[[Special:Contributions/109.247.62.59|109.247.62.59]] ([[User talk:109.247.62.59|talk]]) 10:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/109.247.62.59|109.247.62.59]] ([[User talk:109.247.62.59|talk]]) 10:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
== SPITFIRE PILOTS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR ==
I would like to know if my father in law Mr Leslie Gibson DFM is now the eldest living British spitfire pilot of the 2nd World War - he is now 99 born 13/05/1914.
Could anyone with specific knowledge of these facts please contact me Username marcusfaye ASAP.
== SPITFIRE PILOTS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR ==
== SPITFIRE PILOTS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR ==
Revision as of 16:34, 30 July 2013
Welcome to the humanities section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
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.
According to an except from The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, alcohol (I assume only ethyl alcohol), is prohibited for consumption by Muslims in any amount, for any purpose including medical purposes. It then goes on to say that drugs such as cannabis, cocaine and opium are prohibited by the same logic, but doesn't explicitly mention medical purposes. So, do Muslims generally take morphine (an opiate) for pain relief when it would normally be proscribed by a physician? 202.155.85.18 (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect your fourth last word should be prescribed, not proscribed. The meanings are very different, almost opposite in this case. I am moderately close to the medical world, and have never heard of any concern Muslims might have with morphine. HiLo48 (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Darul Ifta, the lead scholars of the world directed by shaikh Bin Baz, has ruled that in cases where there are no other permissable drugs that can be used to relieve pain except for [medications such as morphine], it would be permissible to make use of them when necessary, as long as greater harm does not result from them like being addicted to them. They also ruled that it is not allowed to prescribe them if they advance death, even if a patient suffers profusely without them.[1]. DreadRed (talk) 12:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if these authorities were named by sect, since they do not necessarily speak for one another. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the article on Christian headcovering. I noticed that it says that Western Christian women do not wear veils since the 20th century. The description is short. What is the biblical basis, or whatever reason, for Western Christian women to fail to cover their heads? Sneazy (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just fallen by the wayside. In the 19th century in England, women didn't wear veils but hats were obligatory. I recall my grandmother (born in the 1880s) saying that she was once on a country walk with friends who decided to visit an old village church along the way; she felt compelled to put a handkerchief on her head because she wasn't wearing a hat. I'm sure nobody would have said anything but it just wasn't the done thing. In my Anglican church, only a few elderly ladies wear hats to church now, when in my 1960s childhood, only a few dared to break with tradition. Ladies still often wear hats to weddings in England, and of course, the Queen always wears one to church. Alansplodge (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do have an article on veils. Brides generally still have veils, and sometimes widows will wear hats with veils on formal occasions. It is also the done thing for women to wear veils when meeting the Pope, for instance. But basically I agree with Alansplodge, it's fallen out of fashion these days just as going to church has. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still remember the days when it was the norm for men to wear hats. But it was mandatory to remove one's hat in a church, as to wear it there was considered highly offensive. On the other hand, it was just as offensive for a woman or girl NOT to wear a hat in church, and if they found themselves caught short they'd always resort to a handkerchief. I never could quite work that sex-based distinction out. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]20:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although you and I are old enough to remember that it was very rude for a man or boy to wear a hat inside anybody's house, let alone God's. Alansplodge (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be that the biblical verse that the Wikipedia article is referencing (some verse in the first letter to the Corinthians) is indicating that women are expected to cover their heads to show reverence to God as one would wear a kippa or a hijab or a wimple? Sneazy (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contrast the above Christian practice -- women cover their heads, men don't -- with Judiasm: men cover their heads; women don't. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
when did people realize the benefits to "arts and sciences" of granting a monopoly on inventions?
I find the existence of some of patent law to actually be a good spur for investing R&D with no sure chance that anything useful will develop. But, it seems to me quite counter-intuitive that the state of the art is advanced by the ability of people to stop others from practicing certain things, which on its face would seem to imply the opposite. (Note, I'm not talking about frivolous patents, but practical patents by practicing entities on what they've spent a lot of time and effort, with uncertain prospects, to develop.)
My quesiton is - historically, where did the connection come up? Why were patents authorized by the constitution? Who or what theory came up with the idea that you should give people the right to ask for a monopoly on an invention?
I'm very interested in the history of this philosophy. specifically, how and where the public good/benefit was connected in lawmakers' minds with the counterintuitive mechanism of allowing people to prohibit others from practicing something. It's a strange way to encourage innovation!
I'm not an idiot. I started by searching Google for "history of patents" and got to that Wikipedia article, which prompted my question. My question is far, far more specific. As in, when (at what time) and how was a link established between public good/science benefit, and Patents. Specifically this is very different from 1) "author's rights" (!!!). Our articles say that France, for example, considered it inventors' rights. Similar language is used in the United States part of the history. But look at another online article "On April 10, 1790, President George Washington signed the bill which laid the foundations of the modern American patent system. The U.S. patent system was unique; for the first time in history the intrinsic right of an inventor to profit from his invention is recognized by law. Previously, privileges granted to an inventor were dependent upon the prerogative of a monarch or upon a special act of a legislature.
"Congress shall have the power...to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." - "
How do you get from 'intrinsic right of an inventor' to - 'promote the progress of science and useful arts'? MOre specifically, when did people/economists/philosophers/lawyers/the general public/whoever, come to make that connection?
You see, my question is far more specific. I'm not asking about 'other' reasons such as natural inventors' rights. I'm asking about the connection with advancing science. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. (That article doesn't include the word 'patent'). The other article mentions more reasons - for example, the person might have and make the invention either way (not an incentive issue) but a patent lets it get to market whereas otherwise neither the inventor nor anyone else can make it. (No money for the inventor, nobody else bothers either.) But this is quite a nuanced economic analysis! Which is why it's so surprising to me that people, philosophically, would have equated patents with the 'public good' (incentive to innovate) in the eighteenth century, as opposed to (philosophically) considering it simply a moral / author's right issue. So, where/when was that link made? We will need some kind of philosophical/history references here. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While not on the topic of inventions, consider the following: "Lichtenstein's paintings and prints are a prime example of why copyright laws should be loosened, for if they had been enforced properly we would have no Lichtensteins. How many other brilliant artists have had their creativity nipped in the bud when, lacking Lichtenstein's good luck, they were sued by the corporate copyright death squads. We all pay the price for increasingly strict and long term copyright protection in this country. While fewer and fewer companies control more and more of the media, the legitimate sources for our artists' inspiration becomes a shrinking minefield few will dare to enter. Fewer still will escape unscathed. Add then to the many layers of complexity in Lichtenstein's work the layer of law; its power to protect, its power to prohibit, its power to destroy."[2]Bus stop (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs, I'm glad I pressed you as that second article and your mention of the timeline is very good. I particularly like the sentence "To capitalise upon these advances, it took a class of entrepreneurs, of which the most famous is Richard Arkwright. He is credited with a list of inventions, but these were actually developed by people such as Thomas Highs and John Kay; Arkwright nurtured the inventors, patented the ideas, financed the initiatives, and protected the machines."
