rights, etc, and, I'm not sure what page best describes the "womens civil rights movement" of the era, but perhaps Second-wave feminism? Anyway, while I think Back to the Future purposefully portrayed a caricatured, stereotyped past, as do many films showing past eras, there were some major, historic changes with regard to racism and sexism during the middle 20th century. Pfly (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how you look at it. In 1991, few people had heard of the Internet or cellphones. Cars were boxier, few people had SUVs and no one had hybrids. U.S. television was still dominated by the traditional big three networks, which aired programs like Full House, Home Improvement and Growing Pains. Number-one singles included works by Wilson Phillips, Amy Grant and Roxette. The Soviet Union was still around. Terrorism had not been a major issue in the U.S. for nearly 70 years. People were still being prosecuted for sodomy in the U.S. South Africa still had apartheid. It was in some ways a very different time. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Domestic and international terrorism were both actually major issues for Americans (in the sense that it was covered in the media extensively) in the 1970s and the 1980s. The level of domestic terrorism in the 1970s was actually quite astounding by modern standards — the number of politically motivated bombings, for example, was at an all time high for the US. (Not Islamic — it was far left, far right. Weathermen, John Birch, and Puerto Rican nationalists. Guys who hijacked planes and took them to Cuba. For a pretty riveting account, check out Rick Perlstein's Nixonland. Even the use of the phrase "War on Terrorism" is considerably older than the 2000s.) In the 1980s you start to see Islamic terrorism against the US abroad — the 1983 United States embassy bombing being perhaps the most significant. Anyway, all of this is just to point out that terrorism did not just pop out of nowhere for Americans in the 1990s or the 2000s. If you don't count Southern Civil Rights related terrorism, you see it mostly pop out of nowhere in the early 1970s. If you count church bombings, etc., as terrorism, then it goes back a lot further, with a lot of national attention to the issue in the 1960s. A pretty useful barometer are the number of times terrorism as an issue appeared on the cover of Time magazine.[3] --Mr.98 (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely it's not true that few people had heard of cellphones? In the UK, one of the stereotypes of yuppies in the 1980s was conspicuously using a very large mobile phone which probably only worked in the centre of a few major cities. Warofdreams talk 09:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A classic example of this is the beach cell phone scene from Wall Street. Cell phones were certainly known but they were not extremely common amongst the middle class. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the most drastic comparison would be the time period between the two major US events in the 1960s: the John F. Kennedy assassination in 1963 and the first manned landing on the moon in 1969. Looking at pictures showing the clothes, hairstyles, cars, television programmes, lifestyles of the respective years, it is hard to realise that a mere six years separates the two events. Even the music was radically different. From Kyu Sakamoto's tender Japanese love song in 1963 to the Rolling Stones performing Sympathy For the Devil live at Altamont in 1969!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of people had carphones in the early 90s, but few had cellphones. Michael Douglas's cellphone in Wall Street was probably the first appearance of the device in widely seen fiction, and there it was a sign of opulence. As late as 1994, in the Simpsons episode "Bart Gets Famous," Bart having a cellphone in school is a joke. (A kid with a cellphone? That's hilarious!) I agree with Jeanne that the 1960s was probably the decade with the most-rapid change in the West, at least socially. It's interesting to contrast a picture of a baseball crowd from the 1950s, like this one, with one from 10 years later. In the 50s, the men were all clean-shaven and short-haired and usually wore suits and dress hats. In the late 60s, you'd see a mix of hairstyles and guys wearing jeans, like you'd see now. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Lillian Gish, whose movie career dated back to early silent films, said that she avoided wearing clothing in whatever was the current fashion, and whenever possible wore dresses designed along "classic lines" (whatever that might imply), so that her appearance would not be dated and funny looking when the movies were watched in later years. (This would not have applied to the many "period " or historical films she made). Someone above mentioned "Dippity Do" as a men's hair gel. It was marketed for women, and I question it being commonly used by men (unless they put their hair in curlers). In the forties and fifties men commonly used greasy hair control products like Brylcreem or Wildroot Cream Oil, or as an alternative, oily products like Vitalis. The goal was to have hair that stayed combed and looked well groomed, as opposed to blowing around in the wind. Those more athletic or military with a Crew cut might use Butch Wax. Post Elvis, more men had sideburns. Only with the advent of the Beatles (circa 1964) long hair became popular (at least in the US) among younger males. Movies of the late 70's or eighties show men with "Big Hair," using hairspray or stiffening gel to keep the 'do from being flat. Hair gel seems to have more in common with Butch Wax than with Brylcreem, and allows hair to stick up oddly. Poofy hair and big glasses on women in a film suggest the 80's. In the late 1970's and the 80's after a famous Farah Fawcett swimsuit poster, it was fairly common for women in film to let the shape of their nipples show through blouses or swimsuits, something which seem to be banned by networks today, and very uncommon in society in general. Edison (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What we consider to be "the 60s" really ran from the mid-late-60s to the late-70s, and it was a freer time before the slide back towards puritanism and various kinds of political correctness. In the film Norma Rae, Sally Field seemed to be braless throughout, and it didn't seem like such a big deal at the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I used Dippity-do all the time to keep my flattop in place. Dippity-do most certainly was a male product. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ashes to Ashes (TV series) is a look at the early 1980s from a modern perspective. Social attitudes to woman and minorities were very different then. The predecessor, Life on Mars (TV series) looks at the 1970s, and there is a US version too.-gadfium 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

British monarchy

Why does Britain still have a monarchy? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

So that Australia (and 14 other countries) can borrow it. (Just making the point that the British monarchy also happens to be the monarchy of other quite independent countries as well.) I guess the reason is the sum of its history. What legal power the monarchy once had has been legislated away of the centuries, but it's apparent that a big chunk of the population likes the ceremonial stuff surrounding a monarchy. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's good for tourism and it's good for the yellow press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.12.164 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It also means that the British people are no better off than they were during the Dark Ages when the monarchy was created. --75.40.204.106 (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Because without it, you would have no-one to blame for the emptiness and failure of your life. You really have become very boring. DuncanHill (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What? I'm not British. I'm opposed to all monarchies (and authoritarian governments in general), but the British monarchy is the most well-known. --75.40.204.106 (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Then go and stand on a street-corner somewhere and mumble at passers-by. If you're not British, what the hell do you imagine it has to do with you? DuncanHill (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Should only South Africans have opposed the apartheid? --75.40.204.106 (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The British monarchy is hardly authoritarian. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who imagines that the modern British monarchy is in any way comparable to apartheid is someone who knows nothing of politics. Nothing whatsoever. This is a reference desk, not a soapbox for idiots. DuncanHill (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Duncan, please cool it. If you can't provide a welcoming environment, do not post here at all. Rebut disagreeable statements with facts and references, not personal abuse. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a perennial troll, and I think my assessment of their political nous was if anything rather generous. DuncanHill (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, you know the rules as well as anyone, Duncan. Don't descend to their level, basically. What's the point of having highly developed and hallowed traditions like the monarchy, with all their complex paraphernalia and customs, if individual subjects are still going to behave like troglodytes in their intercourse with their fellow humans. We have to show there's a better way than calling people "idiots", otherwise what's the last 10,000 years of progress all been about? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 04:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather than challenging the existence of the monarchy because it's evil, like Apartheid, a more sane approach might be to look at the cost. For the other nations who use that monarchy but don't pay for it, such as Canada and Australia, it more a matter of principle. Republicans in Australia (not the American kind, argue that they should have an Australian as head of state. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You mention the costs of having a royal family. Arguably (depending on how you do the accounting), the Brits actually take in more money from the royal family than they pay out. Why? Because the royal estate has agreed to forfeit the earnings from the Crown Estate (about 200 million pounds each year), in exchange for being supported by the government through the Civil list. The monarchy "officially" costs about 40 million pounds, although unofficially, they cost a bit more, due to security and such, coming in at around 100 million pounds, depending on the source. This arrangement has been around since George III of the United Kingdom surrendered the income of the crown estates to the government (in return for an annuity from the government), at which point in time the crown estate was making relatively little income. [4] Buddy431 (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Like you say, that depends a lot on how you do the accounting. The Crown Estate is now owned by the government (Under the umbrella of The Crown) and not the royal family itself. It would continue to produce that 200M pounds per year even if the government dispensed with the monarchy and cut all ties with the royal family. APL (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

See Republicanism in the United Kingdom#21st century: popular support for a republic is still lacking, as indicated by Ipsos MORI polling. Meph^talk 00:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC).

In response to the comment "the British people are no better off than they were during the Dark Ages", I have two words: indoor plumbing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

...and these days they have TV to watch the royals. HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Britain doesn't have a Monarchy. It has a pseudo-Monarchy imposed by parliament, as a way of giving a bogus historical 'continuity' to a system in flux. As has been demonstrated on more than one occasion, if the 'Monarch' looks like being an embarrassment, parliament finds an excuse to get rid of him. This system works well for all concerned (i.e. the ruling class in general), as long as nobody admits to the reality of the situation. Occasionally, this can get a bit awkward (usually when a Monarch says something the general population likes more than the elite), but since it is in all concerneds' interest to pretend this isn't going on, by and large it all ticks over nicely. Of course, this has probably been historically true about most monarchies, so don't make any long-term investments in Royal Wedding souvenir manufacturing. Eventually, the British public will probably decide to take this to its logical conclusion, and have a talent show to appoint the next King/Queen. Then again, there are other countries that already find their Head of State that way... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely you aren't referring to the US? I like to think of the British Monarchy as kind of a living, government-funded National Park. Or maybe National Zoo would be a better comparison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to understand the British monarchy, Gramsci's analysis of cultural hegemony is a good starting point... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• You might want to look at the failure of the Commonwealth, Chartism and the General Strike for with Britain still has a monarchy. The alliance between the bourgeois aristocracy and bourgeois proper in England, the alliance formed between West Indies interests, Agricultural property holders and Industrial producers over corn laws did come incredibly late; but it came at last. I'd suggest reading some parliamentary history between 1800 and 1840 for why the British bourgeoisie weren't generally republican. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As long as they have the Westminster system, they would need a similar head of state as a republic. Probably something along the lines of Ireland or Israel which is sort of the same thing but with politicians who may not be as respected by citizens who aren't partisans of the same party. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

On Parliament's control over the monarch, is it true that the monarch cannot even abdicate without Parliament's consent? That is, Parliament can "appoint" and "fire" the monarch, but the monarch must serve and cannot just up and quit? If so, or even close to so, it sounds more like a figurehead or even a puppet. Or is it not known? Is one of those "hasn't been tried so who knows?" kinda things? Pfly (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That certainly has the germ of truth in it, Pfly. The last time it was an issue was when King Edward VIII decided he would prefer to marry "the woman he loved", a previously twice-divorced and still currently married American woman, rather than give her up and act in accordance with the wishes of the government and the Church of England, of which he was the Head, both of which organisations found her completely unacceptable as the king's consort. So, to get her, he had to abdicate. But he could not decide unilaterally to just quit at a time of his own choosing. No, it required an act of parliament to change the law to enable him to do this, and his abdication came into effect only when he gave Royal Assent to the abdication bill that had been passed by the Parliament. But at the same time, the government cannot just select some citizen at random and decide they will forthwith be the monarch, like it or not. No, it's a lot more rigidly controlled than that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, now, he had to do all that to make it legal and proper. He no doubt wanted it to be legal and proper because, let's be honest, he wasn't really inclined to just cut his ties to the aristocracy altogether and go get an honest job. Would have been a better story if he had been, but it is what it is.