It seems quite easy to imagine that the public saw these advances quite blatantly. It's circumstantial, to be sure, but it makes sense. On the other hand, you and I could both be coming to the wrong conclusion, since we are guessing without being social historians. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The logic of patent law is similar to the logic of copyright law in that they are legal means to prevent other people than the ones you specifically authorise to exploit an idea to which you lay claim. In the 19th century only US citizens could register copyright on books and plays in the US. Two consequencies in the US were A) books by foreign authors could be sold cheaper than US authors because only the latter got royalties, and B) the British comic opera composers Gilbert and Sullivan were understandably miffed when their first international hit H.M.S. Pinafore (1878) was performed in the US by unauthorised theaters that paid them no royalty. Thereafter G&S were careful when they knew they had a new "hit" opera such as The Pirates of Penzance to organize a first copyright-establishing performance in an obscure theater in Paignton, Devon, out of sight of "piratical" agents for US theaters. American book publishers became more interested in the US joining international copyright agreements as soon as the US produced authors' works with export potential such as Mark Twain and Walt Whitman. A patent on an invention is comparable to the film rights on a book in that one can sell and resell them quickly with profit while keeping the future exploitation attractive to investors. DreadRed (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, I personally view them similarly at all in the sense that a patent is far bigger/broader than just one embodiment. A patent isn't the complete device in its current form - it's not like copyright in this sense at all. A patent is something that restricts people from making another device on the same prinicple in the same way off of the patented device, regardless of the exact parts used or how it would look - more like a function. (Whereas I can make a ripoff of a hollywood story's key 'mechanism' just set somewhere else with different people etc.) So given how it's not something that seems similar at all on an intuitive level, are you sure you're relating the field of patents to copyrights in the way people actually viewed them in the nineteenth century? I feel like I'm missing something, because I just don't see how people came to identify inventors with the same sense of 'ownership' as authors. How did htis happen, exactly? I'm not saying it didn't, I would just like to know more about it. Is it due to advertising at that time or something? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patent lawyers (who are the only people sure to earn from patents) try hard to make the scope of patent applications as broad as possible, knowing that an invention's commercial success will be eroded by competitors aiming to sell substitutes. An obvious example is the pharmaceutical industry that invests billion$ on finding chemical formulations that do the same as leading drugs, and this is evidenced by the multiplicity of names under which Generic drugs are sold. (Please don't make a formulaic ripoff film because they usually show Hollywood at its worst, as in the ignominious Mockbuster category.) I mentioned 19th century US because there we see the forces at work that would bring the country into international conformity regarding both copyrights and invention rights. Both so-called "rights" are creatures of regulated Capitalism, the economic system in which these assets are privately owned and items are brought to market for profit. Converting a book, play or invention into a tradeable asset is usually done to cut the author/inventor out of the capitalist's risk assessment. Authors who self-publish and inventors who self-finance do exist but these days they are rare. I offer the cynical views 1) that patent law that is ostensibly made to support inventors really exists only to keep foreign industrial competitors at bay, and 2) that the attraction of a marketable author name may be disconnected from whomever a publisher actually employed to type the words (literally so if it is a Pseudonym). Copyright is not necessarily attribution-right, and conformist society looks askance at its inventive members that occasionally rock the boat. DreadRed (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contracts are voluntarily entered into, Patents are enforced on you regardless of your signed consent. And lawlessness (lack of a legal framework) is called anarchy, not capitalism. I would like to hear what DreadRed means by regulated capitalism. I suppose it's possible he just means capitalism, but that makes it unclear why pure capitalism is called laissez-faire. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(PS, History of patent law is one of the articles I alluded to in my first response, which drew the response the OP was not an idiot. μηδείς (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Oh, yes, you did Medeis, sorry. In response to the OP, I would look to arguments made by the French encyclopedists against the ancien regime's granting of monopolies as patronage. Here's Condorcet arguing against patents on principle. [3] The Americans were well aware of this view. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I used an expression "regulated Capitalism" wherein the second word is a wikilink to an explanatory article. Medeis, does this help explain? I am referring to the kind of Mixed economy that characterizes most developed countries, where profit-seeking enterprises and the accumulation of capital drive economic activity and the government keeps regulatory oversight. Unfortunately when I hear my expression represented as an oxymoron Είναι οξύμωρο σχήμα "peaceful warfare" or an irresponsible system of Laissez-faire Νεοφιλελεύθερης, I think someone is using strawman rhetoric to distract the thread. Discussing purity of capitalism may be relevant to a present national difficulty but I do not see it has any useful relevance to the OP's question. Neither do I see why one user of English Wikipedia needs readers to read the alphabet of the Byzantine Empire. DreadRed (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Had you used "mixed economy" from the start I would have understood, but you didn't seem to be saying that in my mind. Seeing that the word for laissez-faire is Νεο-φιλ-ελεύθερης ("new love of freedom" I assume) makes me think there's a difference of outlook that lead to my misunderstanding. The Greek links are cool, but I only read only Ancient Greek with a dictionary at my side. μηδείς (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be late to the party, and sorry to the OP about the tension here. No use, that. Here's another resource that suggests patents began to be used around the year 1420.[5] -- ke4roh (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I add to the answers that the work of the Patent examiner ensures that a legible, reviewed and objective explanation of an invention is issued to the public. This is valuable unrestricted reference material for others working to further the art/science concerned. Review criteria include consensus among UK, US and European patent examiners to dismiss patent applications for perpetual motion machines. DreadRed (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They needed two DNA samples: one from the Habsburg family, i.e. Salvator's parents, and one from the claimant. The Habsburg family usually does not grant permission to take samples [6], but in a similar case a sample disproved a relation [7]. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Issue with conflicting wikipedia entries, not sure where to report this:
I'm not quite sure about the history, but in general there is no conflict between the two. In fact, it's quite often that founders or founding members are elected to important positions in organisations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without any knowledge of the subject, in general being both a founder and a secretary is an example of Logical possibility as opposed to the Mutually exclusive events that you have assumed they were. :-)
Yes; for this sort of organisation it seems quite plausible that he was the driving force behind organising it, and was promptly elected its secretary once it actually met. I don't think there's an automatic discrepancy here. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
July 26
British monarchy
Could the British monarchy survive in/migrate to one of the Commonwealth nations if it was abolished in the UK but support for its existence continues in the Commonwealth?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so, but cannot point you in the direction of any sources. This has arisen during republican discussions in Australia. When it's been pointed out to monarchists that there is a movement to abolish the monarchy in the UK, some respond that we can still have a monarch even if the UK doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it wasn't any longer a "ruling" family it could still be a Government in exile which has many precedents throughout the world and royalty. As far as ruling it would really matter what any "host" nation's people chose at that time. Simplifying it to "ruling" per se, the U.S. of 1960 voted down Richard Nixon but the U.S. of 1972 wanted him in a landslide. So is it possible, everything is possible given enough time. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way06:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the UK abolishes monarchy, the monarchy will (without more) automatically survive in each of the other 15 Commonwealth realms as a necessary implication of the separate but shared monarchy system estabilshed under the Statute of Westminster and other specific legislation applying to individual realms.
The formerly imperial law governing the succession of the throne has been adopted (and repatriated) into the individual laws of each Commonwealth realm, so the abolition of the Act of Settlement (say) in the UK will not affect the continued validity of that law in each of the realms.
This position is the one adopted by the UK and some of the "larger" realms such as Canada and Australia, and that is why the Commonwealth realms collectively decided that the Perth Agreement to change the succession to the various Crowns needed to be implemented individually by each realm.
However the actual course of implementation of the Agreement has shown that it is not universally accepted in all of the Commonwealth realms. In this case, many of the smaller realms have decided that any amendment to the laws governing the succession in the UK will automatically extend to change the laws governing succession in those realms.
I find this position difficult to reconcile with the modern regime and suspect some confusion on the part of those realms as to their own constitutional status, but only they have the right to decide that.