But suppose he really hadn't cared? Suppose he had just said, you can pass or not pass whatever laws you like, but I decline to be king? What exactly could they have done about it? Cut off his head? --Trovatore (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

He could have declined to carry out the duties of king, but he could not unilaterally decline to be king. The law says who is the monarch, and only another law can change that. Cutting off the head of a monarch for treason against the state has a precedent in England - King Charles I of England. I decline to speculate about how this might have played out in Edward VIII's case. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

And another law couldn't change unless the monarch gave royal assent to it. Warofdreams talk 14:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Although the last time a British monarch refused to assent to a bill was in 1707. I seriously doubt they'd get away with it; or at the very least, a workaround would be found: that's what happened when the Belgian King declined to sign a law in 1990 [5] ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 14:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The other obvious precedent, of course, is James II of England, who fled the country - though he didn't have a lot of choice. 130.88.134.136 (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

While the monarch rules at the behest of the government, the government governs at the behest of the monarch. Some examples: The government defines the extent of the monarch power to rule. The monarch attends a state opening of parliament every year in which the monarch reads out a speech written by the government. At election time the outgoing prime minister visits the monarch to ask permission to hold a general election and after the vote the new prime minister visits the monarch to ask permission to form a government - I'm not aware of any occasion when the monarch has said 'no' or even if they are allowed to say no. As for why we "...still have a monarchy", we tried a couple of alternatives but found it not to our liking. Astronaut (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Reserve power#United Kingdom, George V considered refusing to dissolve Parliament in 1910, but ultimately did agree. The Lascelles Principles cover the grounds on which a Prime Minister might be advised to do so, in future. William IV was the last monarch to dissolve Parliament against the government's wishes - see Royal Prerogative in the United Kingdom#Legislature. Warofdreams talk 14:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nitpick on one of Astronaut's points: the (soon-to-be) PM doesn't ask permission: the monarch asks the PM to form a government; as here - "Her Majesty The Queen has asked me to form a new Government and I have accepted." AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that kind of a formality? I mean, what if Lizzie said to the PM, "Oh, do whatever you want... your call." What would happen then? A constitutional crisis? Or just a good laugh over tea at the Palace? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, that would be permission to do whatever he liked. Now, in a situation where the incumbent government is defeated, the Queen invites the leader of the majority party to form a new government, to succeed the incumbent government, which has remained in office in caretaker mode until then. If the Queen couldn't find time in her busy schedule to get around to meeting the leader of the majority party, the incumbent government remains in place. Indefinitely, theoretically. This is because the Monarch is an integral, if unelected, part of the Parliament - it's not just the House of Commons and the House of Lords. People often overlook this fact. But that said, if her delay went on for more than a few days, many people in high and low places would be asking serious questions, and "something would be done". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You've kind of touched upon something that the OP doesn't see, namely that the monarch is not so much a ruler in the traditional way, but rather a leader who's supposed to be above politics. I recall a situation in Thailand some years back, where a similar type of monarch summoned the competing candidates for president, who had been conducting a very vile campaign, and required the candidates to bow before him and apologize for their behavior, on national TV yet.[6] Now, that's leadership. I don't know if the queen would do such a thing, but I could imagine she would consider it, if she thought it was in the nation's best interest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the British have their ways and the Thais have theirs (meditate on that for a few moments). But as as been pointed out here a gazillion times, the monarch of the UK "reigns, but does not rule". There is no sense whatsoever in which Elizabeth II "rules", and there is zero pretence that that is even the case. She does have certain personal prerogatives, such as appointing people to some orders of chivalry that are within her personal gift. But in the execution of her primary responsibilities, she is heavily bound by convention, which can have even greater force than law. Basically, she is ruled to a far, far greater degree than she rules. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The monarch does have real powers but they are only used in certain instances where the course of action isn't obvious. Governors General, who have the same job, have dealt with situations here in Canada in the past. Being seen as above politics is an advantage here. It would be more difficult if the president were an elder statesman from one political party or another. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Because I for one don't want some Pop-Idol photogenic politician to be the figurehead representative of this country, who would inevitably be some kind of Blair or worse...Nicolas Sarkozy PR sleazebag who would need to be re-elected every 5 years at enormous cost, and, if we took the US presidential system on board, would be pretty much a dictator unless we had a major rewriting of checks and balances, which would then need to be re-jigged every few years. Equally, I'm not too keen on losing a system where for minimal (40 pence per person per year) cost, we get a for-their-entire-life-trained guide figure, whose advice has been noted as invaluable from Prime Ministers through every decade, who has contacts with leaders throughout the globe, and who has reserve powers that, regardless of whether they are useable or not, would be a clear flag that something nationally-momentous is happening if a monarch ever attempted to deploy them. You assume that elected officials should in every position in government - but that merely results in a lot of officials who are very good at looking photogenic and making backdoor deals and saying nice things - it's nice to somewhere have someone who doesn't need to do anything except discretely give advice and leadership, who is trained to be an expert at being a leader, not an orator. And especially when they are in no real position -thanks to the balance between Parliament and the Crown - to take total power. The Prime Minister rules, the Monarch reigns, the system works. --114.78.19.232 (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Because I for one don't want some Pop-Idol photogenic politician to be the figurehead representative of this country, who would inevitably be some kind of Blair or worse". Huh? You've already got one - her name's Liz Windsor. 92.29.126.21 (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Lizzie is a pop-idol photogenic politician??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, she is on TV in glamourous surroundings very very often. The celebrity magazines are fascinated with what her and her relatives are doing. You can buy a lot of her merchandising. The only thing she dosnt do is sing. 92.29.126.21 (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

By Pop Idol I meant a president would be yet another person in government based on a popularity contest.

We don't need another president, we've already got two: 1) that Belgian guy, 2) the Prime Minister. Whatever the Queen does, a waxwork dummy and a rubber stamp would work just as well, because she always does what she's told and hence is no more than a very expensive government puppet. France has a far bigger tourism industry than Britain. The "system worked" for lots of bad rulers in the past. I'd prefer having a weekly bin collection than having a queen. A lot of people adore pop stars as well. Many people cannot see past the lifetime of royal propaganda they have been subjected to. The currant royalty has no more right to be king or queen than I have. 92.29.126.21 (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Some people can't see past the end of their own nose. Reading your reply,: The President of the European Council is mostly concerned with helping coordination between member states rather than the usual functions of a state leader. For the UK, perhaps you'd like to read the articles head of government and head of state to see the differences between a Prime Minister which the UK has, and a President...which it does not. You must have some amazing waxwork dummies with over 50 years of top-level government experience coupled with a previous lifelong course of leadership training over where you live. Prime Ministers on the left (Tony Blair) and the right (Margaret Thatcher) have commented on how much respect they had for the Queen, and how useful her experience was in matters of national importance. Just because you're not privy to that advice doesn't mean it's not there, and exceedingly helpful and important. It helps to not feel too self-entitled, that you should know everything because you're so important to the country. The UK is exceedingly lucky that we haven't had to have the Queen contradict the government in recent times, however it's not guaranteed there'll always be a moderate, non-despotic government. A non-partisan head of state is also exceedingly useful in resolving constitutional crises; say for example in some crazy world the Labour party and the Conservatives were unable to gain a majority on their own after a general election, and they were unable to negotiate a majority with smaller parties. The Queen would step in here. I doubt a waxwork dummy could do that. A waxwork dummy is unable to separate the political aspects of running a country with the apolitical...unless it's very well made.

I concede that a waxwork dummy could, with time, and a reason for citizens to believe in it, serve as a neutral rallying symbol for the country, such as the Royal Family represent (the Armed Forces are noted for their preference for the Crown over politicians (I'll dig out a cite later but only last year some retiring general said troops were always more loyal to the Queen than the PM), and the recent huge coverage of the royal wedding showed that public feeling is still there (TV and newspaper companies aren't stupid; they don't publish things if there isn't public interest)). Maybe the dummy could stay in London during a war the size of WW2 as the Queen did? Or fly frontline RAF missions in the Falklands? Intangible things like a national symbol are often sadly forgotten, despite their high value. The UK doesn't use the flag as a rallying point like the Americans, or an idea like the French, and what replacement do you have ready-manufactured? These things can't just be pumped out. National identity is a very human feeling that can't just be ignored. And a dummy wouldn't be as well known as the Royal Family. OR: over 50% of the foreigners I've met haven't heard of the last two British PMs; they have heard of the Queen. In international relations terms, it's far more useful to have a well-known figure like the Queen than a Gordon Brown (and the Royal Family are extensively involved in international relations). That's just good for the country. You say that the Monarchy is expensive...did you not just read the 40p/person/year bit? That's not expensive by any standards. And again, if you switch to a semi- or presidential system you'll need to spend money on elections, election campaigns...

What has the tourism industry got to do with anything?

When did the constitutional monarchy last work for a bad ruler? Cite needed.

I feel bad you don't get a weekly bin collection. I live in a tiny village in the UK and I get one. Maybe you could move here, the services are excellent in the UK especially by international standards, despite how we like to moan. And there's a Queen there too!

The important thing about the unelected monarchy is they don't have to be overwhelmingly popular; they just need to be there for the job they have to do. They don't need to trot out soundbites or insubstantial policies (at least, not to the same degree as politicians), but they still do state work. Which is very nice.

Overall your reasons seem ill-informed and based on vague prejudice more than anything, and a strong sense of self-entitlement. Oh well. I would say the best argument against the Monarchy is that it's unfair that one family, based on birth, is forced into public service, with an often hostile media, and has to have the law changed just to attempt to escape. That seems very last century. Maybe someone could volunteer their kid to be taken away at the age of 3 to be groomed for a lifetime of media scandals, overwhelming critical scrutiny and an inability to have anything approaching a normal or private life.--64.255.164.53 (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The unfairness is to the Windsors themselves. They are born with this "royal duty" that they can never shirk. Those in direct line to the throne have to prepare to be the next monarch. They are in some sense "slaves to duty". Admittedly, the perks are pretty good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

They do choose to do it rather than abdicating. It has great prestige and great wealth. Even if they abdicate, they'd still have a "milionaire lifestyle" at taxpayer's expense. Feeling sorry for them is like feeling sorry for someone who has been born into great wealth or who has won the lottery. 92.29.112.168 (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Tell us more about your raisin for wanting that plum job.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a Sultana instead. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me look at this from the other side. Why do some other countries not have a monarch?

France doesn't have a monarch because the last king was executed during the French Revolution and so having a king might seem to undo the results of the revolution.

Hungary doesn't have a monarch because, for some political reasons, the Treaty of Versailles forbids it to have a Habsburg as a monarch, and no suitably iconic royal family was found as a substitute. It tried to be a kingdom without a king for a while (much like Rohan), but that only works for short periods and only if choosing a new king is obviously in progress.

Nothing like these has happened in Great Britain, so it remains a republic with a queen. – b_jonas 14:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

June 17

A nymph in mythology

would someone mind telling me about the nymph called Adrasteia? I think I heard in a story she fled from Artemis for some reason. Can someone tell me the story of Adrasteia? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, no one knows anything at all about Adrasteia. Certainly, there is no online encyclopedia that could tell you about Adrasteia. Sorry, no info to be found anywhere about Adrasteia. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait... I found something... not sure how reliable it is, but it turns out that there is at least one online encyclopedia that has some information on Adrasteia. Hope that helps. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, you're a clever pair. I'm awed. Really. I note there's nothing in the article about fleeing from Artemis, so, you know, you could just AGF and tackle that element of the question. Or you could continue to take the piss. Your choice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Spoilsport...

ok... To try to answer the question with some seriousness, in some myths, Adresteia is equated with the goddess Nemesis... if you go to this website... and do a word search for "Artemis", you will come to the story of the goddess Aura as told in Nonnus's Dionysiaca (48. 375 ff)... in that story, Adresteia/Nemesis pursues Aura at the request of Artemis. In later, religious contects, Adresteia/Nemesis is an aspect of Artemis. Its the closest I can come. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I had run across the same thing when trying to google the subject, and didn't arrive at anything that looked like an answer. There seems to have been more than one Adresteia, as noted in the Adresteia article. The best I could come up with is that when she fled from Artemis, it was probably an arrow escape. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(Groan) :>) Blueboar (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

See the Creature from the Pit. μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Barangay

in the Philippines, what are the barangay's components or members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.197.115 (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you read "Barangay"? Gabbe (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Searching for copyright renewal

Some books in the American Guide Series were paid for and copyrighted by entities other than the federal government, but I know that at least some of the copyright holders failed to renew copyright, so I'm trying to learn whether or not copyright was renewed for Cincinnati: A Guide to the Queen City and Its Neighbors — I've never before used any copyright renewal databases. Google showed me a Rutgers page, so I put in "guide to the queen city" and found only two books with "Cincinnati" in the title, neither of which is the book I'm looking for. Does this mean conclusively that its copyright was not renewed? Or is there a possibility that I did something wrong and caused the website to overlook it? Nyttend (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This renewal database is somewhat more accurate and complete. It seems to me that it was not renewed, which would make it public domain fairly conclusively, assuming no errors in transcription or in the database. This is not legal advice, of course, but there is zero indication that it was ever renewed, and if it was renewed, it ought to be in that database. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The US Copyright Office[7] contains a record of such information. For works published before 1976, you will have to search their card catalog in Washington DC. You can pay them to do that for you for an hourly fee and have them send you a report. Should the owners of the copyright have renewed in the 28th year after the publication, then the work is still protected by copyright today. In the 60s, the US Copyright Office did a study and found that only 7% of registered works had their copyright status renewed. The vast majority of works published between 1923 and 1962 are in the public domain (93%). Those published or compliant with the registration process in 1963 or later were grandfathered in with the Copyright Act of 1976 and are protected by copyright. The exception is foreign works after 1923 which had their copyright restored in a special law signed by Bill Clinton. Stanford is not a recognized authority for determining the legal status of a copyrighted work. The authority is the US Copyright Office's card catalog, which you can investigate for free next time you are in DC or you can pay someone to investigate it. A search of the title of the book on Amazon reveals one published in the 80s, so it may have been renewed. Gx872op (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Stanford site (and the Rutgers site) are just databases of the card catalogs of the Copyright Office. So you can skip the card catalog search, etc., if they do accurately reflect the same Copyright Office card catalogs. The Stanford database in particular is pretty accurate, and has been checked and double-checked for accuracy. It is not meant to be a "recognized legal authority" — it's just a digitized, searchable version of the Copyright Office database. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Spanish language

In For Whom the Bell Tolls chapter 17, Hemingway writes "French, the language of diplomacy. Spanish, the language of bureaucracy". I understand that French is the language of diplomacy because of its role as a court language for hundreds of years, but why is Spanish the language of bureaucracy? (I thought about posting this on the language desk but decided the Humanities desk was better, because this is actually more of an historical/cultural question) 72.128.95.0 (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is intuition speaking, but I'm fairly sure the first half of the quote is setting up a joke by relating an already commonly known fact and the second half is a cheap dig at some spanish-speaking government(given the context, probably spain). i kan reed (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Holy Roman Emperor Charles V or Frederick the Great said:

“ I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse. ”

Sleigh (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was Charles V, given his rather multiethnic life. He was born in Flanders, his mother was Spanish, and his father was half Burgundian French and half Austrian. He ruled an empire which included Spain, Germany, and much of Italy. He'd have had cause to make such a statement, while Fredrick the Great ruled only Prussia/Brandenburg (admittedly a powerful nation, but still just a German one). --Jayron32 04:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That's one of those quotes widely attributed to someone, yet we don't know for certain whether they ever said it. We do know, on the other hand, that Mikhail Lomonosov said this (in translation):

“ Charles V, the Roman Emperor, used to say that one should speak Spanish with God, French with friends, German with enemies, and Italian with the female sex. But if he had been skilled in Russian, he would, of course, have added that one can speak it with all of them, for he would have found in it the magnificence of Spanish, the vivacity of French, the strength of German, the delicacy of Italian, and in addition the richness and conciseness of Greek and Latin. ”

This article (doi:10.2307/2492939) argues that the quote is much less incisive than it is typically held up to be. Gabbe (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

May have been true back in Emporor Chuck's day... today all them dang furiners speak 'Merican anyway.

Actually, this is not completely a joke... English (and in particular American English) has to a large extent become the language of both Diplomacy and Commerce. Can't say it is the language of love, however. Blueboar (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely not. English law (and therefore British English) still holds sway at least as much as, if not more, in international commerce, given that most English-speaking centres of international finance other than New York are either English or former English colonies.

Likewise, nation states speaking and writing in British English or something more or less akin to British English far outnumber those speaking and writing in American English. The result is that, despite the size of the US economy, in international diplomacy you will still often see British spelling. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Most respected contemporary Muslim religious leaders

Who are the most respected contemporary Muslim religious leaders among Sunnis and Shi'ites? — goethean ॐ 16:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Aga Khan IV is fairly well respected. Officially, he is only the leader of the Ismailism Muslims, but I have never heard anyone speak ill of him, regardless of their particular standing in Islam. --Jayron32 16:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I want to just prove you wrong, but BLP issues would get in the way. i kan reed (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily; I don't see where you couldn't produce, say well respected references which are critical of the Aga Khan, either personally or as a leader... --Jayron32 22:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Every public figure has critics. Jesus, for example, had a few. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Business ethics

Why do the governments of some countries legislate how buisnesses from their country can behave in other countries? It would seem to put them at a competative disadvantage to countries that do not do this. For example, Country A has strict buisness laws that do not allow bribes or inducements to people in Country B. Country C has no such laws and can simply pay the minister who is in charge of selecting which company can do the $10,000,000 contract (in Country B) an under the table payment of $20,000 to virtually guarentee they get the job. Wouldn't that just drive all the business to Country C leaving Country A with a lot of idle workers? Googlemeister (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, just the businesses that lack ethics. My company has very strict rules about such things. You might make a short-term profit but damage yourself in the long term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, unethical behavior may have short term benefits, but it has larger long-term costs. We've seen this in the case of petroleum companies that piss off the natives so much (say by giving that nation's cut all to one corrupt politician instead of to the people) that they become the targets for insurgents. Ultimately this may lead to a revolution and all those facilities being nationalized. However, behaving ethically in a deeply corrupt nation is difficult, and it may be necessary to wait until a more honest government takes power before doing business there. This is what Google ultimately decided about China, where they were being forced to censor the web and spy on the populace. StuRat (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

According to our article, the purpose in the case of the US was “to bring a halt to the bribery of foreign officials and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the American business system.” See also, Convention against Corruption, The UK Bribery Act, Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.DOR (HK) (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Waste in healthcare systems

The Economist today ran this graph which shows waste in the American healthcare system and $600–850 billion, or $2,000–2800 per capita. Something like that. This surprised me a little because "efficiency" is usually the positive, where I am in the UK, for the US system – it might not be fair, it might not be particularly cheap, but it is efficient. (Avoid debating those categorisations.) However, I don't know what a comparable figure is for the UK, or perhaps the French. There's certainly been a bit in the press about poor sourcing contracts in the NHS, but I don't think it's in the £80–110 billion range. Are there some figures somewhere? This suggests a scale of more like tens of billions (if non-'scandalous' waste and private services are considered). What can you find? Are there other things to consider? Where does my money go? suggests that the NHS costs in total £119 billion. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I did not find answers to your questions in the article "Medical waste".