So, in summary, if the UK abolishes the monarchy, the monarch will probably continue as Queen or King of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc, but perhaps not all of the other 15 realms because some of them will probably decide that the changes to the UK law of succession automatically extended to change their own laws. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As described in Commonwealth realm, each of those countries has the Queen as monarch, entirely separately. Therefore she or her successor would still be head of state there, even if the monarchy was abolished in the UK. MarketDiamond's answer is, if I may say so, irrelevant, as the monarch does not "rule" in any real sense in any of the realms, and is not considered a government. Rojomoke (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the countries, or whoever is at power at the time, wants to, then sure. King/queen is just someone who is considered to be king/queen. Another different question would be whether this is probable. Although if I remember correctly Portugal/Brazil had a similar situation, where the emperor was in Brazil but couldn't reign in Portugal. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Transfer of the Portuguese Court to Brazil; they stayed thirteen years. A similar policy was considered in World War II should the UK be invaded; it was anticipated that the monarch would be sent to Canada and a government in exile formed around them. (This is not the same as abolition in law, of course!) Andrew Gray (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inheritance of courtesy titles in absolute primogeniture monarchies
In the event that Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland (ignoring any influence her husband's choice to remain a non-royal may have) were to have a child and her brother also had a child? Would they both be accorded the title prince/princess of Sweden as the grandchildren of the reigning Swedish monarch or does the title only pass to male-line grandchildren and that absolute primogeniture only applies to succession rights not titles? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be rather hypocritical of them to accord the princely title to the children of the monarch's sons and not to the children of the monarch's daughters. It would also be very hypocritical to accord the title of queen to the wives of kings but only the title of prince to the husbands of queens; the rationale behind being that the title of queen is lesser than the title of king (and how equality-sensitive is that?). Surtsicna (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy titles are not normally inherited, as fas as I know. I am less certain whether Princess Madeleine's title of Princess is a courtesy title; I would think it's hers by birthright. As for the absolute versus male-preference primogeniture, Swedish Act of Succession (and the Swedish wikipedia version) makes clear the rule applies only to succession to the Swedish throne, not to all titles in general. Sorry my Swedish is not good enough to find what rules apply title of nobility in general. Swedish nobility says only Historically all members of a noble family were generally titled. If the family was of the rank of a Count or a Baron, all members received that title as well. However, following the new Instrument of Government from 1809, a change was made more in line with the British system so that, for later nobility, only the head of the family would be part of hold the title (if there is one).184.147.137.9 (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Duke/Dutchess titles of the Swedish royal children and grandchildren are courtesy titles. The Prince/Princess titles are more unclear. When Princess Estelle was born, the court released the following statement: [8]. To me the key thing is that it doesn't state that she's been named princess, but rather assumes that she already is, and announces her names and duchy. Using history as a reference, we can look at e.g. Count Sigvard Bernadotte of Wisborg and Prince Lennart, Duke of Småland, a second son of a king and a grandson by a second son. Despite that, they both had princely titles from birth, but lost them through marrying commoners. I'm having trouble finding examples of anyone more than two generations away, since they all seem to lose their titles by action rather than not inheriting them. (What I'm getting at is that it seems that princely titles are inherited by all sons, not only through primogeniture. That's not an answer to the question about daughters, but it indicates that it isn't a strict "one title-holder only" system.)/Coffeeshivers (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orientation of I Jing hexagrams
Hexagram 10 (about treading on a tiger) has only the third line from the bottom broken: [9] Judging from the accompanying symbol and description on that site, one counts from the bottom up. This history of Chinese literature has the same passage, but a symbol which indicates counting from the top down. Question: is one of these a misprint? HenryFlower13:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spaniards and Italians - how did they come to look as they do ?
Hey, I'm having some questions about Europeans and some ethnicities in Europe, historically.
To be more specific, I have questions about Italians and Spaniards and how they came to have darker skin/hair colour than most other europeans.
I would say that Italians are only slightly darker than those further north and they usually have dark hair, but this is not always true however.
I would also say that Spaniards are distinctly darker than Europeans further north.
Let's take Spain first:
So is the reason for this simply that the dark-skinned Moors invaded the Iberian peninsula from the south and the Visigoths came from the north, and over many centuries they would "mingle" and spread across the peninsula, with the result of Moorish/Visigothic union being offspring darker than pureblood Visigoth but lighter than pureblood Moors? Or does the skin colour of spaniards/latinos simply come from the fact that they live in a warmer climate, meaning that people on the Iberian peninsula have always been olive-skinned?
To be honest I'm not even sure if Visgoths and Moors were ever on friendly enough terms to have offspring together... Obviously there was a big difference in religion and I know that there was a Visigoth nobleman that has been credited with initiating the Reconquista of the Iberian Peninsula in the early 700's, in the meaning to drive Moors/muslims out.
I have more or less the same question about Italians; The country's proximity to northern Africa and the Mediterranean probably means that there have been much mixture of races in Italy, I should think. Italian, Carthaginians, Tunisians, Greeks and possibly even Egyptians and so on. Directly to the east of Italia there's also Albania, Bosnia and so on, who also tend to be darker in skin and hair colour, and who in turn is close to Turkey etc.
So to sum it up with a simpler and shorter question, does the skin colour of Spaniards and Italians come only from the climate they live in, meaning they have always looked as they do today (generally speaking of course), or is it much more due to a mix of cultures as I have rambled about above?
"To be honest I'm not even sure if Visgoths and Moors were ever on friendly enough terms to have offspring together..." Many of the Moors in Spain had offspring with Slavic women who had been imported for that purpose, surely there is an article for that but I forget what the name for them was. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule, wherever men and women come together, they have sex, and wherever they have sex, they have babies. I'm not aware of any place where racial taboos or national or tribal vanities have stopped that completely. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are both historical glitches, but still, I bet there was plenty of "shaking" going on in both cases. And, more to the point, both communities shed members left and right, so genetically they did intermingle with other groups. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to Human skin color it is a matter of climate. Map of human skin color distribution in the world for native populations in 1940 based on Von Luschan's chromatic scale. This map is for indigenous populations not counting emigrants; note the line separating Spain, Italy and Southern Europe from areas farther north. 184.147.137.9 (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm.. It says in the human skin colour article that skin colours tends to even out and become what the climate around them makes it, meaning that if the entire population of Spain moved to Scandinavia, they would all likely look like a scandinavian within 2,500 years (Provided that Spaniards or other at least relatively dark-skinned people didn't keep mixing with the Spanish-Scandinavians). But I guess that is over a much, much longer time-period than I had in mind, and besides, with mixing of cultures happening pretty much everywhere quite constantly it will probably always be a question of in how big a a degree..
I appreciate your answers and links, and I guess I've gotten a partial answer at least. I should still think that the mixing of two peoples, like Visigoths and Moors would result in their offspring and the offspring of those again and so on would have a big impact over quite some time, even if it would even out according to the climate eventually
There are two main evolutionary drivers to skin color changes: vitamin AD deficiency and UV protection. In modern society, the former is largely provided by nutrition and supplements, and the latter by sunscreen and clothing. Thus, evolutionary pressure on skin coloration is less than it was in the past (compare Inuit, whose diet contains plenty of vitamin AD in the form of fish oil and liver, and who maintained a relatively dark skin tone even in the arctic). Also, speaking as someone who turns pasty white in winter and dark brown in summer, don't ignore the direct influence of the environment. Most Spaniards and Italians probably get a lot more sunshine over the year than Swedes, so even if they had the same skin type, you would experience them, on average, as darker. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if UV protection was indeed a factor that caused humans to get darker skin tones during evolution. White people, as you, have some protection in the form of tanning. If you were constantly exposed to the sun, you'll tan to a pretty dark tone and keep it all year long. Is any evidence available that humans got darker somewhere? I find it plausible that they were pretty dark at the beginning of times and got lighter due to the vitamin A D deficiencies that you cite. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sort of a nitpick but on the other hand kind of important, it's vitamin D, not vitamin A. Vitamin A (in retinol form rather than carotenoid form) comes from many of the same sources as vitamin D, both being fat-soluble vitamins, but there is no connection between vitamin A and sunlight. --Trovatore (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably not the case that the genetic background of Spaniards and Italians comes mainly from peoples who have migrated into Spain and Italy during historic times. Most studies of genetic material preserved since prehistoric times show that the genetic composition of European populations has undergone surprisingly little change over thousands of years. Especially in areas with relatively large populations at the dawn of history, such as Spain and Italy, invaders such as Visigoths or Moors would have accounted for a small percentage of the population, and their genetic impact would have been limited. It is much more likely that skin coloring in Italy and Spain is the result of the evolution over thousands of years of populations whose ancestors arrived in paleolithic or early neolithic times. Innate skin color (as opposed to tanning) seems to be mainly a response to the intensity of solar radiation over dozens of generations. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not dispute the relationship innate skin color <-> solar radiation. But in which direction did it happen? Were primitive humans kind of black - and got lighter when adapting to regions with less sun? Or were primitive humans not that dark, but got darker when colonizing Africa and got lighter when colonizing higher latitudes? OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting into territory where there are conflicting beliefs in existence today wrt the answers to these questions, so don't be surprised if you get conflicting answers. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, chimps have mostly light skin (under dark hair). Human (well, hominids ;-) evolved darker skin when they lost body hair. Skin tone got lighter when they moved out of tropical Africa. I once read a paper that claimed that human skin colour is a very adaptive trait, and changes comparatively easily. I wouldn't be surprised if Australian or southern Indian skin coloration has re-revolved from lighter-skinned ancestors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are blacks in South Africa then less black that say Nigeria?