—Wavelength (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. That would be in reference to refuse-waste rather than unnecessary-expenditure-waste which is what I'm after. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is to define "waste". For example, the US system now uses disposable catheters for home patients, instead of re-using them. This seems wasteful to me, but not everyone agrees. Then there's profits made by insurers, pharmaceutical companies, etc. That money doesn't directly benefit patients, so is that "waste" ? If different defs are used in the analysis of waste in each nation, then the comparison is invalid, obviously. However, even if the same standard is applied to all, some defs will show more waste in one nation, and other defs will reverse the results. For example, if profits are considered wasteful, the US will lose by that comparison. If they aren't, then the US will fare better. StuRat (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's best to avoid trying to pin down specific waste. Instead, just look at the total amount spent and what you get for that. Health, by most measures (such as life expectancy) is pretty similar in the US and the UK, yet the US spends far far more per person on healthcare. That suggests the US healthcare system is much less efficient than the UK system. --Tango (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that kind of analysis is that health is affected by many things other than healthcare. By the measure you're proposing, two countries ("A" and "B") of the same size could have identical healthcare spending, but with the population of "B" living substantially healthier lives: eating well, regular exercise, less exposure to toxic fumes, less gun violence, etc. In that case, even if "A" were to have better doctors, more well-run hospitals, and so on—it would still have a less healthy population and therefore (by your definition) a less efficient healthcare system. Gabbe (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that a really efficient healthcare system would concentrate on preventative medicine, which is cheaper and more effective in the long run, so a more efficient healthcare system would do something about the unhealthy lives of the country's inhabitants. It would identify the toxic fumes, draw up cost estimates of how much treating the problems cause will cost, and aim to reduce that cost as long as reducing the population's exposure to toxic fumes is cheaper than treating them for exposure. It would look at what was costing them most (in terms of money per person-year, or whatever they're using), then tackle it. This is what has been happening with smoking in the UK, and I can see them eyeing up alcohol. It would look at why the population had unhealthy diets and took little exercise, then try to change it. I'm well aware that this disturbs some people, and that such people are especially widespread in America, but it would certainly be more efficient. So, I think mostly you can just look at outcomes versus money spent. Unless some country has a population genetically disposed to die earlier. 86.164.66.52 (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Good points. However, someone came up with something for the Economist to base their graph on, is there no similar study to other systems? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Atheist-turned-Christian

Why would someone skeptical or even critical of religion return to it? I'm interested in hearing views from both sides of the issue. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes people abandon a religion because of the actions of their religious leaders, and figure "How can this be the right religion when they do that in its name?". But then sometimes, they figure that the principles and teachings of the religion are what really matters, and whatever fallible humans do is not really the point. "The just man sins seven times a day", but is still a just man. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Fear of death, senility, to please a potential partner, to convince potential voters of niceness... I've seen all four of those reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

People can return to religion after disappointment with secularity which they may have explored thoroughly before reconsidering religion. By the way—are we discussing religion in general or Christianity in particular? The section title indicates "Christianity", but the participants in the discussion seem to be referring to "religion" generally. Bus stop (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Religion within the context of Christianity (like the header implies).

I've seen lonely older folks begin to attend (or return to) church for the social aspects too. HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking Christianity when I composed my answer, since that is the milieu I'm familiar with, but it can be applied more generally. Also, there's often a disconjunct between the words in a header and the actual content of a question, so I tend to answer the more general question. Big picture - good; small picture - depends. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The second half of my last sentence (up above) is actually incorrect, so I'm going to strike it through. Bus stop (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.multilingualbible.com/1_peter/2-12.htm.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That page is still seriously missing a plain English translation that has meaning for non-Christians and people not familiar with the jargon of the church. I can't get past "day of visitation" and the various alternatives given there. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and most religions simply offer hope. It promises a reward for good behaviour (a future life in heaven) and offers forgiveness for past sins (who also enter heaven if they truly repent). It also threatens those who don't repent or believe with hell. Basicly it is the old carrot and the stick. This becomes quite an issue when you reach old age and are afraid of death. We know that we are all going to die but we don't know what's beyond death.

Atheism simply isn't a religion; it simply doesn't make any (empty) promises at all. I'm certainly not going to judge someone who is near death, truly afraid and finds hope and refuge in religion. I will rather be happy for him and hope that his new faith helps him in his last moments. Afterwards I may point out that he was simply afraid, but who am I to judge? AFAIK I'm far from death and I like to think that I will remain an atheist until death, but who knows? I might become afraid and become a Christian. However I'm proud of those atheists who face death and who don't turn towards religion just because they are afraid. They keep their dignity without giving in to fear. Flamarande (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC) PS: And if a good atheist dies and it turns out that God and heaven truly exist after all, then a true and fair God would accept him in heaven regardless of the atheist's lack of faith. Certain self-righteous hate-filed Christian/Muslim/etc preachers paint Him is a narrow-minded bigoted evil mass murderer who will punish you if you're not pleasing to His sight. Something like that is truly a pitiful deity and not a GOD of Justice, Mercy and Love at all. I would rather join all good atheists, pagans and heretics in hell than to bow before a prick like that. AMEN.

Personal experiences: I went to church as a kid and thoroughly disliked it. I wasn't very social at Sunday school, and I couldn't sit still in "the big congregation." As I saw family members study with Jehovah's Witnesses (at around the age of 12) I decided to look into it as well. At that time, faith was a choice, and so was fame and fortune, and the latter seemed quite seductive. At around 13 I moved to live with my father, who had the big house, the nice car, the blonde trophy wife, the works. This, in turn, eroded my weak faith and led to a spiral into an intense love of music and psychoactive substances. I indeed called myself an agnostic. In college, I lived nearer my mother, who discreetly dropped 'Christian-isms.' I went from 'agnostic' to 'Theistic Fallabilist (whatever that meant). Socialism came in there somewhere too. The drug use at the time did not help my seeming wanton of purpose, and, one day, I drove by a book store and decided to buy a Bible. I started in Proverbs and I quickly read Chapter 1 Verse 20 through Chapter 2 verse 7. Next month was Easter, and I decided to attend both the Methodist service and The Memorial of Christ's Death held at the Assembly Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses. This was in March/April 2010. The differences are indescribable, sorry (one of which was the method of voluntary contributions). The next week I started a Bible Study with the JWs and have been reestablishing my faith since. I find the Kingdom Hall to fit me better. I have the opportunity to do research and share it with my brothers and sisters. Above all else, I get to share it with others from door-to-door; the most tremendous pleasure one can ever have indeed. Today, I am drug free (over a year now) and am intensely loving life and wanton for the next day's purposes. If this has sparked your interest at all you can have one of Jehovah's Witnesses contact you personally using this form here. It will take about one week. I hope this is enlightening. Schyler (one language) 03:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting story, but it doesn't answer the OP's question of "Why?" In your case, maybe we can blame the drugs. HiLo48 (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure schyler was ever really an atheist, so even with a reason the story wouldn't help the OP. Schyler uses the word "agnostic", which I think it the correct word for what he describes. He drifted away from his faith, but never made a conscious decision to reject it. --Tango (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The Hound of Heaven (Francis Thompson) might provide one poetic answer to the question - it certainly ties in with my personal experience of the issue. Tevildo (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

My mother (born 1950) and grandmother (born in Austria in 1920, left in '38) both blamed Judaism for the deaths of their family members in the Shoah (Jewish portion of the Holocaust), but I think my mother is starting to return to Judaism again now that I have reintroduced the faith to our family (my dad is Presbyterean btw). So I guess in this case you have a calamity that caused them to turn away, but later in life, either as a result of thinking it through or through a family member showing you the beauty of the rituals once more, you have a return to the old beliefs. It caused my mother to become more Christian btw, not an atheist. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You have mentioned an interesting aspect of religions there - the rituals. They, along with the architecture and the music, can be very compelling. HiLo48 (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, yes. Islamic architecture, Mizrahi Jewish spiritual music, all incredibly beautiful. Religious fervor has been known to cause horrible horrible things, but it has also been known to create incredible beauty. As for rituals, it is definitely the case in Judaism, as most of our rituals are very happy celebrations of life. Especially ones like shabbat dinners (having a day set aside each week when the family is supposed to dine together and discuss only happy things is a relief in this day and age) and the celebrations of various high holidays except Yom Kippur and Tish B'Av of course. Search for khematz, seders, singing, dancing, all very fun for everyone! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I find the claim that Jewish holidays are mostly "very happy celebrations of life" to be an example of a very selective look at the issue. Of course, you can choose to be cheerful about anything, but the stuff itself is not inherently merry by modern standards at all. In fact, a cursory look through the meaning and essence of the most important Jewish holidays shows that they usually have rather dark themes and what joy there is results only from the contrast between the contemporary relatively tolerable condition and the gloomy nature of the subject matter - much like the paradoxical uplifting effect of horror movies or of witnessing an execution (of someone else). Pretty much without exception, the holidays commemorate either bad things that eventually ended, or bad things that nearly happened, or just straightforward bad things, and/or fairly explicitly remind one of one's weakness before God and the potential threat coming from God. I even made an actual list for fun, but it's too off-topic and would belong in a blog.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Antony Flew is a very prominent critic-turned-convert. He even wrote a book about it: There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. Gabbe (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather a presumptious subtitle when one considers he's up against O'Hair, Dawkins and Myers... Tevildo (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Malcolm Muggeridge was another. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 10:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice that both of them were quite old when they converted. Who knows if their fear of death had any relation with that. Atheists converting to religion is nothing new and neither is religions ppl reaching the conclusion that there is no God at all. AFAIK atheists are slowly increasing in numbers and are on an all time high and that's new. Flamarande (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The simple answer to the OP's question is that they discover something in religion that appeals to them, that has value to them; so they embrace it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

See List of former atheists and agnostics.—Wavelength (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The OP's question seems to presume that the atheist was raised in a religious environment and "returned" to religion. This suggests a more general explanation that I've heard for other things as well - as people grow older, they often begin to "return" to various aspects of their parents' lifestyle and world view. Possible reasons: they may have reached an age at which they identify themselves with their parents instead of rebelling against them as they did previously, or at which they are somewhat disappointed with their own adult life and feel nostalgia for their childhood.