There should be more discussion of the role of trade in the ancient Mediterranean and the fact that most of the shore of the Mediterranean, north and south, was part of the Roman Empire. As I understand it, groups like the Phoenicians scarcely seemed to care which shore they landed on. I think focusing on invasions may be a red herring - the real point is that the Mediterranean was as much a highway as a barrier. Wnt (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but Wikipedia still wouldn't go from "...who has declared (something)" to "...who is (something)" even if the latter follows by definition from the former. Wikipedia has to go through sources. It's an interesting question if something is completely common knowledge, can Wikipedia then make that jump?
For example, can Hitler be called a mass-murderer or at least antisemitic? In fact, Hitler is not identified as a 'mass-murderer' (adjective) or even antisemite. The lede lists far more neutral terms, and the intro ends with "His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews, and millions of other people [he] deemed racially inferior." It does not make the jump of calling even Hitler an adjective (any adjective). 178.48.114.143 (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is as it should be. We can all agree about the enormity of his deeds, but I'm sure there are people who would describe Hitler personally as merely "misguided", "well-intentioned" or whatever, rather than "evil". They're entitled to their opinions, and all opinions are subjective. It's enough to record his monstrous deeds, which are factual and indisputable (despite the David Irvings of the world). -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]01:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs, stop making conclusions that reflect personal opinion, opinions don't belong in articles. Johnny Rebel admitted that his songs are racist, but denied that he is one. Even if Trahan is one, labelling him "personally" as one doesn't belong. Would it be better to say Bilbo held racist beliefs because it is simply stating beliefs that others are inferior, not labelling him as a personal attack? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the wisdom of BB's words, you are at the wrong place. If you have problems with an article, please take it to the article's talk page and use some other form of WP: dispute resolution if need be and don't try to argue article content on the RD. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Theodore Bilbo took things so far that even many of the other racists/segregationists of the era considered him to be a loud-mouthed buffoon... AnonMoos (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Religious name has shed no light on my enquiry. When nuns take a religious name, they have access to the full gamut of saints' names, both female and male. Nuns with male religious names personally known to me in a previous life included Sister Benedict, Sister Anselm and Sister John.
However, I've never heard of a monk or brother taking a female religious name, and they seem restricted to male names. What's the reason for this?
As for the latter - his birth name (as a Jew) was Aaron; Jean-Marie was his baptismal name as a convert. I don't know its source, whether he chose it himself or it was bestowed upon him. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah! I meant to say he didn't change his name when he became a bishop, but you're right - so it is a religious name, in a way. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voltaire was born François-Marie Arouet. Using Marie as the second name in a double-barreled given name is common in French; there are many XXXX-Marie names common among French names. Also don't forget that many names which are today considered common female names in Anglophone culture (Tracy, Stacy, Shannon, Terry, Skyler, Courtney, etc. ) used to be exclusively male given names in prior generations, so it works the other way too. --Jayron3213:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are also several historical French men named Anne, such as Anne de Montmorency (his French Wikipedia explains he was named after Anne of Brittany, and that Anne was both a male and female name at the time). Dominique is also spelled the same for both men and women in French. Still, none of these are exactly what the OP was asking about...I can't think of any male religious who took a female name. It's possible that someone took a male form of a female name to honour a female saint but I can't think of any examples of that either. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The perennial multilingual variants on "Maria" honor not a human namesake but the veritable Mary (mother of Jesus). Other than several unisex names noted by User:Adam Bishop, and User:Jayron32 suggested reciprocity for which no examples are forthcoming – I offer a tenet of unreconstructed feminism in Western culture: an intrinsically or characteristically female attribute is associated with inferior status when attributed to a male, or certainly not without risk to his masculinity. Among these, given name ranks with choice of vocation, clothing and hairstyles, etc. The reverse not being true is due to the socioeconomically superior status of predominantly male characteristics and pursuits. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I assume it's something along those lines, Deb. In certain contexts it's perfectly OK, even sexy, for a woman to wear male attire. Marlene Dietrich made an art form of it. But a man wearing female gear, in public - nooo, that's too weird, and implies all sorts of deviances that are best kept private. Apart from the uni-sex names mentioned, women sometimes take strictly male names (Michael Learned and Lionel Shriver spring to mind). Even our own dear Governor-General, Ms Quentin Bryce, has a given name that I've only otherwise ever seen given to boys. But boys named Sue are destined for a life of ridicule. So I assume the same ethos has taken root in religious communities, which would sit well with the traditional male dominance of Christianity. But I'd like to see some academic discussion of this issue, if anyone can track something down. Thanks for your contributions so far. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]20:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small note that all the Marias are indeed named after a human namesake, as I am unaware of any religion that considers Mary the Mother of Jesus to be anything other than human. 31.54.195.135 (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. All the saints after whom people are named were humans, except perhaps angels like Michael, Gabriel etc. Jesus also figures as a given name in Hispanic culture, but although he wasn't a saint per se, the Jesus part of his existence was the human part. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]18:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kant said that people were ends in themselves. But I am sure I came across a philosopher or school of thought that said that the only things that were ends in themselves were people. Does anyone know who or what says this? IBE (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be thinking of Simone de Beauvoir. The book Ethics of Ambiguity lays her theory out; which really is very similar to Kant's, except that (because her metaphysics is that of Sartre), the conscious act of affirming human freedom becomes the overriding concern for the moral actor. She also has a novel, The Blood of Others, where the whole story is just to drive that theory home: Acting in such a way that fully respects people's freedom is how to act morally.
So yeah, I'm guessing that's what you might be thinking. To correct any misconception, I should clarify terms here. No philosopher is going to say exactly that people are the only things that are ends of themselves. Just think about it: "ends" are the objectives of the will, and an "end in itself" is some final objective which is not instrumental toward another objective which is also envisioned by that will. But people will all sorts of weird and not-so-weird things all the time: People turn on a television programme and watch it just to "have fun" and nothing else, no further thought required. Well, that's a counterexample right there.
So, no, no philosopher strictly has said that people are the only things that are ends in themselves. Now, if you more precisely ask about philosophers saying that treating people as ends in themselves is the only moral thing to do, then maybe a more interesting answer can be given. Kant of course says that, when acting towards other people, one must treat those people as ends in themselves, in order to be moral. However, that is not to say that one cannot have other ends in themselves in mind and yet still be moral. So, for example, according to Kant, you could choose to read a book just because you are curious and want to find out what the book communicates. As long you have a fair, meeting of the minds with the person from whom you get the book, and you do not renege on any prior promises or responsibilities while you read the book, then you can be perfectly moral in reading a book just to sate your curiosity with no further thought to the matter. However, according to Beauvoir, this would not be enough for the existential human to be moral. For her, you should really sincerely deal with and suffer over the question of how your one action here fits with all your other actions and how these in their totality affirm freedom in general and thus treat people as ends in themselves.