Apart from that, I can easily imagine how any great suffering could make the atheist world view insupportable and drive a person into the embrace of religion: after all, the world is really quite a terrible place in ways that are difficult for a human to accept (think mortality, injustice, randomness, meaningless suffering, ultimate loneliness...), religion offers comfort ("it'll all turn out just right in the end"), and is an option if you have the mindset necessary to believe what offers you comfort. At some stage in their life, a person may feel strong and optimistic enough to abstract from the tragic side of the world as viewed by an atheist and instead enjoy the pleasant sides such as the rebellion against their parents and the absence of religious interdictions; but at a later stage in life, one may begin to feel the tragic aspect more immediately and, perhaps, find it too uncomfortable. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

June 18

Forsaken saint

Is there any Christian Saints or Blessed People who have been forsaken or denounced of their holiness in history? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure of your language ("forsaken" or "denounced"), but in 1969 the Catholic Church did a major clean up and decided that a bunch of people traditionally revered as saints did not qualify for further veneration. These included St Christopher, who had long been regarded the Patron Saint of Travellers. See Mysterii Paschalis. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought Mysterii Paschalis removed some saints from the General Roman Calendar but that they did not thereby cease to be considered saints. Was that incorrect? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What about evil saints or something around that line?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about someone who's been formally canonised, and then it's been discovered they were really a rotten evil person and should not have been so declared? I doubt there's ever been a case like that. They investigate candidates' lives so exhaustively, in a process that can take literally centuries, that for some damningly negative information to turn up out of the blue would be a huge embarrassment to the Church, and the pope who made the decision to canonise. That's why they're so extremely careful in the first place. Also, it would call into question the miracles that the Church has already accepted were wrought by the departed saint in Heaven (they require some miracles to occur before they can be canonised). If they're now saying the person was evil and is probably in Hell rather than in Heaven, how did these miracles occur? Who was the agent? Was it the work of the Devil? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, there have been numerous "Saints" who were not particularly good people before their conversion to Christianity, foremost St. Paul and Augustine of Hippo spring to mind regarding Christian sainst whose pre-Christian life was anything but saintly. Of course, thats sort of exactly the point of Christianity, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32 05:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

There are many former saints. The Catholic Church under JPII came to realize that many of their saints are really just fictional legends and not historical, so they de-canonized them (or whatever that process is called). Saint Christopher is one and Saint Valentine is another. So those St Christopher medals are no longer valid. He was just a fictional character in a story depicting him carrying Jesus across a river (you know, Christopher means "Christ bearer"). Also it's no longer "Saint Valentines Day" it's just "Valentines Day," unless you are talking about the massacre, then it's the "Saint Valentines Day massacre." February 14 is "Saints Cyril and Methodius Day" now. Greg Bard (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Gregbard", I think you may be confused. Mysterii Paschalis was a motu proprio by Pope Paul VI in 1969 that removed Saint Valentine from the Roman Calendar, but I don't think he, or any of the others removed, ceased to be considered saints. And how you came to think it was JPII who did this is mysterious. JPII canonized an immense number of people by comparison to JPII's predecessors. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not confused. You should look into it. Moving dates around a calendar is not what we are talking about. PaulVI may very well have done that, but that is irrelevant to the later act of dis-recognizing (or whatever the process is called) certain saints. If the church merely came out with a statement that Valentine and Christopher were not historical figures, can we not assume that they therefore are no longer considered saints? ..or do do you think they are just going to openly and knowingly engage in fantasy? JPII did, in fact, canonize many saints, more than any other pope I believe; however that too, is irrelevant to how many saints he de-canonized. In fact, it would be completely consistent if he canonized and de-canonized more saints than any other pope. Have you seen any calendars with a "Saint Valentines Day" lately? No, unless the calendar is in error. Greg Bard (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Fun article on this topic : The Straight Dope : Who Was the Worst Catholic Saint?

APL (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

My vote goes to (Saint) Thomas More who in three years as Chancellor of England (1529-33) approved the death sentences of six people for owning books that were banned at the time, mainly the English translation of the Bible. They were all burned at the stake; he was known to have participated in their interrogations. Jasper Ridley in Bloody Mary’s Martyrs (2001) says; "No one was more active in persecuting the Protestants who distributed the English Bible than Sir Thomas More, a brilliant lawyer, writer and intellectual who was a particularly nasty sadomasochistic pervert"[8]. That may be overstating the case, but sending people to a horrible and prolonged death just for reading the Bible doesn't look like the action of a saint. However the Roman Catholic Church made him a saint in 1935 and even the Church of England has added him to a list of 'saints and heroes of the Christian Church'. Alansplodge (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That allegation is from John Foxe, _not_ the most unbiassed of sources. More was a very competent politician in a time when executions were (a) common and (b) nasty. I don't think he can be condemned for upholding the laws of his time, even if those laws are unjust by today's standards. Censorship and the penalties for it have always been controversial issues. Tevildo (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Ahem. May I point out that this is not about whether or not More was a moderately tolerable fellow by the low standards of his awful age, it's about whether he was, quite literally, a Saint - a fully holy and exemplary figure, fit for all Christians past and present to emulate. I'd venture to say that this may imply slightly higher standards than the criteria for eligibility as a janitor and pest control consultant. By Quetzalcoatl, I find this frivolous attitude to sainthood unacceptable! It's pretty much like the ugly stuff in the Bible - you can't go with the historical relativist excuse that "the times were rough", when the book is supposed to be our connection with a timeless morally perfect entity and to retain, somehow, universal and eternal validity.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

We're not really supposed to have debates here (fun though it is), so I'll keep this short. :) The issue is indeed whether or not More was a _saint_, not an _angel_. He lived in a time when it was acceptable to burn heretics - we live in a time when it's acceptable to execute murderers and lock up the mentally ill and eat meat (or, from the other end of the scale, allow abortion on demand and positively encourage sodomy). I don't believe that we can claim a particular law is "evil" or "good" in some sort of abstract, universal sense devoid of historical context. The claim that More was a sadist who actively enjoyed torture and participated in it himself is derived entirely from Foxe - it _might_ be true, but I would be reluctant to take his word as Gospel. Tevildo (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

But Christianity is all about there being "'evil' and 'good' in some sort of abstract, universal sense devoid of historical context". It's supposed to be valid for all times until the end of the world. You can't be both a Christian and a moral relativist. If you believe in a morally perfect, timeless God, then you must believe that what's wrong in his eyes has always been wrong, and what's right in his eyes has always been right. Burning heretics has always been wrong - that's what I believe as an atheist humanist (because I believe that the morality I hold allegiance to is "the correct one" for all times, even if nobody back then subscribed to it), and that's what most modern Christians believe (because they think God/Jesus have always been and will always be opposed to such atrocities, even if people back then didn't realize that). A saint is supposed to be a valid model of imitation for all times, just like Jesus is supposed to be a valid model of imitation for all times, and Christianity is supposed to be a valid religion for all times. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pelagianism, that is. See Original Sin and Total Depravity for the mainstream Christian perspective on this issue. Tevildo (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Original Sin is irrelevant. I said Christianity is supposed to be a valid religion for all times, and it is supposed to be that (not just Pelagianism). Regardless of whether Saints have managed to become worthy of veneration and emulation due to the grace of God and despite original Sin (as the mainstream doctrine claims and Pelagianism denies), this doesn't change the fact that a Saint is in fact supposed to be worthy of veneration and emulation.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Christianity is supposed to be, yes. But Sainthood is not precisely a "Christian" thing, it's a "Roman Catholic" thing. Some older Protestant churches use the prefix "Saint", while some more modern Protestant churches do not. ("Saint Paul" vs. "The Apostle Paul", for example.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you here. I'd expect a saint to stand up to an evil law, not enforce it. By your standard we could make saints out of Nazis who participated in the Holocaust, since they were "just enforcing current laws". StuRat (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

According to some (minority) viewpoints, they're working on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

For a person to be made a saint does not require them to have been saintly in all of their actions at every possible moment of their earthly life. They are allowed to be humans, make mistakes, do bad things etc - Saint Augustine was a prime example, yet he's revered now as a Doctor of the Church. And Saint Paul was a scourge of Christians before becoming one himself. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you would have thought a bit of repentance was required (as in the case of Augustine and Paul). Alansplodge (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ditto, and also note that both were originally non-Christians, so, in a way, their transgressions from before their conversions don't count and don't matter. They were "in darkness" anyway, it couldn't have got much worse than that, salvation-wise.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but where did you get that incredibly fucked-up notion of Christianity's attitude to non-Christians? It doesn't matter what they do, since they're all inherently doomed anyway - and hence they're absolved of all moral responsibility for anything? But Christians have this incredibly heavy moral burden to shoulder, where notions of right and wrong now matter, and they have consciences - while the non-Christians frolic gaily in their murders and rapes and tortures and thefts, because somehow it doesn't matter in their case? Is that what you believe they believe? Where did you get such a crazy idea? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd heard that before. There was a time where Christians considered all non-Christians to be inherently evil, and, since they were "separated from God", doomed to hell, so what they did really didn't matter, and it also didn't matter what was done to them, as during the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and Conquistador periods. We've hopefully left those attitudes behind now, but The Church is rather slow to change, so people made saints under those terms might still remain saints today. StuRat (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I would think the reason good old Thomas More was sainted was because of his defense of the Roman Catholic Church against bad old Henry VIII, and his martyrdom over it. He was also the last English chef to produce anything noteworthy. To counter the bland tradition of English food, he used herbs and spices liberally. This was discussed at some length in A Man for All Seasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Does that make him "A Man for More Seasoning"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 03:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Could be! I also wonder if he was a distant cousin of the famous western gunslinger Lester More, who took six slugs from .44, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Calling parents by their name

As shown in the movie The Ring Two, Aidan calls his mother Rachel, not mom. Why? And I want to know how many children call their parents by name? --Reference Desker (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Round where I live, where so many parents are with their second or third partner, it's used quite often for the "step" parents. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

They're making a third Ring movie?! Dear god, why?! I agree with HiLo, for step parents it's fairly common but mostly unheard of for birth parents or adoptive parents who have been the legal parents since infancy. This article suggests finding an alternative to not slight the birth parents who are offended by their kid calling someone else "mom" or "dad". Dismas|^(talk) 05:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

In Israel, it's common to call your elders (including teachers and your principals when in school, but I don't think the same is true for professors in unis) by their first name, when you know them, as it's a very casual country. My girlfriend constantly refers to my parents as Bob and Susan (or Bewby and Sue, for kicks). It doesn't apply to members of your own family who you call aba (dad) and ima (mom, but usually said as imaaaaaa! imaaaaaa! by kids). As the Ring Two is a western film, I'd say that Aidan's calling her that is out of disrespect, but I don't remember that movie all that much. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference Bart Simpson and Homer simpson ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 08:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've known some children of the 60s who called their parents by their first names because the parents wanted it that way. It's unusual, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"Don't call me Mr. Smith, that's my father. You can call me John." ^Avic_ennasis @ 21:55, 16 Sivan 5771 / 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Scout Finch calls her dad, Atticus, by his first name in To Kill a Mockingbird. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Washington haGadah

Washington haGadah (I am not going to put the before it as that is redundant) is from the 1600s apparently, but why is it called Washington haGadah? I saw it in the Met and there was no explanation about the name. It's obviously not named after George Washington, nor does it come from any of the places named after him, so I don't get it. I couldn't find a Wiki article on it, so I'm hoping one of the fine gents who has this page on their watchlist will be able to help. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

So should we leave off the second 'ha-' in "hashana haba'a" because it is redundant? ColinFine (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of it before. But this is from the LoC website: "Purchased by Deinard in Mantua, Italy, Joel ben Simeon’s haggadah came to the Library in 1916 along with the Third Deinard Collection comprising 2,300 items. The item was cataloged as "Hebraic Manuscript #1" and later referred to as 'The Washington Haggadah' in connection with its home in the nation’s capital."[9] --JGGardiner (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I first heard of it when searching for a copy of haGadah for pesach (the jerks at Judaism.com sent me a Spanish language one when I specifically said English :|) and was given the option of buying it at a local bookstore. I then saw it when I was with my mum at the Met (before leaving for Israel). It is a small book, very nice though. Hmmm, there are similar cases where objects are referred to by the place they are kept when there isn't a better name for them. It's better than Hebraic Manuscript #1 anyway. Thanks. I think it is notable enough to have an article, no? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 06:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Created one. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 08:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've never know it was hard to get a haggadah. You just pick a free one off the grocery store shelf next to the matzah. One of the food companies prints them. (And I live in the city with the highest percentage of Arab Muslims in the U.S.) 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I just did that later, I had wanted a nice one though. In Judaism, you can use pretty much use items of any quality for the rituals. Many Jews with the cash go on the idea of "if you have to have it, then you should make it nice." That is the reason why ben Simeon made these ritzy haGadot. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 17:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oshima Island

Which Oshima did U.S. Marines assist after the Sendai earthquake? I went through the Oshima page and couldn't figure out which it might be. The Operation Tomodachi mentions it with references but not enough to tell me which island it is and if there is an article on it in Wikipedia. Rmhermen (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't have the article. This is the ja article. The island is in Kesennuma, Miyagi. Here is the Oshima site. Oda Mari (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

what things make something look like an office?

if you have an empty room in a building, in order of functional importance what things (items) will make it start resembling a normal office environment? (I mean to employees who, in addition to the fact that you are paying them, I imagine take these visual cues about their environment - as well as functional use - as evidence that you are a serious place that means serious business. (the reason I ask is because I've never had or worked in an office, to me "is my laptop here? the only evidence of whether this is an office :) - Thanks. 188.29.4.133 (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Industrial carpet tiles. If you take an empty space and put in standard low/dense pile industrial carpet tiles (which come in a variety of soul-draining colours) and the empty space looks like an empty office. You'd really never want those in any other environment (retail, service, medical, residential). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 20:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say the basic thing would be desks for the employees to work at (with phones and computers). After that, a lot depends on the type of company you are talking about... the "office" area attached to a car dealership will look very different from a lawyer's office. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Desk, phone, computer, shelving - all those things say "office". And the tight-weave carpet discussed above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, for creative workers the trend it to get away from this dull corporate look&feel, even if it means making the space look less business-like.

However, One thing that makes a space unmistakably an "office" is some office partitions. APL (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, can't believe that's a red-link. I'm talking about the movable, cloth-covered walls you'd use to form a Cubical. APL (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made it redirect to cubicle (note the spelling), which ought to do. --Tango (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bright fluorescent lights. --Tango (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Tim Hunkin's The Secret Life of the Office, particularly the "Office" episode, might be a useful resource. Tevildo (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

File cabinets and posters with inspirational business sayings ? Or how about a massive corporate logo ? StuRat (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

breast enhancement

Extended content
How do i enhance my breasts without breast implant/surgery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.254.204.123 (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC) We cannot offer medical advice. Please see the medical disclaimer, and contact an appropriate medical professional.

They said "without implants or surgery", which makes it not a medical advice Q. Clothing is the usual choice. A push-up bra is one option, or you could go with a padded bra. StuRat (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Gaining weight and/or getting pregnant often works. Or if all else fails, just hang around with really flat-chested women. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually that makes it a far bigger concern. If you get implants or surgery you would usually have to see a doctor so any misleading advice you've received on the RD should hopefully be correct. And while a push up or padded bra isn't medical advice but suggesting the OP take anything would be. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Anything to do with weight gain or loss, and anything to do with pregnancy, should of course be discussed with a doctor first. Hanging out with skinny women should be mostly harmless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Chicken fillets. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Exercise to improve chest muscles (swimming, butterfly machine, pull-ups...anything that gives you a decent upper-body workout). Unless you are male and Arnold Schwarzenegger, don't expect wonders... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Editable Text of Confucius Quote

I am looking for a quote by Confucius that is his description of Utopia. The quote is here: http://www.chinapage.com/confucius/utopia.html The issue with this text is that it s not editable. I can't simply type the Chinese back into a word-processing program because I can't read 100% of the Chinese characters; some are too small for me to see all the individual details. I need o find this quote in editable Chinese text, but I've had no luck myself. Can anyone else find it please? CalamusFortis 22:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by editable, but if it being text rather than image will do it's the latter part of the first paragraph of the ninth part of the record of rites, [10]. There is a different translation, though (it should be the same Chinese because in my hunting I found a page with both on, apparently as different translations of the same.) 128.232.241.211 (talk) 10:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That exactly what I was looking for; I just needed text, not an image of text. Thank you for locating that.CalamusFortis 03:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

June 19

Athletic shoes hanging from power lines

Does anyone understand this ubiquitous phenomenon? Does it have a name? I presume there must be some purpose (although I would think not a rational one). Michael Hardy (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I always thought it was a tribute to Wag the Dog. Gabbe (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that film, but its article says it didn't appear until 1997, and the plural shoes appears nowhere in the article. Did you never see this happen before 1997? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm showing my age (or maybe you're showing your lack thereof), but it's been around way, way longer than 1997. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 00:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Showing my age too, but way longer than 1997. I certainly can remember it being done in my teenage years (back in the 80s) and the main reason I remember was to see if you could do it, or if they weren't your shoes, because you could do it (and get away with it). The guys who were doing it weren't really big on subtexts or metaphors FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Snopes has a page about it. --Tango (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The snopes page doesn't answer the question but only speculates. I would think there must be actual humans who've done this, who know something about why they did it. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but they probably don't all have the same reason. Snopes doesn't do more than speculate because there isn't really an answer. --Tango (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As requested, WP:OR coming: in my high school, local bullies used to do it with victims' gym shoes. In those days (Jurassic Period), we carried our gym shoes to and from school, while wearing either leather shoe or boots, depending on the weather. Our gym shoes were always white and had to be polished at least once a month for inspection, which is why we took them home one night and then brought them back the next day. We were not permitted to wear them anywhere except for gym class. They were always carried in our arms on top of our 3-ringed binder on top of our textbooks. They were easy to snatch and toss. For many kids, it was a huge loss. And, to agree with Jack of Oz, this was long before the dates given above. Bielle (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

How could you polish gym shoes ? Mine were canvas and artificial rubber, neither of which can be polished. StuRat (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

See your talk page. Bielle (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Somehow managed to miss this when editing earlier, but we had much the same system, with maybe less emphasis on the polishing. Apart from the obvious bigger-than-the-other-guy cases, sometimesit was just guys creatively getting rid of old trainers as they were becoming a bio-hazard and/or achieving sentience or whatever. It wasn't just shoes; it was surprising what could be sent on a ballistic course to the nearest power line or telephone pole.. School-bags, clothing, the odd teenager if they were light... FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

According to an informant, it was happening in Philadelphia in the '40s, if not earlier. In my childhood one did it with one's old sneaker's when one got new ones. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In some cases, it is merely juvenile bullying/vandalism, etcetera. In some cases, a person has an old pair of shoes they won't miss, and thinks it would be cool to have them up there. In some cases, a drug dealer may mark his territory in this way. There are an infinite number of rational explanations (consistent with Pirsig's law).Greg Bard (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The phenomenon is described, perhaps not that well but at Shoe tossing Nil Einne (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Drug dealer? Bullying? Please. I call shenanigans, Gregbard. Provide just one legal case. μηδείς (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Legal case? Give me a break. You need to get off the Wikipedia for a while and get out more. Greg Bard (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I need to stop editing wikipedia because you are angered by my pointing out that you have no reliable sources to back up your speculation. Got it. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Greg's comment was inappropriate, and he should retract it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I find that hypersensitivity is very unproductive. Hardy is not asking for references. The explanations I provided are mundane, not extraordinary in any way. I was the founder of my university's Skeptics Club, and even I think this is over the top. Please get a sense of what is an is not appropriate please. No, I do not have any legal cases to back up the drug dealer or bullying explanations --only the most extremely naive, and sheltered person would be oblivious to these expalnations. Shenanigans? Um, sure I just made it up. Whatever. You're nuts. I'm sure μηδείς is a wonderful mainspace editor, and requests for sources there is par for the course. Here people are rarely ever in need of a reference despite it being the reference desk. Most people are just asking questions...you know like normal people who get out occasionally. You know people who do not necessarily treat every answer to every question as "shenanigans" unless there is some peer review that backs up, for instance, someone's theory about shoes on wires. Please get a perspective. Seriously. Taking a break from Wikipedia actually is good advise in that regard. I am sorry if anyone took offense, as that was certainly not my intention, but I can't really retract under these circumstance. I hope you can let that go. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Next time one of the regulars yells at me for failing to provide sources, I'll send them your way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There are clearly reasonable requests for sources and then there are clearly unreasonable requests for sources. We aren't robots incapable of nuance, and therefore in need of absolute rigorous bureaucracy. If I had asked for sources backing up the claim that asking for someone to "give me a break" or telling someone they to take a break is somehow offensive, well I think that would be me being a jerk quite frankly. So please do not trouble yourself by digging through Emily Post on my account, and please do not ask me to do legal research over shoes on wires --DEAL? Greg Bard (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP is a regular, otherwise I would have advised you to take this entire discussion to the talk page, as it is not appropriate to take shots at each other in front of the OP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hardy is more than a regular. He's so prolific, he's probably in the top one tenth of a percent of contributors.Greg Bard (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

He's a hardy boy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

. Well, some people decided it would be a good place to leave their shoes out to dry, but then forgot about them.AerobicFox (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want a retraction from Gregbeard. That would imply something that is not the case. And she has already refused to provide any reliable source, enough said.