So that's why I think you might be thinking of Beauvoir: For her, treating people as ends in themselves doesn't seem to be a requirement for moral action only when dealing explicitly with other people, a requirement which can be met by rote rule-following, as it is for Kant. Rather it is something which must be consciously, sincerely, gravely, even painfully affirmed throughout one's life, no matter what one chooses to do. It has a position of utmost elevation in Beauvoir's ethics. --Atethnekos(Discussion, Contributions)08:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quality answer. I probably wasn't thinking of de Beauvoir, because I hardly know anything about her, and have read about a page of her work. Well written, but the last French philosopher I care about is Cournot. By an "end", I do mean as a fact of morality, or perhaps we might say, ethics. I don't fully get your example of the book lending, but the vibe I get is that Kant has a more negative philosophy, in the sense that you only have to avoid immorality, and then you are ok to enjoy your book. De Beauvoir seems to be saying (according to your report) that you have to think in positive terms, and make good stuff happen all the time, and add to the total morality of the situation, conceived in existentialist terms. I would intrude here and say that you can include yourself as an end, and to heck with all the drama about what your actions are about and so on, because thinking about it will drive you mad, so let ethics committees go on about that sort of thing, and save yourself the time. So from my point of view, Kant and de Beauvoir are about the same, with the exception that de Beauvoir seems to want everyone to be neurotic as well. Just my take. By "ends-in-themselves", I really mean in the following much simpler sense. People matter, and people's needs matter. That makes them ends in themselves. Suppose for argument's sake we all agree on that. Some people might say that justice is also an end in itself, so punishing baddies is a good thing, far beyond any practical benefits it might have. This is the position I adopt in a book I'm working on, and I want to contrast it with the viewpoint that you/I are almost attributing to Kant and/or de Beauvoir. But I don't want a straw man, so in a break with tradition, I need to put a genuine reference in my book. IBE (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the negative vs. positive is very helpful for Kant vs. Beauvoir. In the one example I gave, I can see how it seems like it, though. It's more about rule-following vs. having "authentic" moral/emotional concern, where "authentic" has that existentialist meaning.
Well then, let's just ignore Kant for this issue. Are you talking specifically with regards to punishment? The idea that punishment has no positive value except insofar as it helps people goes all the way back to Plato (Protagoras 324b–c, and in other dialogues), but many philosophers would have that position (Bentham would be a clear example, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, chapter 13). --Atethnekos(Discussion, Contributions)03:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks - quality feedback, exactly what I was after. So I have a fair bit of reading to do, but you have given me the next port of call. Also, if you know of something I can read that gives a summary of this "authentic" concern of de Beauvoir, I would be very interested. I have to limit my reading of books to those that have come up on my radar in some fairly prominent way, and I would prefer to read de Beauvoir's fiction to her philosophy, unless something piques me in a deeper way. IBE (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw the film Knowing, I had a very strong sense that I'd come across the plot before in a Heinlein story, which I eventually identified as The Year of the Jackpot. A Google search came up with one guy who made the same connection, but I think you could get that for many random combinations. Anyone have any suggestions for how to figure out whether the filmmakers were influenced by the story? --Trovatore (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has their been a premodern culture where affluence and wealth is marked by a diet that is marked by consumption of more vegetables where non-meat are for the rich and meat is a common food the majority of the population can consume (excluding priesthoods with religious obligations to not eat meat)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When a part of a particular industry which previously is perform by humans is now performed by machines or computers, is the process of replacing humans called dehumanizing? 72.37.242.3 (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes on your first question, at least I find. And I don't know about the second, as far as dictionaries go, but that's a great word for it and I'll use it regardless. Thanks! InedibleHulk(talk)06:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I would read that as meaning that automation removes skills and job satisfaction from the humans in a process, rather than actually removing the humans. Alansplodge (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen a picture from a Rihanna concert showing her on stage and in 'live' images on screens behind the stage. Slight differences between her body position on stage and in screens indicate the screen images are delayed by a fraction of a second.
Is this delay normal to all video technology? Or just characteristic of concert technology? Does it happen in the camera, or on the screen device, or in between? (I assume the feed was not transmitted anywhere very far away.) Hayttom09:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) [reply]
ACH! Suddenly I'm suspecting the screens are showing a pre-recorded video, in which case the chorographic synchronization is actually pretty impressive. I should have noticed the background doesn't match. Anyway, I'll leave my question to see what people comment about expected video delays. Hayttom10:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) [reply]
Video is delayed when it is processed by any kind of Television standards conversion equipment, which may be involved if the stage displays do not match the video cameras in resolution (pixels) or framerate. I don't know the specifics of the Rihanna concert video but the linked article describes possibilities. One set of cameras probably provides video feeds for the stage displays, ordinary NTSC/PAL broadcasts, Internet videos and saleable high-definition discs, all requiring different video standards. Glancing at Rihanna's 2013 concert on YouTube (it's over an hour) I find a scene at 0:23:39 where both the singer and the screen are in view. I agree there is a perceptible time lag. DreadRed (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the settlement was founded by Greeks during the formation of the Empire of Alexander the Great, and was part of a Greek-ruled territory for a considerable time (see Bactria and Indo-Greeks for the history of Greeks in South Asia). The modern name of the settlement is, according to the Wikipedia article about Ai-Khanoum, from the Uzbek language (a language related to Turkish), but that the modern name is Uzbek does not in any way contradict that the settlement was founded by Greeks. --Jayron3219:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's more than one possible context for this. First, it's standard in academic papers, when referring to the work of other academics.
It's also used in the military when addressing subordinates, and between young males as a sort of tough-guy posturing. Probably there are other uses. --Trovatore (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a discussion board. We don't just discuss things. If you would like answers to specific questions, we can provide those. And if your question is if people are simply referred to by their last names in the US, then the answer is yes. The circumstances of someone being referred to by their last name changes depending on the familiarity of the people involved and the setting that it's done in. Is there anything more specific that you'd like to know? If so, please provide more specific questions. Dismas|(talk)19:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think Trovatore has mostly answered me. So, outside of papers/acaemia and the military / or douchey posturing, it's really not standard? (i.e. in a normal professional setting)? For example if you're some manager you wouldn't call a different manager by their last name? (without mr/mrs). that sort of thing. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's spelt "douchy", and yes, it is used in business, especially between and to equally ranking and subordinate males. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of different uses of last-name-only. In newspapers, the first mention of someone usually gives their name, then subsequent references will typically be last name only, unless there would be some ambiguity, i.e. two or more article subjects with the same surname. For example, "In his first at-bat today, Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter struck out. In the third inning, Jeter hit a run-scoring double." This is a long-standing practice in journalism, and is pretty much the standard Wikipedia follows also. In oral communication in business, I've observed that people will sometimes use just the last names, for any number of reasons. Oddly enough, it's sometimes said with affection and familiarity, and other timed with derision (not to their face, of course). Also, when referencing a list of names, under many kinds of circumstances. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very rude to refer to your female manager by her surname alone. Note that "Ms" is often used in American business settings; Miss or Mrs only if you know that she prefers that title. In a business context even between males it indicates familiarity. If you are a learner of English as an additional language, don't do it. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When did separate toilets for blacks and whites end in South Africa?