Being someone who has, along with my ancestors, participated in said activity, long before anyone had ever heard of "drug gang"s, I find her "contribution" laughable and her opposition of less consequence than the alarm call of a woodchuck to whom I have tossed an unwanted lettuce stem.

But let's remember that there's a real person here who asked this question, and that repeating to that person crap which has less provenance than the scrawlings found on men's room walls, as if it were fact, is hardly helpful. Attributing this activity to crack dealers is the modern analog of the blood libel, or accusing negroes of being rapists, the reflex of dead white males suffering penis envy: baseless slander.

In reality, the custom of heaving old shoes on a post is probably as old as that of leaving a pile of stones at a crossroads in dedication to the god Mercury, just as making stuff up is as old as Plato's forgeries of Socrates. μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do refuse to waste my time providing any reliable sources to back up the claim that some shoes end up on wires because of bullies and drug dealers, so I appreciate that enough has been said. I think you have gone way off the deep end with the whole "negroes of being rapists" thing. It seems to me that μηδείς seems to think I have named him as a bully or drug dealer somehow, and that is pretty ridiculous. I am sure you are (usually) a wonderful person, not a bully or drug dealer, even though you admit to participating in this shoe throwing thing. Is there some reason you believe I am female? The name is Greg, which is not a female name, so I am requesting an explanation. If this is some attempt at a insulting me (and I'm not saying it is), then that would require a retraction, and an apology to all the women out there who would rightfully be offended that you are equating naming someone as being female as an insult. Is that what you think? I hope not. Greg Bard (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahem . . .Indeed. (For what it's worth, this whole sidetrack is way "over the top".) Bielle (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

According to that article the British gangs are doing it because they'd heard about it being done in America. That's hilarious, since over here that's a total urban legend.

We need to think up some new legends for british thugs to emulate! APL (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: the earlier request for ref [11] includes one person who says he saw it being done as a result of bullying. As for the gang thing, I don't know if we can say it's a total urban legend in the US from the evidence I've seen so far. Sure it's clearly way overhyped and likely a lot (most?) of the instances which people attribute to gangs are false and it may not have been how the urban legend started. But there's no reason to presume American gangs (particularly the lower level or wannabe people) are any less likely to copy things they've heard gangs do. The earlier link also has someone who works with gangs who discusses the use in gangs albeit not as a territorial marker (either out of respect to someone who died or disrespect to someone who left the gang). As with others I do agree trying to proscribe one reason is silly, there are almost definitely people doing it for a lot of different reasons, often because they've heard people do it for that reason (even if that's not really true). Stories from people who've allegedly done it only really tell us about one case and that's presuming the person isn't just fibbing. Trying to determine the percentage of reasons is IMO likely to be a foolhardy exercise. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

pronunciation of Arthurian names

Anyone know a ref for how to pronounce the Knights of the Round Table and other Arthurian stuff? I had to leave some blanks at List of geological features on Mimas (I think I know Balin etc, but don't want to chance it), but we should have this at the Knights article too. — kwami (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I would think the pronunciation would vary from region to region... that someone from Yorkshire would pronounce the names differently than someone from Cornwall (or Massachusetts... or Texas). Also, I would think that the names would have been pronounced differently in different historical eras (Chaucer's era vs Shakespeare's era vs modern day). So we would need to know who doing the pronouncing and when they were doing it. Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Only yesterday I was asking myself whether Pendragon would be pronounced like Pen Dragon, or in same rhythm as Estragon. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Not like Estragon! DuncanHill (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In Cornish and Welsh which both use the "pen" prefix (meaning "head of"), the stress is invariably on the second syllable; so most likely it's pen-DRAG-'n. Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Pendragon Castle in Cumbria (supposed to be the home of Arthur's father, Uther) is pronounced the same way. Cumbria shares some Celtic roots with Cornwall and Wales, of course. Dbfirs 15:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Modern English. I would expect they all have standard pronunciations, though some (like Launcelot & Gawain) may have more than one. And yes, the OED has /pɛnˈdræɡən/. — kwami (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

So, no-one knows of any refs for these? I would think they'd be easy to find, and have been surprised by how hard it's been. — kwami (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think there is a "standard" pronunciation? There is a way in which most modern readers usually pronounce the names, which may bear no close relationship to how Malory would have pronounced them, let alone his antecedents - as Blueboar has already said. If you are asking how the names of geological features on one of Saturn's moons are pronounced, that is a different question which might be easier to answer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

When random people talk about the same thing

I remember reading an article about a phenomenon, where during the span of one or two days you hear different people talking about the same obscure subject (i.e. a little known author). I remember this phenomenon being named after some reporter, who described it. However, I can't remember the name, and the things I remember are too abstract to construct a meaningful web search. Can anyone help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasombra bg (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Synchronicity? -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Not that. As long as I remember it was about a journalist, who heard two strange people talking about something (I forget what) that he had forgotten for years. Then he heard another couple discussing the same subject. Eventually, when he walked into his office, the editor-in-chief asked him to write an article about that very same subject. lasombra bg (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Clustering illusion or Apophenia? --Jayron32 18:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Serendipity? Zeitgeist? Coincidence? 92.29.112.168 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No. This is not about about an illusion (such as the tendency to discover pseudo-meaningful figures in random patterns). Another example of this effect would be if several different people, not knowing each other, tell you about the same movie that no one has heard of. I definitely remember a journalist being involved in the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasombra bg (talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the largest amount of info we have on this is collected in the AfD for the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Orange Suede Sofa. It turned out to be the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon. I owe you a beer! lasombra bg (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There's apparently a medical counterpart of this, known as Velpeau's Law. It's about a doctor encountering an extremely rare condition in one of his patients, probably for the first time in his career, then a short time later sees another, completely unrelated, patient, with the same very rare condition. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

History question: ancient Roman Vulcanal (Volcanal)

There seems to be some confusion to the location of the actual alter known as the Vulcanal. I need to find specific information that places it correctly. Is it under the Lapis Niger or is it located elsewhere. The area of the Vulcanal was quite large as was the original Comitium space. Currently our articles conflict and the Vulcanal page seems to state it's location as such that I cannot find proper sourcing, but I continue to look for it.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Google Books is often a good resource for questions like this. This book contains an extensive discussion of the question on pp 776-777; other likely sources are also shown. Looie496 (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Love Google books. It's a permanent link on my favorite places. Love this book, read it and used it as a reference here.[12] The problem is...I am being told this is old information and that the theory does not hold . The new stub for Vulcanal is directly challenging the references used for (Rostra, Comitium, Graecostasis, Lapis Niger and several other articles and subjects, however, none of the references used there can be checked for accuracy without locating the books in a public library of bookstore and before I spend hours pouring over books again on this subject I was hoping someone had a reference that I could check to verify either way online...or knew for sure what the answer is and what the best route would be to take from here.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"Unwritten rules" of interpersonal interactions

I'm not exactly sure what to call what I'm looking for. In the workplace or in a social group, what a person says or does gets interpreted and has symbolic meaning ascribed to it. It may be interpreted as a reflection of the person's attitude, a statement of his role relative to others, or some (symbolic) message the person tries to get across. It seems that there are rules are unstated but expected to be understood, and people get offended if their expectations are violated.

I got a feeling that social scientists must have studied these tacit rules of interpersonal interaction/communication. Has someone compiled a collection of articulations of those unwritten rules?

TIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.33.204 (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm far from fully informed on this, but my understanding is that those rules vary across cultures, and largely have been studied by anthropologists. In particular Edward T. Hall wrote several very interesting books on the theme, including The Silent Language. Our articles on nonverbal communication, body language, and proxemics may be relevant. Looie496 (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal hygiene also plays a part, as somebody who doesn't wear deodorant or bathe isn't going to get very far in the US and many other nations. Then there's the choice of business clothing to consider. And there's how you decorate your work area, with porn, alas, not always deemed to be acceptable. And if "flipping the bird" is frowned upon, then you'll have to reserve that for church. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

108.16.33.204—I am not so sure there are any rules of interpersonal relationships. How one conducts oneself can be recreated at will. Of course who wants to be bothered recreating oneself if interpersonal relationships are limited by real-world factors beyond one's control? Under such circumstances shallow pleasantries may just be the best option. Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pierre Bourdieu's concept of habitus might be relevant here? I'm reminded of it, anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

June 20

a quotation attributed to Maxim Gorky: really his?

There might be different translations but as I heard it it was "Man, how beautiful the word sounds!". Can anybody tell in which work of Gorky this appears? Any other version? Is this quote attributed to somebody else also? --Thirdmaneye (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The original is "Человек! Это звучит гордо." It is from Gorky's play From the Depths, and is variously translated. A probably more accurate version is "Man! How proud the word rings." This is "man" in the sense of human or person, not "man" in the sense of male, as I understand it. (And to my American ear the Russian word, pronounced "chelovek", does not sound all that beautiful.) Looie496 (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Looie. I had a vague notion that it belonged to Lower Depths which is full of such bombastic utterances. In this part of the world where left has a strong political clout for the last sixty years this quote has been rehashed in many forms and attributed variously to Marx, Tolstoy and Gorky himself. The question came to me this morning because a school girl of in the neighborhood had this question in her assignment. --Thirdmaneye (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Compared to a lot of Russian words, Человек sounds not too bad. Compare to, say, bread: Хлеб (Khleb -- but get a bunch of phlegm in the back of your throat ready before saying it, so you can really hock out the "Kh" sound). --Mr.98 (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Who is the oldest author still writing?

Who is the oldest author still writing? Just curious. Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps K. D. Sethna. --Viennese Waltz 07:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

...although the question needs tighter definition, i.e. what is an author? Someone who has had written work published by a reputable publishing comnpany, probably. Self-published or vanity work would not count. What if someone had a single novel published at the age of 25 and is now aged 100, would they still count as a living author? The bibliography of KD Sethna in the above article is not very detailed on the dates of his published works. --Viennese Waltz 08:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Jewish cities in Europe

Does anyone know of European cities which were predominantly Jewish on the eve of the Second World War? The only one I've found so far is Pinsk; going by Wiki, it appears that Jews comprised a majority in most Belarusian cities at the time of the 1897 census, but that they had generally fallen below 50% by 1941. --71.162.67.219 (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Does Shtetl or Category:Historic Jewish communities help? --Jayron32 12:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Carthaginian parrot tattoos

I’ve read in a couple of places that interpreters in ancient Carthage had yellow parrot tattoos on their arms. It sounds a bit like some sort of urban legend though. Can anyone find a good academic source to back it up? — Chameleon 06:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to this out of Gustave Flaubert's Salambo, although that article says he did painstaking research, so maybe he found it somewhere. Where did you read this? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It’s mentioned no fewer than three times by Valerie Taylor-Bouladon in her Conference Interpreting : principles and practice, ISBN 1-4196-6069-1. She’s even got a yellow parrot on the back cover. It’s a very helpful book, but the woman has an infuriatingly chaotic and unprofessional style of writing, such that I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find out that she has no evidence for her claim other than having read that novel. She’s certainly into French literature.

I’ve googled a bit, and found a few people mentioning these parrots, but I get the distinct impression that these people have just read the novel too. I am an interpreter and translator, and I rather like the idea of getting such a tattoo (small, and hidden away), but only if it is authentic. — Chameleon 08:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Parrot#distribution has no indication that parrots would have been known to the ancient Carthaginians. It talks about southern Africa, but not north Africa, Europe or western Asia. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, there is a "Cambridge Companion to Flaubert", haha. I can read some of it on Google Books. Apparently Flaubert likes parrots and uses them elsewhere in his work, as a symbol of meaningless language...and despite his painstaking research, there was plenty of criticism about the historical accuracy of Salambo. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Pliny the Elder has a short paragraph about parrots (as part of a longer section on talking birds in his Natural History, book X, chapter LVIII, line 117ff), but he does not mention anything about tattoos. I would have thought that if it was mentioned anywhere in the ancient literature, it would have been just the sort of curious factoid that he would have included in his work. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I subsequently saw that the ancient Europeans (ergo North Africans too) did know of parrots. They must have been regarded as very exotic. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Another question that may shed light on factuality is: could the Carthaginians tattoo skin in yellow? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Romans knew of the parrot from India (according to Pliny), but it was not yellow but green with a "red circlet at the neck". And while they probably were deemed exotic, Pliny uses far more space to describe talking magpies, ravens and crows which apparently according to him "talks more articulately". (btw this is from the Loeb edition, vol. 3, pp. 367-373). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I’ve just had a look through the full text of Salammbô, and it’s a bit disappointing. The only bit about interpreters or parrots seems to be, ‘Apparaissait ensuite la légion des Interprètes, coiffés comme des sphinx, et portant un perroquet tatoué sur la poitrine.’ But I’ve read people on line saying it was yellow, that it had one wing spread if the interpreter did one foreign language, and both if he knew more. Plus it’s supposed to be the arm, not the chest. There must be some other source. — Chameleon 13:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is an article by a J.M. Bigwood in the Classical Quarterly 1993, vol. 43, no. 1 called "Ctesias' parrot", about parrots in Ctesias' work Indica. Bigwood does not mention any Carthagenian tattoos, but he does provide a good deal of citations to works that probably include everything mentioned of parrots in classical literature. The article "Papagei" (German for parrot) in vol. XVIII,2 pp. 926-934 of Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft (which is cited in the article) seems a good place to start looking for sources. Unfortunately German Wikisource only contains up to volume 13. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Character Variants and Section Headers (Radicals?)

I have just puzzled out how to search through the variant character dictionary at this site: http://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/suo.htm. One issue I am having, though, is that I am unable to specifically locate certain characters based on how the section headers appears as a standalone character and how it appears as part of another character; compare 水 and 氵, for example. Is there a way to determine how section headers (or are these actually radicals?) will look when they are part of another character and when they are by themselves? There are some characters that I can't find because I can't match their section headers to the original character. Any resources would be appreciated.CalamusFortis 10:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A Question of Etiquette

Obviously, A gentleman should hold open a door for a lady and allow her to enter/exit through it first. However, a recent discussion with a friend brought up this point: What does one do about sets of doors, where there is a narrow hallway? There seems to be 3 ways to approach this.

1. Open the first door, let the lady enter and get the second door herself.
2. Open and enter the first door, hold it open for the lady, then open the second door and let her enter first.
3. Open the first door, let the lady enter, try to get in front of her in some non-awkward way, then open the second door and let her enter first.

None of these really seem ideal - is there standard that has been set for something like this, or does old-fashion etiquette not keep up with modern-day architecture? ^Avic_ennasis @ 12:01, 18 Sivan 5771 / 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Assuming this lady is able-bodied I'd go for (1). If she has a one iota of common sense she will realize the impracticality of your trying to open both doors.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

From my experience... in today's world of gender equality, etiquette has changed somewhat. Instead of: "A gentleman should hold open a door for a lady and allow her to enter/exit first" we have a more gender neutral: "Holding doors open for others is considered polite". So... to apply this to your two door scenario... which ever person comes to the door first should hold it open for the person who follows, where upon the positions are reversed. If the gentleman holds the first door open for the lady, then she would enter and hold the second door open for the gentleman. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Doorway Assist Mode (DAM) can be deployed in such a circumstance, in which the gentleman grabs the door from behind, facilitating the distaff walker's forward motion, containing the clumsy etiquette problem to mere meters of forward motion. Bus stop (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that etiquette has changed, but is it not today: "Holding doors open for your visitor is considered polite"? Bus stop's method works best, I think. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem I always have is when I approach a door opening outwards with someone else just behind me. In this scenario the two options seem to be (a) hold the door open but don't go through it; this can be physically difficult especially if it's a heavy door; or (b) go through it before the other person and then hold it open for them from the other side. This is easier than (a) but does mean that one has gone through the door first! --Viennese Waltz 13:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh good question - I remember having a similar debate with a friend about Revolving doors. Do you...

1. Let the lady in first (lady's first principle) and then go in after her (though inevitably she'll push and you'll get a 'free' ride round the door - not very manly)
2. Let the lady in second (ignoring lady's first) and then you push (that way you push and she gets the 'free' ride)
3. Let the lady in first (again lady's first) but then make it clear you'll do the pushing (the best and worst of both world's?!)

Of course it was all a bit tongue-in-cheek, but i'll admit it - it's always good to get a 'free' ride through a revolving door! ny156uk (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course proper gentlemen and ladies would simply assume that there were servants behind any door they wanted to go through, and would let them hold open the doors... that's what servants are for after all. :>) Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Aha, so if you have a visitor at work you need to ask your PA to be present. (If you're an academic you need a research assistant or rope in any unsuspecting postgrad.) Itsmejudith (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

In a case where it's not practical to open both doors, I usually open the outer door, assuming it to be the heavier one with possible wind to work against, unless I know the inner door to be trickier in some way.

An even worse etiquette problem is due to high security areas. Since you aren't allowed to let anybody else in with you, once you swipe your badge, it's necessary to close the door in the face of the woman standing behind you in line. StuRat (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The Reference Desk is not an advice column, but my advice is to do whatever seems most natural. What will seem most natural will depend on the specifics of the situation, for which there are many more than three possibilities. Awkwardness is usually best met with a polite sense of humor and a smile.

See also our article on Etiquette. WikiDao ☯ 16:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Immigration Officer in Inception

Morning-- this may betray a profound ignorance on my part, but at the end of the film Inception, Leonardo DiCaprio's character arrives at the immigration gate at LAX and hands his passport to the officer there, who has eagle military insignia on his shoulders, normally denoting a rank of US-O6 (colonel in the Army, Air Force, or Marines; or captain in the Navy or Coast Guard). The next officer that he meets seems to have silver oak leaves on his shoulders, denoting a rank of US-O5 (lieutenant colonel in the Army, Air Force, or Marines; or commander in the Navy or Coast Guard). My question is this: what branch of military service would these officers belong to? My guess would be Coast Guard....? However, (and realizing that it's a film, not reality) are coast guard captains and commanders often assigned to immigration desk duty at airports? It would seem (pardon the expression) a bit beneath their pay grade.... Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 12:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably U.S. Customs and Border Protection (see the section on insignia). The U.S. federal military is prohibited from normal police functions so it would not be the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marines. Coast Guard is a special case but they handle law enforcement on the water, not in the air. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Must be it. Thank you! All you globetrotters out there-- is it normal for higher-ranking officers to be assigned to the passport desks like that? Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The insignia you describe could designate a GS-14 and a GS-13 according to this section of our Customs and Border Patrol article. That seems plausible, especially as it was supposed to have been a sensitive and "arranged" border crossing. WikiDao ☯ 16:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Booker possibilities

Is there any way to know what are some novels that are considered to be favourites for being nominated for this Booker Prize this year? Every time the shortlist is announced I've usually only even heard of a few of them, let alone read all of them. Just once I'd like to be able to knowledgeably say which one deserves it, instead of saying that The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet deserved it last year, despite not actually having read the Finkler Question. Or any of the others for that matter. 123.243.54.85 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Booker prize also announces a longlist, is that what you are asking about? They do not seem to have announced the longlist for 2011 yet, but last year's was announced in July. WikiDao ☯ 16:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Voice Types in Articles about Singers

Why isn't this something you do? For example, your articles about opera singers (as well as some from the theatre) include voice types (soprano, tenor, etc.), but your articles about contemporary singers don't; Adele, Colbie Callait, and Stevie Nicks could all be listed as contraltos. I understand that it's not always easy to tell, especially without the obvious differences in terms of repertoire that help to keep things delineated in classical music, but there are plenty of contemporary musicians who are very obviously whatever voice type they are; Amy Lee is obviously a mezzo-soprano, for example, just like Adam Levine is obviously a tenor. I know that this isn't so much a question, at this point, but I didn't really know how else to get in contact with anybody about addressing this. Nobody except people like me care, I'm aware, but I still think it'd be a nice way to expand on your artciles (about singers and musicians), and would offer you another tag by which to categorize various entries.

I think you've nailed both reasons:

1) It's not always easy to categorize singers.

2) Most people don't care. I suppose we could categorize singers based on location of moles on their bodies, too, but most people don't care about that, either. StuRat (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

trademark for "the (generic)"

sometimes I see companies whose names are "The (generic)" where Generic is whatever they're selling, though maybe not quite how they've done it. How does that work??? Is it that they're claiming trademark on whatever it is EXACTLY that they're doing, when it is referred to as "the (generic)"? Or what is going on there? Same as calling their company something like "the (generic) company" TM. Really?

not asking for legal advice here, just curious...--188.28.194.120 (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Xerox, Hoover, Biro, and the like? In those cases, the company's name was applied to the item and not the other way round. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry. In your particular examples, it would mean if there were a company called "The Photocopy Company" or made a product call "The Photocopier (TM)" or a company called "The Vacuum Cleaner Company" and made a product called "The Vacuum Cleaner (TM)". I believe in these particular product categories there is no company/product of either name - but in many others there is. How does that work? --188.28.194.120 (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)