When it comes down to segregation, I wonder why people got so fixated in separate toilets (and separate water fountains). Isn't a segregated education or health care more important? OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it to the historians to determine if this is a real reason, but I should note that cholera epidemics have occurred in the region as recently as 2009 (see Cholera outbreaks and pandemics) and for obvious reasons toilet hygiene is indeed required to avoid its spread.[11] It is easy to see why whites who believe themselves unlikely to be infected because they have good access to clean water might want to avoid using the same toilet or water source as people who might be emitting huge amounts of these lethal bacteria. However, I have no idea if that played a role in this history. Wnt (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a segregated education is more important, different ethnicities excel with different learning styles. Using a one-fits all approach, results in those who fall by the wayside as incompetent or of inferior mentality, when their only impairment is that they are incompatible with the particular learning style. For instance, if I remember correctly, those of aboriginal ancestry, generally have a poor 3-dimensional visualization, but excel in art. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Big [citation needed] here - if there is any proven cognitive difference between races it will come as news to me. I haven't even heard of proof of differences for the stuff that seems kind of hardwired and prone to genetic variation, like facial recognition and sense of direction. Of course, I recognize that differences in upbringing could lead to different levels of skill in two- versus three-dimensional visualization. (I find it hard to believe that Bushmen would be worse at 3D problem solving per se, but I can imagine they might be unfamiliar with standard conventions about what 3D figure a two-dimensional test question or answer is trying to represent) Wnt (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about genetically isolated populations or recently so, so there are variable degrees of cognitive distinction. It is attributed to the subsistence mode of the isolated population (hunter-gathers vs. agriculturists). The subsistence mode controls which learning style is more effective. Over generations, the cognitive adeptness is skewed to accommodate the specific learning style to the detriment of the other. This has to do with the lateralisation of brain function. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of any proof that cognitive adeptness can be skewed, other than by experience. The observation of general intelligence - that we can't find a tribe of humanity anywhere that is genetically incapable of working mathematics or writing a novel - this is one of the most important mysteries of science, so of course I would be interested if you could back up this claim. (An exception involved the Sl/c-kit pathway which was published at one point to affect direction finding in humans and mice, but I'm finding followup on that to be remarkably scarce - I'm starting to wonder if the result was reproducible) Wnt (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't imply 'incapable', just that it is not a relatively easy task. Sure, I'll find some sources later today. Though, I don't see why it is so objectionable, certainly you're aware of the reason for the evolution of higher cognition in humanity compared to other primates; and you're aware of the naturally occurring lateralization of brain function which I mentioned earlier; it is then not illogical to see how an adequate evolutionary pressure can select for one particular lateralization in a genetically isolated population. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1989. The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, Act No 49 of 1953 that enforced segregation of all public facilities was scrapped by President F.W. de Klerk on November 16, 1989, a few months before the unbanning of political parties in 1990 and the start of negotiations to end apartheid.[12]. DreadRed (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that reference is a copy of an old version of Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, 1953, which has since been edited to cite the date 20 June 1990 instead, sourced to [13]. However, that source is for a parliamentary vote and I'm not sure what else the bill had to go through before it became actual law. Wnt (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That stuff was called petty apartheid. Not so petty at all when it came to the rules against interracial intimate relationships, or the pass laws. Or indeed the separate facilities if you were black and needed to use those facilities. People really did suffer under these vindictive and unnecessary regulations. Since we're talking about racism, please note that people are not "hard-wired" for anything. The computer I'm working on is hard-wired, but hard-wired to be flexible. People are born with a brain, and the brain is evolved to be flexible to a degree far beyond that of the computer. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
at the bottom of her story "for a lack of a better term" it states that she "Laura did not attend her mother's funeral, and in fact never saw her again after the death of "Pa" (Charles Ingalls)." my question is this a 22 year gap that she never saw her mother, was there a problem between them that kept them from speaking or seeing each other for 22 years? if you can't answer this for me can you please direct me to someone who can I am not a investigator so I don't know the tricks so to speak.
Googling seems to indicate that there's no generally accepted reason why Laura didn't see her mother for so long, but plenty of discussion and speculation - here, for example, based on what is known about the lives of the people involved. It doesn't look like we can give you a definitive answer. - Karenjc19:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this is my very first time using this web site so I feel like im doing this wrong,cause I cant figure out how to send this, I just wanted to say thank you for your response to my question about caroline ingalls,so thanks very muck
Kenneth in alabama — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.57.37 (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is seppuku/hara kiri still common in modern Japan?
The article just gives a few modern examples; I am still confused about this. How common is this among suicide methods?Is this favored by some kind of people e.g yakuzas?--AndiZy (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yukio Mishima was a notable and fairly recent exponent (1970). I suspect what is putting people off is that it's generally not the seppuku that kills you, but a trusty friend who is willing to polish you off once you've started the process. I would imagine that there might be some administrative issues with the authorities afterwards. Alansplodge (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure you mean a safe, or a "vault". There's a tremendous range in how good they are, from $10 boxes you can break open with a hammer, to $2000 safes you can store jewels in and the best safe crackers in the world need 30 minutes or more to get into. It's a big field. Shadowjams (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli municipalities elections
is there a website that shows the result of the previous municipal elections that took place in Israel ? because I want to know which mayors are from Shas party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.153.225 (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though libraries are good suggestions, it may be more useful to call the county's property appraiser's office or the mayor or county councils office since they would be the experts on lands, boundaries and geographic names for the area. A librarian though smart would not really be well versed in some hinterland name or history. In my work I have had to call out of state county appraiser offices (they are government officials/employees) or the county council office and 99% of the time they are delighted to assist because calls about property or geographic locations can sometimes mean many more $$$$s in tax assessment and no appraiser office wants to get a reputation of scaring potential business away, whether your looking to do business with them (buy property, build factories/offices) or not. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way07:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments about county offices made me wonder why I didn't check the Dearborn County GIS website (Indiana's great with GIS), but while that website tells me who owns different pieces of the Indiana side of the island, it didn't say anything. I think I'll try looking more for Flannery Island and look for old histories of Hamilton and Dearborn Counties, and if I can't confirm that, I'll try telephoning the appraisal offices. Thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what more are you looking? Since Oxbow owns the vast majority of the island, and they call it "Flannery Island" and erected a sign on the island saying so as well, that seems like it's pretty much its name. The National Map doesn't have a name for it: [15]; and the USACE navigational charts don't have a name for it [16] (chart 111). If I wanted a second opinion, I would email CSX railroad and ask them if they have a name for the island. For a third opinion, ask Duke Energy who own the neighboring Miami Fort Power Station. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 15:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall this being asked before. I can't remember which desk it was on and I don't have any time to check as my wife just called me to dinner. Dismas|(talk)20:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brasilia was made to be more central but no, very much not the geographic center when you consider the no-mans land of the vast north and west rain forests of Brazil, though it is "centered" with population distribution of the nation. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way07:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was the District of Columbia near the geographic center of the United States when it was chosen as the capital in 1790?Or when Congress first met there in 1800? Edison (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That may may overstate the westward extent of the 1790 US, with lands in Virginia and Georgia which werre not really settled(by US citizens) and which lacked county governments. Here's a Virginia 1790 map which is less Kentucky-ish: [17], Georgia counties 1790. The US government had little focus on areas west of the mountains in 1790. Edison (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily as Roger's Rangers reached a peak of 1,400 member in nine companies. It is easy to expect higher numbers of total members counting replacements and expired enlistments. Rogers probably didn't know most of them. Rmhermen (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on your measure. The average height of an adult human male (in Germany, but probably representative for Western Europe) is around 180cm. Given that the statue is sitting, and that the Detroit version is described as "monumental", I'd say it's about 1.5 times life size. If you go by weight, the bronze probably wins by much more ;-). The 1882 "original original" is only around 70 cm, the larger versions were made in the very early 20th century. Our articles on both the German and the English Wikipedia could be better... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I failed to mention that there are many versions of the statue. all of them are between 0.5-2.0 humans tall, from what I can tell. Mingmingla (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Bantu migrations for something relevant, the Bantu tend to live in thatched circular wooden huts. (I am not sure the implication mud huts are inferior is true--it's more a matter of resources and mobility.)μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dwellings can be built partly of mud and partly of other materials. In Britain, for example, circular huts were made of woven hurdles with a mud covering in the Iron Age. Later, houses were built with an oak timber framework, but the infill was still wattle and daub. In some regions stone was used from an early period, while in the West Country some walls were still built in mud until the 19th century. A lot of variation in a small geographical area - obviously there is much, much more in Africa. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Michel Bertrand
Dear friends,
There is a page regqrding the French painter, Michel Bertrand, on the French Wikipedia, but it is not available on the U.S./English version. I worldwide like to request that there be versions available in all languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.199.59 (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are many dead artists so Wikipedia's criteria for notability must apply to a new article. Michel Bertrand is not among the 165-person "Category:21st-century_French_painters" and I find no secondary sources about, or exhibitions of, his work outside France. DreadRed (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: the Wikipedia _Category:21st-century French painters_ cited above by User:DreadRed is by no means a comprehensive list: it's merely a compilation of pages existing in the English-language Wikipedia to which this category has been added. Compare with the two foreign-language Wikipedias with the same category: the French Wikipedia has 402 pages, the Italian WP has 19. Otherwise, the preceding remarks about notability and translation are relevant. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I really want to know is whether it's worth taking the trouble to do the translation. It's not if someone is only going to delete it. My confusion is that the links provided say nothing about the objection given: that Betrand is notable in France (as opposed to some other country). The criteria don't say he has to notable in any particular place. I'm happy to translate it but not without this reassurance that it's a worthwhile endeavour. In essence, Cuddlyable, you are saying "I might delete it if you translate it" and if that's where things stand, I can't take the risk to do the work. 184.147.137.9 (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incarceration in the United States shows in a chart that from 1980 to 2006, the prison population more than quadrupled, and later in the article it very unsatisfyingly says that crime rates in the US decreased by about 25% from 1988 to 2006, without discussing whether or how the two statistics are related.
There is probably a very good reason the article stops short of making any kind of conclusion about those two independent points. Could we find references that make the argument that there is causality between those two stats? Simple answer is yes. Reading your entire question thou it seems like it could be mixing and matching several different things, I have seen certain studies that have linked the drop in crime to the legalization of abortion in 1973 (thus fewer young adults from broken/poor homes in the 1990s to commit crimes), studies that correlated the drop in crime to the collapse of the rust belt and migration during the 80s & 90s to the sunbelt states that traditionally had stiffer laws, more gun ownership among the citizenry etc. Then there is the fact that the death penalty slowly came back in the late 20th century and thousands of other data points out there. If your looking for references to validate a preconceived conclusion trust us the study has been produced by some special interest/university collaboration. However, if your looking for a complete answer, you have to balance dozens if not hundreds of social, cultural, polticial & generational factors. Your question is very important, it just has had academics, jurists and statesmen/women debating these points for decades and we are not as qualified as they per se. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way07:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, if we imprisoned everybody we would have a very low crime rate, outside prisons. But I'm not sure who we would use for warders. HiLo48 (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Typing "prison population crime rate" into google scholar (here) gave so many hits I didn't know where to start - many look to be on your topic, Jarflix. The last result on the first page (here) looks particularly interesting as it examines multiple factors, as Marketdiamond correctly points out. 184.147.137.9 (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at some of the arguments:
1) "They can't commit crimes while in prison". Well, they can still commit crimes inside the prison, or possibly order crimes outside of prison, or directly commit crimes outside via mail fraud and telephone fraud. However, there are many types of crime which are quite difficult to commit while in prison, like a bank robbery. Also, for some crimes, others may "step up" to commit crimes in their absence. A gang that sells illegal drugs, for instance, may recruit a new member to stand on a corner and sell their drugs, to replace a member who was sent to prison.
2) "The threat of prison will scare off potential criminals". This is possible, but most criminals don't seem to worry much about potential consequences of their actions.
So, I would expect both arguments to be at least partially true, and reduce crime somewhat. Also, conjugal visits seem like a bad idea, since any child conceived in such a way is far more likely to become a criminal. StuRat (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I had a chance to place a bet on a contest between a priest doing exorcisms and a state of the art American prison, I'd put my money on the priest for the lower recidivism rate. Unfortunately, I don't know if the experiment has ever been conducted, which seems a notable omission, but in keeping with the rarity of scientific method in either field. See prison gang, recidivism, etc. Wnt (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peggielene Bartels
Why does Peggielene Bartels herself and many other call her a "king"? Wouldn't it more appropriate to call her a chief or just nana? I mean this just sounds to me like people calling Pocahontas a princess when in fact that is just inaccurate to equate Western titles with non-Western traditional titles. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was it Freud or Jung who reported dreaming of assembling Vienna out of turds?
Needed for a para in a story I'm writing - I remember reading it in one of my father's psychology texts, but not which text - might have been Interpretation of Dreams - but Dad has a lot of Jung lying around too.
Thanks, Dread - it's a beautiful book - I can't find reference in it to any of the synonyms for excrement i can think of though - maybe it was Jung's dream I'm thinking of - but the only poodream of his I can find is the one where a giant lump of dung comes crashing through a cathedral ceiling. Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm British and I have never heard this phrase. It gets no google hits (other than as part of the lyric to a Red Hot Chili Peppers song). Where did you come across it? --Viennese Waltz12:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Made in Britain" is a common label, but I've never heard or seen "written in Britain", though there is no reason why someone shouldn't say it if there was some reason for reporting where a text was written. For books, I don't think anyone bothers to record where they were written, though the information sometimes appears in biographical detail. Dbfirs16:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be as obvious as it seems, because there is no island called Britain. There is an island called Great Britain. There is a country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is sometimes abbreviated to "Britain". -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]19:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I've every heard anyone actually say that, but to my ears it sounds like a little play on words, i.e. "written" rhymes with "Britain". If not on purpose, then the author of that phrase could be said to be "a poet and don't know it". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The IP locates to South Africa so there is a slight chance that there is some usage of the phrase there that we've never heard of. You could say written by Brittain but the way her last name is pronounced doesn't rhyme with written and I am sure that the OP wasn't referring to it. MarnetteD | Talk23:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So how is Vera Brittain's surname pronounced? I've always thought it was an exact homophone of 'Britain', which for me is an exact rhyme of 'written' AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I have a question about the following wikipedia site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Asia#People.27s_Republic_of_China
The age of consent in China just recently changed to 16 on this site. I couldn't find any informations about this incident on the internet on any other page. Even the reference number (superscript 17) refers to a text that says the minimum age is 14 in China (not Hongkong or Macau). Is that information true? Did anything change? Many thanks in advance for any information about this.
Kind regards
A.Alisch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.49.119.124 (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've changed the age back to 14 as it was until recently. I think user:LlywelynII must have mis-read the report. Our facts should agree with the reference given. Dbfirs16:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have noticed a habit of classifying all people with dark skin in the Carribean Islands as descendants of slaves 'transported' from Africa. Does this mean that only dark skinned people that are 'slave descendants' are permitted on these islands? There is no other possible method of these people having landed on the islands other having been "transported" there during the good old days of slavery? Is this sloppy thinking or a sign of some ignorance? Or something more sinister? Surely it couldn't be the latter. That would never happen in these, our age of 'enlightenment.
If the folks who are 'black' are listed as descendants of slaves, shouldn't the whites living on these islands be described as descendants of slave owners? It seems only fair, don't you think. And it would be a much more accurate description of the islands demographics, which i'm sure is wikipedia's primary goal.108.192.134.204 (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The OP has offered no evidence we list blacks as the descendants of slaves. The rhetorical questions about the good old days, Africans not being allowed to move to the islands, sloppy thinking, ignorance, sinister motives, and whther it would be fair, don't we think to call all whites descendants of slave owners are provocative nonsense. If the OP has a request for references he can make it. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sephardic conservative synagogue
Is Sinai Temple in Westwood, California the only synagogue that is both Sephardic and Conservative or non-Orthodox?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.136 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 29 Jul 2013 (UTC)
So, a quick Googling found this, which shows that at the very least, the answers are no, no, maybe and, I suggest, probably. I'd guess that even the maybe probably is a no, but that's speculation on my behalf. --Dweller (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The most powerful person in the world?
I wondered today who the most powerful person in the world was. I thought it must either be the president of the united states, or the pope. The President would be a good candidate due to history of the United States' military power and success. The Pope is a good candidate because even though he is leader of Catholics, I figured that other denominations would still see him as the representative of God. However, this thought seems to be in error, according to the article "Pope".
Curious as to whether the question was asked before, i googled it and came across wikipedia's own article, Forbes Magazine's List of The World's Most Powerful People. According to this, although it IS marked as disputed, President Obama is the most powerful person. I find this rather odd, considering:
People of the world generally seeming to have greater distaste for the United States recently.
Some of Obama's own voters expressing disappointment from various events of his presidency. (Some evidence at Presidency of Barack Obama (2010))
Obama leads a nation of ~316.35 million people, while the pope is an icon for the Christian world, with ~1.18 billion Catholics, and ~2.1 billion Christians overall.
Even if my assumption of general Christian belief in the Pope is wrong, there are still ~1.18 billion Catholics, which dwarfs the number of American citizens.
I realize that i am probably being fairly subjective, with my thoughts about the church, about Obama's popularity over time, and about what makes a person "powerful" (I seem to be going by something like "population affected".) ... However, i question whether the answer to "Who is the most powerful person in the world?" can possibly be objective.
I have two main things to ask:
How lopsided are my assumptions? Is there a reason why Obama should be said to have more power than the pope, disregarding my political opinions of Obama's/The United States' approval? What is it that makes Obama most powerful, and Benedict 5th most powerful (in 2012)?
What about Pope John Paul II (PJP2)? I know that Forbes only started their top people list in 2009, but if there were such a list in 2005, being that PJP2 was loved by so many people around the world, would he be listed as the most powerful? In any year that he was alive?
Again, I feel that i must state what subjectivity is involved here. There are many factors too including statistics, analysis, politics, human perception and values, etc. I'm just trying to understand the best i can how the most powerful person in the world is determined. I am especially interested in answers to my question about PJP2. Thanks everyone in advance!
The article you link to says that the Forbes list is based on "the amount of human and financial resources that they have sway over, as well as their influence on world events". The referenced article [19], goes into more detail about how they pick and rank the candidates. -- 205.175.124.72 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are speculating on an undefined premise (What is "power") and without regard to context: (My kingdom is not of this earth, Turn the other cheek, He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's). If you are unfamiliar with those phrases you can google them. Once you have defined power you should have an answer, or the basis for a better question. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the number of people under someone's "leadership" is what matters, you can't ignore the political leaders of China and India, both of which have greater populations than the number of Catholics in the world. But as Medeis asks, what is power? HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Obama doesn't have the power to unilaterally enact policy even in the U.S. The scope of his powers is restricted in the U.S. by the constitutional role of the President, as well as legislation passed by Congress. --Jayron3223:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are some very lopsided assumptions in the OP.
First, power does not require approval. Hence, anyone – including those voted for Mr Obama – who don’t think he’s lived up to their expectations has almost no impact on the man’s actual power.
Second, given the great variations in the nature of Catholic congregations and the long history of Catholic-Protestant conflict, I would strongly suggest that the Pope is not necessarily powerful over 1.18 billion people. An icon, by the way, need not have any power at all; it is just a symbol.
Third, the President of the US is the Commander in Chief of the most powerful armed forces in the world. He has authority over, for example, more than half the world’s aircraft carriers. One doesn’t have to be a citizen of the US to recognize the power that represents. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is another inapt assumption in the OP as well. The fact that people have "distaste" for the US or that some Americans have distaste for Pres. Obama has little effect on the power that attaches to the post. Likewise the number of Catholics who adore the Pope does not give him power to topple dictators or solve earthly problems. The OP seems to be equating 'popular' with 'powerful' and also assuming that the Forbes survey was a test of popular opinion rather than, I imagine, a considered study by a panel of experts/thinkers. Sussexonian (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of 16 countries. Number of countries over which one reigns is as good a criterion for determining who's more powerful as any of the others, IMO. That's 16 votes at the UNGA, for one thing, which is 15 votes than the US has and 16 more than the Pope has. At the moment it's also 2 votes at the UN Security Council, one of them a veto vote, which is more than any other country! Did you know she also owns all the swans in the UK? That's a lot more birds than Obama owns.
But she has no power over policy or resources - no political power - in any of those countries. Or, at least, very very little. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - power is too subjective to measure. Sure, you can say that the Pope can't nuke Obama but Obama could nuke the Pope. Except... if he tried it he'd almost certainly fail (the almost, hopefully, being more paranoia than reality) and very likely end up in cuffs. Last but not least, the Catholics would probably say that the Pope can help save an immortal soul, which represents an infinite amount of change, and Obama can't top that. Wnt (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can she make any of "her" swans, or kangaroos, obey her will? That sounds to me like a fairly vainglorious "power"... Constitutionally, the US is supposedly a government of, by, and for the people. They made the office of "president" and called it that, because he is supposed to "preside" while the people govern of, by and for themselves. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Translation/Creation of an existing page in another language.
Dear friends,
Some friends of mine (In France) have created a page about the French painter, Michel Bertrand, on fr.wikipedia... I have read it and understand it, but I have many friends elsewhere that do not speak French. Is there a simple way that the page can be produced in English for others to enjoy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamilluminated (talk • contribs) 23:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the thread above called "Michel Bertrand", which you or someone who uses the same salutation ("Dear friends") already asked and received replies to. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]01:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
July 30
Edit counter
In edit counter, "Unique pages edited" means how many articles you have at least edited once before right? Let's say it is 200. That means you have edited 200 articles one edit or more?123.21.106.219 (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, this is actually more of a question for the Wikipedia Help Desk however with my limited knowledge of the matter I would say yes you're correct, but also be advised that many long time editors either don't really care what ones edit count is or balances it with other factors such as quality edits, page starts and contributing to Reference Desks, Notice Boards, Third Opinions and Help Pages etc. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way04:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sanitation for horse drawn vehicles in modern times
How do people in modern time manage to keep the streets clean where horse drawn vehicles are used? There would be extremely few areas where this occur maybe Amish communities using public roads to get somewhere or historically-themed towns. Most horses can't be trained to poop in heir stalls, which was why the streets of 19th century towns were covered with animal and human waste at least until the street sweepers can get to them. So how does the law regulate this or clean it up? I can't imagine that they make the owners carry a bag and clean up the mess themselves.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This will of course vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in some of them carriages have bags mounted behind the horse: See [20] or [21] for examples. Gabbe (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It just wasn't the norm, and this dates from before the role of manure in spreading disease was known (say if it gets into the local water supply). Future generations might well ask how we could be so stupid as to release exhaust gases out of smokestacks, chimneys, and mufflers, instead of capturing and sequestering them. StuRat (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a kid going to Walt Disney World you knew the parade ended on Main Street USA when the guys in white suits with the brooms and buckets on a stick were marching down the street after the horse drawn carriages. Aw nothing like that smell in a Florida August humid summer! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way08:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I grew up in a part of Michigan with a large Amish population. There isn't enough horse traffic to really add up to much of a mess on the roads, and as far as I know there is no cleanup. Cars spread out the messes over time, and rain rinses it off the road. Some people shovel it out of the road and into the ditch if it is in front of their house. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"There would be extremely few areas where this occur maybe Amish communities using public roads" There would be extremely many areas where this occur if one ventured a bit farther away from one's ivory tower. Try visiting Egypt, for example. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Duchies, Counties, Baronies
In the middle ages, did a duchy usually consist of several counties and a county consist of several baronies ?
Or were they all separate from each other as I think, obviously being different from each other only in that duchies were larger and/or considered more important than counties, while counties were larger and/or considered more important than baronies?
I would like to know if my father in law Mr Leslie Gibson DFM is now the eldest living British spitfire pilot of the 2nd World War - he is now 99 born 13/05/1914.
Could anyone with specific knowledge of these facts please contact me Username marcusfaye ASAP.
SPITFIRE PILOTS OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR
I would like to know if my father in law Mr Leslie Gibson DFM is now the eldest living British spitfire pilot of the 2nd World War - he is now 99 born 13/05/1914.
Could anyone with specific knowledge of these facts please contact me Username marcusfaye ASAP.
Resolved
![[20]](https://lh3.ggpht.com/-Odo0XE-S3I0/UZ-KUuNFDtI/AAAAAAAAJRY/itwpD2W0wkE/s1600/horse+diaper.jpg){kind=link}